Sitting of 7 May 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KENT QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [Lords]
    WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  ORPINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL

    Mine Explosions
    Mr. Pentlandasked the Minister of Power what action is being taken by his Department, by way of research and practical application, to reduce to a minimum the danger of coal gas explosions in British coal mines.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The Safety in Mines Research Establishment is investigating all aspects of explosions in mines and the means of avoiding or suppressing them. Her Majesty's Inspectors also keep in close touch with current research. They co-operate with the mining industry in order to see that full advantage is taken both of the latest developments and also of the extensive knowledge of proper precautions built up by mining experience and past research.
    Mr. Pentland: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that we would all pay tribute to the efforts entered into by the Ministry and by the National Coal Board towards safety in our pits; but is he further aware that nothing causes greater apprehension among the mining community than the succession of explosions such as we have had in recent times both in the British coalfield and on the Continent? In view of

    3
    this, will he endeavour to promote more intensified research into the causes of coal gas explosions, particularly by way of wider extension of scientific research and investigation?
    Mr. Wood: I will certainly pay great attention to what the hon. Member says. Indeed, I see substantial reasons for the anxieties which he has expressed. As he knows, I have asked for a public inquiry into the recent explosion at Hapton Valley, and I am going to have a special report on the Tower explosion. I will certainly bear in mind the general remarks the hon. Member has made to see whether there is anything further which can be done.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, when he studies these reports, following the example of some of his predecessors, who called, in the areas concerned, conferences of managements and representatives of the workmen, so that the lessons to be learned and the problems thrown up by these explosions can be fully considered and certain steps taken to try to prevent them?
    Mr. Wood: I will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman says.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Power when he intends ending completely the operations of opencast coal mining.
    Mr. Wood: The Board has no plans at present for bringing its opencast operations to an end, and I do not think I should be justified in asking it to do so.
    Mr. Mason: Why not? Is not the Minister aware that when these mechanical monsters move into the areas concerned they create chaos and despair, that old people's nerves are affected because of the blastings and detonations, which sometimes go on all night, that students' chances of successful progress are jeopardised because they cannot study in the evenings, that property values slump in the immediate vicinity of the workings, and that, over and above all this, there is dirt and there is despoliation of the countryside? Is he aware that our area has recently been surveyed with a view to asking for autho-
    4
    risation? I give notice to the Minister that we are going to oppose it by all means at our disposal.
    Mr. Wood: I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that some coal could not be worked except by opencast methods, and that profitable opencast operations can in fact help to maintain the market for coal, and I myself feel that the Board should remain free to work coal by opencast methods as long as there are not overriding objections on agricultural, amenity, or general social grounds. That is why I have given my permission in the cases to which the hon. Member has referred.
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Power why he has recently authorised the working of eight new opencast mining sites; what will be their annual output; and what his intentions are regarding further authorisations in the future.
    Mr. Wood: Since last November I have authorised nine sites which will produce a total of nearly 1,900,000 tons of coal, over varying periods of up to about five years, including about 800,000 tons from a site in Derbyshire which is being worked to ensure the safety of a neighbouring mine. I authorised these sites under the Opencast Coal Act and in accordance with the policy I announced to the House of Commons last October. Future applications for authorisation will be considered on their merits.
    Mr. Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opencast executive of the National Coal Board has been extensively surveying and prospecting in Yorkshire and that a number of local authorities have already been consulted? Is he aware that my local authority, Barnsley, and neighbouring authorities are strongly opposed to opencast operations coming into the area again? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that if he goes ahead with authorisation in Yorkshire we shall have to canalise the opposition of mineworkers, farmers and local authorities and make sure that sites are not started?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Member's supplementary question did not sound as if he wanted to receive information but intended to give it.
    Mr. Ridley: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not confirm any compulsory orders for opencast sites in Yorkshire, which surely is the most important part of this problem?
    Mr. Wood: I would like separate notice of that question.
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Power if he will state the estimated tonnage of coal that the National Coal Board intends to produce from opencast coal mines for the years 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965.
    Mr. Wood: I told the House last October that the Government had agreed that the National Coal Board should postpone the rundown of opencast output. Estimated output in 1962 is a million tons or so below last year's level of about 8½ million tons, but I cannot yet give further figures.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not the Minister realise that this coal was got only when an emergency arose immediately after the war and that the public thinks that it ought now to stay where it is until a further emergency comes along? In any case, will he take due note of what happens when opencast sites are worked in close proximity to housing estates, when the housewife has to wash furniture and clothes day after day and night shift workers cannot sleep because of the terrible noise of explosions? Will the Minister make certain that opencast working does not occur near housing estates?
    Mr. Wood: I agree that there are a number of inconveniences connected with opencast working, but I do not think that the public generally takes the view that the hon. Gentleman does, because the public generally is anxious to have anthracite and anthracite is in short supply. Most of the sites which I have recently authorised will produce anthracite, which would be in even shorter supply if I had not authorised those sites.
    Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will grant authorisations for opencast mining only if the sole purpose is to produce anthracite? Will he reconsider his original decision for a run-down in view of the fact that there seems to be an
    6
    acceleration in the number of pit closures and the need to make alternative employment available? Will he also bear in mind that we still have millions of tons of coal in stock?
    Mr. Wood: I cannot give an undertaking that only anthracite will be mined. Other coals are in short supply, and I think that the Board should have the right, unless there are overriding objections against it, to work coal as cheaply as possible.
    Mr. Mason: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the replies which the Minister has given about opencast mining, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must confine notice to a particular answer, otherwise I get into difficulties with the rules. May I take it that his notice relates to Question No. 19?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

    Prices
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Power why the price of coal in the North West is to be increased by £1 a ton next November, compared with 10s. per ton for the rest of England and Wales.
    Mr. Wood: The National Coal Board thought a special increase of 6s. a ton was necessary on coals in the North West to offset the heavy losses on production in its North Western Division.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not intolerable to penalise the consumers of the North-West in this way because they happen to live in an area where the pits are older and less economic than elsewhere, particularly in view of the fact that the North-West consumers import at least two-thirds of their needs from the newer pits elsewhere and are still being charged an extra 6s. on imports? Is this not contrary to the whole purpose of nationalisation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it not destroying the principle of nationalisation which was intended to give a national product at a national price?
    Mr. Wood: Even after taking the importation of the relatively cheaper-produced coal into account, the 6s.

    7
    special increase will not yield as much as the deficit in this coalfield last year. I feel, for the reasons that I have expressed in correspondence with the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, that the National Coal Board was right to make special selective increases in the areas where its production is most expensive.
    Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend perceived a resolution which was sent to him by the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council on the 21st February objecting to this principle of regional increases in the price of coal, and would he now declare to the House that he has abandoned the hallowed practice since nationalisation of general coal price increases to enable the Board as a whole to pay its way, taking year with year, in favour of regional price increases to support each region paying its way, taking year with year?
    Mr. Wood: Not only have I perceived the resolution, but I referred to it in answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I drew attention to the correspondence in which I had argued with the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council that it was right for the Board to make the selective price increases in order to reduce the burden placed by Scottish and North-West losses on the general finances of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we view with apprehension the differential price system that is now operating, which we think is the forerunner of autonomous districts, contrary to previous statements? Does the Minister not consider that this differential price system will price Scotland, Lancashire and South Wales out of the market?
    Mr. Wood: Perhaps it would be helpful if I drew attention to the "Plan for Coal", published in 1950, when the party opposite was governing in this country, in which it was stated that
    "internal subsidies from one coalfield to another would be reduced to the greatest possible extent."
    This is the whole purpose of the selective price increases that are now being incurred.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that his assurance concerning the National Coal Board's intention to introduce selective prices to districts will not be a first step towards district agreements, and is he going to be logical about it and charge different prices from one pit to another?
    Mr. Wood: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to district wage agreements, I gave an undertaking in July, 1960, which I will willingly repeat now.
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Minister of Power whether he will reverse the policy of charging increased selective coal prices in the Aberdeen area in view of the fact that 90 per cent. of supplies are obtained from English pits, and have been so obtained since 1880.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the selective additional increase of 10s. a ton on house coal in Aberdeen operates there in a way which, having regard to transport charges and other local features, inflicts undue hardship on the citizens of that city; and if he will now take steps to have that increase withdrawn.
    Mr. Wood: The pricing of coal in particular areas is a matter for the National Coal Board. As my hon. Friend knows, her suggestion for dealing with the pricing of coal in Aberdeen has been passed to the Chairman of the Board for his consideration.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: While it is in my right hon. Friend's power to have consultations with the National Coal Board on all these matters, may I ask whether he has recommended to the Board that the separate price zone area, 59A, should apply to the Aberdeen area? Secondly, can my right hon. Friend say whether he had consultations with the Coal Board in January when industrial users were allowed to obtain coal supplies from English pits at prevailing prices? Could my right hon. Friend, therefore, give his opinion why industrial users should have preference but domestic consumers should not?
    Mr. Wood: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) is not here to ask a fiery supplementary question

    9
    and I hope that he will be soon recovered. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), she will know that arrangements for domestic and commercial coal supplies and their sales are substantially different, and whether there should be fragmentation of the North of Scotland zone 59 to allow different prices to be charged in Aberdeen compared with the rest of the North of Scotland is very much a matter which the National Coal Board itself should decide. As I have told my hon. Friend, I have referred her point to the Chairman of the Board and no doubt he will give an answer in due course.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure that all of us would wish to be associated with the good wishes which the Minister has expressed for the complete recovery of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has had consultations with his colleagues who are interested in legislation to promote the establishment of new industries in some of these areas? Has the right hon. Gentleman borne in mind, and will he bear in mind, that some of these selective increases, apart from our objections in the mining industry, will make it difficult for industry to come to an area where the price of coal will be higher?
    Mr. Wood: That is one of the matters which the Coal Board took into consideration and which I put before it, but the Board still felt that the reasons for making these selective increases were quite unanswerable.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from distributors in Scotland about the increased charges for domestic coal.
    Mr. Wood: When I was considering the Board's proposals I had two meetings with the Chamber of Coal Traders, which represents distributors in all parts of Great Britain. I have since received letters from merchants' associations in Scotland to which replies will be sent shortly.
    Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is no great satisfaction to
    10
    us to learn that coal traders in England and Wales were fixing the price of domestic coal in Scotland? What representations has the Minister since received from coal traders in Scotland? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Coal Board, together with the traders, have been trying to fight a competitive war against oil in the matter of fuel consumption in Scotland. How will not only an increase but a selective increase of 10s. help?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Member asked what bodies have made representations. They are the Coal Merchants' Association of Scotland Ltd., the North-East of Scotland Coal Merchants' Association, and the Northern Co-operative Society Ltd., Aberdeen. I am well aware that the coal traders were most upset by this increase, but I still feel, having heard what it said, that the Coal Board was right.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce also made representations on this issue? Did he express any view to the Chairman of the Coal Board about development areas, such as the north-east of Scotland, that where industrial users apparently have a privilege in this respect domestic coal users should also have it?
    Mr. Wood: The Chairman of the Coal Board was well aware of the particular difficulties which selective increases in places like Scotland would impose, but he still felt that it was right—and I agree that it was right—that they should take place.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that feeling is growing considerably in Scotland that the Chairman of the National Coal Board knows nothing about the problems of the mining areas and of coal consumption in Scotland?
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power what consultations took place between the Chairman of the National Coal Board and himself prior to coal price increases; to what areas such increases are to apply; for what reason these areas were selected; and, having regard to financial losses forward of the National Coal Board, what estimate he has made of loss reduction or profits' earning as a result of the coal price

    11
    increases, and the revenue yield of the latter, in the Board's current financial year ending 31st December, 1962.
    Mr. Wood: During my regular meetings with the Chairman, I have discussed prices both generally and in relation to the recommendations of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. All parts of the United Kingdom are affected by the increases in house coal, but there are additional increases in Scotland and the North West where heavy losses have been incurred. The increases on industrial and house coals taken together should yield about £25 million during this year.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend now be quite unequivocal in answering whether he is abandoning the principle of the Coal Board paying its way overall, taking year with year, and substituting for that principle a system whereby every region is required to pay its way, taking year with year? If the second assumption is correct, does he expect Scotland to pay its way, and the North West and South Wales to pay their way? What is his policy now?
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I make the confident prophecy that, when I make a statement about the National Coal Board's obligations in the future five years under the recent White Paper, it will be about obligations which relate to the National Coal Board. That does not at all mean that the National Coal Board should not be free to try to reduce the burden on its total finances by making selective price increases where the losses are greatest.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from the Colville Group on the subject of the selective coal prices now to be charged to them.
    Mr. Wood: The company has drawn my attention to the substantial increase in costs caused by the rise in coal prices last January, and says it could make considerable savings if it were allowed to import coal from the United States.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that in reply to a previous Question he suggested that our share of steel production would improve when the hot strip mill was functioning at Ravenscraig? Is he also aware that the cold
    12
    strip mill is already functioning at Gartcosh but that one of the tragedies is that the President of the Board of Trade has not yet been able to bring in industry to use the cold strip? Is he not also aware that these selective coal prices are not only making Colvilles and others wish to import coal, but are preventing other industries from coming to use the strip steel? Does not the Minister realise that there should be co-ordination between his Department and the Board of Trade if there is to be any hope for these areas?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Lady will readily recognise that the coal price increase for Colvilles and other steel producers could only have been avoided if the National Coal Board was prepared to carry on its operations at a greater loss than it will do in the future. I do not think that in the present state of the National Coal Board's finances I could possibly ask it to do so.
    Miss Herbison: Can the Minister tell us on this side whether he has had any consultation with the President of the Board of Trade concerning alternative industry and with the Minister of Labour concerning the high unemployment figures? Is he aware that about 20,000 fewer men are working in the coal-mining industry as compared with a few years ago and that this is a serious matter for those of us who are interested in the well-being of our country, which is something in which the Government do not seem to have any interest?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Lady knows quite well that I appreciate the problems that exist. I certainly assure her that I am in constant touch with both my right hon. Friends about these problems. I hope that it will be possible to solve them.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Power in the exercise of his statutory duty to promote economy in the fuel and power industries, what estimate he made of the additional annual cost to the electricity industry in Scotland of the selective coal price increases now to be charged;
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Power in the exercise of his statutory duty to promote economy in the fuel

    13
    and power industries, what estimate he made of the additional annual cost to the gas industry in Scotland of the selective coal price increases now to be charged.
    Mr. Wood: The selective increases in the price of industrial coals in Scotland came into effect on 1st January last. Their extra cost in Scotland was estimated at rather more than £1½ million for the electricity industry and at about £1 million for the gas industry.
    Mr. Steele: Is the Minister telling us that the electricity industry in Scotland has to find another £1½ million? How does he expect Scottish industry to recover? How does he expect the Board of Trade to encourage or persuade other industries to come from England to Scotland if by these selective prices he makes it impossible for them to do so?
    Mr. Wood: I must point out to the hon. Member that there is no easy way out of these problems of the National Coal Board. It is clearly only possible to relieve the gas and electricity industries of the extra charges that I have announced by offering supplies at well below the economic cost of producing them. In the present position of the National Coal Board, that is not a practicable step to take.
    Mr. Ross: When the Minister talks about the economic cost of production, does he mean the economic cost in Britain, in Ayrshire or in Scotland? Is there any co-ordination at all in this miserable Government? Is the Minister aware that in the debate to which he referred, and which is still continuing, we have been told that the Government are doing everything they can to promote and develop industry in Scotland? Is he aware that he is doing everything he can to prevent it?
    Mr. Wood: The National Coal Board must have regard to the economic costs of producing the coal which the gas and electricity industries in Scotland want. The National Coal Board made a loss in Scotland last year of £19 million. Altogether, the accumulated loss is greater than the whole of the Board's loss since nationalisation and it would not be practicable for the Board to provide those coals at considerably lower than the economic cost of obtaining them.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the Minister aware that the Gas Council told the Select Committee that it would try to do some self-financing and obtain a better market for gas? Does he not think that this policy will affect the gas industry? Will it not ensure that to produce cheaper gas, the Gas Council will want to import further methane, to the detriment of the coal industry?
    Mr. Wood: I certainly do not think that it would be right for me to upset the plans of the Gas Council by forcing the Coal Board to allow the Gas Council to have coal at far less than its economic cost of production.

    Imports
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Power whether he has prepared a scheme for the importation of United States coal next winter.
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the policy of closing down the pits continues and there is a rising demand due to industrial expansion it is very likely that there might be a shortage of coal and that importation of coal will be required? Is it not true—can the right hon. Gentleman deny it—that he has already had discussions with the National Coal Board on the possibility of importation?
    Mr. Wood: I will be perfectly frank with the right hon. Gentleman. Discussions are now taking place. First, I think that it would be right for him to remember that productivity—I am very glad to say this, and I have said it before—in the industry is increasing and, therefore, it is certainly not true that merely because pits are closing down there will be a shortage of coal. The conversations between my Department and the National Coal Board are in relation to the White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, and obviously the question of the part that imports, if any, have to play is relevant to that general examination.
    Mr. Shinwell: I suspected that conversations relating to the possible importation of coal were taking place.

    15
    Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that before any definitive action has been taken the House will have an opportunity of debating this subject?
    Mr. Wood: I have already promised to give to the House of Commons a statement on the result of the review now taking place with the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he can repeat that initial negative reply if we decide to go into the European Coal and Steel Community?
    Mr. Wood: The negative reply was given to the Question on the Order Paper, namely, whether I had prepared a scheme. The answer is that I have not prepared one.

    Decentralisation
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Power whether he proposes to give a general direction to the National Coal Board to decentralise the coal industry by the creation of autonomous boards in Scotland, Lancashire, and elsewhere throughout the coalfields.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Power what proposals he has for legislation to set up a separate Scottish Coal Board.
    Mr. Wood: The answer is, "No."
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the statements made by spokesmen on behalf of the National Coal Board relating to Scotland in particular and indicating that if Scotland does not pay its way it will be required to "go it alone", can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the decision to adopt decentralisation or to provide an autonomous coal board in various areas or in a particular area will be a decision of the Minister which can be debated in this House and not be left to the sole prerogative of the National Coal Board?
    Mr. Wood: I think I am right in saying that there can be no question of decentralisation without legislation and, therefore, the Minister would naturally be responsible. If the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the alleged statement made by Lord Robens, I would
    16
    draw attention to the fact that Lord Robens had certainly not suggested that Scotland should "go it alone", but he was suggesting that Scottish problems were not caused by central control and also that Scotland's problems would not easily be solved by local autonomy.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement to which he has referred is causing widespread anxiety in Scotland, and can we have a definite assurance that he will not discriminate against the Scottish coal industry in any way?
    Mr. Wood: Tempted as I am to seek protection from questions from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) by accepting the proposal that has been made to me, I think it right to take a more robust view of my responsibilities. I have therefore told him and the right hon. Gentleman that I do not propose to give this general direction that they have raised in their Questions.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: If my right hon. Friend has not given the general direction which is under discussion, can he tell the House what consultations he has had and what general direction he has given about not applying selective price increases? Surely the two do not marry up. Either we treat the United Kingdom as a whole or as regions. Does he not realise that a great many people in Scotland do not see why they should have to pay the penalty under an arrangement which really applies to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Wood: I beg to differ from my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is at all the same question whether Scotland should be an autonomous area as the question in her mind—which is whether the consumers in Scotland should should have to pay a rather higher differential price for their coal. I think that they are two different questions. I have discussed the second question with the National Coal Board, as my hon. Friend knows. In answer to this question, I have no intention or proposal to give general direction on the other matter.
    Mr. Blyton: Would not selective prices for Scotland, Lancashire and Wales put up the cost of the manufacture of steel

    17
    and the production of gas, and would not this bring about pressure by the steel owners for the importation of coal and force the gas industry to bring in more methane than is contemplated in the present plan?
    Mr. Wood: This goes rather wider than the two Questions put down.

    Stocks
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power what reduction in coal stocks, undistributed, at 1st May, 1962, took place compared with undistributed stocks one year earlier; what financial effect such reduction had upon the finances of the National Coal Board; and what estimate he has made of the Board's financial loss forward, cumulative to 31st March, 1962, compared with the figure of more than £90 million at 31st December, 1961.
    Mr. Wood: On 21st April, 1962, the National Coal Board's undistributed coal stocks were 4 million tons less than they were a year earlier. The stocklift and all other relevant factors are estimated to have reduced the Board's working capital requirements over the year to 31st March, 1962, by £11 million. I cannot give any estimate of the accumulated deficit at 31st March, 1962, in advance of the Board's half-yearly statistical statement, which will show the outturn for the first quarter of 1962.
    Mr. Nabarro: Did my right hon. Friend observe that Lord Robens said recently that he expected the National Coal Board to pay its way this year? Is not that a very important statement?
    Mr. Shinwell: To break even.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry. I stand corrected. Would my right hon. Friend confirm that his anticipation is that there will be no continuing loss by the Board overall? Will he further tell the House why Lord Robens makes this statement in advance of he himself making a statement to the House? Why is my right hon. Friend allowing the Chairman of the National Coal Board to lead him along by the nose? Are we not the important people in this matter?
    Mr. Wood: The Chairman of the Coal Board made the statement that he hoped
    18
    that the industry would break even because he is responsible for running the industry. I confidently hope that he will be right in his view.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nabarro.
    Mr. Nabarro: But are we not—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I felt obliged to call the hon. Member for the next Question. The House will observe that we have taken a little short of half an hour to cover twelve Questions.

    Output, Scotland
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power what share of total United Kingdom coal output was raised in Scotland in 1948 and 1961; and what was the percentage increase or decrease in output in both areas, respectively.
    Mr. Wood: The share of the country's output raised in Scotland was 12 per cent. in 1948 and 9½ per cent. in 1961. Between 1948 and 1961, the decreases in Scotland and Great Britain were 25½ per cent. and 8½ per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister realise the seriousness with which Scotland regards this diminution of Scotland's part in the total mining industry of the country and fears that its competitive position will be further worsened by the selective price increases about which he has heard so much this afternoon? Does he realise that it is quite wrong for him to say that the Coal Board took account of the social consequences of these selective price increases, since, in fact, Lord Robens has gone out of his way to say that he does not accept the social consequences of the policy he is carrying out? In the circumstances, will the Minister look again at this matter and consider whether the social consequences are more important than the economic consequences?
    Mr. Wood: I understand the serious view which those who live in Scotland and those who represent mining constituencies in Scotland take of this matter, but I take a serious view of my own responsibility, which, I understand, is to help the National Coal Board to break even and pay its way. Therefore, I must share the National Coal Board's objective of trying, as I have said several

    19
    times this afternoon, to reduce the burden of the greatest losses on its finances.

    Colliery Closures, Scotland
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the proposals of the National Coal Board for closing approximately half the collieries at present operating in Scotland within the next five years.
    Mr. Wood: The closure of 18 collieries in Scotland in 1962 has already been announced. I understand that the Board is now surveying the prospects of all collieries in Scotland. Any proposals it has for further closures will be announced after discussion with the unions in accordance with the usual practice.
    Mr. Gourlay: Does the Minister realise that the statement by Lord Robens at the Gleneagles Hotel is one which has far reaching consequences for the future industrial prospects of Scotland and has caused great concern, particularly in the mining communities of Scotland? Will he, therefore, urge the Government to accept The financial obligations of the uneconomic pits until such time as the President of the Board of Trade has made provision for alternative employment in the areas affected?
    Mr. Wood: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is doing his utmost to bring new industry to Scotland. I understand that this was the subject of a recent debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. But it seems to me that it will be a benefit to us all if the kind of review which has been taking place in Fife were extended, as Lord Robens says it is being extended, to the whole of Scotland so that we may see exactly where the Scottish coal industry is at present.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to stop further closures in Scotland of those collieries which are to be closed for purely commercial reasons until such time as alternative sources of employment are available.
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I expect the mining industry itself will be able to absorb most of the miners that may be displaced by future closures.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the National Coal Board is unable to give any such assurance? Is he further aware that in Central West Fife, in particular, notice has already been given that almost every pit in that area, involving 3,000 men, will be closed within the next five years? Up to now, under the Local Employment Act, we have had slightly more than 1,000 jobs, most of them for women. Could the right hon. Gentleman say which he regards as the more important—to get the industry on to a sound commercial basis, or the social consequences of these closures?
    Mr. Wood: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this is not a new policy. Ever since nationalisation, the Board has carried out a considerable closures programme, both in Scotland and elsewhere, as pits ceased to be economic or as the reserves were exhausted. In fact, unemployment among Scottish miners is extremely low at present. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's intention to bring new industry to Fife and to other parts of Scotland. However, the Coal Board has already announced that it will offer jobs in mining—not, I am afraid, all in Scotland, but in mining—to those who are displaced by pit closures in Scotland.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that that is no answer to the problem of the Scottish miners? It is no consolation to them to know that they must uproot themselves from Fife. They have already been sent from the West of Scotland to Fife and now they have to go to the Midlands or elsewhere to get another job. When the Minister quotes 1·6 per cent. unemployment among miners in Scotland, the simple explanation is that they have cleared out and have gone either to England or overseas.
    Mr. Wood: No. The real answer—I entirely agree with the hon. Member—is the bringing of new industry to Scotland. As he knows, that is not my responsibility, but a great deal of new industry has been brought to Scotland and I hope that the process will continue.

    Chairman of National Coal Board (Statement)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Power what consultations the Chairman of the National Coal Board had with

    21
    him before making his statement at Gleneagles Hotel on future policy in regard to Scottish coalmining.
    Mr. Wood: The Chairman and I did not discuss the speech he made at Gleneagles, but we have frequent discussions on matters affecting the coal industry.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that the statement made by the Chairman of the National Coal Board at the Gleneagles Hotel indicated not merely a desire to balance his accounts but that the £19 million loss in the Scottish coalfields had to be made good in Scotland? Does not that indicate that Lord Robens is looking at the problem from the point of view not of nationalisation but of regionalisation? If so, should not he have consulted the Minister responsible before he made a statement of that nature?
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I knew Lord Robens' views perfectly well. He does not expect that the selective increases recently announced for Scotland will wipe out the whole of the Scottish loss. What he is anxious about is that Scotland itself should help to bear the burden—
    Mr. Ross: Why?
    Mr. Wood: —of the extremely large loss, much larger than the total loss of the Board since nationalisation, which the Board bears in Scotland.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: With regard to future policy, will my right hon. Friend agree that the National Coal Board has followed the golden rule set by all nationalised industry, which is to inflict gigantic losses on the taxpayer and to give the consumer a worse service at increased cost?
    Mr. Wood: The policy of the chairman of the Board is directed to the objectives which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind—to try to improve the quality of service and to reduce the losses.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been deep consternation about the speech of the chairman in Scotland? We all realise that pits which have exhausted their reserves are bound to close, but the Chair-
    22
    man said that uneconomic pits would have to close and that the Board could not carry the social consequences. Are we to take it that the Government's policy is that there should be no help on this problem and that men will have to be unemployed?
    Mr. Wood: I think that the Board has made clear in the past that it is determined to do its utmost to see that other employment is available for those displaced from coal mining. I think that the present figures for Scotland bear this out. The general level of unemployment is about 3½ per cent., and the level of unemployed miners in Scotland is only about 1½ per cent. I therefore suggest that it would be quite wrong to condemn the Board in advance for what might not take place.
    Mr. Blyton: The Chairman said in his speech that there would be redundancies. It is not a question of transference. It is the redundancy problem about which everyone is worried. The Chairman said that, unless the Government paid for it, the Board could not carry the social consequences. Can the Minister tell us, in view of that statement, what will be the future of the miners in the affected districts?
    Mr. Wood: I have a Question on redundancies to answer. I repeat that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is doing his best to bring new industry to the areas which will be affected by future coal mine closures.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    European Coal and Steel Community
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what proposals he has for reforming the Iron and Steel Board, with a view to the United Kingdom signing the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty.
    Mr. Wood: I have no proposals at present.
    Mr. Ridley: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the policy of price control is bringing the steel industry to a very low level? Would it not be better if he moved towards the more

    23
    flexible system which the European Coal and Steel Community is using, as a preparation to joining?
    Mr. Wood: If we joined the European Coal and Steel Community the question would arise whether the Iron and Steel Board should continue to exercise powers under the 1953 Act and, in particular, its power to fix maximum prices. The other power which would be greatly in question would be the right to veto investment projects, and these matters would have to be considered when the time came.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the European Coal and Steel Community has now informed the Belgian Government that they will not be permitted to adopt what is described as a semi-nationalisation scheme but must conform with what it regards as free competition throughout the whole area? Does that mean that if we enter the European Community we shall be barred from operating, under any Government, our own organisation?
    Mr. Wood: That and other questions will have to be considered very carefully if we join the Community.

    Steel Industry, Scotland
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Power (1) at what level of its estimated productive capacity the steel industry of Scotland is currently operating;
    (2) what was Scotland's share of Great Britain's production of crude steel in 1948 and in 1961; and what was the percentage increase or decrease in crude steel production over the period in Great Britain and Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Wood: It is estimated that the Scottish steel industry is at present working at about 60 per cent. of capacity. The Scottish share of Great Britain's crude steel production in 1948 was 15·2 per cent., and 10·6 per cent. in 1961. There was an increase in production between these years of 48·5 per cent. in Great Britain and 3·9 per cent. in Scotland.
    Mr. Lawson: Do not those figures reveal a mast disturbing situation in Scotland, inasmuch as what is, perhaps,
    24
    the most vital industry for all Scotland is so much worse affected there than it is in the rest of the country? Will the Minister reconsider again the imposition of a coal price policy which will make it enormously more difficult for the Scottish steel industry to maintain its position in relation to the rest of the country?
    Mr. Wood: When answering the hon. Gentleman two years ago, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary estimated that the figure in 1962 would be 11 per cent. I hope very much that that figure will still be reached in 1962. The real trouble here is that the heavier steel products in Scotland have been harder hit by present difficulties, whereas in the strip mills there is fairly high activity. I hope that when the Ravenscraig hot strip mill comes into production the position will improve.
    Mr. Lawson: May I remind the Minister again that he has just imposed, or has been associated with imposing, a price policy on Scotland which will make the prospect of Scotland recovering much more difficult than before? Has he considered this?
    Mr. Wood: Certainly I considered it, but the cost of coal is only one of a number of factors which are relevant in this connection.

    Fuel Oil Consumption, Scotland
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Power what was Scotland's share of Great Britain's industrial fuel oil consumption in 1948 and in 1961; and what was the percentage increase or decrease in such fuel oil consumption over the period in Great Britain and Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Wood: Liquid fuels burnt by the larger industrial consumers in Scotland represented 6·5 per cent. of the corresponding total consumption in Great Britain in 1948 and 8·4 per cent. in 1961. The annual average increase over the period was 15·3 per cent. in Scotland and 13 per cent. in Great Britain.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this increase in industrial fuel oil consumption must be bearing very heavily on Scottish coal mining, and does he think it fair that

    25
    the cost of the increase should be borne by the men in the industry? Has he no policy to soften the impact of the increased oil consumption on coal mining?
    Mr. Wood: While it is perfectly true that the increase has been greater proportionately in Scotland than elsewhere, the consumption of liquid fuel in Scotland in 1948, at the beginning of the period the hon. Gentleman chose, was extremely low, and I frankly feel that the increase in consumption of liquid fuels is very much to the benefit of Scotland.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister suggesting that it has been for the benefit of the coal mining industry and the men and women employed in it? Has he nothing to offer to soften the effect of this change on the industry?
    Mr. Wood: There is another Question down about the refining industry in Scotland which, perhaps, will be relevant to this question. The other point is that, important as the coal milling industry is in Scotland, it is not the only industry, and this increase has, presumably, been generally to the benefit of Scottish industry as a Whole.

    Gas Production, Scotland
    Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Power what was Scotland's share of total gas production in Great Britain in 1948 and in 1961; and what was the percentage increase or decrease over the period of gas output in both areas respectively.
    Mr. Wood: Scotland's share of the town gas available in Great Britain was 7 per cent. in 1961 and 8·5 per cent. in 1948. 0·3 per cent. less gas was available in 1961 than in 1948 in Scotland; 20 per cent. more in Great Britain as a whole.
    Mr. Steele: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this change was due to industry going over to oil, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated in a previous answer, Whether the Scottish Gas Board is not getting the capital which it needs, or whether this is another indication of how Scotland's economy is lagging behind that of England and Wales? If so, is not this another indication that the Minister and the Government should not leave the ques-
    26
    tion of Scotland's economy to the Chairman of the National Coal Board but should deal with it themselves?
    Mr. Wood: Certainly the question of investment is extremely important. Whereas Scotland's proportion of total investment in earlier years was 8 per cent., last year it increased to over 12½ per cent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first stage of the Lurgi plant was brought into operation in 1960–61. I hope that the result of this investment and new plant will be to improve the Scottish position.
    Mr. Steele: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, despite this capital investment, the increase in price to the gas and electricity industries and to other industries in Scotland will make it much more difficult for Scotland to improve its economy?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman and one of his hon. Friends have a Question on the Order Paper about the effect of the coal price increase on the gas and electricity industries.

    Oil Refineries, Scotland
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Power what proportion of the total throughput of oil refineries in Great Britain came from refineries in Scotland in 1948 and in 1961; and what was the percentage increase or decrease in throughput over the period in Great Britain and in Scotland respectively.
    Mr. Wood: The Scottish share of the total throughput of oil refineries in Great Britain was 16·6 per cent. in 1948, and 6·9 per cent. in 1961. The annual average increase over the period was 12·4 per cent. in Scotland and 20·2 per cent. in Great Britain.
    Mr. Millan: If the Minister can give us no assurance about the Scottish position with regard to older industries like the coal industry, can he not at least tell us what power or influence he has to say that newer industries, like the oil refining industry, will bring more than a fair share of their capacity to Scotland as distinct from what has been happening since 1948?
    Mr. Wood: I am left in considerable doubt as to whether the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want me to increase

    27
    or reduce this proportion. Although throughput in Scotland is lower than it is in the rest of Great Britain, it has in fact increased substantially from 750,000 tons to nearly 34½ million tons. Scottish refineries provide most of the total Scottish demand for refined products and for raw materials for the petroleum-chemical industry there.
    Mr. Millan: But when it comes to the question of the expansion of oil refinery capacity in future, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Scotland gets more than a fair share of it, since she has had less than her fair share in the past both with regard to that industry and with regard to older industries?

  HOSPITALS

    New Hospitals, Liverpool
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Health whether he will see that the new hospitals to be built in Liverpool are fully air-conditioned and reasonably sound-proof against noise outside.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): Good ventilation and protection against outside noise will be important considerations, but full air-conditioning throughout is not regarded as necessary.
    Mr. Tilney: Is not this a penny-wise pound-foolish policy for our noisy and besmogged towns? Would not my hon. Friend agree that nothing is mare expensive than modernising a building after it is built, whereas it is comparatively cheap to air-condition and denoise, if that is the right word, a building if it is planned from the start? Should we not be thinking in terms of the twenty-first rather than the twentieth century?
    Miss Pitt: With the Hospital Plan, we hope that we are. Certainly considerable importance is attached to the elimination of noise. Full air-conditioning is not always necessary. It may be necessary in part, but it is not necessary throughout a hospital.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it was discovered in the United States that some types of air conditioning contributed to
    28
    the spread of infection through a hospital? Will the hon. Lady take good care that any installations in this country do not give rise to this type of hazard?
    Miss Pitt: I was not aware of that. The climate is, of course, very different in the United States. I am glad, however, that the hon. Member has made the point, and I will see that note is taken of it.

    Staff (Pay Deductions)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Health what deductions for board and lodging and uniform are made from the salaries of staff nurses, sisters, matrons and doctors, respectively, when resident in hospital.
    Miss Pitt: The figures are £180, £205, from £265 to £360, and from £155 to £430 a year.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not that reply mean that staff nurses are having as much deducted from their small salaries for board and lodging as are the doctors and that sisters and matrons are having more deducted? Does not this make it even more imperative that the low salaries of nurses should be increased immediately to adjust this further example of unfair discrimination against these hard-working and under-paid people?
    Miss Pitt: The hon. Lady has not, perhaps, taken in all the figures which I had to give her so quickly. It is true that a staff nurse may pay a little more for board and lodging and uniform than does the house doctor on the lowest part of the scale, but the scale for doctors increases considerably. In any event, the conditions which apply are not comparable.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not intolerable also that the nurses should have any deductions at all made in respect of the laundering and maintenance of their uniform, something which they have to wear for the sake of the patients and not for their own sake? Is not this simply another example of the mean, miserly way in which the Government treat them?
    Miss Pitt: This was agreed on the Whitley Council from 1948.

    Eastern Region
    Colonel Sir H. Harrisonasked the Minister of Health why, in his plan for hospitals, he is only providing for 2·9 acute beds per 1,000 population in the eastern region.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The plan provides for 380 additional acute beds in the East Anglian region by 1975. In this and other regions proposals based on local needs and circumstances result in somewhat less than the normal maximum of 3·3 per 1,000.
    Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in East Anglia we feel that, while we have been behind before, we are even more behind to the extent of 15 per cent. on the new plan? Did my right hon. Friend, in arriving at the plan, take into account the population, because those who need hospitals most are the young and the old, and in East Anglia the young and the old are above the average for the country whereas the middle group is below it? Surely our hospitals ought to be at a higher rate than they are?
    Mr. Powell: The prospective composition of the population in 1975 was taken into account in drawing up the plan. I must remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the figure of 3·3 per thousand is a national maximum, and the fact that the provision in a particular area works out at somewhat less than that is no evidence that it is not sufficient in the circumstances of the region.
    Mr. K. Robinson: In view of this Question and a number of other Questions which have appeared on the Order Paper, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it high time we debated the general principles of the Hospital Plan, and will he have a word with the Leader of the House to see whether he can arrange an early debate?
    Sir H. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend study some recent figures which have just come into my possession if I send them to him?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir; gladly.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your knowledge that we have had only 29 Questions asked and answered today in practically an hour. This is frustrating to hon. Members who put down Question on points which they think are of interest to themselves and their constituents only to find them deferred from day to day. It is a hardship to back benchers who find that they cannot get their Questions answered. Can you suggest to the House how our rights can be observed?
Mr. Speaker: I have been reminding myself about the content of the first rule about Questions. The other day I expressed some emotional distress at the use of the formula "Is the Minister aware," followed by the giving of information. It is to be observed that Question have been ruled out of order because they contain an argument. I suspect that if the House were good enough to pay attention to these matters our progress would not be so disastrous as it was today.
Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that one waste of time is attributable to the fact that hon. Members opposite often thank the Minister for his answer although it is thoroughly unsatisfactory?
Mr. Speaker: I am always very loath to discourage discourtesy. I wish that the House would help about this, because we have been struggling with it for some time. It is insufferable to have the Chair intervening all the time to enforce the rules of order. I must rely on the wisdom of hon. Members to help the House to do better. It is not difficult to discover who the offenders are; one has only to read the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Gough: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you are aware that among the first 26 Questions today there were no fewer than 16 from Scottish Members. Could not Scottish Members be invited to table their Questions on a Scottish day and thereby help us make faster progress?
Mr. Speaker: I think it would be better not to make nationalistic distinctions, but to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CO-ORDINATION)
3.34 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the country would be better governed and happier and more injustices and inequalities eliminated if there was greater co-ordination in Government Departments internally, and between Government Departments externally on both policy and administration.
One of my hon. Friends said to me the other day that if I did not always present myself as a rebel, perhaps the House would listen to me more readily. I do not see myself as a rebel at all. I am a Northerner, I call a spade a spade, and when I see an inequality or an injustice, following the tradition of my part of the country I seek to put it right. I do not consider that that is being a rebel.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I would add that I feel that the many inequalities and injustices which still fall to be dealt with are more likely to be remedied if we have a Conservative Government, because for the remedying of many of these injustices a sound national economy is imperative.
I think that the country is very lucky to have a Prime Minister such as the one we have. Indeed, I think that the world is very lucky that we have such a Prime Minister, because I believe that there is no substitute for experience, and the Prime Minister has much experience upon which the world is very fortunate to be able to draw.
I assure my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite that my speech is not likely to be an intellectual one. I intend to go into a great deal of detail, because I believe that if one gets one's detail right in government, that affects the whole of government. Also, there are very few opportunities when back benchers can deal with some of the detail which I feel it is very important to put right.
Before I start talking in a broader sense, I should like to make a comment about one or two Ministers. First, I want to say a word about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Although I do not necessarily find myself always in agreement with his views, my mind runs back to when he was Financial Secretary
32
to the Treasury. He was one of the first Financial Secretaries to pay any attention to the problem of those on small fixed incomes, for which I was always very grateful.
The second Minister to whom I wish to refer is the Minister of Defence, because he was the only Minister of Transport who gave any help at all over the problem of the railway superannuitants.
Finally, I want to say a word about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, obviously, he has to figure rather large in what I shall have to say this afternoon about co-ordination. I seem always to have got on very well indeed personally with all Chancellors of the Exchequer, but I never seemed to be able to get any further with them. When I visit the present Chancellor, taking with me letters from people complaining about the depreciation of their War Loan, increasing rates, or the lack of an increase in pensions, he is always very much affected as a human being.
Then my right hon. and learned Friend leaves his room behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, and goes to the Treasury, and there he seems to be entirely swamped, perhaps not unnaturally so, by the economic problems of the day. I never hear anything more about the sympathy that he has expressed concerning the problems to which I have directed his attention.
Since my comments will be fairly critical, I felt that I should say that I am not unaware of the services of many Ministers. I only wish that I could catch them more often in a humane rather than a Parliamentary frame of mind. If I could do that we might make better progress.
First, I want to draw the attention of the House to the problems of co-ordination between the Ministers of Education and Transport, in certain aspects of education. Councillor Mrs. Bowden, of the Whitley Bay Borough Council in my constituency, has directed my attention to the problem affecting one of our big new technical grammar schools. Nearby, there is to be a new modern school. When the school is completed, the total number of children going to the two schools will be about 1,600. Unfortunately, access to the school is over a narrow hump-back bridge, which has

33
been a source of danger to pedestrians, including school children, for many years.
In the interests of the safety of children it is not right that the Minister of Education should authorise the buildings of schools unless he is satisfied that there is safe and satisfactory access to those schools, by road or bridge, whichever it may be. It is deplorable that it does not seem to be possible for the Ministers of Education and Transport to devise a co-ordinated plan to overcome the problem.
Access to these schools is subject to the control of the Northumberland County Council. That county council at first stated that the Minister of Transport had not allowed sufficient money to enable it to provide a good access. The local authority immediately protested to the Minister in vigorous terms, and I also protested in vigorous terms both to him and to the Minister of Education. I told the Minister of Education that unless something was done I should feel obliged to protest against the continuance of the building of this new school.
I am glad to say that the Northumberland County Council has stated that it has reconsidered its priorities and is intending to fix on to the hump-bridge a footbridge for the children. At the same time, the Minister of Education has told me that the headmaster of the new school will see that all the child cyclists attending school pass their driving tests.
My observation on that is that we can have the best child cyclists in the world and the most careful motorists, but if it is not possible to see over a small hump-back bridge real danger exists. I cannot see that a footbridge, put on to an unsatisfactory hump-back bridge, can possibly provide a proper safeguard for the children. The footbridge wild not be able to carry a great number of Children in safety at any one time, and how can anybody be sure that the children will keep to the footbridge? My right hon. Friends should get together on this matter, because it is concerned with children's lives. It would be most unsatisfactory if the Minister of Transport—if he is the correct authority—were not able to find the money to ensure the safety of children.
34
I have had letters from both Ministers, each saying that the other is responsible, or that the Northumberland County Council is responsible for finance, but it is quite impossible for a back bench Member to discover exactly where the responsibility lies, or how the money is allocated. It is not right to build this vast new school without providing proper access for the Children.
There is undeveloped land which would provide another access to the school, but the Minister of Transport has told me that it is proposed to put a footbridge over the railway, and not to construct a footpath. My mind is directed to an old poem that I heard in my youth:
"How oft I heard of Lucy Gray
And how she crossed the wild."
I do not consider the provision of a footbridge over a railway, in an area which is not built-up, and where there is no lighting, to be a satisfactory and safe way of ensuring that the children from the grammar school will be able to reach the areas in which they live, should they desire to walk home.
I am not satisfied that either the Minister of Education or the Minister of Transport has looked into the matter from the aspect of the safety of children and the removal of anxiety of parents. I am not prepared to accept that whatever access is provided should be provided as economically as possible. In present circumstances it is not right to economise at the expense of the safety of children.
I get very annoyed when I hear the Minister of Transport talking as he does about safety on the roads—however correct 'he may be—and encouraging motorists and pedestrians to take greater care, because it is clear that the Ministries concerned do not follow out his directions. I hope that as a result of what I am saying some action will be taken.
I want to say a few words about statistics. It is very interesting to examine them. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education on his announcement that he will examine the various facilities of all the schools in the country. That is a very wise thing to do. A few years ago I asked him whether he was aware of the number of schools that had earth closets.

35
The other day I asked him if he knew how many new schools—in respect of which a considerable amount of plate glass has been used—have blinds. He replied that the information was not available. Medical opinion on the need for sunblinds in schools where there is a lot of plate glass does not seem to be clearly defined, but a number of people believe that it is not right that children should be taught in classrooms where the sun pours in unless sunblinds are provided.
I wish to point out to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this matter affects expenditure on the National Health Service and that it is important that we should know what is the position. If it is decided that sunblinds must be provided, the Minister of Education should take steps to ensure that they are provided. The same applies to the replacement of earth closets.
I do not always agree with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I felt that they had a good argument over the curtailment of the minor repairs programme. I should like to know how the Minister of Education can ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for money for a programme if he does not know the condition of all the schools in the country. Without that information, how do we know that a fair share of the money received from the Treasury is being spent in every part of the country? I was horrified to discover that in 1962, it was necessary to look for statistics regarding matters which, as a practical individual, I consider it is essential to know and which should have been ascertained, say, immediately the war was over.
The same applies to housing. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Commonwealth Relations was Minister of Housing and Local Government, I was concerned to know whether there were a sufficient number of houses being built for elderly people. I know that the situation has now changed, and I am glad of that, but, at the time, I asked a number of Questions and made myself as objectionable as I generally am; and my right hon. Friend told me that my bullying had resulted in his making an inquiry about how many one-bedroom
36
houses there were in the country. He had been horrified to find that the housing programmes of local authorities had become unbalanced regarding the different types of houses.
I have never known the Treasury to react so quickly. Almost in a twinkling of an eye my right hon. Friend was able to increase the subsidy in respect of one-bedroom houses. This achievement was flattering for me. But when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Minister of Housing, he rightly emphasised that 300,000 houses a year were built at that time. I wonder why no official figures were obtained then showing the balance of the various types of houses, including one-bedroom houses for old people.
The other day, I asked the Minister of Health whether he could give me some information about physiotherapists. I asked where were the schools for training them, and what happened to the students from those schools. I consider this information to be vitally important from an economic and practical point of view if we are to run a reasonably good and competent Health Service. I was staggered to be told that the facts were not available. I had two Questions on the Order Paper today to the Minister of Health, and I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is trying to get up-to-date figures about the nursing profession and other aspects of the Health Service.
It is extraordinary that we should have gone on as a Government year after year without knowing these facts, which seems to me absolutely essential in order that a first-class hospital service may be provided under practical and economic conditions. I do not think that the Government, or, indeed, the previous Labour Government have ever sought to acquire the kind of details which I think it absolutely essential for a first-class Administration to know.
Before dealing with another part of this important subject of co-ordination, I wish to make one other point in relation to further education. The Northumberland County Council has provided a further education college at Whitley Bay which has been an enormous success. To that, I pay tribute. There is a first-class principal and staff and the project has aroused tremendous

37
interest. The committee responsible for the administration of the college asked for a small hall to be provided which would be used for physical recreation, for drama and for the provision of the necessary canteen and other facilities. When I went to the opening day earlier this year I was amazed to find that a lovely hall had been provided.
Please do not think that I was not delighted to see something so good from an artistic point of view. But I am told that we cannot get the money to provide further classrooms, so I wondered whether it was absolutely necessary to have all this quantity of plate glass and mahogany and for there to be such magnificent curtains as had been provided for this hall.
The chairman remarked that the college had asked for what it thought would be a hut, but it had turned out to be a palace. The alderman representing Whitley Bay commented that as everybody was so pleased with the hall he hoped that there would be no complaint when the county council levied its new education rate.
I took up the matter with my right hon. Friend. I am glad that the hall is now built, because everyone will enjoy using it, but I think it a little hard that such a magnificent hall should have been provided when we cannot find money for the additional classrooms which would have made the college even more valuable than it is. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education replied that, of course, it was nothing to do with him, because the money came out of the Northumberland County Council's minor works programme. I noticed that the minor works programme of the Ministry of Education can be cut, but there are a great many children in my part of the country who are in very old schools and who have not the use of the lovely, up-to-date facilities which the new schools provide. It is very hard on these children.
I can quite see that the reduction of the minor works programme for schools is an easy matter for my right hon. Friend to handle, but I do not think that it is a very satisfactory method, because the whole idea is to try to give a similar type of education to all children. Some children are bound to be more lucky in going to new schools, but I do not think
38
it is fair to cut the minor works programme when, suddenly, the Northumberland County Council is able to find the money for this exquisite hall which I have described.
I should have thought that from the point of view of the ratepayers, who are trying to believe that the economic situation of the country is not difficult, this kind of situation should not be allowed to develop. There is very real reason why the Minister of Education should consider this whole matter again, to see that all parts of the country are equally well served. I hope that we shall have some results from the survey which he is making with a view to bringing his statistics up to date.
I want to turn from that subject to the burden of the rates. I was very disappointed, after my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) moved his Motion in March of this year on the problem of increasing rates, with the speech made in reply by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It was so full of detail of one kind and another—I am sure of very great interest to very many people—that, by the time he had come to the end of what he had to say, he did not tell us anything, except that we should have to wait, about what was to happen to try to reduce the rates burden on those people who are finding it almost impossible to meet the increased demands which are being made upon them.
I want to say here and now that I do not believe that the Government's policy of trying to shuffle off this responsibility from the centre to the ratepayers is consistent with Tory policy. I always understood that Tory policy meant that one paid according to one's means. This is very annoying, I have no doubt, for Income Tax payers and Surtax payers, but it has always been the basis of our policy. I did not agree with the Local Government Act, and I do not like block grants, because I think that that system places a very unfair burden on those living on small fixed incomes.
I was, therefore, very glad that I did not support the Measure as it went through the House, but I now find that this is being carried out as Government policy. I hope that I shall have an opportunity, after seven o'clock this

39
evening, of directing my fire against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health when we are considering the Health Visitors and Social Workers Training Bill, in the matter of expenditure that will be placed upon the local authorities and, therefore, on the local ratepayers. By the same argument, I do not consider it to be consistent with Tory policy. I should like to see that policy reversed.
I always have believed in the principle of the payment of taxation according to one's means, and I think it is most unfair that no decision has yet been taken on what can be done to relieve those who are finding it quite impossible to meet their increased rate demands. It is not only a case of meeting the increased rate demands, but, as we see today, the prices of gas, coal and electricity have gone up again. People living on small fixed incomes, as well as young couples just beginning their married lives, are finding this situation quite impossible. There is very real anxiety throughout the country among these people on how they are to meet their demands.
I was dismayed to find out that the Government are continuing the process of pushing expenditure from the centre on to the local authorities. I can very well see that, at the end of the day, when the Estimates are considered between the responsible Departmental Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will receive a pat on the back. My right hon. Friend is a most interested Minister, and a great many people in the country are delighted to have him as Minister of Health for that very reason. He is a financial purist. I can see him, at the end of the day, going to the Chancellor and saying, "This is what I have been able to achieve throughout the year. I have not exceeded the Estimate." The Chancellor of the Exchequer will pat my right hon. Friend on the shoulder and tell him what a good boy he has been, but that is no good to me.
If the expenditure which has been undertaken by my right hon. Friend in his legislation is to be handed over to the local authorities, one of two results may flow from that. Either the local authorities may not implement the Measure which has just been placed upon the Statute Book, or, if they do
40
implement it, they may increase the rates to the detriment of those people living on small fixed incomes. To me, this does not make sense. Although I know how difficult it is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money necessary for the expansion of the social services, I do not think that it is either creditable or courageous merely to transfer that expenditure from the centre to the local authorities at the expense of those living on small fixed incomes.
I read with very great interest and followed up in detail the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in reply to my hon. Friend's Motion. I did not find very much in it, except that he said that we had to wait until something happened. The people who are in extremis today, except the young married couples, cannot wait indefinitely. Those of us who have "surgeries" week after week know all about the heart-rending stories and anxieties brought to us, and yet we can offer these people no help at all, which is very regrettable.
I want to put some questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think that it is absolutely superb to have him to reply to this debate, because, as Chairman of the Conservative Party, he will know what I, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, expect from him. My right hon. Friend has two advantages, in which he is very lucky. He can influence the Cabinet and so put forward Conservative Party policy.
When are we to hear that teachers' salaries are to be borne by the Exchequer and not as a proportion of the rates? I have come here to say emphatically that I do not think that this is fair on the teachers. Good local authorities such as my Borough of Tyne-mouth have regard for their teachers, but other authorities may not be so good. I do not think it fair on the Burnham Committee for local authorities to have to consider teachers' salaries when they know that that will increase the rate burden on local authorities.
If my right hon. Friend is really interested in seeing that we have the best men and women in the teaching profession, here is a wonderful opportunity to make their payment dependent

41
on the Treasury and not on local authorities. That would help local authorities enormously in facing their difficulties.
I noticed that in the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary he never even suggested that there should be an inquiry on these lines. I cannot understand why my Government are so opposed to every kind of inquiry for which we ask. This would be a very good subject for inquiry. The inquiry demanded, quite rightly, by nurses for their revaluation is absolutely essential. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend should have been so foolish as not to accept that. We ought also to have the inquiry which was asked for in relation to professions supplementary to medicine.
I have a great admiration for the Minister of Defence, although he will come under my fire in a few moments. He has managed to deal very satisfactorily with the Services. I know what the position would be, he being such a strong Minister and not such a financial purist as the Minister of Health. I do not know where the Leader of the House stands in this, but I can see that the Minister of Defence would go to the Cabinet and the Government would have to pay. Service widows' pensions and retired pay would be at the bottom of the list, but he did achieve something from the Treasury. Service pay has gone up quite out of proportion to the incomes policy of the Government. I am very glad about that.
My right hon. Friend was able to do that and he did something more. He was able to get the position readjusted for doctors and dentists. I also have no doubt that he would have got the position readjusted for nurses—at least I hope that would be the case—but the Minister of Health, in the position he holds, would not, I suppose, go to the Cabinet and argue either for the nurses or for the professions supplementary to medicine.
That is why I want to say this to my right hon. Friend. He is the Chairman of the Conservative Party as well as being Leader of the House. As we turn over the Order Paper we find dozens of back bench Motions on it. Some are all-party Motions and some are
42
party Motions, and we find democracy asserting itself on these lines. I do not see any sign at the moment of the Executive accepting the democratic appeal. I am delighted to find that the Conservative Party conference which is to be held shortly is to consider two motions on the question of rates. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reply to these motions, which I shall read to the House.
This will be coming before the party on 23rd May, so my right hon. Friend must be very careful what he says in answer to me today, because on that occasion I shall be sitting on the platform. I shall be looking at the back of his head, as I am doing this afternoon. The first motion, on taxation and rating, says:
"That this Conference, viewing with concern the continual increase in local rents which bear heavily on those with small incomes, believes that money raised by taxation according to income causes less hardship and therefore urges H.M. Government to increase the total general grants to local authorities."
Another motion, which is starred for discussion and is not quite so difficult to answer—we have one which is less difficult and another which is more difficult—says:
"That this Conference views with great concern the continual increase in Rates and, while it appreciates the heavy burden thrown on Local Authorities to keep a high standard of services, it asks the Government seriously to consider the present rating system with a view to releasing the unfortunate householder of the whole responsibility of payment and to spread the load evenly on all citizens of 21 years of age and over who, after all, receive an equal share of our Public Services."
Of course, that is very much easier to answer. The Leader of the House, or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, will be able to point out the inaccuracies in that motion. I know exactly why that particular motion has been chosen. That does not affect the question I am posing, that the people whom I try to represent, because they have not got big unions to speak for them, are being crushed under this heavy burden. Tory policy has never believed in making people pay when they have not the means to pay. I hope my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to deal with this problem and will let me know today what the Government have in mind.

43
I turn from that to discuss the question of Service pensions. Before doing so, however, I want to put on record the fact that some distinguished bodies also feel that something should be done about the question I have been discussing. They ask for an inquiry, but I do not think that an inquiry is necessary in this case. I want to see a reversal of rating policy. There are some very important people interested in this matter, such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, the National Union of Ratepayers, and the Royal Institute of Public Administration. The Parliamentary Secretary, when replying to the debate to which I have referred, gave such a brilliant exposition that no one noticed that he had not actually answered the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich for an inquiry.
I have never had any experience of local government, so I may make many mistakes in what I say about it. I cannot argue with the same facility as I could if I had served on a local authority, but I know that we cannot go on as we are doing. It is not fair to those who are not able to pay Income Tax, let alone Surtax. It is not fair to those outside the taxpaying classes to expect them to pay more and more for everything. It is no good having a cost-of-living index in relation to those people. That is all right for people who are reasonably affluent, but it does not meet the case of those living on small fixed incomes nor of young married couples. They are in a powerless position. I cannot argue their case more emphatically than I am trying to do this afternoon. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us what the Government have in mind.
I turn to the question of Service pensioners, and particularly the widows of Regular Service officers, public service pensioners, nurses, retired teachers, retired civil servants and the whole galaxy of people who made our survival possible in two world wars, and who have no one to speak for them except a few Members in the House of Commons and occasionally a Motion on the Order Paper.
I cannot understand what the Government are doing to let these people fall
44
so far behind the rest of the country. I have had letters from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers, in which they say, ad nauseam, that the best way to serve the interests of those living on small fixed incomes is to stabilise the economy. Of course it is, but is not that for everybody's benefit?
The economy would be stabilised at a much higher cost of living than in 1945. People who have been able to buy themselves out of inflation will have a stabilised economy as well as the advantage of having bought themselves out of inflation. Those to whom I refer will have the stabilisation of the economy, which I agree is very important to them, but they have not been able to buy themselves out of inflation. Their position is parlous.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend knows it, but the widows of these Regular officers and other ranks are dying at the rate of 107 a month. What is the good of suggesting to them, with all their anxieties and with all the service which their husbands gave to the country, that the best way is to drift on with an incomes policy? I am thoroughly ashamed of our actions in this matter, and I want to explain what has been done about some of the other widows, because that is very much to the point.
Widows and widowers who keep resident housekeepers—and one must have a good income these days for that—get a special allowance of £75 a year. Bachelors and spinsters do not. No one quite knows how these relatively well off widows and widowers got this allowance, and every time the subject has been raised in the House we have been told that it is anomalous. The Royal Commission which considered taxation said that it was an anomaly and that we ought to deal with it. Why should these widows and widowers get £75 a year, which would be heaven-sent to the widows of Regular officers and other ranks? Why should one section of the community manage, for some reason or another, to get this provided for in the Finance Bill? Why should we be able to find money for them when we cannot find it for those who are Government servants? I do not understand.

45
I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not extend those allowances over a wider field. I suggested that it would be better to follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission, to remove this allowance and to give the money to other people if we are so hard up that we cannot otherwise find it for them. I should also prefer the money to go to wives who permanently support disabled husbands—not only husbands disabled in the Services, but those disabled in industry. We could make better use of this money. When I asked by hon. Friend the Financial Secretary how much we were giving in allowances to these affluent widows and widowers, he said that he did not know. I did not believe him and I was surprised to be told that.
We have allowed those retiring from the Colonial Service to fall below the national retirement pension level. We keep pointing to what we have done for the national retirement pensioners, but no one ever points out that their position had been materially altered by increases in the price of gas, electricity and coal. The other day the Chairman of the National Coal Board, Lord Robens, made a speech at Birmingham about using modern appliances to make the use of coal more economical. I am sure that that was a right and proper thing for him to do, but how does he think people living on small fixed incomes can do that? I should like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting in a room with a gas fire and putting 6d. into the meter every now and then. He would see how long he had a warm room. He would be surprised how short a time the 6d. lasts. I am frightened about the future position of the elderly, and I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend has made an inquiry into it.
But I do not want to leave the question of Colonial Service and other Service pensioners. I feel that the Government have behaved disgracefully in this matter, and I think that the House feels so, too, because there is a very well-supported Motion on the Order Paper. Yet the Executive takes no notice whatever. I do not believe that the fault lies with the Secretary of State for the Colonies or the Minister of Defence. I am convinced that when these Ministers
46
go to the Treasury to argue their case, they have these people at the bottom of their priority lists, and that all Ministers become so tired by the time they have argued the top priorities, which are essential, that they pack up their papers and these people at the bottom are forgotten.
I remember that during the war a Minister, who shall be nameless, said to me, "Irene, it does not do a Minister any good to go too often to the Chancellor of the Exchequer". I do not think that the present Chancellor would react in that way.
In dealing with the Colonial Service pensioners, I believe that the Treasury is frightened of the action which might follow in the independent countries. But I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is entitled to make these people live at such a low level that they do not know how to meet their commitments simply because he is frightened about something else. I do not call that fair or just. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take some action about this. I admit that his letters to me have not given me great cause for pleasure, but he can have a change of heart. We should remember that it was an election pledge to help these people. The Prime Minister made it plain that everybody would share in the general prosperity of the country, but these people have been left out.
I want to know when we shall keep that election pledge. I should hate to say what I can think up next, but I shall have to think up something unless that election pledge is kept, because I do not believe in giving pledges which we do not keep. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not only look up our manifesto and read the Press cuttings of the Prime Minister's speech, but will also draw the Prime Minister's attention to his speech and see that it is implemented.
I come to my final subject. I am sure that the House will be glad to hear that. I want now to discuss the question of "Neddy". I cannot understand who invented the name "Neddy". It is a most significant name. I do not think that it is a very good thing. However, I will say this; I promised to say it slowly and three times, but perhaps I will not do that. I do not think that

47
it is a good thing to hand over our incomes policy and a discussion of expansion only to employers, some outstanding economists, and trade unionists on "Neddy".
I have taken part in many conversations—at least, I have listened to many conversations—between employers and trade unionists. I know exactly how these conversations will go. None of the general services—the professional side, the nurses, the doctors—is represented on "Neddy". These services are equally important in expansion. It may be that they do not produce in the way that one might expect within the framework of "Neddy", but they are equally important to the general productivity and expansion of industry. It is most regrettable that all of us should be handed over to employers, trade unionists and one or two economists. There is not a single representative of consumer interests on "Neddy". I do not think that this is right.
I want to read a letter which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has sent to me, because it is interesting. I have raised this subject before. Of course I have raised it. I have gone on raising it ad nauseam. This is what my right hon. and learned Friend says:
"To stabilise costs and prices and secure a firm foundation for a faster rate of economic growth, it was essential to break into the wage price spiral. This we attempted to do by means of the pay pause. To be effective it was necessary to take this step quickly but because of its very suddenness it was bound to have some arbitrary effects; and we were of course bound to observe our policy scrupulously in respect of our own employees, if it was to be taken seriously by private employers."
I suppose that the Chancellor does not accept the Services as Government employees. This reminds me that they are in the service of the Crown, which makes it all the more peculiar that we have not allowed the Monarch to have her way in dealing with pensions of widows of retired officers and other ranks.
My right hon. and learned Friend continues:
"But I am very conscious of the difficulties of securing our national aim of keeping overall increases in money incomes within the long term trend of national production, without creating unacceptable anomalies and feelings of unfairness, and I am giving a good deal of thought to this problem at present."
48
It is absolutely marvellous for the Chancellor to say that he is giving a good deal of thought to this, but I should have felt better if he had given some thought to it before we embarked on it. I should like to know in what direction we are going. I should like to have proper planning. I do not like to think of the Chancellor sitting in isolation, though I have no doubt that he has some of his great Treasury officials sitting in chairs beside him. I do not like to think of him sitting in isolation giving thought to the fact when he should have thought it out before he embarked on it.
I should like to know from the Government how long they think we can go on treating our own employees badly in order to give a lead to other people. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health had allowed the nurses to have their inquiry, we might be able to treat them fairly in the end. I hope that he will allow them to have their inquiry, because he, also, can always change his mind. If we could have the inquiry which is demanded by the professions supplementary to medicine, we might in the long run be able to treat them fairly. We cannot go on in this way ad infinitum while the Chancellor sits thinking.
The same applies to university staffs. We cannot go on expecting those who teach in our universities to carry on with their wonderful work although they feel that they are being penalised. These people are very important in our national economy. They are just as important in our national economy as one or two of the employers sitting on "Neddy". As we have to advise on our technical education, as we have to advise on our scientific research, as we have to advise on expansion in the inventive genius which is part of our British heritage, so we have to have our university people at tap level. We cannot have them feeling that they are being crippled while the Chancellor sits tucked up in a little room thinking out what is to happen in the future.
I am horrified that my night hon. and learned Friend did not think it out before he acted. It is true that he said he had to act quickly. I am profoundly grateful that the pay pause has had such an advantageous result. I do not complain about that. I can defend that.

49
I am glad to defend it. What I cannot defend is that we do not know where we are going. As I said before, that ridiculous little White Paper on incomes might have been written by a child.
I want to read to the House a small paragraph from the Daily Telegraph, which I suppose my right hon. and learned Friend would agree is a most respectable paper for the Tory Party. It is an article headed, "Which way to an expanding economy?" That is what we do not know. We have been told that that is what we are aiming at, but nobody has yet told us how we are to achieve it. I have not got all that much faith in "Neddy". I wish that consumers were represented on "Neddy", because I know that when all these big birds get together no one ever says, "When are you going to get prices down?" They are either protecting their wages or their profits. There should be a few people on "Neddy" who have no interest in either profits or wages. There should be somebody on "Neddy" to speak for the consumers. That is where the weakness really is.
The article, written by Mr. Maurice Green, says:
"Has Mr. Selwyn Lloyd got a 'policy for growth'? Yesterday's debate on the Finance Bill shed no further light on it, as Mr. Brooke said only that the Chancellor was encouraged by the growing evidence of the effects of his economic policy. The Opposition maintained its view that he has no policy for growth, but only one for retrenchment.
The vast majority of the public feel that, if he has one, they certainly do not know what it is. And that is true not only of the man in the street but often also of the man in the T.U.C., the F.B.I, or the business boardroom."
If I had been Mr. Maurice Green I would have added, "or among the consuming public". I am sick of boardrooms. I am sick of arguments between boardroom directors and trade unionists and there being no opportunity for the consumer, who has to pay all these high prices, to be heard. And we still do not know where we are going.
I also want to know something about nurses' pay. According to all the Sunday newspapers, the Government are about to make a decision on that subject, and the idea is that there should be arbitration. Whether or not the nurses can be persuaded to go to arbitration I do not know, but can my right hon. Friend say
50
whether, if they do go to arbitration, it will be a genuine arbitration? I know of the devastating effect that the 2½ per cent. offer made by the management side of the Whitley Council had on the nursing profession, but it now seems that we have another chance.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health does not pay attention to warnings from anyone. He is always so certain that he is right, and in this world it is impossible for anyone to be completely right. I hope that he will heed this one. If the proposed arbitration is not to be a genuine arbitration, I beg my right hon. Friend not to countenance it. I would far rather we had the proper inquiry for which the nurses have asked than that we should play about with an arbitration in which someone will argue for the Government either that the money is not available, or that to grant it would be against Government policy.
As the Chancellor has said, we cannot go on holding down our own employees for ever. We must have unity in this country. The people must work for the country and for the Government of the day, of whatever political persuasion, feeling that they are being fairly treated, and it is difficult for them to feel that unless the Government explains to them in what direction we are going.
Although I do not know what sort of expansion "Neddy" will advocate, I am quite willing to give it a chance, but I hope that when my right hon. Friend answers he will give us a great deal more detail, and tell us how he thinks the consumers can help. On the whole, the consumers are very loyal supporters of the country. We want to do the right thing, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us in what direction we are going and how we are to deal with our own employees so that they do not feel unjustly treated—I should hate that.
I hope that he will also tell us what part the consumers can play in helping our economy to become stable and flexible, and continue to provide an expanding standard of life. My right hon. Friend will not, of course, have forgotten that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promised that we would double our standard of life in twenty-five years. I do not want the standard of life to be bettered for

51
a few people only; I want it to be improved throughout the country, so that everyone gets the fair deal that I do not think that they are getting at present.
4.44 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will forgive me if I do not follow in detail what she has said to us, but I hope that she will allow me to thank her for having chosen this subject, about which I want to speak, albeit on a somewhat narrower aspect than she chose.
My interest is in the need for co-ordination and co-operation between Government Departments in order to foster and improve the health and safety of our workers at their work. I propose to divide my speech into three parts. In the first part, I shall point out why there is that need. Secondly, I shall show how co-operation and co-ordination are beginning to show very good results. Thirdly, I shall ask the Leader of the House to assist me in making a request to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, although I shall not say what that request is until I come to it.
Had I handpicked anyone to answer me today, I could not have found anybody better than the Leader of the House. I shall be speaking about health and about safety at work, and the right hon. Gentleman, in previous Parliamentary incarnations, has had very considerable experience as a Minister of Labour and a Minister of Health. I am very fortunate.
On 21st December last, I spoke briefly in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) on the subject of accidents at work. I sought then to show that we were not getting the true facts; that the 190,000 accidents annually reported by the Chief Inspector of Factories could not be the true figure; and that I suspected that accident notification was not taking place in the smaller factories.
I was able to show, at least to my own satisfaction, that the Minister who knew the total number of accidents was the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, because he received claims for
52
every accident resulting in incapacity for three days or more, and paid out on them. I said that it was obvious to me that that Minister did not so analyse his figures as to let us know whether the accidents happened in the factory, the workshop, the street, or elsewhere, and I asked that something should be done about that position. I myself estimated that the total number of accidents each year was normally not 190,000, but about 250,000.
The second part of my speech refers to my attempts to get the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to play some part in research. Answering a Question that I put to him on 13th November, 1961, he told me that he was using the powers afforded him under Section 73 of the Industrial Injuries Act to finance, at that time, two research projects relating to diseases which might have some bearing on prescriptions—on the prescribing of diseases. In answer to a supplementary question, he told me that he was not conducting any research into the causes and incidence of accidents, or methods of preventing them, and made it clear that he felt that that responsibility lay with the Minister of Labour and, in respect of particular industries, with the Ministers concerned with them.
The Leader of the House will remember better than I that the Factories Act, 1959, which he piloted through the House and through its most interesting Committee stage, gives power to the inspectorate to undertake scientific, technical, statistical and other works of investigation. I would, therefore, ask this question: has anything been done since 1959? It would be interesting to hear some news about this. I know the work that was done on the Halifax and Potteries surveys, but has anything been done technically in the way here described?
I appreciate that in research—and I remember speaking in Committee on the 1959 Bill—we do not want to set up another research organisation just for the sake of doing so. If the Leader of the House can tell us how the problems are farmed out to the research organisations that can handle them and can say that there is some co-ordinating hand that plucks and brings back all the details so that action can be taken, I shall be comparatively content. Am I

53
right in suggesting that, at present, there is no overall policy for safety and health research, other than in the mines? If so, it makes true my plea that there is need for better co-ordination between Government Departments.
I recall three questions I asked to see whether the action being taken is adequate and whether the Departments are becoming interested in co-ordinating their work. For example, on 4th December, 1961, I asked
"… whether he will take steps to ascertain the number of statutorily reportable cases of injury following accidents at work, which are not reported owing to the negligence of the employer."
The Minister replied:
"I am considering means by which I could obtain more reliable information than is now available to me about the extent to which accidents are not reported.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 114.]
It is apparent, therefore, that action is being taken to find out the facts.
On the following 18th April I was told by the Parliamentary Secretary that a survey was being undertaken with a view to obtaining information as to the co-operation between the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Minister of Labour in order to ascertain the true number of persons subject to the Factories Act who claimed benefit for industrial injuries. He clearly said that that was to be done and that the survey was being undertaken. That, again, is the type of action for which I have been pleading. As in medicine, unless all the facts are available we cannot even attempt a diagnosis. A problem cannot be solved until we know from what and how we are suffering.
The third question I asked concerned co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education so that there should be fostered the principles of safety and accident prevention by having them taught in schools and technical colleges. I asked to what extent this was being carried out. I received what I thought was a satisfactory answer. I was told that the Minister of Labour
"… keeps closely in touch with his right hon. Friend the Minister of education who is constantly emphasising to local education authorities and principals of technical colleges the importance of inculcating safety principles in schools and colleges. H.M. Inspectors of Schools advise the head of schools and colleges who are encouraged to develop a close liaison with H.M. Inspectors of Factories. Their
54
advice and assistance on matters of safety are increasingly being sought."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th April, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 67.]
This, I thought, is the way in which I want this type of co-ordination to move. I remember discovering some years ago—I think that it was before the present Leader of the House was Minister of Labour—that soluble lead glazes were being used in schools throughout the country so that our school population was open to lead poisoning. Although it was forbidden to use this in the factory it was not forbidden to use it in the school. When the attention of the Minister of Education was brought to this problem, and when he was urged to get in touch with the Minister of Labour and the Factory Inspectorate, a regulation was sent out within six weeks—if it was not a regulation then it was certainly advice which was sent to every local education authority—forbidding the use of lead glazes and also of powdered flint where-ever possible. If action can be taken as quickly as that when knowledge is available, it is all the more important to plead that the special knowledge that is available in one Government Department must be made available to other Departments interested in the problem.
That brings me to the last part of my speech—the enormous advances that could be made if some knowledge of the basic legal requirements for industrial health and safety were introduced into the courses studied by so many young people, for example young people studying at the City and Guilds for their National and Higher National Certificates. If their curricula contained the study of the basic knowledge of the regulations, and if the students were examined in these matters, they would make themselves acquainted with this information. It would mean that a student at the School of Ceramics, at Stoke-on-Trent, would know the basic requirements of the Pottery Regulations—not as a lawyer, or as an hon. Member arguing about them, but sufficient to give him an overall knowledge of them.
Equally, a student who was learning to be a cabinet maker would know about the Woodworking Machinery Regulations, or, at least, their basic requirements. An engineering student would know the basic safety requirements of the Factories Act. No one wishes to

55
overburden young people and to load more and more stuff on to them, for they are already studying for certificates and qualifications of different types. But this is so important to themselves and to those who will work with them and under their guidance that I think what I am saying constitutes a reasonable request.
The Leader of the House will remember that the 1948 Building Regulations required every building contractor employing more than 50 persons on a site to appoint a safety supervisor who was responsible for the observation of those regulations. There has been a change. Under the new safety codes for construction work, a safety organiser is needed if more than 20 persons are employed. What does this change mean? It means, I gather, in effect, that we shall need an additional 6,300 people. Their qualifications, and I quote from the regulations, must be
"… experienced in such operations or works and suitably qualified."
They are not easy to find and I am suggesting, therefore, that it is obviously desirable that students in building or civil engineering should have in their training some positive education of the regulations which are designed to protect the workers and themselves in the very industry in which they hope to supervise. I hope that the Leader of the House considers my remarks as reasonable. If so, I urge him to press the two Ministers involved—the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education—to co-ordinate their efforts and to institute these courses so that, in the work done by these young people, they receive some basic knowledge of the regulations which make for health and safety.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: This is a wide-ranging debate and I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not attempt to follow him into the vitally important subject which he raised and in which the House knows him to be especially qualified to give the benefit of his experience. I want, like the hon. Member, to take a narrow example of Government co-ordination, but a
56
different one from his, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), I also must draw on a constituency example, being the one that I know best.
The specific matter of co-ordination to which I want to draw attention is that between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade, with specific reference to the problem of co-ordinating the requirements of industry in a growing area with the requirements of housing. The area, a part of which I have the honour to represent, is rather a conspicuously good example of problems which arise in the United Kingdom. This area in east Berkshire was predominantly agricultural until a comparatively few years ago, but it has changed dramatically since the end of the Second World War. It has become an area—and there are other hon. Members who represent similar parts of the country—under the strongest pressure from the person who wants to live within reasonable distance of London, with reasonable communications, and in pleasant surroundings.
We have changed from an agricultural to a dormitory area in part, and in so doing we have been subjected to the greatest pressures, for instance, in terms of the price of land. This is an excellent example of the sort of place, frequently quoted, where land prices have risen sharply, an area which presents great problems for the young married couples anxious to set up on their own in a house of their own. It is an area where substantial building has taken place in recent years.
But this injection of persons, this great search for pleasant places in which to live within a convenient radius of London, has brought great pressures not only upon land, but also upon labour. Land, as is appreciated, is from a Ministerial point of view the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Labour, in the sense of its employment and its opportunities for employment, is the responsibility of the Board of Trade. It is because I am not happy that, in spite of great efforts by the officials of both Ministries and their Ministers, there is yet a close working co-ordination between housing, on the one hand, and

57
trade, on the other, that I am intervening in this debate.
Let me deal, first, with land and housing. I read in the Housing Returns that some other areas of the United Kingdom statistically are reaching something near sufficiency, near balance, from the point of view of the need and the supply of housing. That emphatically is not the case in my area, and I am well aware that it is not the case in other areas. Large numbers have been housed. A glance at the landscape will show that fact. Large numbers have been attracted by the comparatively good communications. But when a commodity of this kind—land within striking distance of London—is desirable its price rises, and this is unquestionably the primary difficulty in my area.
I do not believe that any hon. Member can suggest that there is a simple and easy answer to this problem. As one whose livelihood is the practice of that branch of the law which deals mainly with the buying and selling of property, I am certain that where a commodity is desirable, people will always find ways of overcoming any difficulties which may exist. Anyone who suggests that in taking some political decision, by transferring ownership or by some form of control there lies a simple panacea, is ignoring human nature.
It might be that one could be successful in controlling the price, but the price could then be paid in two parts. The first would be official and the second would be in the form of a fur coat, or its equivalent. That is really the lesson that we learned in the days when we attempted to do something of that kind—
Mr. E. G. Willis: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that officials running private enterprise would accept fur coats?
Mr. van Straubenzee: I am suggesting precisely that. I am also suggesting that persons anxious to get a house are disposed, on appropriate occasions, to do that. I think that in saying that I am probably being more realistic in my view of human nature and of what happens in connection with the law of supply and demand than the hon. Gentleman is. The evidence lies in what
58
actually happened when we sought, as a nation, to take development rights from people. The real reason why the planning Acts of those days were ineffective was that property did not change hands at existing use value. That is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him to study the situation as it arose. At the same time, an area like mine, subjected not only to these pressures on land—
Mr. Willis: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he has made a serious charge, that officials administering public bodies receive fur coats for their wives. I assume that in the case he was talking about he was not referring to officials—
Mr. van Straubenzee: Oh, no, the hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth.
Mr. Willis: That is what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. van Straubenzee: No, the hon. Gentleman is not being fair. I was merely seeking, in a sentence, to illustrate that if we try to control the price of land in some way—and there are methods which hon. Members opposite are fond of advocating—those who desire a commodity will find a way of obtaining that commodity by giving what, in effect, is its market price. To say that land prices should be controlled is not the answer to the problem. I cannot permit the hon. Gentleman to put into my mouth allegations that officials in this country, particularly Government officials, are accepting bribes in the form of fur coats. That is not what I said, and the hon. Gentleman should not suggest that I said so.
Mr. Willis: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD. That will assist him.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I think what the hon. Gentleman said was that officials would receive fur coats if a certain policy were adopted. I think that that is what he was really saying.
Mr. van Straubenzee: If I used "officials" in that sense, and if the ownership of all land were centralised in

59
some way, then I concede that I think this is a very real danger in the abstract. That, as I say, is if all land were nationalised which, as far as I know, is not the intention of the party opposite.
At the same time, however, as we are subjected to these many pressures which I have attempted to outline, we are subjected also to a second pressure, that of industrial expansion. Here comes the point which I want to make on the subject of co-ordination. In the area which I represent we have received, first, an overspill new town which I regard as one of the most successful social experiments of our day, and if that requires a tribute to the party opposite I am not such a narrow bigot in party terms that I am not prepared to pay it.
We have also been an area receiving new industries not necessarily located in a new town. For instance, the immediate neighbouring market town of Wokingham, which, of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows, is also changing its character as are other similar previously quiet market towns in the area of which I am speaking, or those within striking distance of London. Young and enterprising industrial firms are coming, or have come, to these towns, some of them with a very strong content of their business going for export. The same applies to other areas in the immediate vicinity.
With this injection of new, expanding industries comes the pressure upon labour about which I sought to say something earlier. I do not think it is appreciated—it is certainly appreciated within the House of Commons, of course, but not outside—what strong powers Parliament has vested in the Government of the day for controlling industry and its location. I am well aware of the strong powers added only last year to the industrial development certificate procedure. I think that it ought to be emphasised again that the Government of the day have by what I might call their negative powers of refusal very strong powers, which, of course, I appreciate they exercise in areas under pressure like my own.
The difficulty is, however, that by its very nature an enterprising industry expands. It is inherent in a successful
60
enterprise of this kind that it gets larger, and here the dilemma presents itself very sharply. There are, on the one hand, the pressure on housing which I have attempted to describe, and, on the other, the pressures on labour which I have just outlined.
One asks oneself whether, in an area such as this, there is under consideration sufficient co-ordination between the Board of Trade, which is responsible for the admission of industry or its expansion, and the Ministry of Housing which is responsible for the authorisation of housing programmes in local authorities, and with the Ministry of Housing, once again, as the ultimate court of appeal, it I may so loosely term it, in terms of planning policy for private housing. For instance, does someone in the Board of Trade relate the housing programme authorised to the expected expansion in industry and the actual expansion? It is because I am not quite certain that there is sufficient co-ordination between the two that I venture briefly to raise the matter.
I wish to give two short practical examples. I think that I can claim to be—I have to say this with some reticence, as I could not prove the assertion—the first person in my area to collate the likely expansion plans of industry into one set of figures. It has always been possible to do this for the new town of Bracknell, because that is more closely organised and planned as a unit than the others, but, in regard to the remainder of the area, I am not at all sure that I was not the first person to lay my hands on the figures in question. When related to the pressures of housing they are frightening, though only in the sense that they show not only a present but a continuing and growing pressure upon our stock of housing.
For instance, in Bracknell the expected increase in the number of employees due to the mere expansion of existing industry is just under 1,500 whereas at Wokingham the expansion is projected to be just under 4,000. These figures, 4,000 in one town and 1,500 in another, relate to industry as it stands at present, with no new industries coming in at all.
I wonder whether, in considering planning for the area, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has had

61
the advantage of the technical advice of the Board of Trade as to what the likely expansion will be of the industry which he is planning in the area. Is it possible to do it, I repeat, in the new town of Bracknell now under expansion. Is it sufficiently done in an area where there is not the close central supervision of a statutory development corporation?
It is very easy to outline the problem, but it is extremely difficult to suggest a simple answer to it. I certainly do not for one moment pretend that I alone have thought out the complete solution. Of course, I make no such absurd suggestion. I am also well aware of conflicting pressures of opinion. I have been present at trade union meetings where a very reasonable fear was expressed that all that employers want to create is a pool of labour, preferably with plenty of surplus labour, which, in turn, would drive down wages. This is a fear which I can very well understand, and I do not for one moment believe that there are not some employers who have precisely that thought in their minds because, like every other area, we have our bad employers as well as, I think, a vast majority of good employers.
However, I have generally found at such branch meetings that there is a greater understanding than the pundits in the depths of West End clubs always realise about how the prosperity of the individual member of the branch is bound up with the general prosperity of the country, and a greater understanding of all general economic principles than I think we should find in a very great many other places where people congregate.
I believe that both employer and employee are vitally concerned in the problem of control of expansion. I can also well understand the feeling of the person born locally concerning labour brought in from outside areas to deal with industrial expansion and thereby housed. This is not a simple problem and I am not suggesting that the greater co-ordination for which I plead should necessarily result in the allocation of housing merely for the one or other group. It seems to me reasonable that there should be a certain allocation for both.
While, therefore, I am well aware of the existing procedures and of the con-
62
sultations which I am assured take place, I find a feeling in my area that the one hand is not always as closely aware as it should be of what the other hand is doing. It is because I represent an area which so clearly expresses the coincidence of these two pressures that I have ventured to take a moment or two of the time of the House to ventilate it.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) deserves some credit for attempting to speak to the Motion, which is more than can be said for the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who moved it. She spoke about everything but the Motion, and took a very long time about it. I think it was the Minister for Science who said the other day in the other place that we were in danger of becoming a nation of bellyachers.
With all due respect to the hon. Lady, I think she was the longest-winded bellyacher I have heard for a very long time in this House. She ranged from dry closets to window panes, and from schools and teachers' salaries to nurses' salaries, and to rates, and she made the astonishing suggestion that she had always believed that the Tory Party believed in taking from people according to their ability to pay. If she had taken the trouble to read some of the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) at the weekends she would have seen how the very reverse has been happening in the last several years—and that, of course, is what one expects from a Tory Government.
Having said that, I want to address my remarks to the co-ordination of various Ministries particularly as they affect the Scottish economy. We have got in Scotland, as the Leader of the House will know if he was in at Question Time, a very great number of problems emanating from the nature of the basis of our economy. We have got declining industries, we have got an unemployment figure which is more than twice that of the national average. The right hon. Gentleman knows these problems very well. One would expect the Government to seek to tackle these problems

63
by recognising that there are difficulties peculiar to the Scottish economy, that it has peculiar problems which need peculiar treatments. This is precisely what we are not getting.
We sought this afternoon at Question hour to focus attention on just one of these problems, the discriminatory price increases for coal both to the domestic consumers and the industrial consumers. We have the Minister of Power sanctioning these discriminatory price increases and at the same time we have the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland both saying that above all we have got to attract more and more industry to Scotland. There can be no denying that these discriminatory increases in the prices of Scottish coal must have the effect of retarding industrial expansion in Scotland.
I can cite a specific example from my own constituency, where there is a paper mill employing between 600 and 700 people, the only industry in a small burgh. They have written to me saying that the 10s. increase per ton of industrial coal will have either of two effects, changing to oil or going out of business. In either case there will be a loss to the coal industry on which my division depends almost exclusively. This is an example of how we get one Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and indeed the President of the Board of Trade, seeking to bring industry in, with the Minister of Power and the National Coal Board doing things to jeopardise that prospect. This seems to me to be quite absurd.
We have got another example, which I have on good authority from a spokesman of the Coal Board. The Coal Board has got in stock about 20 million tons of small coal. The only possible consumer of that small coal is the electricity industry. The Minister of Power is charged with co-ordinating the policies of the nationalised fuel industries. That is specifically stated in the original nationalisation Measures. But what happens? The electricity industry, far from consuming additional quantities of this small coal, is allowed to bring into the country enormous quantities of oil, bought with hard foreign currency, and
64
to the detriment of our balance of payments, and at the same time that the National Coal Board has got at least £80 million worth of capital locked up all because the Minister of Power refuses to carry the policy of co-ordination to the extent which was visualised and hoped for when the original nationalisation Acts were passed.
I can mention another example of the lack of co-ordination. Dr. Beeching has been charged by the Government with making British Railways pay. We know what that means in Scotland. If Dr. Beeching looks as he is now looking at the Scottish railways and applies to them an exclusively commercial test we shall have a least one-third of the railway system in Scotland closing down—at least one-third. Dr. Beeching has stated quite specifically, as, indeed, has Lord Robens on behalf of the Coal Board, that when they close coal mines or when they close railways the social consequences of those actions are not their responsibility. So we are going to get Dr. Beeching closing down railways, which will mean a diminution in the quality of the transport system of Scotland, and that again will jeopardise the policy of the Board of Trade and of the Secretary of State for Scotland of attracting new industry into Scotland. One of the first questions an industrialist, a would-be developer making his inquiries, asks is, What is the transport system like? Then the Government have got to say to him, "We have reduced the transport system, we have instructed Dr. Beeching to close the railways".
On this very point of co-ordination I would ask what co-ordination was there, what discussion was there, between the Home Secretary, the Home Department of the Scottish Office, and Dr. Beeching when the Government drew up their plans for the evacuation of the civilian population in the event of nuclear war? That population presumably will be evacuated to outlandish rural areas, and it is in those very areas that the railways are going to be closed by Dr. Beeching. Unless the Government intend by road to evacuate these people, millions of them, out of the industrial centres, I do not see how they can possibly get them out. It would be very interesting to know what discussions there were between the Home Departments north

65
and south of the Border and Dr. Beeching before he embarked on his rampages on British Railways.
Now let me refer to the question of co-ordination between the Minister of Aviation and the Board of Trade. Not many weeks ago—only a fortnight ago, I think it was—we had a very strong deputation to the Minister of Aviation on the rundown in the Rolls-Royce establishments in the west of Scotland, the only part of the aircraft industry in Scotland. Of course, we got any amount of sympathy from the Minister of Aviation, but, nevertheless, he said that this had to happen, and the chances are that before very long hundreds of men will be on their way from the west of Scotland to south of the Border. This is at a time when the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and everybody who is conversant with this problem say that this is the kind of industry that we have to sustain and increase in Scotland. There is not very much evidence of co-ordination in that respect.
We are to have shortly some long, arduous debates on the Finance Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking, and has taken, measures, first, to boost the economy when we are in danger of being in a deflationary spiral and then to damp it down if there is an inflationary tendency. These measures are applied generally. Our complaint is that when there is an inflationary tendency in London and the Midlands, it does not necessarily follow that the same tendency applies in Scotland and, therefore, the measures that the Government take are not only irrelevant in Scotland, but are very damaging.
We shall seek during the course of the Finance Bill to move either Amendments or new Clauses to emphasise the need for discriminatory action in favour of Scotland. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Toothill Committee, with whose recommendations we do not always agree, has had pertinent remarks to make on this point that the Government must be more discriminatory in regard to the Scottish economy. The Coal Board, as I am reminded, is being extremely selective, but in the wrong way for Scotland. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be discriminatory in the right way, in view of all the facts with which everybody is
66
conversant, Scottish economy would be in a much healthier state than it is today.
I want to refer to another aspect of this, in my constituency, which concerns two Government Departments—the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. I refer to the former Royal Navy aircraft repair yard at Donibristle. The Navy evacuated this site three years ago. It is a wonderful site, with all the facilities for industrial development. The Board of Trade, whenever I have asked a question about this site, have stated, "We are trying to direct some industry in." But I believe that there are squabbles and differences between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade about this site. This has been going on for three years. We have had to suffer from unemployment and lack of alternative industry while the two Departments settle their differences as to the future of this site. This is becoming more pressing now that we know that almost every coal mine in that area is to close within the next five years.
This is a very real problem in Scotland and I have very inadequately expressed it. We shall have greater opportunity in the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow and subsequently before the Summer Recess. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the great problem that we have in Scotland, and the very real need for the kind of co-ordination which the hon. Lady did not talk about. She missed a great opportunity and I very much regret it.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. F. V. Corfield: Like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in the wide field that she has covered. My main concern in this context is in the sphere of town and country planning, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). I should, however, like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth on two points which she made, and which, I think, do involve some question of co-ordination or lack of co-ordination.

67
The first is that of income policy. I would emphasise that, although I fully agree with the general proposition that it must be right to endeavour to keep increases in income in line with increases in productivity, the corollary must be some sort of machinery to ensure that something is always left over for those who are not backed by a strong industrial union and who are unable not only to keep pace, but in certain circumstances—the nurses are an obvious case—are unable to move up the ladder relative to the rest of the community.
A nurse in my constituency, who was talking to me on Friday, goes as a part-time nurse to take over an old person's home as matron. When she goes there on Sundays she gets about 6s. an hour but, owing to the domestic staff getting double time on Sundays, the people who come in to wash the floor get 7s. or thereabouts an hour. I cannot see how it is any less hardship for this nursing constituent of mine to give up her Sundays, when her husband is at home, than it is for the people who scrub the floors.
This is an anomaly. If nurses' pay is adequate, as the Minister of Health maintains, there is something very wrong about the standard of pay to the people who scrub the floors. The Government cannot have it both ways. If this is due to a lack of co-ordination between those who decide one rate of pay and those who decide the other, it is a good example of the mess we get ourselves into when there is insufficient co-ordination and co-operation.
I believe that it is in this question whether or not we can provide this machinery to see that people do not get left behind that the Government's income policy will stand or fall. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is very little evidence that the Government have ever established such machinery, or the form that that machinery should take. Whether or not they have it now, I agree with her that there was no evidence at all that they had it at the time they introduced that policy, and that this is an apposite time at which to think about it.
Another matter is one in which perhaps I ought to declare an interest. It concerns the question of Service widows,
68
and as a former Regular soldier myself and the son of a Regular soldier, I have an interest in it. The Service widows discriminated against are not the widows of present serving soldiers, but the widows of those who served, by and large, before the First World War and between the two wars, covering in most cases both wars.
They served at a time when stationed away from their wives and they had to serve in almost every climate in the world. The climate often enforced prolonged separation between the husband and his wife and children. This was in the days long before the Government thought about allowances for education or for travelling backwards and forwards, and long before there was air conditioning and the welfare services of the Army fell on those service wives who are now widows.
Whenever I have taken this up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whether it is lack of co-ordination with the War Office, I do not know—the has told me that it is quite impossible to differentiate between those people and the widows of other people in the home Services. They are people living in entirely different circumstances. If we are to differentiate between Service widows at all, it would be more sensible to differentiate against the younger widows whose husbands have served in much more comfortable conditions than against the older ones.
This is a most ludicrous differentiation. It is quite absurd to say that there is no means of differentiating between these people and those within the Colonial Service, and the like, on the one hand and those people on the other hand whose wives or husbands never lived outside the Greater London area.
To return to the matter of planning, the points which I wish to make run parallel to some extent with those already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. Planning in its simplest sense is about land, and because one of the greatest if not the greatest pressures on land is for land for housing, planning is largely concerned with finding land for housing. But it is not the least bit of good finding land for houses except where people want to live, and what dictates where they wish to live or have to live is the location of

69
industry. The precise place where they can live is dictated by the pattern of communications to get to and from residential areas and places of work. Similarly, new factories inevitably have to follow lines of communications because it is no good putting up factories if there are no roads for the carriage of raw materials and for access to markets.
Similarly, when we build motor roads these largely follow the line of existing centres of industry. These are entirely outside the influence of the Minister who is responsible for planning. They are the responsibility of the Board of Trade, on the one hand, and of the Minister of Transport on the other. But when we are told, as we have been told from time to time, that there is the closest co-operation, the difficulty in matters of this sort is that if we are to obtain the confidence of the public that there is this co-operation, it must be seen to exist. The appearance that it exists is very often as important in these matters as the fact that it exists.
There are certainly occasions where it is quite apparent that the co-ordination between Government Departments is noticeable only by its complete absence. Here again, like hon. Members who have spoken before me, I refer to a constituency case, for the simple reason that it is the one I know best. I am concerned with the proposed route of the M.4 motorway. Here we have a road which, it is the almost unanimous opinion of all the people who are concerned with planning, represents bad planning.
We have the statement to that effect of the county planning officer. We have the evidence to that effect of his assistant, the area planning officer, given at the public inquiry into the review of the Gloucestershire Development Plan, and we have the findings of the inspector who held the inquiry. But the Minister of Transport has dismissed these expressions of opinion entirely. He has said in the one case that they are merely personal opinions and that he does not regard them as authoritative and he feels under no obligation to refute any such chance remark. This is at the same time as he is impressing on people, and particularly on local authorities, the necessity of making their objections known well in advance and to take such
70
opportunities of doing so as were afforded by the Gloucestershire Development Plan Review Inquiry so as not to hold up the building of the motorway.
While the Minister was doing this he had before him the inspector's report which said:
"The alignment of this section of the proposed motorway will, I understand, be the subject of a Ministry of Transport inquiry very soon and I make no recommendation on it. But I am without doubt that the present alignment is unsatisfactory in relation to existing residential development."
The inspector also said:
"One of the main purposes of planning is to protect the irresponsible or ignorant public from its own actions. But in this instance the planning authority themselves admit that had they known earlier the character motorways would take they would not have permitted their development. Surely then the public could not be expected to know what was in store and is, therefore, more to be commiserated with and helped rather than blamed for its lack of vision."
The Minister, without disclosing that that report was on his desk, is castigating people for not having made more use of planning inquiries so as to save time. In fact, the correct time for making objections is when the order is published and before the official time for putting in objections under the Highway Act has lapsed.
If this sort of thing happens it is bound to undermine the confidence of the public not merely in Ministry of Transport inquiries but in all efforts that the Government have made in appointing the Franks Committee and broadly accepting its recommendations, in passing the Tribunals and Inquiries Act and setting up the Council on Tribunals, and in all the vigilance which hon. Members show when they feel that something goes wrong under the planning structure, such as in the Essex chalkpit case.
We have a situation which looks very much as if the Minister of Transport has not been here when these things have been going on and the Minister is adopting a view which is quite different from that laid down for the Government generally. His attitude appears to be based on the supposition that the Act requires him to consider objections after the publication of a scheme but to hold an inquiry only if the objection comes from a local authority. The Parliamentary Secretary has made it quite clear in an Adjournment debate that this is his conception of his duties. But this is not what the Act says.

71
The relevant provision in the First Schedule of the Highways Act, 1959, makes it quite clear that where an objection is received
"… the Minister shall cause a local inquiry to be held … except …"
and it gives certain circumstances in which, if the objector is not a local authority, an inquiry may be dispensed with. It is clear that Parliament intended that a public inquiry should be general and that dispensing with it should be exceptional, but the Minister of Transport has made it clear that he intends that it should be the other way round. The Minister has gone almost as far as to say that he will use this procedure as seldom as possible and will take remarkably little notice of it when an inquiry is held. That is very nearly what is on the record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House.
I regard this as a serious state of affairs. If it is true that public inquiries, or the possibility of having them, produce an obstacle to getting on with the road programme, the Minister of Transport should ask the House to look at the Act with a view to amending it. I should take a long time to be convinced that that would be justified, but the present way is the wrong way of doing it—leaving things on the Statute Book and then misinterpreting them and saying, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that public inquiries were never intended for this sort of thing. It is precisely for this that public inquiries are required. For the Minister of Transport to give his interpretation of what he thinks Parliament meant when it passed the original Act, quite irrespective of the words used, which are quite different; is a grave constitutional departure. It is one which the House would be failing in its duty if it did not face and if it did not ensure that the Minister kept not only to the letter of the law, but to its spirit as well.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. R. E. Prentice: I have been fascinated by the three speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite. They have been speaking to a Motion about co-ordination between Government Departments. Between them, they have said hardly anything about co-ordination. They
72
have launched severe attacks on their own Government about a wide variety of subjects.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that she was horrified by the Government's attitude towards pensioners. She said that she was horrified by their attitude towards cuts in education. She said that she was horrified by their attitude towards the ratepayers and that she was horrified by their chaotic attitude towards economic planning. I lost count of the number of times the hon. Lady used the word "horrified". She launched an attack on several of her right hon. Friends in language which I thought was most appropriate and to be welcomed but which had very little to do with co-ordination.
The hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) spoke rather more mildly, but their speeches boiled down to attacks on the Government's town planning policy, nurses' pay, Service pensions, and so on. The two hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Lady laboured away at many themes which we on this side of the House have hammered at for a very long time. We welcome their support, and we hope to welcome it in the Division Lobby when we raise these subjects, as we shall, in more appropriate form during the coming weeks. The logic of their speeches is that what is needed is not so much co-ordination between Government Departments as a change of Government. That is what they were saying, even though they may not have intended to do so.
I intend to be less controversial than hon. Members opposite and to make a few remarks about co-ordination between Government Departments. It would be a truism to say that, as Government becomes a more and more complicated affair and as the society in which we live undergoes more and more rapid change, the old Departmental divisions within Government tend to become out of date and raise serious problems of co-ordination. I shall identify three points which seem to me to be important points of friction about which there is need for serious constructive thinking. First, I shall say something about the way in which the Government

73
appears to the ordinary citizen with a problem who wants to go along to a local office and is not quite sure which one will deal with it.
In every one of our major communities we have local offices of the Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the National Assistance Board, the Ministry of Labour, and so forth. A great many people get very confused about the dividing lines between their responsibilities, particularly as those responsibilities often overlap. For example, the Ministry of Labour pays out unemployment benefit which is an integral part of the National Insurance scheme. One could give many more examples.
This situation has three lessons for any Government looking at the problem. One is that a great deal has to be done about the training of civil servants who deal with the public so that they not only know their own Department but are at least aware of the outline of the work of other Departments which may overlap or come very close to the work of their own. A great deal has been done along these lines. During the last two years, I myself have been invited to lecture to training courses within the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for executive grades in that Department and I have been impressed by the extent to which the managers of local Ministry offices appreciate this sort of problem. But often there are gaps here, and I think that the situation requires intensive and imaginative training of those who deal with the public.
Second, we should aim, as far as possible, at grouping in one centre local offices of Departments which deal with the public. This is something which has been done in some new towns and elsewhere. It is easier to say than to do in relation to older communities, for obvious reasons, but I think that we should aim at a situation where there is some sort of centre in which may be found in close proximity the local offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the employment exchange, the National Assistance Board, and so on, with, I suggest, an inquiry desk—a sort of Government-organised advice bureau—to which people can go with their inquiries and be sent to the right officials.
74
Third, I think that the situation requires that we should consider the merger of some of these Departments. One obvious example, which we on this side have argued for more than once, is the merging of the National Assistance Board into the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. There are several reasons for this, not only the reason that confusion arises, as I have suggested, but also that, if Assistance payments were made from within the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and made, preferably, in the same room to which people go about pensions matters, this would remove part of the psychological barrier which prevents some pensioners from applying for supplementary assistance from the National Assistance Board.
We have learned in recent surveys in more than one part of the country—it seems to be a general pattern—that for every two retirement pensioners drawing supplementary benefit from the Assistance Board there is another one who is entitled to a supplement of that sort but who does not apply for it either because he is unaware of his rights or, more probably, because he is too proud to go and apply. I think that a great deal of hard thinking should be applied to this matter to find a way of removing that psychological barrier. If the Assistance Board were part of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, this would be a help.
Mr. Paul Williams: In his suggestions about the merger of Ministries, would the hon. Gentleman go a stage further and say that there is a possibility of this being considered also in relation to the payment of family allowances and other forms of assistance and pension as well?
Mr. Prentice: I think that that is a reasonable suggestion. I should have thought that what was required was, as it were, a Ministry of Social Welfare which would take over a great many of these functions.
The second point I identify is the need for co-ordination between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education. Here, I welcome the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and what he said about industrial safety

75
and industrial diseases. I shall not follow him there except to say that I worked for some years as a member of the staff of a large trade union on the problem of people injured at work, and I believe that this matter demands a lot more public attention than it receives. A great deal of publicity is given to the amount of time lost in industrial disputes in this country, but, on the average, we lose seven times as many working hours by industrial accidents than we do by industrial disputes. More people are injured in industry every year than are injured on the roads. These things should be better known than they are. There are serious problems involved, and I thought that my hon. Friend made a very valuable speech on the matter.
I wish to emphasise, in relation to these two Ministries, the problem of industrial training. There has been a classical division, which has been accepted by all Governments for a very long time, by which technical training in technical colleges is considered a matter for the local authorities and for the Ministry of Education, but apprenticeship and training of that kind is considered a matter for industry and, therefore, so far as there is any Ministerial responsibility at all, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, a responsibility which, in my view, is not pursued actively enough. I think that there should be a much more positive policy on his part. However, I shall not go into that now.
The point I make is that as industry develops, and as changes in industry become more rapid, a much greater part of industrial training must take the form of formal training in technical colleges. In France, at the present time, an apprentice in industry spends about half his training period in training colleges organised by the State. In my view, we should move towards something like that. I do not say that one should be dogmatic about the actual proportion of time, but we should regard industrial training partly as an introduction to a job, but partly, also, as an extension of education. We should regard it far more as training and far less as simply serving one's time at a skilled trade. To achieve this end, we shall have to overcome a lot of conservatism on both sides of industry, and, particularly, the
76
Government themselves ought to give a more positive lead.
This applies not only to the training of the traditional craftsman, but to the training of the semi-skilled worker and workers of all kinds who, I believe, should be receiving in their early years at work a good deal of formal education. This ties up with the concept of county colleges, which was written into the 1944 Education Act, but never implemented, so that, in fact, the transition from full-time education to full-time employment can be something done by stages in which people move, as it were, from one to the other and education is not something just cut off on the day they leave school. Again, that is something on which a lot of planning should be taking place between the two Departments concerned.
Thirdly, and lastly, a sphere in which a great deal more co-ordination is needed is in aid from this country to underdeveloped parts of the world. Last summer, we passed the Act which set up the Department for Technical Co-operation. I spent the early part of this afternoon reading the Report, recently produced as a White Paper, of that new Department. As far as it goes, it is a good Report, but, like many of my hon. Friends, I regret that that Department is responsible for technical assistance only and not for capital aid from this country to under-developed countries.
Whereas this new Department has taken over certain functions from the Colonial Office, Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office, it has not taken over relationships with the specialised agencies of the United Nations, which are still maintained by a number of other Departments. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still maintains our relations with the F.A.O., the Ministry of Education with U.N.E.S.C.O., the Ministry of Labour with the I.L.O., and so on.
I am pleading for a much larger Department, with a Cabinet Minister at the head, responsible for all our relations with the under-developed parts of the world and for capital assistance and technical assistance, because I believe that a Department of that nature with a Minister of that nature would give the sort of drive which is required. Last autumn, the Government voted for the

77
concept of a "United Nations Development Decade" at the General Assembly of the United Nations. They therefore voted as being in favour of a tremendous expansion of aid from the richer parts of the world to the under-developed parts with the object of doubling their present rate of growth by 1970. This demands a much bigger and more imaginative effort. It is relevant to the Motion in that we want a senior member of the Government with a high-powered Department organising the whole and not merely parts of the programme.
I realise that I have made a stab at three very wide subjects, each of which could have been debated at much greater length. What I have been saying comes to this. We are living in a period when the whole machinery of Government needs to be adapted to rapidly changing situations. We in this country suffer from too much conservatism—with a small "c" as well as with a capital "C". We have administrative conservatisms in Departments in Whitehall. We have had too much of that for far too long. I take the stand that we have to move against both sorts of conservatism. Taking the Motion literally, I think that it should have been directed more against conservatism with a small "c". I say this without wishing to be disparaging in any way, but obviously there are people in Whitehall with vested interests—quite legitimate ones—as there are in many walks of life.
It is difficult to make overdue reforms in the organisation of Departments, yet we need to do it. We need a fresher approach to our problems and to match our administrative machinery to the revolutionary age in which we live. We also need a Government with a policy which matches up to that age. I do not believe that these changes or other desirable changes will be made until we have a Government in power which approaches these problems with a modern outlook.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) made three extremely constructive and practical suggestions for better co-ordination between Departments. I wish to take a few minutes in asking the Leader of the House to deal with one question:
78
why is there not a co-ordinator of the Government information services? Until last year, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government was responsible for the Government information services, and, although a number of criticisms could be made in detail of our information services at home and abroad, we must agree that they were considerably expanded during the period that he was responsible for them. He was a senior Minister in the Cabinet and his responsibilities were clearly defined.
Since then, for no reason which has been given to the House, that responsibility has been broken up. We now have a quite different situation. The Minister of Housing is still partly responsible for Government information services at home, but Government information services abroad have been made the responsibility of the Secretary for Technical Co-operation. In addition, this year, responsibility for co-ordinating Government information services at home has been further divided. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has been given a share in the responsibility.
The present position, therefore, is that three Ministers are responsible for co-ordinating Government information services. If we want a Minister to reply in the House about information services in foreign countries, the Lord Privy Seal answers. If we want a Minister to reply about information services in the Colonies, the Colonial Secretary replies. If we want a reply about information services in a Commonwealth country, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations replies. If we want a reply on overseas trade publicity, the President of the Board of Trade replies. If we want a reply on the co-ordination of overseas information, the Secretary for Technical Co-operation replies.
If we want to ask a Question about home information services, we ask whichever Minister is responsible. We can ask the Secretary of State for War about recruiting publicity or we can ask the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who has been given some responsibilities for co-ordinating home information. We we can ask the Minister of Housing, who is also responsible for co-ordinating home information. If we want to ask a question about the Central Office of Information, which serves everybody, we

79
ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, not the Economic Secretary. Do not let us get muddled about that. For some reason, we table a Question to the Financial Secretary.
I ask the Leader of the House: what possible reason is there for this nonsense? Why have we not been given a reason for these changes? He may say, "What practical difference does it make?" If he does, let me give him one or two instances. When a Minister of Cabinet rank was responsible for our information services, they expanded. But the moment that that Minister loses his job, now that no Cabinet Minister is responsible, for the first time for several years expenditure on overseas information is cut. I do not think that it is the wish of the House that it should be cut. I am sure that many hon. Members opposite will agree that the time is not appropriate for Britain's voice overseas to be stifled. On the contrary, there is a very good case for expanding the work of the B.B.C.'s overseas services. A great deal of its work should be expanded, but in the Cabinet the Chancellor of the Exchequer now has everything on his side. There is no one in the Cabinet to take the case for the information services as a whole. The result is a cut in our overall budget on information services.
That is the general result of the lack of co-ordination, but if we consider the detail of it more carefully we find instances of specific muddles which take place. I give one instance relating to the teaching of English overseas by television. It may sound quite a small thing, but in the years ahead it is capable of developing into a vitally important and useful function of British overseas information. All over the world television services are developing, sometimes in quite backward countries where one would think that television could not be afforded.
If this country had, as it could have got, a series of first-class films for showing on television for the teaching of English in a practical manner, this would not only represent a gigantic commercial market but it would be an enormous means of spreading knowledge of Britain, and good will towards Britain, in countries where that is badly needed.
80
There is a tremendous demand for this kind of material.
Recently, same broadcasters came here from Indonesia under the auspices of the Central Office of Information. They told us how they wanted and were looking for that kind of programme for radio and for television. I have talked recently to a broadcasting director from Thailand, who said the same thing to me. He asked why we have not developed in this way. The simple answer is that no one has known who was responsible for the job in this country. Some people say that the B.B.C. should do it and others the C.O.I., and some people say that the British Council should do it. The whole chain of responsibility has been unclear. As a result, patently nothing has been done. Three or four years have been totally wasted and we have been overtaken by the United States of America, even though the countries concerned would far rather get their English-speaking material from Britain than from America.
I put those two small points to the Leader of the House to show that there is need for a single Minister of Cabinet rank to speak for the information services as a whole, to stand up to the Treasury against the cuts and to ensure that the kind of muddle of which I have given an example does not continue. I hope very much that if the Leader of the House cannot reply to these simple but important points this evening, he will make sure that the matter is properly taken up and the situation rectified.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Walker: We are grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who has launched a debate in which the Government have come under heavy fire and in which a number of knowledgeable and constructive speeches have been made. The hon. Lady put us in a dilemma, namely, whether to follow her in her speech, which was critical enough, or to follow her in the terms of her Motion, which were even more critical. The two things were not related one to the other.
I admired the skill with which the hon. Lady used the device of the Motion to let loose on her Front Bench colleagues many of the bees that are

81
buzzing about in her bonnet and with which she set forth to sting them, sometimes with effect. When the hon. Lady started praising some of her colleagues, I knew that we were in for some fairly slashing attacks.
Preliminary personal praise from the hon. Lady is dangerous music. She lashed many Ministers and she attacked the pay pause, quite rightly pointing out that it should have been thought out before rather than after it had been adopted as a policy. The hon. Lady thought that there was no policy for economic growth, she said that the Government had broken their election pledges and she threw interesting light on the way in which Tory Party conferences are managed by means of less objectionable motions being chosen in some way by the Establishment. I hope that on some other occasion, the hon. Lady will tell us exactly how that is done.
Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how his party does it?
Mr. Gordon Walker: We do not do it. Our motions are not picked in that way. I understand that in the case of the party apposite, it is done by some sort of self-appointed body at the top which picks them out and puts stars against them.
The hon. Lady raised a number of important human and constituency questions. She started a debate in which a number of hon. Members have made extremely important points, to which, I hope, the Leader of the House will reply or, at least, will take note of those on which he has not been able to discover the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) made some points about accidents at work and a number of important suggestions. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) showed the lamentable lack of co-ordination in regard to the economic development of Scotland, where, as far as one can see, the Ministry of Power and the Board of Trade are in direct conflict one with another, much to the loss and damage of Scotland.
The hon. Lady was speaking to a Motion which raises important questions in highly critical terms, almost in terms
82
of a Motion of censure. It raises a number of extremely important matters that go to the root of our administrative problems, including the whole question of whether we can get better co-ordination of Government. This raises two sets of problems. One are those which are related to the sheer organisation of Departments, and so on, and the others relate to questions where the real trouble is defect of policy, because mismanagement and muddle can flow from either or, sometimes, both of these things.
The organisation of Government raises grave problems, because any Government today operates under immense strain. This comes primarily from the fact that Ministries are overworked. I do not think that anyone works as hard as Ministers, even Conservative Ministers. Ministers of the Crown have to work extremely hard. Of course, they do not work for the whole of their working life; they get a rest from time to time when the electors allow them to have one. Some Administrations tire more quickly than others. There is no question that the present Administration, as the hon. Lady showed with a lot of detail, is a weary, worn-out Government which after ten years of being in office still produces the sort of problems that she attacked.
The hon. Lady said that she thought that Conservatives could solve these problems best, but if she considers that they still exist after ten years of Tory Government, I am not sure that she can logically sustain that position. Nevertheless, I understand her saying it in that pleasant overture before she opened her real attack.
I do not believe that there are any tricks that can get us out of the difficulty of an overworked Administration. The present Government have tried a number, including overlordship, double-banking and tricks of that kind. They do not really solve the problem. They often make it worse by multiplying the committees and the co-ordination that has to be achieved. The truth is that with our system of Government, we cannot get away from the central feature of it—that is, Cabinet Government.
Ministers are responsible to Parliament and are collectively responsible as well as responsible for their Departments. If we insist, as we should, on

83
that type of Government, it involves a great deal of work. Some of the experiments which are being tried are extremely dangerous—for example, the idea that it is a good thing to have the Foreign Secretary in another place because it is more comfortable and there is less to do and it is a more affable and amiable place.
I have heard hon. Members opposite say that this is a principle which should be carried further. It is a most dangerous one and a great breach of our constitutional conventions. The House of Commons is the sovereign Chamber which is responsible to the people and all important Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, should sit here and be responsible to us. We continuously resent this, we regard it as a dangerous innovation, and we want it to be brought to an end.
In the main, the double-banking arrangement suffers from the same defects as the overlord system in leading to lack of co-ordination and to jealousies and confusions among Ministers. Nobody knows quite where the channel of responsibility to Parliament lies if there is some sort of double-banking or overlord Ministers alongside Departmental ones.
There is, however, one case for double-banking which is good and which has been carried out and is right: that is, in the case of the Treasury. The Treasury has two completely different kinds of work to do. One is related to Supply and Government expenditure and the other to planning. It seems perfectly proper that these two should be divided. They are most important and easily distinguishable. The rest of the double-banking, however, seems to be nonsense and should be abandoned. This seems to be sensible. It is better to have this distinction between responsibility for Government supply and expenditure, on the one hand, and responsibility for planning, on the other, especially if one has a Government which believes in planning. In any case, it is a good idea.
Planning, about which a number of hon. Members have spoken, is not only a matter of organising government and of organisation. One needs the will to plan, which is lacking with the present
84
Government. One needs the will to create an atmosphere which makes democratic planning possible. It is an atmosphere which can be created only if there is a feeling in the country that the Government are trying to create greater social equality, not less.
The planning must be revelant. We have had very important speeches from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) on one aspect of planning which underlies practically everything else, because it concerns the ground on which things can be built and done, particularly urban land the prices of which are going up very high.
I did not agree with what the hon. Member for Wokingham said, although I was very interested. It seemed to me that he missed the essential point here, namely, that if one has town planning with green belts, zoning and the rest, one is artificially restricting the amount of land available for building—deliberately restricting it by public act—and the prices go up if one does that but nothing else. We have to face here that we either abandon town planning and let people build anywhere, or, if we keep town planning, we must artificially restrict the market, and then we must do something about the price of urban land or it will skyrocket.
I agree with the hon. Member when he says that this is not an easy, simple thing to do. Nobody thinks that. But I believe that we can do it with the sort of proposals—ours are only broad ones—that we put forward with respect to the Land Commission, which would pay something in order to make it worth people's while to sell. That has to be done. This would canalise some of the great artificial profit which comes from urban land because of town planning, which artificially restricts the amount of land. It would channel some of the artificial price to the community, including local authority areas.
This is one of the ways in which we could help with rates. The hon. Lady made a very important point there. The burden of rates is getting very heavy indeed. Some of the money which the Land Commission could channel off from very high urban prices could be paid to local authorities—not from the central Government, for that has certain

85
dangers because control goes with it, but the Land Commission would have no means of controlling local authority policy. At any rate, we cannot stand still now and say that it is human nature and that people will get round these things. We have created this problem by town planning, and we must face the further consequences of it.
One of the essential things to grasp in this problem of the co-ordination of Government and the great strain on Ministers, Departments and civil servants is that one must have a small Cabinet. It is one part of the problem. If one has a Cabinet which is too big, there is too much co-ordination to do and too much time is spent upon it. One must have a relatively small Cabinet. I do not suppose we shall ever get back to the Cabinet of ten or twelve members suggested by Haldane in his report in 1918, but we ought to have a smaller Cabinet.
Also, we ought not to have in that Cabinet many Ministers without portfolio who have all these co-ordinating and supervisory duties. It is better to have Ministers to look after the Departments and reorganise them, having some of the Departments bigger, with a wider and more sensible sphere of activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has been talking about how this could be done in the field of Government information.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) put forward a very important and sensible proposal, the idea of a Minister of Social Welfare who would look after all those things which impinge upon the human being. One of the troubles of government to which I do not think we have given sufficient thought is that we have to departmentalise administration for the sheer possibility of administration. If one does not departmentalise between Ministries, and so forth, one will not be able to administer at the top at all. But down at the bottom all the administration is designed to serve indivisible persons, and we do not reunite at the bottom the endless activities that we set off at the top so as not to bewilder persons who do not have to be departmentalised, but are concerned with human things. We have not given enough thought to this. We have not
86
remerged together all the trends and flows of administration which impinge on the human being. The proposal put forward by my hon. Friend is one very important way of achieving at any rate a very considerable part of this.
I think that we could save a very great deal of the strain of government and also achieve something which ought to be achieved if we reorganised the Ministry of Defence and our defence Services radically. I realise that there are problems—such as problems of loyalties—here; and there are also the actual differences between the Services. I do not want to see a single co-ordinated Service, but I should like to see one Minister and one Ministry looking after the three Services. I cannot see why we should not have a Minister of Defence with a Ministry of Defence responsible for the three or, if we count the Royal Marines, four Armed Services.
We could then have a Minister of Defence alone within the Cabinet, and we could also have Ministers, not, as now, Secretaries of State responsible for particular services, but responsible for the great broad activities—supply, getting weapons, recruitment; four or five of the very important things which are common to the Services. We could then question Ministers on those subjects. At the moment, we cannot raise such questions in the House because of the way each Services is organised.
As a result of this—this is extremely important—we could have one accounting officer responsible to Parliament instead of three or four officers as we have now. If we had one accounting officer responsible to Parliament for military expenditure it would make a very much greater reality of the answerability of the Services to Parliament for their expenditure.
One can give great thought to these matters concerning how to co-ordinate and improve our system of government—I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling her Motion, even if she did not speak very closely to it—but in the end there is no substitute for a harmonious Government, for a fresh and vigorous Government and for one that pursues right policies.
One can co-ordinate and organise as well as one likes, but if one has a weary,

87
tired, disunited, compromising Government one will not get good government. Much of the present lack of effective co-ordination, about which the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have spoken, is due not to bad co-ordination, but to wrong and defective policies.
The Ministry of Power is an example of this. It is bad because it has not a fuel and power policy. Indeed, it boasts about not having one. The hon. Lady rightly points out in her Motion that co-ordination inside Departments is as important as co-ordination between Departments. The Ministry of Power is a wonderful example of a Ministry which has no policy and, therefore, no co-ordination at all.
Transport is much the same. One cannot begin to have a proper transport policy unless one can co-ordinate road haulage and railways together. What has happened here is not through lack of co-ordination. It has happened because the Government have the wrong policy in this case. Many of our troubles, including some referred to by the hon. Lady, flow from this defective policy.
Although I have said one or two things about the hon. Lady which were not altogether favourable, I am glad that she has raised this matter. She has pointed out that the Government are pretty well at sea. Her Motion is wide-ranging and hostile. In terms, it expresses lack of confidence in the Government. It says that
"in the opinion of this House, the country would be better governed"—
therefore, it is not well governed—
"and happier"—
therefore, it is rather unhappy—
"and more injustices and inequalities eliminated"—
which means that there are unnecessary injustices and inequalities—
"if there was greater co-ordination …"
This is, therefore, a Motion of censure. If I were sitting where the Leader of the House is sitting, and looking after the debate, I would resist a Motion in these terms. I, of course, support it. I hope that the hon. Lady will take the matter to a Division, if necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Motion we
88
shall regard it as a great victory—as a unanimous vote of censure on the Government.
6.31 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I hope that hon. Members will not resent it if I say that I could have done with a little co-ordination in the speeches to which we have listened during the last three hours. I shall do my best to answer each speech, taking them in turn. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) did his best to argue that the Motion was a hostile one, but he knows that I will accept it. Even if we were angels and Ministers of grace I dare say that the "Noes" Lobby would collect a few Members in defiance of that proposition. I cannot believe that co-ordination cannot be improved. If my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) thinks that the country would be happier with greater co-ordination it is pleasant for me to be able to start in agreement with her.
I shall try to answer all the points that have been raised, although I know that the House will realise that it will be difficult, because the majority have been raised without notice, and it is rather like answering a series of Adjournment debates with an impromptu speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth started with some points of which she did give me notice—for which I am grateful—concerning Whitley Bay.
First, there is the question of access to the new secondary school being built there. She cites this as an instance of bad co-ordination between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Education. Her case is that these matters should have been settled before the construction was approved. To me that is nothing like so important as getting the matter settled before the school is open, which will happen next year. We have every confidence that the matter will be settled by then.
Three years ago the Minister of Education dropped the requirement that proposals to acquire new sites for schools should be submitted for his approval. This was part of a move, of which I am sure we all approve in general, giving local authorities greater

89
freedom to manage their own affairs. In general the move has proved to be justified, and whatever the case of my hon. Friend may be in this instance it would not be right, because of one difficult case, to go back upon that policy which I am sure is right, especially when the difficulty to which she has referred will be resolved.
Nor did I think that she was on a good point when she complained about the expenditure—which comes to about £20,000, which is not extravagant, and is in fact within the ordinary allocation for minor works—on the provision of a hall at the further education college at Whitley Bay. These colleges have about 150 full-time students and about 200 students attending evening classes, and it is of great importance to provide some place where there can be large gatherings of students, for lectures, concerts and physical education. It is very important that the college should have a focal point, as it were, where these people can come together. Having been able to consider the case quite dispassionately, I can say that I regard this as a good and wise expenditure of money.
On the other small points about education that my hon. Friend raised—the question of the improvement of old schools, earth closets, and blinds used in schools—she has put down Questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. As she knows, my right hon. Friend has recently announced that a comprehensive survey of maintained schools will be conducted this year. This will give us a fairly precise and up-to-date picture—and we need it—of the deficiencies of existing premises and the estimated cost of remedying them.
Her next main point concerned differential rates. Our traditional rating system has its imperfections; no one would deny that. On 2nd March this year the House spent a considerable time, in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), in going into this matter. But the more one studies the problem the more one is driven to the conclusion that the only reasonable alternative to our existing rating system is something like a local Income Tax. This proposal is by no means new; it is always introduced when we consider the matter,
90
which is one reason why I doubt whether we need an inquiry. This proposal was produced by the Royal Institute of Public Administration—I believe it was in 1957—and its main recommendation was for a local Income Tax from which companies would be exempted, and which would be operated without allowances. If my hon. Friend will reflect on this I believe that she will find that the very people that she cares about most would be the hardest hit by precisely such a proposal.
I would also remind the House of a very important point made at Question Time a little while ago. In response to a Question from the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), concerning the effect of the recent local authority rate increases, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said that the National Assistance Board normally takes full account of rates in assessing the needs of householder recipients. These people are therefore, in general, unaffected by rate changes.
A small but important point was raised about fuel appliances in smokeless zones. About one in five of our old-age pensioners receive National Assistance, and only a minority of those live in smokeless zones. Only a few of those receive special assistance. But it is possible for the National Assistance Board to take this into account. It does so. A considerable number—I cannot give the precise number—of temporary payments are made if the need should arise while such a system is being operated. In connection with the wider field of allowances for fuel, the latest figures that I have been able to obtain, up to last November, show that the payment of extra allowances is involved in over 400,000 cases, the majority of whom are old people.
Another very important point raised by my hon. Friend, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), was the general question of all the payments made to public service pensioners, colonial pensioners and others. Pensions in the public service are related to length of service and salary at the time of retirement, and where they are contributory the contribution's are assessed accordingly. Once made, they are not normally

91
varied, although it is the common practice of good employers—and we like to think that the Government are good employers in these matters—to do what they can to help people who have been pensioned in the past.
I am bound to say that—although most of this has been done under Tory Governments I am not claiming it as a party point—I think we have lived up to this. Since the war there have been five Pensions (Increase) Acts, in 1947, 1952, 1954, 1956 and 1959. I am ready to give the figures since 1959. The retail price index since then has gone up by 8·1 per cent. With one exception, I think that is less than the amount by which it rose between any of the previous Acts. It is rather more, I think, than the increase between 1956 and 1959.
The question the Government have to decide—I have put this frequently when we have discussed business on Thursdays—is whether it would be right in these circumstances to bring forward a new Pensions Bill. All I can tell my hon. Friend is that we have watched very carefully this position in relation particularly to hardship, to the principles that have been established in the past, and to the movements in particular of the price index.
Dame Irene Ward: And the election.
Mr. Macleod: No, with respect, not to the election. This is a matter which does not come into those considerations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South made the particular point that there might be some lack of co-ordination here between the Treasury and the Service Departments. I assure him that that is not so. It is always terribly easy to blame the Treasury—we all do it from time to time—but the opinion that it is not right to make Forces' pensions an exception to the general principles which I enunciated a moment ago is not just the opinion of a Department or of a particular Government. We have always held that this view is right. I think I could also cite the Grigg Committee's Report in support because, although it had a number of critical things to say, it concluded in paragraph 205 that it would be wrong to isolate Service pensioners for special treatment from the body of State pen-
92
sioners generally. I believe that to be sound doctrine.
I make one point on the question in which I have always been enormously interested, for obvious reasons, the colonial pensioners. There is a Motion on the Order Paper on this. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has devoted himself to this subject, perhaps above all others, for many years with most admirable fidelity. The principles are well known. The view of the Government is that these pension payments are the responsibility of the successor Governments. That does not of course end the question by any means. It is nevertheless true, partly because of prodding from the Government, that something like two-thirds of all the pensioners concerned are receiving as much or more by way of pension increase as they would under United Kingdom legislation. Therefore, for most of these people it would not be an advantage for them to rely on the hardship provision, which is the basis of the pensions increase Measures to which I have referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth turned to the question of the National Economic Development Council and was critical of its membership. I shall make two quick points on that. It is not meant to represent special interests or sections of the community. To have attempted such representation would, I am certain, have landed us with a hopelessly unwieldy body. It is obviously not meant to discuss individual wage claims. As such it would have a very different composition. I am certain that the trade union members, the employers—and for that matter the Ministers—would shy very hard indeed from such a proposal.
Quite apart from the Ministers, there are independent members—Professor Phelps Brown and Lord Franks—men of great standing in this country who one is certain will, as all the members will, bring detached, impartial and brilliant minds to the problems which are in front of us. I quote one of the three objects of the Council, the second one given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"To consider together what are the obstacles to quicker growth, what can be done to improve efficiency, and whether the best use is being made of our resources."

93
If we can answer that and match what is needed with action from the Government, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth realises that no one would benefit more than the people to whom she is most devoted.
The last point in my hon. Friend's speech, after dealing with which I shall pass to answer points made by other hon. Members, was on the question of the nurses. On that subject I say only this. Everyone in the House longs to see this dispute settled. The offer of 2½ per cent. increase on salaries was made within the limitations imposed by the Government's incomes policy. I now answer one specific point, because we are to have a full debate on this matter. Arbitration is available, the arbitration of the Industrial Court. I was asked if it were genuine. Of course it is genuine. No one who knows anything about the Industrial Court can doubt that for a moment. As one who has been Minister of Labour and knows many of its members, its President, the independent members and the ordinary members. I can say this with real authority.
I turn to the fascinating speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who reminded me of one of the happiest experiences I have had in this House, particularly in Committee upstairs, when I piloted through the Factories Act. 1959. He asked about surveys. There have been no general surveys since the two to which he referred, the Halifax and the Potteries Surveys because the Industrial Health Advisory Council itself advised that general surveys would not discover new matters which had not been brought to light in one or other of the earlier ones, and that it was more important to inquire into specific topics.
As to co-ordination between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education, the best example one can give in this field is the way in which the inspectors of the two Departments keep in touch. In the technical schools and colleges the Ministry of Education does not conduct general investigations but it has circularised L.E.A.s about safety and safety training. The hon. Member's third, and in some ways most interesting, point was about bringing into the different forms of syllabus some study of aspects of safety in factories.
94
A good deal of work is done along those lines, including especially some of the courses mentioned by the hon. Member. The basic legal requirements in relation to safety are studied and there are "safety" questions in the examinations.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), referring particularly to the new town of Bracknell in his constituency, pointed to the need for co-ordination between the demands of housing and industry in an area which is very difficult from the point of view of the supply of labour and also where there is considerable pressure on housing, as there is elsewhere.
He was right to point out the formidable powers which we have, even though they are largely negative powers, by the refusal of an I.D.C., but there is a dilemma even in an area such as London. If the parent factory is there and the firm wishes to expand, and needs an I.D.C. to expand, of course we should prefer that expansion elsewhere, for example on Merseyside or in the North-East or in Scotland, but we cannot compel the firm to go there, because if we refuse permission in some of the congested areas, the development may not take place at all, and not only will that be a loss to Merseyside or Scotland, as the case may be, but the added wealth which would have been created will not be created.
This is a real dilemma which we always try to meet in the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour by steering expansion projects to those parts of the country in which there is a good supply of labour and by giving I.D.C. certificates only in the sort of circumstances which I have outlined. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is the closest co-ordination in this matter not just between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour, as one would expect, and with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on exactly the sort of point which he mentioned, but also with the various interested local bodies, in his case the regional controller of the Board of Trade, the Bracknell Development Corporation, the Bracknell Industrial Group and others.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) continued a discussion which took place at Question Time today.
Mr. Willis: Why not?
Mr. Macleod: I agree, why not? This was a perfect opportunity, and he took it. It was a discussion centring around some Questions put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. The hon. Member for Fife, West suggested certain flaws in the co-ordination which exists. With respect, I think that he is on the wrong point. The machinery for co-ordination, of course, exists—and here I come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Smethwick about machinery for co-ordinating these matters.
That is essentially the Cabinet itself. Most of the Ministers concerned with the points which he raised are involved in these discussions. In all these matters the Secretary of State for Scotland stresses the case for Scotland in the Cabinet. The Minister of Transport, the Minister of Aviation and the President of the Board of Trade are members of the Cabinet. Those who are not members, such as the Minister of Power or the First Lord of the Admiralty, attend when these matters are being discussed. The hon. Member for Fife, West may dislike the results of co-ordination, but the machinery for co-ordination exists, and it is the Government machine itself.
The hon. Member raised a specific point about Donibristle, where there have been rather long-drawn-out discussions. This is a matter largely between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. I cannot go into details, but perhaps the hon. Member will take it from me that he will have only a few days to wait before an announcement is made in relation to Donibristle.
Mr. W. Hamilton: Will it be a good one?
Mr. Macleod: I am afraid that the hon. Member will have to wait to find that out, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, with part of whose speech I dealt earlier, raised an important point in relation to an inquiry which he has already pressed on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. There is a real dilemma here, and we recognise it—the conflict between a need for speed in the road programme and a need to give the fullest opportunity
96
for all reasonable objections to be heard. My right hon. Friend has ventilated the matter in the House, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport whether he thinks that further comment is needed on what has been said today and, if so, to write to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), coming a little closer to the Motion, raised some very interesting points about the merging of different Departments. The first was the possibility of merging the National Assistance Board with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. There is a case for this, but there are two points which we should bear in mind about it. First, the whole object of having the National Assistance Board was to separate it from party politics, and if we followed his suggestion we should be going back on a decision in that sense taken deliberately by the House. Secondly, we are all very concerned about people who may be entitled to National Assistance benefits but who are not applying for them because of the so-called stigma—which is nonsense, but it exists, as we know. Might it not be—I put this rhetorically because I admit that there is a good deal in the point which he made—that it would be more difficult to persuade people to apply for these benefits to what, in fact, would then be part of a Ministry than to a Board which is separated from it?
The other main point which he made concerned the underdeveloped territories. The Department of Technical Co-operation was set up so that all the strings from all the aid to all sorts of countries could be held in one hand. The hon. Member made a very interesting suggestion that the Department should concern itself with the sepcialised agencies of the United Nations. I think that I should look with a good deal of care on this proposal—and I dare say that my experience as Minister of Labour is talking when I say that.
There has been a most marvellous link between the Ministry of Labour and the I.L.O. over the years—this is the example which I know best—it has existed ever since the beginning of the I.L.O., which started in the Ministry of Labour. It was an idea which came from the infant Ministry of Labour in this country at the end of the First

97
World War. I should be very sad indeed to see that link broken. All the same, the setting up of the Department of Technical Co-operation is clearly the first, right step, although obviously it is not the last step in this matter.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) seized the opportunity to have a swift gallop on his favourite hobby horse of the information services. He said that there should be one Minister in the Cabinet responsible for Government information services. First, I point out that that situation existed when my predecessor, at the Duchy of Lancaster was in office and that he was attacked for it from the other side of the House. No doubt it is possible to have it both ways.
Mr. Gordon Walker: We attacked him for what he did.
Mr. Macleod: The principle of the appointment was also attacked.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East put a direct question about the Central Office of Information when he asked why it was dealt with by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a sub-department of the Treasury, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is responsible for its financial side. I think that it is fairly logical that responsibility should follow in that way. The hon. Member suggested that there was some connection between the level of the Budget and the system of responsibility which we have for Government information services. Of course that is not so. It is the general financial consideration of Government expenditure which governs these matters.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Smethwick, talking about the machinery of Government, made a number of points
98
with many of which I sympathise. He agreed—and I am sure he is right—that the complexity of the work at the Treasury demanded that there should be two high-level Cabinet positions there, and he approved of what he called double banking. But he did not approve of double banking at the Foreign Office. I dissent from him there, with respect. Quite apart from whichever House the Foreign Secretary is in, and apart from the complications which may arise from the need for the Foreign Secretary constantly to be at international conferences, the fact that we have these enormously difficult negotiations in Europe makes an overwhelming case for having two Ministers of Cabinet rank in the Foreign Office, certainly at present.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a good case for having small Cabinets. There is much to be said for that, but the argument conflicts somewhat with his earlier observation with which, on the whole, I agree, that systems such as that of overlords have been tried out over a period of years and by many different Prime Ministers and have not always been very successful. It seems to me that there is something of a conflict in these arguments.
I have tried to answer every speech made in the debate, and if I have missed any points, they will be dealt with. I recommend the Motion to the House. We shall do everything we can to further it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the country would be better governed and happier and more injustices and inequalities eliminated if there was greater co-ordination in Government Departments internally, and between Government Departments externally on both policy and administration.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HEALTH VISITORS AND SOCIAL WORKERS TRAINING BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 12; Clause 3, page 2, lines 37 and 43, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Kenneth Robinson.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  HEALTH VISITORS AND SOCIAL WORKERS TRAINING BILL

    Clause 2.—(FUNCTIONS OF HEALTH VISITORS TRAINING COUNCIL.)
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
    (c) may make grants to educational institutions for the purpose of establishing or maintaining such courses as are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
    The Chairman: It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 2, line 37, at the end to insert:
    (c) may make grants to educational institutions for the purpose of establishing or maintaining such courses as are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
    Mr. Robinson: That would be convenient, Sir William.
    In Committee, we had a brief discussion on this subject on an Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) to Clause 2 only. In replying to the Amendment, and, incidentally, rejecting it, the Parliamentary Secretary addressed her remarks entirely to the problem of health visitors, which she was perfectly in order in doing. I am sure that she and the Minister will admit that the arguments in favour of an Amendment on these lines are weaker for health visitors than they are for social workers. For that reason, I propose to concentrate on the case for making grants to educational institutions for maintaining courses for training social workers.
    It is more relevant to social workers because, whereas the Council for the
    100
    Training of Health Visitors will mainly be concerned with co-ordinating, tidying up and perhaps standardising existing courses of training, which for the most part are workng reasonably well, the Council for Training in Social Work, as we shall have to call it in future, will have an entirely different job. Its job will be to establish new courses and standards.
    We all agree that we want the best courses in social work training, with the best teachers. There may well be a reluctance on the part of some institutions of further education to start courses. It is to deal with this type of case, which may be rare, but which I am sure will exist, that this specific power for the councils is needed in the Bill. A power to make grants to educational institutions would be entirely in keeping with the other functions of the councils already in the Bill—the promoting of training courses, the approving of courses, and seeking to attract persons to those courses. In doing this the councils should also be able to assist the establishment of courses, wherever this is necessary.
    We have in mind that the councils might pay the fees of an external lecturer of the required standing and ability who might not otherwise be employed on a course by one of the less well off establishments of further education. Alternatively, the councils might assist in the payment of fees for practical training associated with a course. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, in dealing with this problem as it affected the Council for the Training of Health Visitors, was at great pains to assure us that Exchequer money was available and was freely given in various ways to these courses for health visitor training. That may or may not be, but it certainly does not apply to social work training.
    I want to give an example of something which has happened already. The Department of Adult Education and Extra-Mural Studies at Leeds University was approached by a local government association of welfare authorities with a view to its introducing part-time release courses for local authority welfare officers. As I understand, the Department was very willing to do this. However, it approached the Ministry of Education and was refused point blank

    101
    financial assistance towards the establishing of such a course. In the absence of that financial assistance, the authorities at Leeds University felt that they could not embark on it and nothing has been done. I have received more than one local authority protest about this decision. The letters which I have seen take the view that the university has been prevented by the Ministry of Education from co-operating with their welfare departments.
    If a power of the kind embodied in the Amendment were incorporated in the Bill, this sort of thing could not happen. This is a reasonable power. I cannot think that it would cost very much money. As we know, the income of the councils is assured by the Government, whatever their expenditure is over and above their income. However apposite the hon. Lady's arguments may have been to health visitor training, I am sure that the Minister will agree that they are not appropriate to social work training. It is on this count that I regard these Amendments as important, and I hope that they will be excepted by the Minister.
    Dame Irene Ward: I support the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). I will not reiterate his arguments or the difficulties experienced in the discussion on health visitors in Committee. I should like, from the point of view of my own local authority, to read a letter I have received which supports the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman. The Town Clerk of the County Borough of Tynemouth writes:
    "The resolution of the Association of North Eastern Welfare Authorities has in mind the interests of serving social welfare officers in accordance with the recommendations for further training as set out in Table 32 (page 266) of the Younghusband Report."
    I asked my town clerk what view my local authority took on this subject. I had some correspondence with the Minister of Education on the original representations made by my local authority for the County Borough of Tyne-mouth. I sent the town clerk, for the purpose of submitting to the appropriate committee of the local authority, the answer I received from the Minister. I will not weary the Committee with all that, because I believe that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North will know
    102
    in what direction the Minister replied. I sent that reply to my town clerk. The answer to that letter supports what the hon. Gentleman has said and continues:
    "'Whilst I am sure the Association appreciate the relevant recommendations in the Working Party's Report … it is to them a matter of concern as to whether Colleges of Further Education have sufficient resources; that is, staff and tutors available to inaugurate part-time courses for the serving officer. This point was made by Professor Raybould of Leeds University and later by Mr. R. Huw Jones, Principal of the National Institute of Social Work Training.
    Having regard to the resources already existing in the University and Extra Mural Departments it is felt that the designated serving officers within the age range and with the qualification of experience as set out in the above Table, should have an opportunity of taking a professional qualification in the universities suitable for a middle-grade social welfare worker.
    I believe the kind of officer the Association has in mind is one who by years of experience can be said to have acquired, through in-service training, a broad basic background of social welfare services, and by reason of this is qualified to take a recognised professional qualification through part-time courses. This would appear to be one useful way in which welfare authorities can encourage appropriate serving officers to qualify, and thus hope to fill the gap which is now being caused by retirement of the older trained officer occupying senior posts either in case work or in the administrative grades.'
    I return herewith the letter addressed to you from the Minister of Education, and trust what I have stated may be of some assistance to you."
    What the Minister of Education offered was not acceptable to my local authority, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will now be able to meet the proposals we have in mind.
    It is very regrettable, after three and a half years of study of the whole case by the Younghusband Committee, that my right hon. Friend has felt so disinclined to meet its recommendations. I cannot understand his disinclination. As I said in the debate on my Motion, earlier today, we should be prepared to accept proposals made by so eminent a body, a body that has the support of all those who are concerned with the development of training the workers side of our social services. That being so, I must use all the power at my command to support this Amendment.
    Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I wish to endorse what has just been said by the hon. Member for

    103
    Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and to support very briefly the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). I do not wish to redeploy the arguments, but I think that the most cogent of them was that used by the hon. Lady. To those of us who have studied the Younghusband Report and seen its recommendations, the case seems to have been made out. We discussed this matter at some length in Committee, when the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary gave a far from satisfactory reply. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will see their way clear to accepting this rather small Amendment—it is permissive only—which would enable help to be given when the courses are established.
    Mrs. Eveline Hill: There is grave anxiety on this point. In other spheres, my own university has, with the help of the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Office, given twelve-month courses, for which there has been some financial support, for welfare workers in hospitals, where we are short of almoners, and also for child-care officers. It would wish to do the same thing in this instance, but it does not seem that the necessary support will be forthcoming. That seems rather disastrous, because it is not easy to run courses for social workers of the type of which we are thinking at the moment in, say, a college of commerce, where suggested courses are being organised in my own town.
    It would seem to be very much better to give this wider support so that we may have the fully matured people. The people we require for the social worker courses are not just the 19-year-olds and 20-year-olds, but the more mature people who need additional support grants, and so on. I think that it would be advisable far us to widen the scope at this point. We have the opportunity here. Let us make the most of it, and ensure that, ultimately, we have a good band of well-trained workers in this field.
    7.15 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) made it clear that the case, if there were a case for this Amendment and that
    104
    which we are taking with it, must rest mainly upon the social worker. The courses for health visitors are well established; they have been running for a number of years and there really is no question of their flagging or not being available for lack of finance. But when we come to the courses for social workers, we are looking forward to what we believe will be a new and considerable development in further education.
    Therefore, the question is posed whether the power should be given to these councils to make a direct grant. But the very fact that this is to be an integral part of further education in the future is the clearest reason why these courses should be financed in the same way as are other further education courses, and why the very proper subvention which should come from the Treasury should be through the same channels as subvention reaches other courses of further education. There is really no reason why, just because this is a new development and one which we wish to favour, we should set up a new and different channel for conveying Exchequer money to the maintenance of these courses.
    I realise that during the interim period before the Bill will have reached the Statute Book only a very limited number of courses will have been set up. There have been, as the Committee knows, the four pioneer two-year courses, and I know, and instances have just been mentioned, that disappointment has been felt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education did not feel it right to encourage the establishment of other than these pioneer two-year courses. The reason was not that there was any lack of finance for establishing them, or any lack of wish to do so, but that it seemed wrong, before the Bill was passed and before the council could take the grip upon the training situation which it is our intention that it should take, that various types of courses should this year be set on foot throughout the country.
    It is, therefore, not evidence of lack of resources, or that there will be a holding back on the part of further education, that these other courses have not been instituted during this year. There is really no reason to suppose that

    105
    authorities responsible for further education will be more reluctant to finance and maintain these courses than they are to finance and maintain the other courses which are already an integral part of further education.
    I must advise the Committee that it would be quite wrong when, as I say, we are embarking on an extension of the system of further education, for a quite separate and special channel of finance to be instituted for the maintenance of a particular type of course. It is for that reason, and not because one wishes in any way to cast doubt upon the future of these courses, that I must advise the Committee not to accept these Amendments.
    Mr. Ede: That was a disappointing answer, but I expected to be disappointed because I, too, have had some correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. Of course, the proper Minister to answer is not the Minister of Health, but the Minister of Education. The buck has been passed by the Minister of Health to that absent Minister and I am afraid that we shall not hear anything from that Department this evening.
    However, the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point which most interests me, whether one is particularly interested in it as a Ministry of Health or a Ministry of Education subject. Let us be clear about this. Unless there is some change in the general grant to meet the new situation and expenditure, this new service—which, I understand, all local authorities engaged in this work regard as essential—can only be met at the expense of other expenditure, at the expense of education or some other service.
    Mr. Powell: This is relevant expenditure for the general grant.
    Mr. Ede: That is what I am saying and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for so speedy a confirmation of the view I am putting forward.
    It is, of course, one of the difficulties that arise. The position is that whenever an authority must consider new expenditure which is eligible for the general grant, it may have to discuss where it can cut down—perhaps on the fire brigade or some other service—to find
    106
    the money for this new education service—unless it is decided to derive the whole of the expenditure from the rates, which I imagine most local authorities would be reluctant to do.
    Can the Minister say, since the Cabinet is one and indivisible, whether we can expect—if this is accepted by the Ministry of Education as an appropriate expenditure—an increase in the money which is devoted to the general grant to cover the additional expenditure involved? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I received a letter from the Town Clerk of South Shields similar to that written by the gentleman whom the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) calls "my town clerk." I do not possess a town clerk. Earlier in the day I heard the hon. Lady speaking about "my Government". Whatever may be the fate of this Government, they would certainly hate to be told that they were "my Government", so I will not say so.
    The subject with which we are dealing excites considerable interest among the responsible local authorities. They are willing to undertake the work. They are willing to grant leave of absence to the appropriate officers to undergo the appropriate courses that some of them will require. It would be disappointing if we were told that we can have no assurance whatever at this stage that when the time comes there will be no Government money available to assist this work without making deductions from reasonable expenditures that the local authorities are already incurring.
    Dame Irene Ward: Since the Minister's reply will be a very unhappy one for my local authority, I am sorry that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) feels unable to address the town clerk as "my town clerk", because my town clerk would be pleased if he did.
    Can the Minister tell me, since all the people concerned are in favour of the Amendment, why the Government feel that they must oppose it? I simply cannot understand why, in a matter of this kind about which all the people with experience—far more experience, if I may say so, than is possessed by my night hon. Friend in these matters—are agreed, he is taking this view. Why should he be

    107
    so opposed to it? It is not my idea of democracy at all. I understand that we are trying to get something established which would be acceptable to everyone interested in this matter. As far as I know, every one takes the view expressed in the Amendment—except my right hon. Friend.
    I feel disconcerted about this. Can we have an assurance that, when the time comes, no one will interfere by saying that the money is not available? My right hon. Friend has not given me any great confidence in recent months that sufficient attention is to be paid to our desires. Why has he gone against the wishes of everyone who considers that the Younghusband recommendations are preferable to those put forward by the Minister? I hope that my right hon. Friend will address himself to this fact, for I am not interested in the channels about which he speaks, or whether he thinks that this or that channel is preferable. People experienced in these matters want this, yet my right hon. Friend presents a Bill which does not meet the point of view of people who are in a sufficiently experienced position to be able to offer advice.
    Mr. Powell: It seems to me that the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) brought out the point at issue. He reminded the Committee that expenditure on this, as on other further education courses, is relevant expenditure for the general grant and will fall to be taken into account when the general grant is recalculated in accordance with the expansion of further education in this respect which we look for.
    That being so, given the general system of further education which we have, it would be quite wrong for this particular

    Division No. 173.]

    AYES

    [7.30 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Deer, George

    Houghton, Douglas

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Blackburn, F.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Blyton, William

    Fernyhough, E.

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

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Fletcher, Eric

    King, Dr. Horace

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

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Lawson, George

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lubbock, Eric

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    McCann, John

    Callaghan, James

    Harper, Joseph

    MacColl, James

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hayman, F. H.

    McInnes, James

    Cliffe, Michael

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Marsh, Richard

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Mason, Roy

    Darling, George

    Holman, Percy

    Millan, Bruce

    form of further education to be taken out from the rest and treated differently. This is really the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). Everyone who is an enthusiast for any particular form of further education can, and often will, argue for it to be treated specially. It would be quite wrong, however, to take this form of it out of further education and finance it differently.
    Mr. K. Robinson: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, this is not a question of a particular form of further education in which one is interested. This is a new venture, and am I not right in thinking that when child care workers were in a similar position, special arrangements were made about their training and financing? I believe that those arrangements still operate. Like all hon. Members, I am extremely disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's reply and to show our disapproval I ask my right hon. Friends to divide against the second of these two Amendments, where, I think, the case is strongest.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL WORKERS TRAINING COUNCIL.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 37, at end insert:
    (c) may make grants to educational institutions for the purpose of establishing or maintaining such courses as are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 75, Noes 128.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Short, Edward

    Tomney, Frank

    Paget, R. T.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Parker, John

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Whitlock, William

    Peart, Frederick

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Pentland, Norman

    Spriggs, Leslie

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

    Prentice, R. E.

    Steele, Thomas

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Stones, William

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Ross, William

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Mr. Grey

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Green, Alan

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Biffen, John

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Pym, Francis

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gurden, Harold

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Box, Donald

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Hay, John

    Roots, William

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

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

    Russell, Ronald

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Holland, Philip

    Seymour, Leslie

    Bryan, Paul

    Hornby, R. P.

    Shepherd, William

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

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

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Smithers, Peter

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Jackson, John

    Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

    Chataway, Christopher

    James, David

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Tapsell, Peter

    Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Temple, John M.

    Collard, Richard

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Cooke, Robert

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    McLaren, Martin

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Cordle, John

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Contain, A. P.

    Maddan, Martin

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Maginnis, John E.

    Walker, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Whitelaw, William

    Currie, G. B. H.

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

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Dance, James

    Mills, Stratton

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Neave, Airey

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Emery, Peter

    Noble, Michael

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Farr, John

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Peel, John

    Woollam, John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Gammans, Lady

    Pitman, Sir James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gardner, Edward

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Mr. Batsford.

    Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end to insert:
    "and
    (e) may make training grants or allowances to such persons considered suitable for training as have not obtained grants or allowances from other sources".
    Mr. Powell: On a point of order. I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee and subsequently of the House if the debate on this Amendment might also cover my Amendment on Report, in Clause 2, page 2, line 18, to leave out from "visitors" to the end of line 21. It is essentially the same point in reverse, and you might think it convenient, Sir William, that the two Amendments should be taken together.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Further to that point of order. I have no objection to our dealing with the two matters in the same debate so long as we can preserve our position about dividing on the two Amendments.
    The Chairman: It must be quite clear to hon. Members that as Chairman of the Committee I cannot commit Mr. Speaker on what line he may take in the House. It may well be for the convenience of the Committee and of the House subsequently to do as has been proposed, but I cannot give any undertaking.
    Mr. Ede: Further to that point of order. I, for one, do not acquiesce in any

    111
    such arrangement. I do not see why we should telescope two matters at two stages of the Bill.
    The Chairman: If it is not for the convenience of the Committee we shall have two separate debates.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: It is not entirely a question of the convenience of the Committee. Surely it would be quite unprecedented for a debate in Committee to circumscribe any debate on Report to the House? Surely the position is that we have this debate and then, when we get into the House on Report, we shall proceed as we think convenient then.
    The Chairman: What the hon. Member says is quite correct. If a considerable and full debate has taken place a few minutes before in Committee it may very well be within the recollection of hon. Members in the House and they may not want to repeat on Report the speeches which have already been made. I think that is all the Minister had in mind, but let us deal with the Amendment as it is before us.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Important as was the point embodied in the Amendment which has just been rejected on a Division, this is a very much more important matter. Indeed, we on this side of the Committee regard this as the nub of the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring this Clause of the Bill, the Clause dealing with the training of social workers, into line with Clause 2, dealing with the training of health visitors, Clause 2 as it was amended in Standing Committee. Indeed, it was only by one of those accidental hazards of which all members of Standing Committees are fully aware that both Clauses were not then amended at the same time.
    The arguments which were deployed in Committee certainly covered both points. There was general agreement, I think, in this case, too, that the arguments in favour of this Amendment were stronger in the case of the Social Workers Training Council even than they were in the case of the Health Visitors Training Council, the Clause concerning which was amended. It is quite true that the Government resisted this Amendment. The decision of the Committee
    112
    was taken against the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary, but the decision on the principle was taken by the Committee. It was a fairly unusual occasion since for once the entire Committee was present at the time of the Division. The Amendment was carried by 10 votes to 8, with two hon. Members on the Government side abstaining, and the total membership of the Committee was 20.
    The whole point at issue was very fully discussed in Committee, so I propose, on this occasion, to present the arguments in summary form. It is accepted, I think, that we need many more trained social workers for the health and welfare services in general, and, in particular, for the community mental health services which we are hoping to see established, but there is plenty of evidence that only a minority of local health authorities are showing themselves at all enthusiastic about establishing or developing these services.
    There is a very obvious reluctance on the part of many authorities to spend their own money on setting up mental health services, and there is no provision for any substantial direct help towards this end from the Government. We say that if the financial burden of training social workers is to fall on individual local health authorities then it will only be those authorities, which have already shown their willingness in this direction, those which are sensitive to their responsibilities in the health and welfare sphere, which will send along members of their staffs to be trained and which will be prepared to pay the necessary training grants for them.
    7.45 p.m.
    As a result of this we believe that these services will not be established in what one may call the desert areas, and those are the areas where, of course, they are needed most. We made no secret of the fact from the very beginning of the Second Reading of the Bill that we should have preferred direct Government grants, but the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers saw fit to draft a Bill which not only excluded this provision, but made it impossible to amend the Bill to include it.
    What we are suggesting here is that the councils themselves shall have the power to make payment of grants or

    113
    allowances to trainees who have not for some reason, or who are unable to obtain, grants from other sources. Frankly, we regard this as a second best, but I do suggest that it is a feasible and a not unacceptable second best. I would echo what the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said on the last Amendment. On this matter, even more than on that one, everybody, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, agrees that some such provision as this is essential in the Bill.
    The Younghusband Report, the Royal College of Nursing, all the other organisations involved in social work, the Association of Pyschiatric Workers, all agree. I have had communications from some of these. One of them writes to me that the Association of Municipal Corporations has been asked to make representations to the Government on this point about the provision of grant aid. I do not know whether representations have been made. I certainly do not know what kind of reception they met with. But I have had representations myself from the National Association for Mental Health, which put this matter very clearly indeed. It wrote to me saying:
    "You are very well aware that, since we first saw the draft of this Bill, the Association has been distressed that no central grant aid to assist the trainings envisaged by the Bill is proposed. We still feel that to discriminate thus against the social workers who are to be trained under the provisions of the Bill is grossly unfair and prejudicial to the whole of the training, not to mention the development of the Mental Health Act. This is the more disturbing when central grants are available for almoners, psychiatric social workers, child care workers, and health visitors, and we find it quite impossible to understand why the present Bill should discriminate in the financial arrangements for these particular trainees. We still feel that grant aid should be available to the National Council, that it should be available to the courses"—
    we have dealt with that—
    "and that it should be available to senior workers given leave of absence from their posts."
    With all of that I am in complete agreement, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to listen for once to these unanimous voices and not to think that he knows best. He may be wrong, and if he is wrong, and assuming, as I must, that he does want trainees to come for-
    114
    ward in quantity, then without this provision in the Bill it will be quite impossible to put the matter right or to do anything about it, without new legislation. One has only to reflect on how long it has taken to bring in this legislation to realise it would be a very long time indeed before a miscalculation of this kind could be rectified. The cost of the Amendment, in my view, would be minimal compared with the social benefits which would derive from it.
    I should like to quote a couple of passages from the leading article in The Times today:
    "The Government argue that the local authorities, not the Exchequer, should meet the cost of the training courses as a form of further education. Their opponents, with the Younghusband Report on their side and fearful of the consequences of relying on local government initiative, have cited precedents in the fields of probation and child care services for making more direct grants for training."
    The leader concludes with these words:
    "While some of the many Amendments they themselves"—
    that is, the Government—
    "will introduce show that they have been amenable to criticism on minor points, on the major one of paying for training they are evidently disinclined to budge. That is a pity, for the success of the whole scheme will depend on broad harmony at the outset, and the compromise suggested is a relatively small price for ensuring that the future is not jeopardised."
    Those are very weighty words. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to pay some heed to them. I have to speak in these rather despondent terms because when one looks a little further along the Order Paper one sees that the Amendment put down by the right hon. Gentleman shows quite clearly that he is deleting the Amendment that we made in the Bill in Standing Committee.
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little more flexible and have realised that the volume of opinion ranged against his own opinion is very formidable indeed. As the hon. Lady for Tynemouth said, "These are the people who know." These are the people who will have to work the Act and who are very fearful indeed at the consequences of the Bill as it stands, or would stand if the Minister's Amendment were accepted.
    The danger of relying solely on local authority grants might be to some extent

    115
    minimised if we could have the same kind of pooling arrangement for social workers that we have for the health visitors. I should be very interested to hear from the right hon. Gentleman if he has any views about this because, so far as I know, the Government have no intention of extending the 1958 Local Government Act to introduce pooling arrangements for social workers' training grants. This might remove some of the disincentive from the laggard authorities of sending people forward for training, because whether they send few, or many, or none the burden on them is much the same. If we could have something of that kind, not as a second best, because what I am moving is the second best, but as the third best, it might go some way towards mitigating the situation which we all fear will arise if the Bill goes on to the Statute Book unamended in this respect.
    Dame Irene Ward: I again wish to support everything that has been said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). I wish only to add one other point. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have come to the conclusion that it is very little use trying to make an impression on my right hon. Friend. At least, I want to suggest that it is not only the consideration of the local authorities or of those who are interested in social work from the point of view of promoting the work of the council that is concerned, but that if the right hon. Gentleman rejects this Amendment what he is saying to social training workers is that he does not consider that they should have as much right to train, if they so desire, as the health visitors, because of the health visitors' equalisation fund.
    It seems to me that when we are trying—and, goodness knows, it is necessary—to stimulate many who are young, vigorous and enthusiastic with a real desire to serve the community there can be nothing worse for a young man or a young woman really interested in his or her job—and I do not think that many people would go in for social work training and social work service unless they were dedicated—than to feel that he or she may be prevented from obtaining the benefits of this training course because every local authority will not, or cannot, find the money.
    116
    It is not an incentive to young people to say, "Your local authority cannot find the money." There may be very genuine reasons why some local authorities, which are very hard-pressed, connot find the money, but this certainly is a cold douche to the young, the interested and the inspired. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend is prepared to give to one section—I do not agree with the whole basis on which these grants are being given, but I am now arguing on this Amendment—and not to another. I cannot believe that that is fair or just.
    I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Leader of the House, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, has just accepted my Motion on the need for greater co-ordination between Government Departments, so here is the first opportunity for my right hon. Friend to show whether he accepts the policy of the Government of which he is a very distinguished member. If he does not accept this Amendment because of the equalisation fund in respect of health visitors, he is creating discrimination against one section of the community, and that I would certainly deplore.
    Someone complained, when I was moving my Motion earlier, that I talked about being horrified. I am talking again about being horrified. I should be absolutely horrified if this discrimination were allowed to exist. I notice that the new education service carries 100 per cent. from the Ministry of Education. This is an illustration of the difference between the Minister of Education, who gets his own way for his own service, and the right hon. Gentleman who has this financial purist approach and does not really care two hoots what anyone else thinks.
    I shall feel most depressed if my right hon. Friend permits this discrimination in respect of those who have just as much interest in their own field as the health visitors have in theirs. Of course, as pointed out by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, this is a new service compared with the health visitors' service, which goes back to the time of Florence Nightingale. Although it was called something else, she established that service and I only wish that Florence Nightingale were here today as a Member of this House, so that she

    117
    could crack my right hon. Friend on the head. She cracked the War Office on the head and the result was that the financial system under which the War Office operates was originally founded by Florence Nightingale.
    I do not believe that my right hon. Friend, immediately after my Motion has been accepted, would be prepared to put in this discrimination against a section of the community, which, whatever the Executive may want, the back benchers and the chairman of the Conservative Health and Social Security Committee also wants and all who are concerned and are more knowledgeable in this matter want. Why should the right hon. Gentleman think that he knows more than anyone else? I support the Amendment.
    8.0 p.m.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: We did not have the pleasure of the Minister's presence when we debated this matter in Standing Committee but all who were there will remember that throughout all our deliberations the Parliamentary Secretary acquitted herself more than well and no one could have done better. On this occasion, however, I ask the hon. Lady whether she remembers the argument she had with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).
    My hon. Friend pointed out that there was evidence that there were people who were fit for training and were chosen but in one case out of fifteen the person chosen had to fall out and a substitute had to be brought in because the local authority would not give the grant in that case. The Parliamentary Secretary then used strange words in saying that one exception did not test the rule.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I think it necessary to clarify the position. I offered to investigate the one exception referred to. The investigation disclosed rather different circumstances, so the matter was not pursued.
    Dr. Stross: I see. In view of our discussions I am pursuing a rather narrow point now which I should like the hon. Lady to hear, namely, that it is a poor argument to say that one exception does not "prove" the rule, as the hon. Lady put it, though I think the word should
    118
    be "test", and if there is an exception there is no proper rule.
    We had some evidence that there may be local authorities who may not do their duty or may not accept their obligations. If that is the case what ensues? It seems to me that the local authorities who were prepared to do their duty would be spending ratepayers' money, in part at least, to train people whom they knew they might lose even though they made a condition that they should remain for two years. They would lose them to people who were not carrying out their obligations.
    If we have to choose between the Minister doing it and local authorities providing services far other local authorities, by paying grants in this way to educate people and then seeing them go to other local authorities, surely it is better and wiser that the Minister or the Treasury should assist and should accept the obligation for the recreant and ill-adviser local authority. I think that this is a good argument. Rather than that Stoke-on-Trent should face the obligation on behalf of another local authority, it is better that the Minister should face it. I am sure that there will be few of these cases, but there is a principle involved, and I am sure that it is right to press the Minister to reconsider this matter.
    Miss Joan Vickers: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has just made one of the paints which I wished to make. I support all that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said in Committee. The Amendment is reasonable because it concludes with the words:
    "… as have not obtained grants or allowances from other sources."
    We ask only that help should be given where people who are anxious and willing to do the work come forward and cannot obtain a grant for training from any other source. The people responsible would have to be absolutely certain, of course, that that was so.
    Many local authorities, including my own, face a great shortage even of recruits and I was impressed by the idea put forward by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North that if we had the necessary grants there could be a pooling system. This would be advantageous

    119
    also to the workers who would be able to obtain further experience, possibly in town and country areas. I support the Amendment, not because I think that local authorities are likely to withhold the grant, but because they often cannot keep the people in their own area. They have no hold over the individuals when they have trained them. They are perhaps tempted to go to another area either because they find it more congenial or because they wish to move for family reasons. The result is that the local authority concerned has expended money on training them and does not receive their services.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend wild reconsider this matter on the basis that the grant should be made available where there is no other source. That would bring in many people who cannot afford to enter this service unless they receive a grant.
    Mr. Fletcher: I should like to support the Amendment. I hope that when the Minister replies he will not give us some prepared answer. I hope that at any rate we shall hear from him that he has listened to the representations made in the debate from both sides of the Committee. I hope that he will have taken notice of the great volume of public opinion, as represented by that weighty leading article in The Times to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred.
    It does not make much sense for us to have debates in Committee if the Minister is to come here with a closed mind to these representations. Although this is a relatively small and thinly attended Committee, the speeches so far have been unanimous, two from this side and two from the other, and they are supported by informed neutral and representative opinion outside. The money involved is relatively small but there is a principle at stake.
    It seems to me—coming to this matter with a fresh mind, since I was not a member of the Standing Committee—that the grounds for supporting the Amendment are quite overwhelming. The case for enabling the central council to have the power to make grants for the training of social workers—which is what the Amendment proposes—is so impressive that I cannot
    120
    think that the Minister can possibly reject it. As the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) pointed out, this is a relatively new service. It is one to which increasing importance is being attached. This work is of much greater social benefit than can be measured in £ s. d.
    Some local authorities may be willing to co-operate. We know from past experience that there will be others which will lag behind. This should be a national obligation and I should have thought that the case for giving a central authority power to make grants for the training of these people is overwhelmingly justified. I hope that the Minister will have listened to what has been said and will give a conciliatory response to the opinions expressed in the Committee.
    Mr. Powell: I can assure the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) not only that I have listened carefully to what has been said in this debate, but that I have applied my mind to this question repeatedly at the several stages of the Bill. The overriding fact within which the decision has to be taken is that these courses for social work will be, as I have already reminded the Committee, an integral part of the system of further education given by the same institutions as are making available the whole range of different courses of further education.
    It is settled policy, which the House has reaffirmed as recently as the Education Bill this Session, that the responsibility for providing grants to students on courses of further education is a responsibility of the local education authorities. The local education authorities, of course, derive substantial Exchequer assistance towards the burden which they shoulder in doing so, but it is their responsibility. Therefore, there is prima facie every reason why this, like every other branch of further education, should be treated in the same way, and the local authorities should exercise their responsibility in respect of students on these courses as on other courses.
    The proposal before the Committee is that there should be a default power, as it were, vested in the relevant training council. I think that this would be

    121
    a mistake, for several reasons. In the first place, it would inevitably cause a good deal of delay and uncertainty. The potential student who had not so far obtained a grant or allowance from another source would be entitled to apply to the training council which, in turn, might well wish to satisfy itself that a final decision had been taken by the relevant local education authority. All this time, the question of the place being held by the appropriate institution would be hanging fire and having to be kept open. So it is in the nature of a default power of this kind that it would tend to create delay and uncertainty for both the students and the institutions.
    What is much more serious is that this would, as has been brought out in the debate, penalise the local education authorities which are behaving as we all believe most local education authorities will in fact behave and giving these grants on merits as they give grants for other courses of further education. This would mean that it would be the local education authority which did not do its job properly which would shuffle off the obligation and the burden on to the council and thus on to the Exchequer. It would, therefore, be a discrimination and a standing invitation, if I may put it in that way, to local education authorities perhaps to defer or to neglect students applying for grant for these courses in comparison with other courses.
    If this is a function, as we have made it, of local education authorities, then the way to deal with the defaulting authority is not to relieve it of the burden it is trying not to accept but to see that, in this respect as in others, it does its job as an education authority.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: How?
    Mr. Powell: There are a good many ways to bring pressure to bear on local authorities which fall below the standards of local authorities generally. This is why local government in this country is elective. I say quite firmly to the Committee that, if there were evidence that individual local authorities were failing to give fair consideration to potential students for these courses—I undertake that this matter
    122
    shall be watched—there is no doubt that this could be shown up and pressure could be brought to bear upon them to conform with the standard of behaviour of local education authorities generally. That is the way to achieve the desired result, not by providing a default power which would be a let-out for the very authorities which ought to be brought up to scratch.
    Creating, as we are in this Bill, a new branch of further education, we must deliberately and with our eyes open embody it in the system of further education and accept that this means that it will be a responsibility of the local education authorities to provide grants for students on these courses as on other courses.
    8.15 p.m.
    There have been references, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), to the pooling arrangements in regard to the cost of health visitor training. But, of course, there is an immense difference here in that health visitor training is very largely, and will continue to be very largely, the training of seconded employees of local health authorities, whereas here we are dealing preponderantly, and eventually almost exclusively, with people coming into the field as a part of further education who are, and who clearly ought to be, the responsibility of the local education authorities and whose training is part of the further education system.
    It is for that reason, and in the confidence that local authorities will do their job here as much as in other respects, that I must advise the Committee not to add the Amendment to the Bill.
    Mr. K. Robinson: May I take the Minister up on the question of the pooling arrangements? It is true that some of the social workers trained will be new to the profession, but a very large number of them, particularly in the early years, will be people already employed by local authorities. Is there any objection to introducing pooling arrangements which could, by their nature, apply only to such trainees? Since these arrangements already exist for health visitors, is there any objection to introducing

    123
    them for social workers? This is a change in the Bill which we on this side cannot make. The Minister, as the representative of the Government, can make it, and he could do it in another place. Is he prepared to think of the possibility of introducing pooling arrangements so far as social worker trainees are people already in local authority service?
    Mr. Powell: As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, this lies outside the scope of the Amendment. But, as I have said, we shall be dealing here very largely from the outset, and, as time goes on, almost exclusively, with students coming in, fresh students, as it were, who will take a course of further education and who will be entirely within the further education field. That constitutes a very clear distinction from the arrangements which exist at the moment for the training of health visitors.
    Mr. Ede: I apologise for intervening in the discussion at this stage when I did not serve on the Committee. It seems to be the growing custom that, if one does not serve during the Committee stage of a Bill upstairs, one takes no further interest in the Measure. Unfortunately for me, I do not take that view of my duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that that finds some acceptance in this Committee, because I have on occasion heard others apologise for intervening at later stages of a Bill when they had not served on the Committee
    Will the right hon. Gentleman help me in this matter? Who are the local health authorities? Are they the county councils and the county borough councils, or do some of the district councils come in? If they are the county borough and county councils, they are the local education authorities. I revert here to something said by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who alluded to me recently as "My right hon. Friend", thus putting me on a level with the Minister, which I greatly resent even in her company.
    Dame Irene Ward: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is a friend.
    Mr. Ede: The experience which these authorities will have had as local education authorities is that the only way to deal satisfactorily with this matter
    124
    is to have a pooling arrangement. Otherwise, one has exporting and importing authorities in this class of public servant. A number of local authorities will be training more people than they require in their own locality. Whether their salaries are paid out of the education rate or out of some other rate for the Health Service, the same ratepayers will pay the money. Some authorities will be educating these people and exporting them and other authorities will be training none and importing them. There was a time when the principal export of Wales was teachers. That was during the depression. I was once accused in Surrey of trying to turn it into a Welsh-speaking county because we were recruiting so many teachers from Wales. We might get the same situation again.
    I suggest to the Minister that none of the objections which he has raised answers the points made by my hon. Friends who have pressed that there should be some way in which these people should be able to get grants. I agree with what he says about the disadvantage of delay while people are going round trying to scrounge a few pounds here and a few pounds there from various institutions in order to get enough money to pay the training cost. If the right hon. Gentleman would only agree to a pooling scheme, he would benefit the very local authorities on which he has to rely for carrying out this service and he would relieve ratepayers of merely training people for the advantage of other authorities which are not willing to do it.
    Dame Irene Ward: I have been a member of the House of Commons for twenty-five years, but up to now I have never yet heard a senior Minister, or, indeed, a junior Minister, say that if a local authority, education committee or health committee, or whatever it may be, does not do its duty, it will be dealt with. To hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health say that is very surprising, since my experience has always been that, if one ever tries to press a Minister—heaven knows, I have often tried to press Ministers—one is told that no Minister will try to superimpose his or her view on a local authority. I was therefore extremely interested to hear what my right hon. Friend said.

    125
    I wonder how the Minister of Housing and Local Government will react to that statement. I am afraid that I have no confidence in it, for my experience is that, when the matter is put to the test, no action would or could be taken because over a very wide field there are local authorities which fall below guidance, directives, policy, or whatever one may call it, because local government is local government. Part of the reason for the local government Bill was to strengthen the powers of local authorities.
    As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary represents part of Birmingham, I wonder what the local authority in Birmingham would say if my right hon. Friend said to it, "You are not doing what I undertook you would do. I therefore propose as Minister to take action against you". The point is that he would not be able to take action because I doubt whether action against the local authority lies with the Minister of Health. I am certain that no Minister of Housing and Local Government would take any action. I therefore think that it was a proud boast which had no foundation whatsoever.
    Mr. Pavitt: I wish to take up one point in the Minister's argument. He appears to be asking the Committee, for the sake of tidiness, to ensure that there is not a duplication of grants. The right hon. Gentleman said that, because it is part of further education, this matter must wholly rest with the education authority. In presenting that argument to the Committee, he was very careful to weigh the merits of the central authority on the one hand, the council we are discussing, and the local authority on the other. He has come down firmly on the side of saying that this must be wholly the responsibility of the local authority.
    What Members on both sides of the Committee are pleading for is that the Minister should take the student into consideration. It may happen in this careful decision between the central authority on the one hand and the local authority on the other that the student will be anxious to do the job but will be unable to get the necessary grant to enable it to be done. In his neat, tidy and orderly fashion, the right hon. Gentleman has made the logical and clear decision that the matter should rest
    126
    with the local authority, but he has been less than human in the way that he has more or less dismissed the student from the argument. The whole purpose of the Bill is to help the student. That is the job of work that we are trying to extend. Even if it happens to be a little untidy and does not quite fit into a neat pattern, it is still desirable that there shall be this outlet. If a student cannot get a grant through the local authority, there should be an alternative available.
    Those of us who have served on local authorities know some of the problems. I accept the Minister's point about the problem of delay. We know that considerations such as whether the G.C.E. results have come through cause delay. By making delay the basis of his case, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is really able to get over the fact that he will not get rid of the other delays which occur.
    Even with an improved grant, even with an understanding from the Minister that there will be an extra sum in the local authority's estimate for the coming year to provide for this new service, there comes a time, even though a deserving student, someone who has been approved by the new council, is capable of giving service in this field, when the grant has been exhausted. That student, through no fault of his own, through no fault of qualification or anything within his own control, but merely because the local council has already used the estimate put forward for further education on other well deserving things which one would not wish to restrict, is deprived of a grant. Surely there is a case for making exceptions in those circumstances and for that little bit of untidiness and leniency so that such a person can be given the opportunity to serve the community in this respect.
    Mrs. Hill: I am not at all happy about this. I do not think that the matter has been cleared up satisfactorily. A local authority may have one or two very able young people whom it would like to take this further education course and who have probably already started work with a welfare department. But it may be that the establishment committee of that local authority is not willing to release those people and to pay their wages for a full two years while

    127
    they take the course. It is not quite such a tidy course as some in further education, because the two years will not be spent on theory. A very large proportion of the training which one would wish to be given will surely be field work and outside the college of further education. It will certainly be under some supervision, but the supervision will be costly.
    8.30 p.m.
    I am not sure that the matter can be so tidily arranged as this. I am not sure that we shall get a sufficient grant in the block grant to enable education committees to give adequate support to students. As I mentioned earlier, some of the students may not be young people. Particularly in the child care service, it has been found very useful to encourage more mature people, but they will want much higher grants than the young students. There is such a tremendous amount of work to be done that we need people of that standard also. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make the position a little more clear, because I am not at all happy that we will get exactly what we are all working for in the Bill.
    Mrs. Slater: Some of the points which have been made, from both sides of the Committee, should be having an effect upon the Minister. As the hon. Lady the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) has just said, many of the students will already have done work of a different character within, say, one of the services of a local authority and will feel that they would like to go further and get adequate training to make them more qualified. By that time, they may be married and have children. Therefore, from the point of view of the local authority, they need a much larger grant. Their family must have a dependants' allowance.
    If the Minister suggests that he can exert pressure by threatening local authorities who do not play the game, the position is not as easy as it might sound. Some time ago we spent a number of weeks discussing an Education Bill whereby we sought to make local authorities pay adequate rates for university students, because some authorities simply would not play the game.
    128
    Although the Minister of Education had laid down a scheme, many local authorities resisted applying it until the recent Act was passed. In the meantime, while all the pressure is building up, the student who has a sense of dedication and who has valuable experience is denied the opportunity of qualifying further and becoming much more useful to the local authority.
    Last week, I attended a conference called by my own local authority to discuss the training of public health inspectors. At our further education college, it is proposed to run a course to train them. There is a great shortage of these people throughout the country. To make the course economic, at least six students—more likely twelve—would be needed.
    Other surrounding local authorities have made the point, however, that they would find it difficult to send students to us, not only because their establishment committee would not be very favourable towards releasing some of the people, but because for some local authorities to send even one student would represent a 2d. or 3d. rate, which is a very real factor when considering the rates for other local authority services. Therefore, even though Stoke-on-Trent is anxious to provide such a course at our college of further education, to make it effective students would be needed from neighbouring local authorities.
    What pressure would the Minister be prepared to bring to bear on local authorities who, the minute we have trained the personnel, take them from us? They would offer them a house or a slightly higher salary than the recognised scale—
    Dr. Stross: Or a fur coat?
    Mrs. Slater: Not a fur coat. Unfortunately, not many women go in for this work. I wish that there were more of them. Those attractions, especially the provision of a house, are real ones to a married man. They attract these people away from a local authority which is not only short of public health inspectors, but does its best to train them.
    I have raised this question with the Minister on several occasions, but I have had unsatisfactory answers. The problem applies equally to social workers as to

    129
    public health inspectors. This is a matter which is growing in importance. Because of our complex society, we need more and more of these people to save some of the work which departments have to do because we do not have these people in the right place at the right time. For the sake of the future, for the work which needs to be done and for the sake of the student who is anxious to do the job, the Minister might at least have second thoughts. If it is not his responsibility, let him ask the Treasury to have second thoughts, because it may be that that is the Department which is applying the pressure.
    Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the Minister is being influenced by these further considerations which are being urged upon him. I was not by any means convinced by any of his answers when he intervened in the debate a short time ago. I do not think that he put forward as a serious objection to the Amendment the fact that there might be a short delay when a student first applied to a local authority and then, if he did not succeed, had to apply to the Central Council.
    The point on which the Minister was trying to advise the Committee was that a principle had been adopted by the House that because this was a function of further education, the responsibility must fall upon the local authorities and not upon the Exchequer. The Minister knows that there has been no such principle. The House has never laid down any such principle. It would be a sad thing if it were so. Two cases have been cited: the training of probation officers and the training of child care officers. In both those cases, the State pays.
    This is not really a function of further education. It may be that the classes are provided by local education authorities, but the primary object of the training is not further education. It is to enable the State to have the services of a limited number of people who are urgently required for national service in various localities. They are precisely on a par with probation officers and child care officers.
    It is the national interest which, in certain cases, requires that the State should bear the burden of training people for work of various kinds. If students have to go to another local authority
    130
    to get a training course, that may be so, but it is because the work is of national importance and because people trained in this way travel from one local authority to another that in various exceptional cases the State has assumed the burden. Therefore, I do not think the Minister can rely on the argument that this is primarily a function of further education. This is a requirement of the training of people to do work in an entirely new field.
    The Minister said that if the proposal were adopted it would encourage some laggard local authorities to neglect their duties. When the hon. Lady the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) inquired how laggard local authorities could be persuaded to do their duty, the Minister said that there were democratic pressures. What he indicated was that if a local authority was remiss in making a grant for the training of social workers, that was a matter which would be raised by the electorate in the local authority area at the next election.
    Was the Minister really suggesting that if a local authority neglected to provide a grant for the training of a social worker, that would be an issue at the next election on which the local authority would probably be turned out of office? He knows perfectly well that the democratic processes in local government do not work in that way. The ultimate democratic process in this country is the pressure that can be brought upon Ministers of the Crown in the House of Commons. Here we have had that exercised in a way which I very much hope will bear fruit.
    The Minister has a considerable reputation. He has a reputation as a financial purist. I admire his integrity in financial matters. It is because I thought that his argument on the ground of financial purity in this respect was vitiated by the exceptions that I have indicated that I hope he will have the intellectual honesty not to reply upon that. I am sure that the Minister also wishes to have a reputation for Parliamentary skill. I urge him not to think that it would be any sign of weakness to listen to the speeches that have been made on both sides of the Committee and to accept the views of the Committee, as backed by influential opinion outside, and agree to a decision which

    131
    was taken after considerable debate in the Standing Committee. I hope very much that the Minister will accept the views of the House of Commons on this matter.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I endorse the final word of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), that the Minister, having listened to speeches on both sides of the Committee, would be right to accept the Amendment. I have listened to discussions on many Amendments, but this is the first time I have ever heard a discussion where every speaker on both sides has been in favour of the Amendment. The only person opposing it is the Minister.
    In the Amendment we are not asking that the council should give grants to every student who is to take a course. All the Amendment asks is that if a student considered suitable for training finds it impossible to get a grant from his local authority, the council may step in and make a grant. In other words, it is a very limited Amendment; but I think that it is a very important one.
    The Minister is rejecting the Amendment for two reasons. He says, first, that this type of training is an integral part of further education and, secondly, that it ought to be treated as every other branch of further education is; in other wards, it should be the responsibility of the local authority to make the grant. I take the Minister up on that. If certain local authorities refuse to accept this responsibility, for good reasons—there may be good reasons—or for bad reasons, then there is an onus on the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Health to ensure that not a single candidate is lost to this type of work. There is a very great shortage of social workers, and the responsibility for an adequate supply rests with the Minister of Health. If a local authority refuses to give a grant to any person, the Minister of Health—since he has no real control over local authorities, as the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has pointed out—must accept responsibility. If he does so he will also accept the Amendment.
    8.45 p.m.
    The Minister says that all forms of further education are catered for by grants by local education authorities, but
    132
    that is not the case. Let us take three other social services—child care, probation, and the almoners' service—which are on a par with that of the social worker whom we are now discussing. Persons in those three categories do not depend upon the whim, or, sometimes, the financial ability, of the local authority in the matter of the making of a grant. By refusing to accept the Amendment the Minister is, in effect, discriminating against the social worker. I hope that he will bear that point in mind.
    I now turn to the question of delay. The Minister seemed to think that it was an important matter. The person who would be receiving a grant under the terms of the Amendment is a person who has already been refused a grant by his local authority. He then has to face a delay, during which time the Council for Training in Social Work considers whether it should give him a grant. I have no doubt that a student would prefer to accept that risk and delay, knowing that he has no hope of receiving a grant from his local authority.
    The majority of men and women who want to do this work desire to do it because they have a real sense of vocation. It is the type of work that often attracts dedicated people. Since there is such a grave shortage of social workers in so many fields the Minister should do nothing at all to turn aside one, two, half a dozen, or a score of these people, simply because he wants to put the whole onus on local authorities. He severely criticised local authorities who might not do their duty, but some of those authorities are in serious financial difficulties, because of the operation of the General Grant Order. The Government must accept some responsibility for that.
    Has the right hon. Gentleman really no concern for the young man or young woman who has been refused a grant by a local authority, and finds that the door to this useful human service is completely closed? I hope that, having listened to all the arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, the Minister will be ready to accept this very modest Amendment, which deals only with those who have

    133
    found it impossible to obtain a grant from their local authorities.
    Mr. Powell: I must take issue with the statement of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that to train for social work is not a function of further education. It is part of the purpose of the policy behind this Bill that training for social work shall be a part of education and not narrowly related to a particular employment. I am sure that the hon. Member will forgive my making that clear. Indeed, much of what has been said in this debate has brought out that the problems of this type of further education are shared by many, if not most, of the other forms of further education.
    There is the problem of the export of the trained product, which was referred to, by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The fact that if a local education authority decides not to exercise its power to give a grant, that affects the students; that was the point made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). The point of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) that the Exchequer contribution to further education comes through the general grant. But all these are characteristics which are common to the whole field of further education. If those arguments are valid here they are valid for taking from local education authorities the grant-making function in regard to further education.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has just said that as Minister of Health I bear a certain responsibility for the supply of social workers in the welfare field, but, if we are to say that where it is local authorities who are responsible for providing the supply of trained recruits to this or that public need there the central Government must step in and take to themselves a default power, we shall go very far indeed.
    I reaffirm the undertaking I have recently given, which the Parliamentary Secretary gave in Standing Committee, that the performance of local education authorities in this matter will be watched and that, with the support of the Minister

    Division No. 174.]

    AYES

    [8.55 p.m.

    Alnsley, William

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Blackburn, F.

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Blyton, William

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    of Education, I shall endeavour to see that there is no avoidance in this respect by local education authorities of their obligations.
    I am sure that that is the way which is consistent with our whole structure of local government, with the local responsibility for services which we have entrusted to local authorities. I must advise the Committee that to take default powers which would have the effect of the least willing local authorities being able to rely on their students being catered for centrally through the training council, would be the worst way of discharging Parliament's responsibility for the general oversight of this function. That is the essence of the case. This is an integral part, and is intended to be an integral part, of further education. The way in which local education authorities administer it will be closely watched, but a default power as proposed in this Amendment would be the worst of all possible worlds.
    Dr. Stross: Would not the Minister agree that if these default powers, as he terms them, existed it would mean that at once we would know centrally which local authorities are in need of being scrutinised and encouraged to change their habits? If we do not have the default powers, that might take quite a time to discover and during that time the individual student would be penalised.
    Mr. Powell: No, I shall ensure that this is watched.
    Mr. K. Robinson: If votes were to follow voices, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister would find themselves alone in the Noes Lobby in voting on this Amendment. Unfortunately, we know that all too frequently that does not happen in this Committee. Nevertheless, in order once again to register our very strong feelings about this matter, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—to support us in the Lobby.
    Question put: That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 77, Noes 143.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

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

    Short, Edward

    Deer, George

    King, Dr. Horace

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Delargy, Hugh

    Lawson, George

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Diamond, John

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacColl, James

    Steele, Thomas

    Fletcher, Eric

    McInnes, James

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stones, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marsh, Richard

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

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Mason, Roy

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Bruce

    Tomney, Frank

    Grey, Charles

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Paget, R. T.

    Wade, Donald

    Harper, Joseph

    Parker, John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Pentland, Norman

    Whitlock, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Prentice, R. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Holman, Percy

    Rankin, John

    Houghton, Douglas

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hunter, A. E.

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

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Ross, William

    Mr. McCann.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gurden, Harold

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Pym, Francis

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bidgood, John C.

    Hay, John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Biffen, John

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Renton, David

    Bishop, F. P.

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

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Holland, Philip

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Box, Donald

    Hornby, R. P.

    Roots, William

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon, John

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Russell, Ronald

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Sharples, Richard

    Bryan, Paul

    James, David

    Shepherd, William

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

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

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Smithers, Peter

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Kirk, Peter

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Temple, John M.

    Collard, Richard

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Cooke, Robert

    McLaren, Martin

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

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

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Cordie, John

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Corfield, F. V.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Costain, A. P.

    Maddan, Martin

    Walder, David

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Maginnis, John E.

    Walker, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Whitelaw, William

    Curran, Charles

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Mills, Stratton

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wise, A. R.

    Emery, Peter

    Noble, Michael

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Farr, John

    Peel, John

    Woollam, John

    Finlay, Graeme

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Worsley, Marcus

    Gardner, Edward

    Pitman, Sir James

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Pott, Percivall

    Mr. Batsford and Mr. Ian Fraser.

    Green, Alan

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    Clause 1.—(COUNCILS FOR TRAINING OF HEALTH VISITORS AND SOCIAL WORKERS.)
    Miss Pitt: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from the first "the" to "which" in line 7, and to insert:
    "Council for the Training of Health Visitors and the Council for Training in Social Work".
    This Amendment—and those consequential upon it connected with the titles of the councils—arises out of an undertaking that I gave when the Standing Committee discussed the most appropriate title for these two bodies. The titles we had inserted in this Measure did not find general favour from hon. Members on either side of the Committee, though none was entirely happy about an Amendment that was tabled at the time. I therefore promised that we would give further consideration to this matter. At the same time, I tentatively suggested that we might consider the title of "Council for Training in Social Work" and, as hon. Members will see, that is the title we have decided best expresses the duties that will fall on this new body.
    Hon. Members will notice that in putting forward this change in title for the social workers' council, we have also suggested an alteration in the title of the health visitors' council. That point, too, arose in Committee. In particular, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) suggested that if we were thinking of changing the title in the case of the social workers we must consider the consequences to the health visitors. These Amendments are put forward to bring the two titles together on much the same basis.
    The alteration in the title of the social workers' council will have a further point of value, in that if it is at any time decided to extend the work of that council under Clause 3 (3)—which makes possible, following an Order made by the Privy Council, an extension into other spheres of social work, apart from health and welfare services, which are our immediate concern—it will probably be more acceptable to the other interests which might then be brought in to use the suggested title of Council for Training in Social Work. I have no reason to believe that the new titles are not acceptable, so I hope that the House will accept these Amendments.
    Mr. K. Robinson: We are grateful to the hon. Lady for meeting the point that we raised in Standing Committee. Although the two titles which the Government have selected are slightly more cumbersome than the originals, they are in every other way preferable, and I am sure that they will meet the acceptance, not only of the House but of the professions concerned.
    Miss Vickers: As I had the pleasure of moving the other Amendment in the Standing Committee, I should like to thank my hon. Friend for the consideration she has given to this subject.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 8, leave out "social workers" and insert "training in social work".—[Miss Pitt.]

    Clause 2.—(FUNCTIONS OF HEALTH VISITORS TRAINING COUNCIL.)
    Amendment made: In page 2, line 5, leave out "Health Visitors Training Council" and insert:
    "Council for the Training of Health Visitors".—[Miss Pitt.]
    Mrs. Hill: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after "approving" to insert "or recognising".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I suggest that with this Amendment we could take that in page 2, line 13, after "may", to insert "recognise"; and that in page 2, line 14, after "examinations" to insert:
    "or recognise as equivalent to such examinations examinations conducted by universities or university institutions".
    Mrs. Hill: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    This Amendment, and those you have also mentioned, seek to make it clear that the universities will be able to conduct courses, and that their examinations, and the results of the examinations, will be recognised by the councils.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I support the principle behind this minor Amendment but the reason for the wording that my hon. Friends and I have chosen is to make quite clear what we have in mind. The fear is that since some health visitor courses are now conducted by universities, the universities will not be prepared to have their courses approved by

    139
    the Council for the Training of Health Visitors. This is, I think, something slightly more than a question of status and prestige and it was thought that if the words "recognise as equivalent" were included under the functions of the council, we would have the benefit of the continuation of these university courses without their having to be formally approved by the council. I hope that this principle is accepted by the Government and, for my part, I am indifferent to which of the two forms of wording are used.
    Miss Pitt: Two points, separate but related, are involved. The first Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) would, if accepted, mean that we should say that courses should be recognised as well as approved. Her second Amendment—and that in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson)—then goes on to deal with examinations; that they should be recognised. I realise that it is convenient that we should discuss the two matters together.
    Regarding the first, the question of recognising the courses, I would point out that if the Amendment were accepted it would detract from the council's responsibilities as the guardians of the standards which we hope they will lay down. Since the council will have university representation, particularly with the vice-chancellor of a university as its first chairman, I do not think that the interests of universities are likely to be overlooked and I do not feel, therefore, that we can accept the Amendment.
    The second two Amendments, on the question of recognising examinations, are not really necessary because the council's power in Clause 2 (1, c) to conduct or make arrangements for the conducting of examinations is permissive and not mandatory, so the council will have power to recognise examinations conducted by other bodies and courses which satisfy the conditions which the council itself will specify in its rules for the award of its certificate.
    I feel, therefore, that with that explanation the point in the minds of hon. Members has been covered by the
    140
    Bill as now written, and I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her Amendment.
    Mrs. Hill: Having been given that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Miss Pitt: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "making such courses known" and to insert:
    "seeking to attract persons to such courses".
    This, again, meets an undertaking I gave in Committee about the council's functions in relation to recruitment. The purpose of the Amendment is the same as that which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) moved in Committee and which he withdrew on my undertaking to consider the matter further. We all had in mind the importance of showing that it was the responsibility of the council to stimulate recruitment, but we were at some pains to see that we did not intend that the council should take over the functions of recruiting for employment. I hope that this alteration in the wording will meet the point as agreed by the Committee, for it makes it quite clear that what we have in mind is recruitment to courses.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. K. Robinson: These words meet the point that we were seeking to make in Committee. I think that there is a touch of ingenuity about them, and I am happy, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Miss Pitt: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert:
    (b) if it appears to them that adequate provision is not being made for the further training of health visitors, shall provide or secure the provision of courses for this purpose.
    This Amendment again arises from our discussion in Committee when an Amendment was moved to leave out "may" and to insert "shall", on the ground that further training was too important for this function to be left permissive. I explained that the council might well not need to take the initiative for further training facilities, a point which I think was accepted in Committee, but I did promise to consider whether the word "may" could not be

    141
    replaced by "shall" where needed. Indeed, this is another suggestion which I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) made to the Committee.
    Having given the further consideration that I promised, I feel that this is a way of making clear what we have in mind. It does no more than clarify our original intention. The power is still permissive, but I think that it meets any doubts which hon. Members may have had, and I hope that it is acceptable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out "relating" and to insert "relevant".
    The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) was good enough just now to characterise an Amendment which the House has made as showing "a touch of ingenuity". I hope that he will recognise the same quality in the Amendment that I am now moving.
    It was pointed out at an earlier stage that "matters relating to the training of health visitors" might circumscribe very narrowly the field of research which was opened under paragraph (d) of this subsection. By substituting the word "relevant" one greatly widens the field, since a great many matters affecting the work of health visiting are clearly relevant although they might not be held to relate to the training of health visitors. At any rate, I am advised that with the word "relevant" there will be no effective circumscription of the field of research in relation to health visiting which the council can carry out or assist in.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am a little reassured by the brief words with which the Minister introduced this Amendment. When I saw it on the Amendment Paper I recognised at once that it went some way towards meeting the point that we made in Committee. I thought then that it went only a very small part of the way.
    I have looked up the definition of the word "relevant" in one or two dictionaries and certainly it is wider than "relating to"—it is not quite synonymous. I am not sure that it is quite as wide open as the Minister sug-
    142
    gests, but I hope that he is right. On the whole, I still think that it might have been better to take out altogether from the subsection the word "training", which was our original proposal. However, on the assurance that the Minister has given—no doubt, on the authority of people more skilled in drafting than I am—I am quite happy to accept the word "relevant" as substantially meeting our point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "visitors" to the end of line 21.
    The House, in Committee, has just decided, upon a Division, not to make to Clause 3 an addition corresponding to Clause 2 (1, e). In moving that Amendment in Committee the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) did say that the reasons for it were stronger in relation to social workers than in relation to health visitors. I shall not trouble the House, therefore, by putting forward again the grounds, which are identical, why this paragraph should not stand part of Clause 2.
    Mr. K. Robinson: For the same reason as that given by the Minister, I shall not expand on the arguments in favour of retaining this paragraph, which were, I think, very fully expressed on the other Amendment during recommittal of the Bill. I shall be content to deal with the matter in the Division Lobby.
    Dame Irene Ward: I want to draw attention to this fact, that this is the first time in Committee or on Report of a Bill that I have known the Minister in charge of a Bill not to receive the support of a single Member attending the debate. That ought to be on record.
    I shall not continue the arguments rejected by the Minister, but I cannot help wondering what has happened and in what direction our democracy is going, because here we have a Minister, without any support at all, either from his own side or the Opposition, rejecting arguments which are based upon considerations put forward by many most important people, and based on a Report produced by a body chaired by a very distinguished woman, and whose deliberations lasted for three and a half years.

    143
    The Minister rejects the arguments, and then at the ringing of the Division bell Members come in not knowing what it is about and rush the Minister triumphantly through. It is not my idea of Parliamentary government, and I want to make the strongest possible protest about it.
    Miss Herbison: I should like the Minister to explain something which was raised a number of times, but to which we have got no explanation at all from him. He was so anxious to say that social training was in no way different from any other type of further education, although he was faced with the training for child care, the training for the work of almoners, the training for the work of probation officers. Why, if these people, essential as they are, can be treated in this way, is it impossible to treat the few people in this important social or health visiting work in a similar way?
    I want to reinforce what has just been said by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). In Committee, the matter was discussed very fully, and, in spite of the Government, an Amendment was made to the Bill. We have Members on both sides of the House taking part in the discussion in which they are very interested, but the Minister can sit there so assured that when the Division bell goes his "troops" will come in and do for him what he is not able to do for himself by logical, sensible argument.
    The only point that I want the Minister to deal with is the question why

    Division No. 175.]

    AYES

    [9.28 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Parker, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Harper, Joseph

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Blyton, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pentland, Norman

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwy Regis)

    Prentice, R. E.

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

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hilton, A. V.

    Rankin, John

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Holman, Percy

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hunter, A. E.

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

    Deer, George

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Ross, William

    Delargy, Hugh

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

    Short, Edward

    Diamond, John

    King, Dr. Horace

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lawson, George

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lubbock, Eric

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacColl, James

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fletcher, Eric

    McInnes, James

    Steele, Thomas

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marsh, Richard

    Stones, William

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd J. (Crmrthn)

    Mason, Roy

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Bruce

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Grey, Charles

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Tomney, Frank

    other types of social workers are treated so differently from those whom we have been discussing this evening.
    Mr. Powell: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the course for almoners and psychiatric social workers are courses which normally follow a university course. Therefore, they are not the first course of further education in relation to which the grant-making powers of the local education authorities are normally exercised. They are not, therefore, an all fours with the courses to which we are referring.
    That cannot be said of the child-care or probation officer courses, which as the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North {Miss Herbison) knows, in one case some time ago, were instituted in special circumstances to meet a special need, but which, I must advise the House, do not, although anomalous, constitute a ground for taking these courses out of the procedures and finances of further education courses generally.
    Mr. Ede: Since I came to the House I have tried to convince Governments that training for one's livelihood is a legitimate part of education. I have always been met by the educational establishments with the plea that vocational training is not education. At last I have managed to persuade a Minister that I am right, but, unfortunately, I persuaded the wrong Minister.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 145.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Whitlock, William

    Wade, Donald

    Wilkins, W. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wainwright, Edwin

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

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Mr. McCann.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Green, Alan

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Batsford, Brian

    Gurden, Harold

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pym, Francis

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hay, John

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bidgood, John C.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Biffen, John

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Renton, David

    Bishop, F. P.

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

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Holland, Philip

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Box, Donald

    Hornby, R. P.

    Roots, William

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Russell, Ronald

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Sharples, Richard

    Bryan, Paul

    James, David

    Shepherd, William

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

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

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Smithers, Peter

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Kirk, Peter

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Litchfield, Capt John

    Temple, John M.

    Collard, Richard

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Cooke, Robert

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    McLaren, Martin

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Cordle, John

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Corfield, F. V.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Costain, A. P.

    Maddan, Martin

    Walder, David

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Maginnis, John E.

    Walker, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Curran, Charles

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Maydon, Lieut. Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Mills, Stratton

    Wise, A. R.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Emery, Peter

    Noble, Michael

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Farr, John

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Woollam, John

    Finlay, Graeme

    Peel, John

    Worsley, Marcus

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Gammans, Lady

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gardner, Edward

    Pitman, Sir James

    Mr. Whitelaw and

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Mr. Michael Hamilton.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Pott, Percivall

    Mrs. Hill: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end to insert:
    (f) shall prepare and maintain a register of health visitors.
    It may be argued that there is no need for this Amendment or that there is no room for it within the scope of the Bill. When I raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, she wrote to me at great length in that sense. On the other hand, the health visitors are concerned that they themselves will not, under the Bill, be able to issue certificates and maintain a register of the certificates issued. I think I am right in saying that there was, in 1959, a suggestion that this should be one of their functions. While it may
    146
    be said that, since health visitors must be nurses first, there is no need for this provision, I must tell the House that in 1960, dietitians were empowered to maintain a register although they, too, are State-registered nurses before taking up training as dietitians. It seems only fair that health visitors should have a similar opportunity.
    Although, if a health visitor commits a misdemeanour, the matter will go to the General Nursing Council, it is not provided in the Bill that the G.N.C. would report such a matter to the health visitors. Health visitors feel that they, too, should have the opportunity of issuing certificates and maintaining a register so that they may keep a good

    147
    eye on the work done by members of their profession. It has happened in the past that people who were not health visitors have been said to be visitors, and it is the opinion of the profession that the matter should be reconsidered. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us a little more than the Parliamentary Secretary's letter to me did.
    Miss Vickers: The Women Public Health Officers' Association passed the following resolution at its annual general meeting in March this year:
    "This meeting reaffirms in the strongest manner possible that the long-standing policy of the Women Public Health Officers' Association that the establishment of a register of health visitors is vital for the protection of the title of the health visitor and for the safeguarding of the profession, and resolves that the necessity for this register be urged on those responsible for the planning of the future of health visiting".
    For that reason and others, I support the Amendment.
    During discussion on the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act, 1960, it was decided that there should be registers for these various professions. I recognise that health visitors are registered as nurses and are subject to the general discipline of the General Nursing Council, but it may not always be known to the council, if a nurse has removed her name from the register, whether she was a health visitor or not.
    I understand that some health visitor courses are held under the aegis of the universities and I have been advised that the universities will not accept an arrangement under which courses which they conduct have to be approved by an outside body, which, I presume, in this case would be the General Nursing Council. The universities, as is well known, run their own courses and examinations without the help of an outside body.
    In view of the two points which I have mentioned, namely, the necessity of safeguarding the profession of the health visitor and the point about the universities, I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Pavitt: I support the case made out so admirably by the hon. Ladies the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe
    148
    (Mrs. Hill) and Plymouth, Devonport, (Miss Vickers). The hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe said that this matter is pertinent and relevant to the Bill. Throughout the Bill we have been concerned with status, which can be achieved only if there is some form of register which enables people to see that this is a sector of the health service to which they are attached and for which certain qualifications are required. Such a register would enable it to be defined clearly that, although they are already on the nurses register, they have this additional qualification which enables them to be health visitors.
    I have received representations from the Women Public Health Officers' Association. I also had the good fortune recently to attend the conference of the Royal Society of Health at Scarborough, during which I had representations from many quarters about the need for a register to enable the qualifications obtained under the Bill to be clearly seen and stated.
    I am very glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe has moved this Amendment. I pay tribute to the fact that, throughout the passage of the Bill, the hon. Ladies on the Government side had made a contribution. On this subject they know what they are talking about. The conclusion which I have reached is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are silent because they do not know what they are talking about. So far, we have not had any contributions from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Ladies opposite know what they want and are prepared to ask for it.
    Miss Pitt: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) was quite right in anticipating that I would tell her that there was no need for the Amendment, as I have already told her in private correspondence. There is nothing to prevent the Health Visitors Council from maintaining a register in the sense of a record of the health visitors to whom it has issued its certificate. Indeed, I am quite sure that it would choose to do that. If that were all my hon. Friend had in mind—it is all that her Amendment asks for—then I say that that is almost certain to happen. That I believe meets the point made by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt).

    149
    Evidently, he is mainly concerned with maintaining a register of health visitors who receive the appropriate certificate.
    9.45 p.m.
    From the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), however, it is evident that although it is not covered by their Amendment they want to go further and to have powers so that the General Nursing Council may take disciplinary action. I am sorry to tell them that their Amendment would not provide for that. It would not, therefore, achieve their object. In any event, if their anxiety is to protect the title of "health visitor", it would be necessary to have supplementary powers to take disciplinary action.
    Since however, the first object of my hon. Friends is to secure that a register is kept, I can promise them that that is possible without any Amendment. To go further and to provide the council with all the disciplinary powers of other professional bodies would go a long way beyond the scope and purpose of the Bill.
    Dame Irene Ward: The argument of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is extraordinary. I am prepared to see the Amendment in the Bill as it has been put down. If it meets the wishes of the women public health officers, why cannot my hon. Friend give them the satisfaction of embodying their suggestion in the Bill? As she says, they are entitled to keep a register without having the fact written into the Bill. Is there any reason why it should not appear in the Bill, plainly stated as in the Amendment?
    The title of the Bill is "Health Visitors and Social Workers Training Bill", yet in the text of the Bill there is no mention of the bodies concerned. There is no indication that my right hon. Friend the Minister wants to build up, as he ought to be doing, the status and position of health visitors and social workers. It is extraordinary that there has been no emphasis upon this. The only people who are mentioned in terms are the employers, who are, of course, the local authorities.
    If women public health officers wish to have this provision in the Bill, there
    150
    is no reason to prevent its inclusion. It would indicate to the country—I hope that people will study the Act from time to time—that a register of health visitors is to be kept. That in itself would be an indication of the position of health visitors concerning the general organisation of their services and powers.
    What my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said is nonsense. She is putting ideas into my head which I certainly do not have. I see no reason why she wants to do that. I am quite capable of putting my ideas forward. There is no reason for her to indicate to me what I am thinking or want, because I do not think or want it. All I want is the Amendment in its simple terms embodied in the Bill, so that at least we have it there and people will know that the health visitors have a register.
    If someone reading the Bill sees that the health visitors have a register, it is an indication to him that he can study it. If there is no register, no names may be available to local authorities or to other individuals interested in the work done by health visitors.
    It is most ungracious of my hon. Friend not to accept the Amendment. The Bill does absolutely nothing that anybody wants except the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. It is most extraordinary that this quite simple little Amendment should be rejected and that things should be put into my mouth with which I am not concerned at all.
    Miss Herbison: I support the Amendment. In dealing with points raised by the hon. Ladies the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) and Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Amendment did not give health visitors any powers of disciplinary action, and so on. The Amendment does not ask for that. The health visitors are merely asking that a register should be kept. They are not asking much from the Minister.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) used the word "ungracious", and that is perhaps the correct word to use in this context. The Amendment does not ask for a great deal, and it might be gracious of the Parliamentary Secretary if, even at

    151
    this stage, she would say that she was prepared to accept this simple Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: The debate has shown that the intention of the Amendment is that there should be a register of those who have received the certificate of the council. It is from no wish to frustrate anyone's desires that I must tell the House that there is no doubt at all that the council has the power to maintain such a register. I should think that there is no doubt at all that it will do so, and I should also have thought that it was somewhat derogatory to the council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) wants to build up, to write into the Bill—I do not think these words would do it with sufficient precision—a requirement that it should maintain a register.
    I hope that the House will take it that the desires of those concerned can be met within the Bill as it stands and, so far as one can see, undoubtedly will be met, and that it would be better that these words should not be written into the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 3.—(FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL WORKERS TRAINING COUNCIL.)
    Amendments made: In page 2, line 29, leave out "Social Workers Training Council" and insert:
    "Council for Training in Social Work".
    In line 30, leave out from "promote" to end of line 35 and insert:
    "training in such social work as is required in the health and welfare services by seeking to secure suitable facilities for training persons in such work, by approving courses as suitable to be attended by persons engaged or intending to engage in such work and by seeking to attract persons to such courses".
    In line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
    (b) if it appears to them that adequate provision is not being made for further training in such work, shall provide or secure the provision of courses for this purpose.
    In line 42, leave out "relating" and insert "relevant".
    In page 3, line 7, leave out "Social Workers Training Council" and insert:
    "Council for Training in Social Work".—[Mr. Powell.]

    Clause 7.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 16, leave out from "the" to "Act" in line 17 and insert:
    "Health Visiting and Social Work (Training)"—[Mr. Powell.]

  First Schedule.—(CONSTITUTION, ETC., OF COUNCILS.)
  Amendment made: In page 5, line 5, leave out "Health Visitors Training Council" and insert:
  "Council for the Training of Health Visitors".—[Mr. Powell.]
  Miss Pitt: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, to leave out "twenty-nine" and to insert "thirty-one".
  The Amendment arises from a promise that I made in Committee. It increases the total membership of the Council for the Training of Health Visitors to provide for two more places to represent professional and educational interests. In Committee hon. Members were concerned at the fact that there did not clearly appear to be a majority for those interests. As those who served on the Committee will remember, I took them through a rather long arithmetical lesson in order to point out that the figures proved that there was a majority representing professional interests, but I promised then both to meet the point that it should be made quite clear and to ensure that there was adequate representation for the General Nursing Council, by putting down Amendments on Report to increase the total.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 6, leave out "Social Workers Training Council" and insert:
  "Council for Training in Social Work"—[Miss Pitt.]
  Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, after "appoint", to insert:
  "the Chairman of each Council and may appoint".
  We were very disappointed to find that the Minister had not put down an Amendment to this effect. In Committee a similar Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson),

  153
  and it was then supported by hon. Members on both sides. When the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the debate, although she did not give a definite promise she seemed to be impressed by our case, and we felt at that time that, on Report, our Amendment or a similar one would be moved by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. Since neither has taken steps to do so, we have put down this Amendment.
  We find it very difficult to understand the attitude of the Government on this matter. If this Amendment were accepted the Bill would read:
  "The Privy Council shall appoint the chairman of each council and may appoint one person to be chairman of both councils."
  That would do nothing whatever to tie the hands of the Minister.
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Proceedings on the Health Visitors and Social Workers Training Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Powell.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Miss Herbison: I was saying that if this Amendment were accepted it would in no way tie the hands of the present Minister of Health or any future Minister of Health. It would still leave this matter completely flexible. I hope that because it would do so the Minister will gladly accept the Amendment.
  In dealing with a similar Amendment in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government wanted the closest co-operation between these two councils. We also want that close co-operation between the councils, but even if we had a separate chairman for each council it would not militate at all against close co-operation. I am sure that, whoever was Minister of Health, he would always make a point of finding people who were worth while and sensible to be chairmen of each of these councils. Even if there were separate chairmen we could get the co-operation which all of us desire between these two councils.
  All of us are very glad that we have such an eminent person who has accepted the chairmanship of both these
  154
  councils from the beginning. We are delighted about that, but the time may come when the Minister might feel that it would be much better for the work of each council and for the work of both councils that there should be separate chairmen. He envisages, as we envisage, great progress and development in this social work, in the training of health visitors and in attracting personnel to this work and in the training of social workers and attracting personnel to that work.
  If one of these councils is extended to take in other work there may come a time when a chairman who had to be chairman of both councils would find the work so heavy that it became intolerable. We are trying to help the Minister in the event of that happening. He would then have the flexibility in the Statute to ensure that if he wished he could at some future date appoint separate chairmen for each council.
  If the Minister accepts this Amendment, he and future Ministers in their wisdom could still appoint one man as chairman of both councils. On the other hand, if it were found that for the good of the work and co-operation of the councils it was necessary to have two chairmen, he would not be bound by the limits which are at present in the Bill. I am sure that some thought has been given to this matter since Committee stage. I hope the Minister is able to say that he is ready and willing to accept the Amendment.
  Miss Vickers: It may be remembered that in Committee I had a similar Amendment; in fact, I think that mine went a little further than this. I support what has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). We are all delighted to have such a good chairman as Sir John Wolfenden—a man of great experience; and it is no criticism of him or of anyone who follows him that I support the Amendment. But we may find in the working of these two councils that they need to be separated.
  There may be several reasons for this. One is that the work may become too onerous. Or it may be found in the working of the councils at some time that there is a need to divide them. We all hope that this will not be necessary,

  155
  but it would be a pity not to make provision in the Bill for this in case it turns out to be better for both councils that they should have separate chairmen.
  It may also be found that one person cannot co-ordinate them sufficiently and that two people getting together, one representing one council and one representing the other, would be able to find a better means of co-operation than if there were only one head. Perhaps two heads are sometimes better than one.
  I therefore hope that we shall not lay down in the Bill that there can be only one chairman, because we should be tying ourselves to something which might not be workable in the future.
  Mr. Powell: As my hon. Friend promised in Committee, I have directed my mind to the issues which were there canvassed and which are raised by the Amendment. There is general agreement not only, I am glad to say, upon the person of the first common chairman of the two councils, but also upon the desirability of the two councils starting their existence closely knit together, and the intention that they should be closely knit together is expressed particularly by the fact of the identical chairman.
  But it seems to me that future development—and we envisage future development, particularly for the Social Workers Training Council—cannot diminish and may conceivably increase the importance of these two councils being closely knit. Upon balance, therefore, it seemed to me that it was better that in the constitution of these two councils as we are setting them up by the Bill, this intention and the present guarantee for its fulfilment which the common chairman represents should be enshrined in the Act, so that there may be no mistake as to the views of the House in launching this development that these two councils not only ought to start together in their outlook but, if anything, should grow closer together rather than fall apart as the years go on.
  I admit that this is a matter of judgment and balance, but it seemed to me, and I respectfully advise the House, that on balance there is a greater advantage in spelling out in the Bill that these two councils are to have a common chairman.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I am surprised at the Minister's response to the Amendment. We all understand the desirability of a close association between these councils. They get off to a closely associated start by the appointment of one common chairman. All we were seeking to do was not to tie the hands of every successive Minister of Health when faced with the problem of finding a chairman or chairmen for these councils. There may well come a time when there is not an obvious person available who is suitable to be chairman of both councils. Whatever the desirability of closely associating the two councils—and I do not question it—I think that there is a case for some measure of flexibility.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a matter of judgment. I should have thought that it is almost a matter of common sense to say that a loophole is left against an eventuality which may probably—or certainly possibly—occur at some future time.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: In page 5, line 11, leave out "Health Visitors Training Council" and insert:
  "Council for the Training of Health Visitors".
  In line 13, leave out "thirteen" and insert "fourteen".
  In line 14, leave out "five" and insert "six".
  In line 22, leave out "Social Workers Training Council" and insert:
  "Council for Training in Social Work".—[Mr. Powell.]
  Mrs. Hill: I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, to leave out "Of".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It may well be convenient to take with this Amendment the Amendments in page 5, line 36, leave out "twelve"; and in page 6, line 5, at end insert:
  (d) one after consultation with the British Dental Association.
  Mrs. Hill: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that will be convenient.
  I ask that the Minister should consult the British Dental Association with the object of one of the Association's members being included in this professional

  157
  representation other than the health visitors themselves. The reason is that the health visitors in their work visit a considerable number of families. Their principal work probably is with young families. They therefore see a tremendous number of children in the younger age groups, all of whom could be helped very considerably by their advice. After all, their work is preventive medicine. I feel quite sure that if greater attention were paid to this aspect in the earlier years much suffering and ill-health would be avoided later.
  In one city, health visitors can pay 100,000 visits to children in the age groups that at present lack dental treatment. If there were someone on this body who could give specialist direction and advice to the council, to be passed on by it to the health visitors, something really valuable would be achieved. Dental caries is the one complaint whose incidence has not lessened as a result of all our health work. Therefore, this is a very suitable moment to ensure that at least one of these persons should be a dentist of the highest training.
  10.15 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: I regard this as one of the most important of the Amendments with which we are dealing. At one time, rickets was called the "English disease", but I think that the condition of the teeth is now our major disgrace. The number of children of school age who have false teeth is a great blot on the Welfare State.
  As has been mentioned, children get their first proper education in this matter from the health visitors, who advise the mothers on how to bring on the first teeth and see that they are properly cared for in preparation for the second set. It is essential that we should have experts here. Doctors have a great deal of general knowledge, but as the care of the eyes and the teeth is a very specialised matter, I suggest that this is an extremely important Amendment if we are really to look to the future health and welfare of the children.
  I have just returned from America, where I was particularly impressed by the excellent dental work done there. I have also been to the West Indies, where the children's teeth are exceptionally good, because the inhabitants have a
  158
  natural asset. Sweets may be bad for the teeth, but apparently sugar cane is a very good cleanser. In both of those countries the children have better teeth than ours have. We have made a start by having dental school nurses. We have recognised that the New Zealand experiment was worth while, but the service should be extended. I therefore support the Amendment.
  Mr. Powell: I entirely accept the object behind the Amendment. I entirely accept that in the activities of the health visitors' council the importance of dental health in the preventive health work of the health visitor should be fully recognised, and should be to the fore.
  I give an undertaking that, in one way or another, steps will be taken to ensure that the membership of the council always includes at least one person who has a special interest in dental health and in the place dental health should occupy in a health visitor's training. I think it would be better to secure the result in this flexible way than to write into the constitution a specific member and a specific requirement of consultation.
  I have given the British Dental Association the same assurance as I am now giving and I think that it can be taken that the interests of dental health will always be represented on the council and that its importance in the training of health visitors will not be forgotten.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: In page 5, line 36, to leave out "twelve" and to insert "thirteen".
  In page 6, line 3, to leave out "one" and to insert two".—[Miss Pitt.]
  Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, to leave out "twelve" and to insert "thirteen".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we discuss the next, in page 6, line 13, to leave out "ten" and to insert "eleven".
  Mr. Robinson: That will be convenient.
  The changes that have been made in the constitution of the Health Visitors Training Council are, as the hon. Lady

  159
  explained, for the purpose of making manifest the majority of what we might call the professional members will have over what we may describe as the employing members.
  In Standing Committee, there were a number of attempts to change the numerical constitution of these two councils. We got into a slight tangle a short while ago over the comparatively simple changes we were making at this stage of the Bill, but the complexity of the Notice Paper in Standing Committee, when three of us were trying to make three different and complicated sets of changes to the Social Workers Training Council, had to be seen to be believed. It was only the ingenuity and persistence of the Chairman of the Standing Committee that got us out of that difficulty.
  I have tried to avoid getting into the same difficulty on Report. I think that the House would now agree that the professional majority on the Health Visitors Training Council, as amended a short while ago, is now even clearer than it is on the Council for the Training of Social Workers. I have sought a very simple way of making the professional majority rather more definite and clear. This does not involve any change in either the size of the council, or in the various members who are to be appointed after consultation with various bodies. It solely affects what the right hon. Gentleman called on Second Reading the "swingers"—the members of the council appointed without reference to anyone.
  I agree that this is a good principle. While there is one on the Health Visitors Training Council, the right hon. Gentleman, for some reason or other, has chosen to put two on the other council. I thought that if we reduced the number of "swingers" from two to one, bringing it in line with the other training council, we should then just increase from ten to eleven the members who have to be appointed
  "after consultation with organisations appearing … to represent social workers."
  This is a very simple Amendment. I think that probably one of the "swingers", at any rate, always would be likely to come within this category of the professional representation, but
  160
  the effect of these two Amendments would really put that beyond a peradventure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to accept this Amendment, which would go some way to doing what most of us were seeking to do in Committee in a series of Amendments which I think ultimately were withdrawn.
  Miss Pitt: As the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said, the effect of these Amendments, taken together, is to increase by one the number of members to be appointed by the Health Ministers to the Council for Training in Social Work after consultation with organisations representing social workers or otherwise concerned with social work. It is done at the expense of one of the two members in respect of whose appointment prior consultation was not laid down—or, to use the inelegant phrase which he and my right hon. Friend have found, at the expense of one of the swingers".
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he thought it quite likely that one of these two might well be representative of the social worker interests, but he wanted to make it certain and he does so by cutting down the two for whom no specific provision is made. I say at once that we recognise that a wide range of interests will have to be represented under paragraph 7 (a), and that is the reason why there are to be ten members here for social workers compared with eight on the Council for the Training of Health Visitors under the comparable provision.
  As I have said, it might well be that the Health Ministers would appoint to one of these uncommitted places people who would be nominated under the earlier provision of paragraph 7 (a), but we think that the representation of social work interests should not be increased at the expense of one of the two uncommitted members both of whom might be very important for the future work of these councils. These two "swingers" might both be needed to appoint outstanding individuals who would not become members of the council in any other way.
  One example which I might put to illustrate the point is that it might be thought appropriate to make a specific

  161
  link with hospital management committees, but we think that to allow for the widest possible contribution it would be right to preserve the two uncommitted places and, as I believe that the social workers themselves are adequately covered and they have a majority on the council, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment after this explanation.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Pavitt: This is a small Amendment, but I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) upon it. As a member of a hospital management committee, I have not been tempted by the hon. Lady to alter my view of the prospect that some members of the group may find themselves serving upon this most important council. Hon. Members on both sides have recognised that the Minister has had an extremely difficult job to resist all the pressures placed upon him in trying to get the balance of the council as he
  162
  would like it, but I think my hon. Friend has made a case for this Amendment.
  The council has to carry with it the people actually involved in the work, and if they were to feel they would have a clear majority it would be far easier for the council to work effectively from the word "Go." They may feel that the balance is not too well preserved and they may fear that they may find themselves in a minority. It is only a small point, and a question of only one person, but I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I am again sorry that the hon. Lady does not find it possible to accept this Amendment, particularly as she gave no explanation why two "swingers" are necessary on this council when one, apparently, is sufficient on the other. However, in order not to prolong unduly the proceedings of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, at the beginning to insert "Of".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be convenient to take with this Amendment the next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), in page 6, line 19, after "Schedule" insert "two" and in line 19, after "with" insert:
  "the Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration, and five after consultation with".
  Miss Herbison: These three Amendments do go togethear. If the Amendments were accepted paragraph 8 of this Schedule would read:
  "Of the members mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule two shall be appointed after consultation with the Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration, and five after consultation with such universities and other bodies concerned with the training of social workers as the Health Ministers and the Minister of Education think fit."
  By paragraph 4 (b) seven members of the council are appointed by the Health Ministers and the Minister of Education. We should like to ensure that the seven should be appointed after the appropriate Ministers have had consultation with the Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration. We wish that because this body, established as far back as 1918, has done excellent work, has very great knowledge of the problems which the council may have to meet and solve, and also because on this body there are representatives of local authorities. They are people used to working very closely together to achieve what we hope the council we are setting up will achieve. We feel that, since they have great knowledge, they should be specifically mentioned in the Schedule. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that of course there would be consultation, but we feel that that ought to be specifically stated here in the Schedule. It ought to state that this is one of the bodies, because of its knowledge and experience, with which the Ministers must of necessity have consultation, particularly in the appointment of people to the council.
  In some of our universities there may be vice-chancellors, professors and so on who have little or no knowledge of the work we are discussing on this Bill. It
  164
  seems to us that, where there is attached to the universities a body of people who have experience and knowledge, we ought to take the greatest possible advantage of their expertise. We are not asking for a great deal, and I hope that the Minister will be read to accept the Amendment.
  Dame Irene Ward: I support the Amendment. I know that the body concerned would very much like its place in the scheme of things to be mentioned specifically in the Bill, and I am a little surprised that it did not appear to my right hon. Friend that it would be a good idea to provide for the place of this very distinguished and trusted body to be stated by name.
  Like the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I should feel much greater confidence if that body were given specific reference in the Bill. As she has pointed out, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the local authorities generally have figured largely in the provisions we have been discussing, being specifically mentioned by name and associated with the training council. It is equally important that this distinguished university body, which is so widely respected, should have its proper place and have its position on the council specifically stated.
  Mr. Powell: The object of both the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) can, I think, be better achieved without these Amendments than with them. The experience and importance of this joint university body is not in question. I assure the House that Ministers would consult the council in making their appointments under the paragraph generally, and there is, therefore, no need—indeed, it would be undesirable to do so—to restrict the appointments in respect of which this council is consulted to two.
  It seems inappropriate that one should compartment the education appointments to two and five, assigning consultation in regard to one set to a joint university body and in regard to the other set to universities and other bodies concerned. The joint council would, in fact, be in a somewhat better position to influence by its advice and experi-

  165
  ence the views and the choices open to the Ministers in making their appointments with the Bill as it stands than with the Bill as amended. It is for that reason, that it would be more effective and appropriate as it stands, that I suggest to the House that the Bill should not be amended as has been suggested.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, at the end to insert:
  10. Of the members of each Council who are appointed by the Health Ministers, one at least shall be a fully registered medical practitioner engaged in general medical practice, and that member shall be among those appointed after consultation with the British Medical Association and the Society of Medical Officers of Health.
  The object of the Amendment, as it shows, is to ensure that in each of the councils there shall be at least one general practitioner. There is no doubt about the growing importance, and growing existence, of a liaison between the family doctor and the health visitors and the social workers. They are already exploring the almost endless ways in which they can help one another, and it is clearly important that the outlook and the point of view of the family doctor should be represented on both councils.
  Therefore, the Amendment provides that each council shall have at least one such and that that member shall be one who has been appointed after consultation with the professional bodies.
  Mr. K. Robinson: We on this side welcome the Amendment, particularly because the Minister has decided that it shall apply to both councils. The only criticism I have is embodied in an Amendment of mine which has not been selected.
  This is almost entirely a drafting matter, but not entirely, I should have thought. The Minister's Amendment states that one at least of the members shall be a fully registered medical practitioner. This was the point I made to the Parliamentary Secretary in the Standing Committee when she wanted to suggest an Amendment whereby one was a medical practitioner. I said I thought it was a mistake to limit it to one. But if we say
  "one at least shall be a fully registered medical practitioner and that member shall be among those appointed"
  166
  we seem to be assuming that it will be only one, because "that member" is singular.
  All I suggest is that if those words were deleted the provision would be far better grammatically and would express the Minister's purpose much more lucidly. The provision would then read
  "one at least shall be a fully registered medical practitioner and shall be among those appointed after consultation with the British Medical Association …".
  I am surprised that the Minister did not indicate that he was prepared to accept my Amendment. No doubt he will have an opportunity, since this is not a financial matter, of having second thoughts on it. I certainly welcome the principle of his Amendment.
  Miss Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for the Amendment. In Standing Committee I moved an Amendment to provide the words
  "one of whom shall be a general practitioner."
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the consideration that he has given to the point, and I welcome the Amendment.
  Mr. Pavitt: I also welcome the fact that this provision is being made, though it is not quite what I had hoped for. Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), I welcome the fact that it is to apply to both councils.
  I should have liked the words "actively engaged" included. The tendency in regard to medical representation from general practice is that only those general practitioners who are able to spare the time from very busy practice serve on committees. This means that there is a tendency for the representatives to be fairly elderly senior partners of groups of practitioners—not group practices but partnerships—and this often means that they are somewhat divorced from the day-to-day working of general practice. It would have been a help to have had the words "actively engaged".
  I regret that the consultation is with the British Medical Association and not with the College of General Practitioners. An Amendment of mine which has not been selected dealt with this. The standard of general practice has improved,

  167
  and the status that the general practitioner is getting by reason of the College of General Practitioners is something which needs to be encouraged. The inclusion of my proposal would have helped general practitioners who are keen about the advance of general practice, the function of the family doctor in the community and the relationship of the family doctor with other parts of the health service. Such doctors could give service on the two councils.
  Nevertheless, I am grateful that provision is being made to have general practitioners on both councils.
  Amendment agreed to.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, to leave out "that" and to insert "either".
  This is quite a moment, because, so far, no Amendment moved at this stage from anywhere but the Government Front Bench has been accepted, and this is the last opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to accept one moved by the Opposition. It is a minor matter, but I do not think that Paragraph 14 of the Schedule is necessary. If it is held to be necessary, however, I submit that it is essential that the Amendment should be made.
  The paragraph says:
  "A person who is or has been a member of either Council shall be eligible for appointment as a member of that Council."
  On the face of it, that looks a self-evident proposition, but if it is left like that it will also mean that such a person will not be eligible to be a member of the other council. I am told by my legal friends that it is a basic principle of law that if we specify something we exclude what is not specified. In order to make it clear that anybody is eligible for appointment or reappointment to either council, I think it is necessary to alter the wording as suggested.
  Miss Pitt: The Amendment follows a discussion we had in Committee. I have had the benefit of being able to take legal advice on the matter. In tabling the Amendment the hon. Member seeks to remove a doubt, but the legal advice that I have been able to obtain is that the Amendment is not necessary, and
  168
  that paragraph 14, as drafted, would not preclude the appointment of a member to the other council.
  In fact, that should already happen when the councils are set up. The hon. Member will recollect that under paragraph 9 it is laid down that dual appointments should be encouraged, and it is mandatory in the case of local authority representatives that some of them at least should be members of both councils. What the hon. Member desires to happen, therefore, will happen. Under the Bill, as drafted, a member of one council will be eligible for appointment or reappointment to the other. Therefore, I am unable to take advantage of his invitation to be kind at this last opportunity, because it is not necessary.
  Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for putting the Amendment down, because it allows me to put something else on the record which I should like to be equally clearly understood. The word "member" includes the chairman. The chairman may be reappointed to the chair, or as an ordinary member. Also, any past or present member may be appointed to the chair. The hon. Member's efforts have not been without avail, therefore, and, having heard my explanation, with the added comment about the position of the chairman, I hope that he will now feel able to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. K. Robinson: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Second Schedule.—(ADVISORY COMMITTEES.)
  Amendments made: In page 7, line 29, leave out "Health Visitors Training Council" and insert:
  "Council for the Training of Health Visitors".
  In line 30, leave out "Social Workers Training Council" and insert:
  "Council for Training in Social Work".
  In line 31, leave out "Health Visitors Training Council" and insert:
  "Council for the Training of Health Visitors".
  In line 33, leave out "Social Workers Training Council" and insert:
  "Council for Training in Social Work".—[Mr. Powell.]
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, to leave out from second "and" to the end of line 36 and to insert:
  "each of the members of each Committee shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  3. Each of the members of each Committee shall hold office for a term not exceeding three years.
  4. A person who is or has been a member of either Committee shall be eligible for appointment as a member of that Committee."
  This Amendment meets the substance of one put down in Committee by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and some of her hon. Friends. The effect of the Amendment is that members, including the chairmen, of the two Scottish advisory committees will be appointed for up to three years, with eligibility for reappointment as chairman or member. This replaces the existing provision that the members of each committee should hold and vacate office in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State. The Amendment makes explicit what has been throughout the intention. As the House knows, the period of appointment to the main training councils is three years and since six members of each of the Scottish advisory committees, including the chairmen, are to be appointed from the councils, the same period of appointment will normally—so as to have good liaison—be appropriate.
  The close link between the training councils and the advisory committees is also the reason for making the appointments to the Committees for a period not exceeding three years instead of a fixed period of three years. The Amendment has been deliberately worded to make it possible for members of the training councils to be appointed to the advisory committees for such a time, being less than three years, as they remain members of the relevant training council. This avoids the possibility of the advisory committees ceasing to be representative of the important interests, such as local
  170
  authority associations, which are to be represented on the training councils.
  If, for example, one of the Scottish members of a training council retires before the end of his period of office, his successor will serve on the training council for the remainder of his predecessor's term of office and also serve on the Scottish advisory committee for the same period. Thus continuous liaison will be maintained between the training councils and the Scottish advisory committees. I think that this close liaison is something which everyone desires.
  Miss Herbison: As the Minister said, this Amendment meets an Amendment we put forward in Committee. May I give a word of welcome to the Under-Secretary on his appearance at this very late stage of discussion of the Bill? I hope that the absence of a Scottish Minister representing the Health Department during all the previous part of the discussion does not mean that there is not in the Department a very great desire to ensure that this Bill will function well.
  Those of us interested in these matters consider that it is of the greatest importance that these advisory committees in Scotland will, in the first instance, be well chosen and that they will be able to represent to the council points which are of importance for Scotland. The Minister will be aware that in some of these matters of social work we are sometimes behind places in England. I welcome this Bill very greatly. I am glad that the Minister found it possible to meet us on this Amendment. Again I stress, although I know that he is not very pleased about it, that his late appearance in discussions on this Bill does not mean that there is not the very great interest in the Department which we feel it ought to have.
  Mr. Galbraith: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I think I must reply to the hon. Lady's criticism. She ought to know the constitutional position quite well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for health matters in Scotland, and he can choose any of his Under-Secretaries of State to deputise for him. The fact that I was not present during the Committee

  171
  stage of the Bill does not mean that my right hon. Friend is not as interested in this matter as is the hon. Lady.
  Miss Herbison: May I speak again by leave of the House? I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has once again lost his temper. I am sorry that it should happen at the end of the Bill when throughout the whole of the proceedings on it we have been trying to do something worth while in social service. The hon. Member knows very well that there are certain Under-Secretaries of State who are responsible for certain matters and that he is responsible for matters of health.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Title
  Amendment made: In line 2, leave out "social workers" and insert training in social work."—[Mr. Powell.]
  10.57 p.m.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Miss Pitt.]
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. K. Robinson: It would have been pleasant to support the Third Reading with more enthusiasm than I can summon this evening. It is, admittedly, in minor respects a rather better Bill than that which come before us on Second Reading, but in my view, the view of my hon. Friends and the view of almost everybody who has attended the debates, it is a Bill which contains a flaw, and I can only hope—and I say this with all sincerity—that our suspicions that the flaw is fatal will not be justified.
  As we see it, the Bill represents a machine without fuel. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has been so obstinate throughout in rejecting the advice given to him from every quarter abouts grants. I hope that even at this late stage he will at least look into the possibility of introducing pooling arrangements.
  Having said that, I hope that the passage of the Bill through another place will be rather more expeditious than it has been through this House. I hope that the councils will shortly be set up and will be enabled to get down to their work. We all wish them well. We
  172
  recognise that they have an important job to do, and if I particularise the Social Workers Training Council it is only because that is the council which has the more groundwork to do, and it will have to do it with one hand tied behind its back by the Government. But I am sure that Sir John Wolfenden and his colleagues will do their best.
  I would venture three hopes through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the council when it is set up. I hope that it will do all it can to assist in promoting the employment of part-time social workers perhaps by establishing refresher courses or in any other way. This, I believe, represents a considerable reservoir of skilled social workers which is certainly not being employed at the moment.
  Secondly, I hope very much that courses in social work training are instituted in the right places and in appropriate settings, and that we shall concentrate more on the colleges of advanced technology, the universities, and extra-mural departments rather than on colleges of commerce which seem to tend to house the preliminary courses.
  Lastly, I hope that the councils will try to get more men into the social work field; and, in saying that, I have no intention whatever to minimise the very great contribution made by the many women workers, but I think that they would be among the first to agree that we do need more men in this field. I hope that that will be borne in mind by the two councils, and, with the important reservation I have mentioned, I give the Bill my support.
  11.2 p.m.
  Miss Vickers: I rise to say how pleased I am that the Bill is now in its final stages in this House, Although we have had some disappointments, I think that all hon. Members should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the consideration which they have given to a great many of our Amendments. For myself, I can say that we have really got a number of Amendments actually accepted and that, I think, augurs well for the future of the Bill.
  I support what has just been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), that

  173
  more men should be brought in, for they have a very great part to play in this work. It would be most beneficial if they could be encouraged to come in.
  In discussing the Bill it has occurred to me that, so far as I know, it is the first Measure which has been put before the House which deals with the recommendations of the Younghusband Report, and I hope that it will not be the last. That was an extremely important Report and I hope that we shall continue to deal with the many other valuable proposals which are in it.
  I wish the Bill a swift passage through another place and hope that it will help not only those social workers employed by local authorities, but will also inspire more voluntary workers to come in, because, although the Bill deals with what might be termed "the other side", the voluntary people are playing a valuable part in the social work of the country. I hope that they will find encouragement through the Bill.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. Pavitt: I join with my hon. Friends and with the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) in welcoming the Bill with a good deal of hope for its future, although with some disappointments during its passage through the House. I say that because I would have wished that we had been able to tighten it up, to make it a bit more solid. As it is, we shall have to wait during the next two or three years during which the two councils get into being to see if our work has been well done, or whether we should have taken other steps.
  I have a special interest in the Bill in that it came before the first Standing Committee on which I have sat since being elected to the House in which, from the Opposition back benches, we managed to get an Amendment through against the wishes of the Minister. But I might have known that that good luck could not have lasted for long. It has been taken out again this evening, but it was an experience to find both sides of the Committee trying to bring in matters which, if accepted, would have been really worth while. I am sure that we all wish the members of these two
  174
  councils every good fortune in the job they will have to do, and wish the same for the Minister who, in the various details to which he must attend, will find a reservoir of people, good people, able to serve, and that he will not have only a limited number from which to choose.
  These two councils can do a considerable amount of good work, both for the National Health Service and for the community at large in social work. I am glad that we have at last reached the stage of putting the Bill on its way. I share the wishes of hon. Members on both sides that it will not be too long in going through another place.
  May I once again pay tribute to the three hon. Ladies who have been on the Government benches throughout the whole passage of the Bill. I refer to the hon. Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), Plymouth, Devonport and Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). In Committee, they were there Tuesday and Thursday week after week and everybody knew that they were there, because they always have interesting contributions to make to our debates. It has been a pleasure to be able to get together on matters of fact and of experience and to argue and yet often reach very similar conclusions.
  One of the most pleasurable parts of seeing the Bill through all its stages in this House has been the amount of cross-bench co-operation which has taken place.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Powell: In saying my last words on the Bill I should like to add a tribute to a fourth lady. That is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has borne the main share of the work on the Bill at all stages. I was glad that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), at an earlier stage of the proceedings, paid such a well deserved compliment to my hon. Friend, who, I think, has deserved well of the Bill by the work which she has put into it.
  Despite our major disagreement, the Bill leaves the House substantially improved. The functions of the councils are better defined. Their titles are certainly better. I am sure that our

  175
  joint efforts have improved their composition. Happily, the work to which the establishment of the councils looks forward has already been afoot while we have been concerned with the Bill. The House will be glad to know that the four full-time two-year courses which are in progress this year at four centres will be repeated next year and that a further four we already know will be added to them.
  While the Bill has been going through, the National Institute for Social Work Training has come into existence. It has already awarded two fellowships to prospective tutors on the new courses. It is to start an emergency one-year course for experienced welfare officers and mental welfare officers and, not least important, it is convening a series of group meetings for those who will supervise the field work of students on the courses which are running. This is just a foretaste of the valuable work which this body will do, as only an independent body of this kind can do in the field of the health services.
  As I go round observing as best I can all branches of the Health Service, I find myself more and more penetrated by the scope there is for care in the community. Over and over again, I see hospitals attempting to cope with functions which could be far better performed or avoided by work in the social field and in the health field in the community. Health visiting and social work are two keys to the mobilisation of a great part of community care. Therefore, in setting up these councils, though it is, from one point of view, little more than a technical step, we are really doing something important for the future development of community care, which has a great part to play in the future development of the health services as a whole. I am glad, because of the councils that it will establish, that at its last stage the House has united to send the Bill on its way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HIRE CAR PASSENGERS (INSURANCE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
11.10 p.m.
Sir Charles Taylor: I know, Mr. Speaker, that because of the very nature of the subject of the debate, I may find it difficult to keep within the bounds of order, but I hope that with your leniency and my limited Parliamentary experience we shall get on all right. I want to raise the very sad case of some of my constituents who were involved in an accident some time ago when driving a hired car.
The car had been hired as a result of an advertisement in a newspaper. I shall not mention the name of the garage concerned, because it is unimportant. It is common practice, I believe, for all garages that hire out self-drive cars to use the same sort of advertisement. The advertisement read:
"… garage offers everything for self-drive hire. Latest models. Full comprehensive insurance."
One would think that the advertisement meant what it said—full comprehensive insurance.
When the accident occurred, the car contained a driver, a young boy and his girl friend—both in the front—and two passengers in the back seat five people in all. Due to patches of fog, the driver missed a "Halt" sign, and collided with a motor coach. The two front-seat passengers were badly injured. The young boy was at once taken to hospital, where he remained unconscious for five months, and subsequently died without regaining consciousness. The girl was also very badly injured, and stayed in hospital for some time.
The girl's father referred the matter to his own solicitors, and also to the Automobile Association. His solicitors wrote:
"I have heard from the X Insurance Company"—
again, I do not want to mention the name because all the insurance companies are the same about this subject"—
"that the only cover provided by the policy in respect of passengers was for medical expenses up to a limit of thirty guineas for each passenger."

177
The Automobile Association wrote:
"To refer generally on the particular query you have raised, a comprehensive contract of insurance would not necessarily include passenger liability. The insurance of passengers in motor vehicles is not compulsory within the terms of the Road Traffic Acts. Therefore, whilst a comprehensive"—
and I underline the word "comprehensive"—
"contract of insurance may be issued to a policy holder, the insurance underwriters, if they so desire, can cancel passenger liability for various reasons. A great deal would depend on the type of person to be insured and the vehicle which is to be driven."
Had the unfortunate boy survived—and I am sure that we would all wish to offer sympathy to the relatives and all concerned in this unfortunate accident—he might, through no fault of his own, have been a continuing liability to someone for the rest of his life. He might have been crippled or paralysed, or he might have had some brain injury. The same applies to the other passengers.
I realise that I cannot this evening suggest that there should be any change in the law. But most certainly I ask the Minister of Transport to reconsider the existing Acts in the light of this case. There are other suggestions which I shall make later which need not necessarily involve any legislation, although I should say that I am seriously considering introducing a Bill—under the Ten Minutes Rule, or by the presentation of a Private Member's Bill—which might effectively deal with the situation; that is, if the Minister does not do it first.
Since I asked a Question some weeks ago about these points, I have received a most informative letter from a lady, not one of my constituents, who puts the points so well that I would like to read certain extracts from it. She writes:
"In the last couple of years I have had occasion to hire a car, self drive, several times. I have tried out various agencies, trying to find one which is best suited to my purpose. In every single case I have had trouble and in most cases have come up against a brick wall over the insurance of passengers. The first time I hired through British Railways, who gave the business to a private hirer."
The writer goes on to say that this private hirer informed her that he would try to arrange passenger insurance, but, in fact, he did not arrange it.
178
The writer continues:
"On the second occasion I hired from a private firm direct who said that they thought they could arrange it, but they did not do so. The third time I hired through a large London store who said that it would be difficult and, anyway, quite unnecessary and, of course, they did not arrange it. The fourth time I hired a car from another firm who said there was no demand and that I should have to arrange passenger insurance myself. The fifth time I hired through B.E.A. The whole hire was a fearful muddle and the officers at B.E.A. seemed to know nothing at all about hiring cars"—
I do not see why perhaps they should—
"but I wrung from them the information that I could insure passengers by filling up a separate form and paying separately. They did not have the form but promised to send it to me in a fortnight. They did not send it and I had to remind them. When I got the form I found I must have a receipt for having paid in advance for the whole hire, although B.E.A. told me that I did not have to pay in advance. I paid in advance but I got the policy after the hire was over."
The letter goes on to say:
"Of course, if I should have the misfortune to have an accident which injures a passenger I should hope that it would not be my fault, but I am not perfect and I am quite aware that I could find myself in the position of paying damages to a passenger. Therefore, I wish to be covered against this risk. It appals me to think that most car hirers are not insured against the risk of a passenger being injured in an accident where no third party is involved, for example through a skid or a burst tyre. How many people who take a lift from a friend or a stranger would be so happy to do so if they knew that they were not covered in case of accident?"
Mr. Speaker: Order. I share with the hon. Member the confidence that he can bring himself in order. I have been patiently listening to his speech and perhaps he will now be good enough to come to the remedy he seeks, or can seek, which does not involve legislation.
Sir C. Taylor: I am coming to that, Sir. With great respect, I am reading this letter which, I think, gives the background to the proposals I want to make and which will not need any legislation.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will give me the answer to my question I need not again interrupt him. I do not desire to interrupt the hon. Member and I would be grateful if he would give me the answer so that he may continue with the background.
Sir C. Taylor: The background is part of my argument. If I may continue to give it, particularly the case of this woman, I will come to my suggestions. In this letter this lady is not suggesting that there should be legislation. She is merely relating her experiences.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not desiring to interrupt the hon. Member further than my duty requires, but to bring the background he is giving within the rules of order, which I have to keep, would he be good enough to indicate what is the remedy which, he says, does not involve legislation as its main theme?
Sir C. Taylor: I intended to suggest in a few minutes that certain things should be done by voluntary methods, by suggesting to the car hire firms that they should adopt certain courses. That is all.
Mr. Speaker: There again, we come up against another difficulty. There must be some Government responsibility before I can permit this argument in an Adjournment debate.
Sir C. Taylor: I fully appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I agree with that entirely. But the Government have not been slow in making recommendations to various people about how they should or should not conduct their business, without any need for legislation.
May I finish the letter? There is only one more paragraph. It rather destroys the continuity of my argument if I have to bring the latter part of my remarks further forward instead of uttering them after I have finished the background. The lady continues:
"You may be interested to know that when I got the B.E.A. policy I found that it did not cover an accident."
This is a quotation from the B.E.A. policy:
"to any person who at the time of sustaining such injury is engaged in the service of and/or acting on behalf of the insured and/or being carried as a result of a contract or agreement …"
She continues:
"This would seem to me that if you gave your baby-sitter or charlady a lift she would not be covered. Incidentally, in all that I have said I am thinking of the non-driving passenger. All hirers seem to be able quickly to arrange cover for several people travelling in a car, all being insured up to statutory minimum third party if they are to drive
180
occasionally which allows several people to go off on a holiday together. But the one who is not driving is not covered if the driver causes an accident."
If the Minister is unable to say that he will look at the law again to see if it is satisfactory or adequate in present-day conditions, I should like to make the following suggestions. First, all car hirers should be asked to make it clear, in bold red lettering, that passengers are not covered in the case of accident. I should hope that if they were asked to do that voluntarily, they might well consider doing that—
Mr. Speaker: They might be asked by an elder of the kirk or some other individual. The point is: is there Ministerial responsibility in some form for these measures? If not, I cannot in accordance with my duty allow the hon. Member to urge that course.
Sir C. Taylor: The Minister of Transport enjoins us from time to time to drive our cars carefully. There is no legislation needed for asking us to drive our cars carefully. The Minister of Transport enjoins us to drive our cars carefully and not to drink when driving. There is no legislation which compels one not to drink before driving a car.
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure about the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's proposition. There is legislation which makes it an offence to drive when under the influence of drink or drugs so as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. There is legislation which makes it an offence to drive dangerously or without due care and attention. It is not true to say there is no law to enforce these things.
Sir C. Taylor: That is after the offender is caught. With the greatest of respect, the Minister of Transport asks drivers of motor cars to be careful about driving their cars, and I am merely suggesting that this should be on the same basis—that he should also say to the car hirer "Please bring these dangers to the notice of your drivers." Surely, Mr. Speaker, it would be quite within the bounds of possibility for the Minister of Transport, who frequently gives us advice about many matters, to give that advice without any legislation whatsoever.

181
The second point I should like to make is that they should also be asked to place in a prominent place in the car a notice to the effect that passengers riding in the car are not insured. Thirdly, they should be asked to provide passenger insurance forms readily available at the hirers' offices so that a person hiring a car may be fully aware whether he is covered or whether he is not. In passing, I would say that I hope that the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club and the British Travel and Holidays Association will give full publicity to these facts so that passengers who are not insured do realise that they are not insured while in hired cars.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member drives me further than I may allow myself to be driven. The Minister is not responsible for the activities of the Royal Automobile Club or the other bodies to which the hon. Member has referred, and he cannot be charged with responsibility by virtue of this debate.
Sir C. Taylor: No, Sir, but the British Travel and Holidays Association is a Government-sponsored body and the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for the activities of the Association. It may be supported by voluntary contributions, but the Minister is responsible for its activities and, indeed, appoints the board, and I am suggesting that tourists coming to this country should be aware of the dangers which they are liable to meet if they do become passengers in hire car firms' cars, which a great many tourists, from America and other countries, do hire when they come over here.
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry to interrupt so much, but I cannot allow the hon. Member to persist by these devices. No one can suggest that there rests in the Minister of Transport any responsibility here for these bodies who look after the interests of tourists.
Sir C. Taylor: The British Travel and Holiday Association is a Government-sponsored organisation—
Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Member give notice to the Minister responsible for the activities of this body?
Sir C. Taylor: Well, I felt that one Minister tonight to reply to this debate should be sufficient, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will pass on the comments I have made about the British Travel and Holidays Association and about overseas tourists to this country and the dangers to them in driving in uninsured cars.
I am sorry that you have found it so necessary to interrupt my humble remarks this evening, Mr. Speaker. I apologise if you think I have been out of order, but I did consider very fully what I was going to say and I do feel that something has to be done about this, either by guidance or by legislation. Now I will listen with great eagerness to what the Minister has got to say.
11.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) has taxed my ingenuity to the utmost in saying that he awaits with eagerness the observations I propose to offer to the House. Indeed, I am in great difficulty, as you yourself, Mr. Speaker, will realise, in attempting to answer a debate on a matter which, frankly, is not entirely within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I think the best thing that I can do to help my hon. Friend is to outline as briefly as I can what the existing position is and then to say something about the suggestions he has had to make.
The present law relating to third-party motor insurance is contained in Part VI of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and the Section which is involved in the sort of situation which my hon. Friend has in mind is Section 203. Briefly, the position is that all third-party liabilities, including liabilities to passengers, have to be covered by insurance. There are, however, two exceptions: first, liabilities to employees—and I add in parentheses that, normally, these are covered by employer's liability policies—and, secondly, liabilities to passengers who are not paying fares or who do not travel at the request of their employers. Thus, anyone who is what we call a voluntary passenger in a motor vehicle, that is, someone who journeys in the vehicle not paying a fare and not as a

183
result of his employment, is not obliged to be covered by compulsory insurance by the owner or operator of the vehicle.
This is the case with the ordinary private car, and it is precisely the same situation for the private hire vehicle. If I choose to give my hon. Friend a lift in my own motor car, and there is an accident as a consequence of which he is injured, he may have a claim against me for my negligent driving, but I have committed no offence if I do not have third-party cover against any injury which he may suffer. In fact, I have such insurance. The truth is that about 80 per cent. of motor car owners have such insurance because that is usually what is meant by full comprehensive insurance. It covers virtually all the possible risks which the owner of the car may be up against.
Similarly, if I hire a car and carry my hon. Friend in that, not in my own car, then I am not obliged to insure against any liability I may have towards him. With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not see the distinction between the person who runs his own car and gives his friends or relatives or other people lifts and the person who hires a car and then gives lifts in that.
Sir C. Taylor: There is a difference.
Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend says that there is a difference, but, frankly, I do not see it. Where the vehicle is used for a business—where, for instance, the passenger travels in a taxi or in a bus and he pays a fare—then the law clearly places an obligation on the operator of the vehicle, the person who carries the passenger for hire or reward, to insure that passenger compulsorily against any third-party risks; but where what happens is that the vehicle is in the ownership of the driver, in the one case, or is hired by the driver, in the other, I do not see the distinction, or why there should be any great difficulty. I will give way to my hon. Friend if he has a point to raise.
Sir C. Taylor: There is a difference in that the normal private car owner knows what his liabilities are, and he knows about his insurance policy. If his own car is in "dock" and he hires temporarily a "drive yourself" car and he
184
is told that there is full comprehensive insurance, he naturally supposes that there is and that it is all-embracing.
Mr. Hay: With respect, I think that my hon. Friend has forgotten that the majority of car insurance policies, so-called, are, in fact, insurance policies relating to the individual, not the vehicle. What happens is that anyone who takes out a full comprehensive policy takes it out in respect of himself, and he declares that he has a certain vehicle. If, as frequently happens, he drives someone else's car, whether it be a friend's or a relative's car, or one which he hires, his insurance continues and he and his passengers are still covered.
Briefly and very quickly, that is the legal situation. I must tell my hon. Friend, since he seems to have a doubt about it, that so far we have had no great pressure in the Ministry of Transport for any alteration of that situation. A proposition was before the House last year, when the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) introduced his Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Bill. This caused a great deal of public agitation and anxiety and, eventually, on 23rd June last year, the Bill was talked out on Report.
It was quite evident to us in the Ministry of Transport at that time that, although there was perhaps a case to be made for making third party insurance compulsory in respect of passengers, in the House there was certainly no overwhelming majority for it. In those circumstances, I cannot really say that there is any likelihood of that situation being repeated in the foreseeable future.
I pass to the suggestions my hon. Friend made. I applaud his ingenuity, but I cannot applaud the sagacity of his suggestions. He was suggesting that my right hon. Friend should approach car hire firms asking them to indicate by notices and in various other ways the risks that passengers not covered by insurance would run. I do not think that the great majority of car hire firms would take kindly to advice of this kind by my right hon. Friend, and, indeed, if it is accepted that the majority of people who are already car owners and who have comprehensive insurance cover for themselves hire out cars either for themselves to drive or for their employees to drive, I think that these people would

185
probably be very cross if they were faced in the booking offices of car hire firms with notices saying in large red letters that passengers travelling in the vehicles hired out are not covered by insurance.
Sir C. Taylor: But can be.
Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend says "But can be".
That brings me to another point. I am advised that the great majority of car hire firms, and certainly the big ones, inform people who come to hire cars from them that if they wish they can have extended cover to cover the situation of passengers. The lady who wrote a letter to my hon. Friend experienced difficulty in connection with this, but I
186
have no information to show that that sort of experience is general.
I am very sorry to tell my hon. Friend that that is about all I can tell him about this matter. In the Ministry of Transport we have no evidence that there is a widespread abuse of the law. We have no evidence that there is a widespread demand for changes in the law, and unless and until there is, frankly I think that my right hon. Friend would take the view that no action on his part is called for and would somewhat repudiate any responsibility for the existing situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOSPITALS
  University College Hospital
  University College Hospital
  Staff
  Staff
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
  Paddington General Hospital
  Paddington General Hospital
  Patients (Psychopathic Disorder)
  Patients (Psychopathic Disorder)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Doctors (Patients)
  Doctors (Patients)
  Chief Dental Officer (Appointment)
  Chief Dental Officer (Appointment)
  Inoculations and Vaccinations
  Inoculations and Vaccinations
  Invalid Tricycles
  Invalid Tricycles
  Smallpox
  Smallpox
  Welfare Foods (Sunderland)
  Welfare Foods (Sunderland)
  Nuclear Tests (Milk Supplies)
  Nuclear Tests (Milk Supplies)
EMPLOYMENT
  Craft Apprentice Instructors (Training)
  Craft Apprentice Instructors (Training)
  Dock Workers (Discussions)
  Dock Workers (Discussions)
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
SCIENCE
  Van Allen Radiation Belts (Hydrogen Bomb Test)
  Van Allen Radiation Belts (Hydrogen Bomb Test)
  Industry (Automation)
  Industry (Automation)
  Asthma
  Asthma
  Psoriasis
  Psoriasis
  Nuclear Tests, Christmas Island
  Nuclear Tests, Christmas Island
  CAPE TOWN (QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY PARTY)
  CAPE TOWN (QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY PARTY)
  FISHERIES (DANISH INSPECTION VESSELS)
  FISHERIES (DANISH INSPECTION VESSELS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (UNITED NATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (UNITED NATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  ALGERIAN REFUGEES (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION)
  ALGERIAN REFUGEES (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION)
SCOTLAND
  American Sailors, Holy Loch (Prosecutions)
  American Sailors, Holy Loch (Prosecutions)
  Technical Education (Day Release)
  Technical Education (Day Release)
  Local Authorities (Outstanding Capital Debt)
  Local Authorities (Outstanding Capital Debt)
  Electricity Generation, Fife
  Electricity Generation, Fife
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  General Election
  General Election
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry
  Internal Air Transport Services
  Internal Air Transport Services
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  London Airport (Taxi Charges)
  London Airport (Taxi Charges)
EDUCATION
  Research and Intelligence Branch (Establishment)
  Research and Intelligence Branch (Establishment)
  Teachers (Mathematics and Science Graduates)
  Teachers (Mathematics and Science Graduates)
  Mature Students (Grants)
  Mature Students (Grants)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
COAL
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining (Output)
  Opencast Mining (Output)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
  Development Districts
  Development Districts
TRANSPORT
  Traffic Survey, High Wycombe
  Traffic Survey, High Wycombe

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

I.T.A. AND PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS
2.35 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware if the I.T.A. has adequately used its powers under Section 5 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, to require such declarations or returns as the Authority considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring that disqualified persons do not become or continue as programme contractors, and if they do not have this information, whether they will inquire into the matter.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as the noble Lord has indicated in his Question this is basically a matter for the Independent Television Authority itself. The Authority has informed me that it would not, and does not, hesitate to call for any necessary information, in order to ensure that there is no contravention of the Act of 1954. The
2
Authority has no reason to suppose that the information it requires of programme contractors for the purpose is inadequate. If the noble Lord had any information on this matter, I know that the Authority would wish to look into it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in view of the fact that this particular subsection was deliberately put into the Act in order to preserve the programme contractors from influences which the House thought would be unsuitable, would it be possible to inform the House what is the nature of these returns that the I.T.A. call for? They make no mention of it in their Report, and, since it is a matter of great importance as well as complication, I think the Government ought perhaps to tell the House a little more about it.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am quite prepared to tell the noble Lord a little more. I think it would probably be improper for me to go into the detail of it because, as I said before, and as the noble Lord agrees, that is a matter for the I.T.A. itself. But in fact the process consists of the Authority's taking whatever steps it thinks necessary before a contractor is appointed, then in an annual check and then again individually if anything appears to call for it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the circumstances surrounding the allocation of some of these contracts by the I.T.A. have caused considerable concern and disquiet, and will he inquire

3
into these circumstances surrounding some of the allocation of contracts in this country?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I really think that that is well outside the scope of this Question. It may be very important; there are many important matters which are outside the scope of this Question. I should like notice before I reply to it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord said that this is the responsibility of the I.T.A., but I think he would agree that this is an Act of Parliament and therefore the Government have a responsibility. I do not know whether the Minister has answered the part of the Question as to whether
"the I.T.A. has adequately used its powers".
Can the noble Lord say whether, in the opinion of the Government, the I.T.A. has adequately used its powers?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the proof of adequacy, I should have thought, is that in fact no disqualified person has been a director of one of these programme companies.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while the Government are now starting to answer my other questions——
LORD ST. OSWALD: I was answering the supplementary question of the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: —I do not think I will pursue that side of it very much. But I would ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that, since the Government appointed the I.T.A. and can sack it at any moment, they ought to concern themselves when a matter to which Parliament attaches great importance is not being dealt with satisfactorily? All he has done so far is accept the assurance of the I.T.A. Could he not in fact satisfy himself, or could the Government not satisfy themselves, and not merely accept a bland, "It's all right, boys"?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should have said that when a Government appoint an official body they trust the workings of that body until they have reason, and good reason, to doubt its efficiency or adequacy.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government have considerable responsibility under the section referred to in this particular Question? And is it not also a fact that when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, myself and others were concerned with this Bill when it was going through Parliament we were most anxious that the Government should retain a considerable amount of authority in this particular field?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I imagine the answer to that is that if there is any infraction of this, then the Government must take some responsibility; but until some infraction is brought to the notice of the Government, I personally cannot see why the Government should exercise their responsibility over the heads of the body they have appointed.

ANIMALS (CRUEL POISONS) BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will be familiar with the White Paper Housing in Scotland, published in November last year, which contains the background to, and the reasons for, the present Bill; so I will say only a word or two by way of introduction.
In the sixteen years since the war, over 450,000 houses have been built in Scotland. In human terms this means that over one-and-a-half million people in Scotland, something like a third of the population, have moved into a brand new house since the war. This is a very considerable achievement, and I am glad to pay tribute to all those who have played a part in it—principally, of course, the local authorities. But we cannot rest content with this: though much has been accomplished, much remains to be done. Many families have

5
moved into modern homes, but others are still living in conditions of wretched squalor which really should not exist in the second part of the twentieth century. The Government are, therefore, determined to continue to stimulate house-building programmes until every family in Scotland has a decent home, with all the facilities necessary for civilised living.
We recognise that local authorities must continue to be the principal providers of subsidised housing for those who are not able to provide a modern home for themselves. The main object of the Bill is to recast the present pattern of housing subsidies, so as to provide the maximum possible help and encouragement for those local authorities who most need Exchequer assistance. At present, as the House knows, subsidies are, in general, paid at the same flat rate per house for all local authorities. The difficulty about this is that the circumstances of local authorities differ widely: some are better off than others, and some have greater housing needs than others.
This Bill, therefore, replaces the present flat-rate subsidies by a new system giving higher subsidies to those local authorities who are still faced with substantial housing programmes and are badly placed financially to tackle them. The object is to redistribute the present amount of Exchequer assistance for new houses, so that the money is used to better advantage. We estimate that over the first few years of operation of the subsidy the cost to the Exchequer will be about the same as if the present subsidies were to continue; thereafter, expenditure may be expected to rise.
The provisions giving effect to this new conception of subsidies are contained in Clause 3, with certain associated machinery provisions in Clause 1 and the First and Second Schedules. From the new pattern will be excepted only houses provided for special purposes, such as overspill and incoming industrial workers—and also, of course, houses built by new towns, housing associations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. I will refer to these in a minute. For the general run of local authority houses there will in future be two basic rates of annual subsidy: the lower rate of £12 per house
6
and a higher rate of £32, compared with the present flat overall rate of £24. In addition, there is provision for supplementary subsidies for local authorities whose needs are particularly great, up to a total possible subsidy payment of £56 per house.
Which of these rates is paid to a particular local authority will depend on the result of a "resources test" applied to their housing revenue account, on the basis of a notional income related to the gross valuation—that is, the valuation as assessed under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956—of all the houses in the account. The actual income from existing Exchequer subsidies and any other sources will be included unaffected in the resources, with, in addition, a notional income from rent and rate in place of the existing one. This notional income will be obtained by taking the gross valuation of all the local authority's houses and adding to it a sum per house equivalent to half the amount by which the average gross value falls short of £60. The new gross values of the local authority's houses represent an assessment, within the conditions laid down by the 1956 Act, of the letting value of the houses. But the traditionally low Scottish rent levels have to some extent depressed market values; and we have therefore allowed for this by providing for the adjustment of actual area average gross values by bringing them halfway towards the notional figure of £60.
If the total income on the housing revenue account, adjusted in this way, is greater than the local authority's annual housing expenditure, then the authority will be regarded as having adequate potential resources and will qualify only for the lower rate of subsidy—that is, £12. If, however, the adjusted income is less than the actual expenditure, or if the surplus is merely marginal, then the authority will qualify for the higher basic rate of £32. In addition to the £32, supplementary subsidies of £8, £16 or £24 will be paid to local authorities who have both a general rate burden above the Scottish average and an unduly high housing deficit, as provided in the Second Schedule. The resources test will be applied from year to year so as to take

7
account of each local authority's building programme. This means that if an authority which in the early years of the new subsidy has a surplus—and thus qualifies only for the £12 subsidy—goes into deficit because of continued building, it will then be able to qualify for a higher rate of subsidy.
My Lords, the Bill contains a further provision associated with this subsidy structure. All these subsidies will normally run for 60 years, as subsidies do under present legislation. Experience has shown that over a period as long as 60 years great economic changes can occur; so the Bill gives the Secretary of State power by order, under Clause 8, to reduce, terminate or curtail the duration of subsidies payable on houses approved under the Bill. What is new about the provision in Clause 8 is that, unlike the existing powers—which provide for the review of subsidy only on houses approved in future—it will now be possible for the Secretary of State, after ten years from the passing of this Bill, to review subsidies already in payment on houses approved
under the Bill. The power will not be exercised without full consultation with the local authorities, and cannot be exercised unless approved by the other place.
These then are the main subsidy proposals. But the Bill also makes a number of adjustments in other subsidies, partly in the light of experience and partly to fit in with the new basic pattern of subsidies. We have, for example, in Clause 5, put the subsidy for multi-storey flats on to a new basis, replacing the present variable subsidy by a flat rate addition of £40 per house. We hope that this will simplify the procedure and enable us to reduce the present detailed scrutiny of local authorities' proposals. We are also proposing to help local authorities faced with expensive schemes of urban renewal and redevelopment by introducing a brand new subsidy for houses built on expensive sites. This is contained in Clause 7 and the Third Schedule.
Clause 4 retains the existing subsidy for houses provided by local authorities for the agricultural population, in the form of a differential of £12 on top of the appropriate basic subsidy. I should mention here a further provision connected
8
with privately-owned agricultural housing: that is, the provision in Clause 32 enabling the occupancy condition attached to an agricultural house built with the aid of grant to be relaxed by the local authority where the house is not required for occupation by a member of the agricultural population.
Two other special subsidy provisions are to be found: one in Clause 6, which re-enacts the existing additional subsidies to meet the cost of providing rights of support or of measures such as building in stone required to preserve the character of a particular area; and the other in Clause 10, which extends the existing definition of a house to enable the normal subsidy to be paid for small flatlets provided for old people. This will cover, for example, the type of accommodation which includes shared bathroom facilities. We hope that this will enable local authorities to make better provision for meeting the special needs of the growing number of our old people.
To complete the picture I should mention that under Clause 2 we are retaining, and in certain cases increasing, the fixed-rate subsidies payable for the following types of houses. The overspill subsidy remains at £42 as at present; the subsidy for houses built by the Scottish Special Housing Association, which is now concentrating on overspill, will be at the same rate; the subsidy for houses built by local authorities to meet the needs of incoming industrial workers is increased from £30 to £32; and the subsidy for houses built by housing associations is increased from the present £24 to £32.
So much, my Lords for the subsidy provisions of the Bill. There are, however, many people who do not need a subsidised house but who are not able or willing to go to the other end of the scale and incur the full responsibilities of buying and owning their own houses. Here we think that the housing associations can help, and we are proposing in this Bill a scheme of Exchequer advances to housing associations which build houses for letting at economic rents or for occupation on a joint-ownership basis. This is, quite frankly, an experiment, and the amount of the Exchequer advances is relatively limited. We want to find out what sort of a

9
market exists for this type of house. If the experiment is successful, we hope to persuade and encourage private capital to re-enter the field of housebuilding for letting. The Bill reinforces the efforts of housing associations by enabling the S.S.H.A. to take part in the scheme. The necessary provisions are in Clause 11, which refers to the housing associations, and Clause 18, which refers to the S.S.H.A.
The Bill also takes account of the fact that building new houses is not enough. Anyone who looks at a typical Scottish town will see that, as new houses have been built on the outskirts and people have moved out from the centre, the old stone tenements and other houses in the centre are being deserted and are falling into decay. Many of them are fast becoming slums—if, indeed, they are not slums already. In so far as they are slums, the subsidy and other proposals in the Bill should help local authorities to tackle effectively their demolition and replacement. But many of the houses, though sub-standard in many ways, are quite capable of being modernised. They can still be made into good homes, which will have the additional advantage of being nearer to the town centre than some of the post-war housing estates are.
The Bill, therefore, contains a number of provisions designed to help on the work of improvement. Clause 15 seeks to encourage the improvement of privately-owned, rented properties by enabling an owner to add to the rent an allowance of 12½ per cent. (instead of the present 8 per cent.) of his share of

10
cedure relationg to unfit houses. An informal working party of officials was set up last year with the co-operation of the local authority associations. The working party considered what procedural changes would help local authorities in dealing with unfit houses. The proposals in Part III result from these consultations. Essentially, the purpose of this Part of the Bill is to streamline the procedure. The effect should be to speed up the clearance of the slums. There is no interference with the existing rights of those concerned, and I am not aware that any of the proposals are controversial, in a political sense.
Clauses 25 to 28, in Part IV of the Bill, regulate the repairing obligations of the parties to short leases. They ensure that in any lease which is granted for a period of less than seven years the landlord shall be obliged to keep in repair the structure and the exterior of the house, and certain main installations. The provisions constitute a useful protection for the tenant; though they do no more than set out obligations which, under Scots law, are what a good landlord already accepts as his responsibility. There has been no evidence in Scotland—as there has been in England—of any abuse in this respect, but we think it right to provide in the Bill against the possibility.
The only provision in Part V of the Bill to which I should draw your Lordships' attention in Clause 29. This strengthens the default powers available to the Secretary of State against a local authority which has failed to carry out its statutory duties in fixing the rents of its houses. Clause 29 does no more than make the existing default powers effective. This is all we are doing, and all we think it necessary to do. We are not making it any easier to put a local authority into default. The existing statutory powers and duties of a local authority in relation to the charging of reasonable rents for its houses will, therefore, remain untouched. What this clause does is to make sure that, where these powers and duties have not been observed by a local authority, and after the local authority has been found in default—following a public inquiry under the existing procedure—there is an effective means of ensuring that the default is set right.

11
The clause operates by enabling my right honourable friend to lay down a rents scheme which will be binding on the defaulting authority until it has itself put the default right and the default order is withdrawn. I emphasise that the Secretary of State's power to lay down a rents scheme also extends to laying down a scheme of rebates. And surely no-one can object to a rent pattern which ensures that those who are able to pay a reasonable rent do so, while the wind is tempered to the less fortunate by a properly conceived rebates scheme. I believe, and I hope, that the existence of these strengthened default powers will achieve their end without the Secretary of State's being obliged to use them. He certainly will not use them unless he has to.
Finally, I conclude my account of the Bill by noting that the Schedules contain, in addition to the machinery provisions I have already mentioned, the usual variety of consequential and other minor, unexceptionable amendments. My Lords, when we were discussing the Local Government (Financial Provisions, etc.) (Scotland) Bill a few weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, teased me for describing that Bill as "limited and urgent", and a previous measure as "small but useful". I now beg to move that this important and constructive Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, must be more of a mind-reader than I had previously given him credit for being, because I had thought of another adjective to apply to this Bill, though it was neither of the ones which he used. On this occasion I will not be jocular. Previously it would have been quite correct to say that I had been teasing the Minister, rather than anything else, but I am perfectly serious about what I propose to say on this occasion. My feeling about the Bill is that, in relation to the economic state of Scotland and the things the Government ought to be legislating for Scotland, this Bill is a piece of complete irrelevancy so far as the problems of Scotland are concerned.
12
The Minister gave an excellent résumé of the purposes of the Bill, and explained it almost completely clause by clause. I wish to congratulate him on the clarity of that exposition. When, however, he left the facts of the Bill and proceeded to draw his conclusions as to what would arise in the Scottish housing problem from the application of this Bill, then I completely disagreed with him. I should like to remind your Lordships of some of the things which the noble Lord said. After speaking of the number of houses Which had been built since 1945, he went on to say that much remained to be done. No one with any knowledge of the housing position in Scotland could say anything other than that. If we go to any of the larger centres of population, we must immediately become aware of the fact that there remains a considerable number of slum houses still in occupation. I think we must have a larger proportion of houses, both single-roomed and two-roomed houses, still occupied by families than almost any country in Europe has.
The noble Lord then went on to say that the purpose the Government have in mind is to stimulate house building until every family has a civilised dwelling—or words to that effect. I cannot see how the Government expect this Bill to accomplish that purpose. It was said by the Minister that the present amount of subsidy was to be redistributed among the local authorities; that what would be spent in the beginning would be much the same as is spent at the present time, and then in later years the sum would rise and be transferred from those who had less need to those who had greater need,

13
of the authorities which are to receive a subsidy of £12 for houses provided under this Bill.
I know that in my own home town of Dundee that is the provisional calculation which has bean made. I notice that in speaking I am immediately to be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, who is as familiar with conditions in Dundee as I am, in view of the long period during which she was one of our Parliamentary representatives. It will not surprise her, and I am sure it will not Surprise other noble Lords who are familiar with Scottish problems, if I say that Dundee has just about as bad a problem as Glasgow has. Is it not surprising that, with that position, the two authorities with most to do are to be expected to do it on a subsidy of £12 for each additional house they build?
I have tried to work out some general basis of how this; subsidy arrangement is going to work, and, very broadly, it appears to work in this way. Until a local authority has built twice as many houses since 1945 as it did in the years between 1919 and 1939, it cannot possibly create the notional deficiency which would entitle it to the £32 subsidy under the more generous part of Clause 3. In terms of actual houses—I apologise once again for quoting the town I know best, but I use it merely as an example and because I can be quite factual about it—before the war some 8,000 houses were built in the city. Between 1945 and the present time, some 14,000 houses have been built. Yet, so far as can be ascertained, for the next two years at least, even with a building rate of 1,000 a year, the subsidy to be paid in Dundee will be £12 a house. And that at a time when the economic rent for a house to be built is of the order of £130.
No one outside St. Andrew's House knows where the figure of £60, which is mentioned in the Bill, came from. But we were given a kind of clue by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, when he said that the gross annual values fixed in terms of the 1956 Valuation Act had been depressed to some extent because of the existing pattern of low rents in Scotland. Whether or not that is the case, I do not know; that is a matter of opinion, and in this context Lord Craigton's
14
opinion is as good as anybody else's, so I will not proceed to disagree with it. But if that is the case, then it would appear that at the present time something of the order of £60 would be considered by the Government to be a not unreasonable rent in Scotland. If the economic rent is in fact £130, and £60 is accepted as a reasonable rent to be taken from the tenant, that leaves £70. The Government are to find £12 of that; the other £50-odd as to come from the ratepayers. That does not strike me as being a way of encouraging Scottish local authorities to provide in greater numbers the quantity of houses required, and required so very speedily, if Lord Crargton's objective is to be reached.
In fact, we know from the returns which have been placed before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the pattern of house production by local authorities in Scotland has been falling year by year. It fell because the reduction of the subsidy to £24—the result of the last Government measure to "stimulate" house building in Scotland—had the effect of discouraging many local authorities from re-embarking upon even the sort of programme that they had been carrying out hitherto. The effect on at least half of the local authorities in Scotland of reducing the subsidy to £12 must be to discourage them still further.
I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have been very much better occupied if, instead of producing this Bill, he had brought in some measure to help improve the general economic position of Scotland and thereby make it possible for more people to pay reasonable rents for houses. I do not stand here seeking to justify the level of rents which are charged by many local authorities in Scotland, but the difference between what is charged and the annual cost of a three-apartment house—£130—is not something which can be bridged in terms of this Bill. The Bill becomes, therefore, another of those measures which have been criticised on both sides of this House and in another place, in that its primary purpose is to transfer financial responsibility from the taxpayer to the ratepayer. If it is passed in its present form, this Bill will once again accomplish just that.
It is not my intention to follow Lord Craigton's example, excellent though it

15
was, in going through the Bill clause by clause. Some of the clauses, I consider, effect improvements on the present position, and I have confined my remarks to those aspects of the Bill which I dislike. When it comes to the next stage, I shall be putting forward specific proposals which I think will improve the measure. I should like to conclude by referring to one or two aspects which I think are particularly objectionable. In the first instance, I object to the provision in the first clause of the Bill which makes these proposals retrospective to November 1 of last year. The most that the Government are entitled to impose on local authorities in Scotland is that this measure should not take effect, from the reduction of subsidy point of view, until it has been approved by Parliament.
Secondly, I consider that the subsidies generally are completely inadequate in the present financial circumstances. After all, it was the present Government who increased the subsidies to as much as £42 15s. 0d. a few years ago, when they took account of the changed pattern of interest rates—that is, when interest had gone up from 3 to 6 per cent. The noble Lord will remember that, when we were discussing the Bill to which he referred, I was sufficiently unkind to quote his forecast of the interest rate pattern, which is still completely falsified by events, because local authorities are still paying 6½ per cent., and more, notwithstanding the present level of the bank rate. So far as the formula is concerned, I think it is unnecessary to elaborate. In its effect, it is grossly unfair to local authorities, and certainly in due course I wish to move Amendments to that clause.
In Clause 8, the Secretary of State seeks the power, Which so far as I can gather has never been given to a Secretary of State before, to abolish subsidies altogether. That, I think, is going much too far, even accepting the Minister's statement that over a period of sixty years great economic changes can take place. We do not need to look over a period so great as sixty years to recognise that that is a completely true statement; but what I think is quite wrong is that the Bill should assume, notwithstanding the pattern of the last sixty years—or of the last 600 years, for that matter—that in the next sixty years any
16
changes that are going to take place are those Which will make it reasonable only to reduce or abolish subsidies. If the Minister were really asking power to adjust subsidies to circumstances as they change from time to time, one would have expected that the wording would have been, "to take power to abolish or to alter subsidies". There at least ought to be some recognition of the fact that things might continue in the years ahead as they have been in the years past and move against local authorities.
An even more objectionable part of this provision is that which gives the Secretary of State, after a lapse of ten years, power to reduce or abolish subsidies with retrospective effect. While he cannot do that during the ten years after the passing of the Bill, if the then Secretary of State were so minded, 10½ years after the passing of the Bill he could introduce an Order restricting or abolishing subsidies and apply it for 5 or 6 years previously. He could put it back to the beginning of the Bill. This is one of the conceptions in the Bill which has had an extremely unfriendly welcome from local authorities in Scotland, and this is not confined to local authorities with Labour majorities or substantial numbers of Labour members on them. Authorities which are completely Progressive or Independent or Moderate, according to the local descriptions, have objected. They submit that the ordinary basis of a bargain between two parties is not going to exist.
Local authorities proceed on the basis that they will receive a subsidy of a given amount, even of the small amount of £12, and in 12 or 15 years, when they are committed to repaying money borrowed for a period of 60 years—your Lordships will remember that they have to borrow money for the whole of the period which they have laid down, which is 60 years—they may find that one element of their calculation has been withdrawn from them, after consultation, admittedly, but local authorities in Scotland have a bitter experience of what Ministers regard as consultation. They certainly say to local authorities, "We are going to do so and so: what do you think?" But unless the local authorities say that they think the same as the Minister, they are not both happy at the end of the day. Generally speaking, the Government go

17
a head and do what they said in the first instance. And that may well take place in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, gave rebates his blessing. That was not surprising, because it is the policy of the present Government. It is also the opinion of many people outside the Government that the correct way of dealing with rents is to fix a reasonable rent, having regard to the general circumstances, and those who cannot afford to pay that rent should rely on a rent rebate to put the position right. That is the position to which I personally subscribe. But in this Bill, if there is to be a measure of rebate given, whether it is a modest rebate or whether in times of unemployment it becomes a substantial factor in the calculation, the whole responsibility for the rebate rests on the local authorities, because the rebate is not to be taken into account in determining the amount of subsidy that is payable. Also, if we ever had an approach to the conditions of unemployment that have existed in Scotland on so many occasions in the past and which have cropped up from time to time in the last ten years, we could have the finances of local authorities seriously disturbed, because the rebate is a matter entirely for the ratepayer and not one to Which the taxpayer is to contribute at all.
For these reasons, I cannot give any recommendation to a large part of this measure. I think that, bad as the existing provisions are, more houses are likely to be provided under the existing legislation than will possibly be provided under the housing legislation as this Bill amends it. In view of the fact that so much remains to be done, I think that in its subsidy provisions this Bill is a retrograde step and one which the majority of Scottish local authorities regret. I hope that your Lordships will make it possible to improve it in the next stage of our procedure.
3.20 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, and as was quite clear from the speech of my noble friend Lord Craigton, this is a very complicated Bill. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I came to the conclusion that I had read some parts rather differently from the
18
way in which he had read them. I agree that the noble Lord will probably be right and I shall be wrong, and I will not venture to put forward some of the ideas that I thought were contrary to his, because no doubt the Minister, in winding up, will be able to explain.
We all agree that much remains to be done. Of that we are perfectly certain. But the point is: what is the best way of doing it? The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, stated that the best way is to have no change; to go on with the subsidy scheme as it is at present. I feel exactly the opposite. In my view, the White Paper is one of the best analyses of the housing problem I have ever read. It seems to me that the housing problem is complicated, and that we have to deal with it in different ways. The speech of my noble friend Lord Craigton, like the White Paper, dealt with such matters as slum clearance, overspill, houses for the old, houses for incoming industrial workers, high flats, expensive sites, agricultural workers, housing associations, and in various ways, in the later part of the Bill, with houses built by private enterprise. It seems to me perfectly clear that we have to take each of those categories and find out what is the best way of dealing with each. I believe that we have come to a stage where a flat rate will be the best scheme. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward a very complicated but, I believe, much more efficient way of dealing with these difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that he did not like a great part of the Bill. I should like to say that I like a great part of the Bill, though I am slightly doubtful of certain minor parts, which no doubt we shall deal with at the Committee stage. I think I am right (no doubt I shall be corrected if I am not) in saying that already in the English Housing Act there is the power to abolish subsidies, or to reduce them, after ten years. I do not think I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the subject of the appalling slums both in Glasgow and Dundee. My knowledge of slums and the difficulties of slum dwellers is pretty profound, as I was for a good many years a Member for the City of Dundee, and I was then a Member for a certain number of years

19
for the City of Manchester. I think probably that in those two cities you could find the worst and most disgraceful slums in the whole of this country. Are we going to improve matters by this Bill? Personally, I think we are.
Without going into detail which will remain for the Committee stage, I would say that this Bill surely deals with three main schemes. The first is the subsidy: how much should be taken from the taxpayers to be shared by the ratepayers in order to reduce the rent that otherwise would have to be charged for every house that is built? I think that really comes down to the basic point on which we all agree. The cost of a house is too expensive for a great many people to pay the economic rent; therefore the rent charged must be reduced by payments from ratepayers and, in certain cases, from taxpayers. The first Part of this Bill deals with that.
Then there is the Part which provides, or attempts to provide, for houses built by private enterprise and deals with houses built by housing associations for letting. I am personally convinced that we shall not solve the housing problem of Scotland until we get some form of private enterprise going again, whether it be housing associations or whatever it may be. The third Part of the Bill to which I should like to allude is that which deals with the improvement of houses that are structurally sound yet without the modern requirements. Dealing first with this question of subsidy-how much should be taken from the taxpayers, how much from the ratepayers, and who could pay an economic rent—I am in favour of this flexibility, because there is the variety. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, told us about Glasgow and Dundee, which, he said, would get only £12 for each house. I gathered from what he said (I may be wrong) that the annual cost of the house would be over £100. If the notional figure is taken at £60, and that was the rent, there would still be £70 a year to be paid for that house by the ratepayers, and from that all they would get would be £12 of subsidy.
I thought I was right in reading this Bill in a different way. It seemed to me that what was in this Bill was that each year the housing account of the local
20
authority should be looked at. The local authority would be able to show if it was in deficit or in credit. In exactly the same way, it seems to me that every council makes, every year, an estimate on its expenses. It then decides the poundage rate that it must take, and in this way obtains revenue to match its expenses. I gathered from this Bill (as I say, I may be entirely wrong, and I know that if I am I shall be corrected later) that the idea was that if the local authority had a credit balance in its housing account it would get the £12. I do not know whether we shall be told the secret of why the figure of £12 was chosen: I have not the slightest idea, and I do not know whether anybody else has. If, on the other hand, the authority had a deficit, then it would get the £32. It seemed to me that it must be worked out on that basis, and that therefore some particular authorities, not having a deficit, would get the £12.
As we know, before the war local authorities built a good many houses at a great deal lower cost, and it may be that now that the cost all goes into one account some local authorities who built more at the start will find that their housing account is not so much in deficit as others Who have had to do a great deal of building of the more expensive type, I know that this idea has been objected to, but I cannot see why there should be objection, so long as it is made perfectly clear that the difference between the £32 and the £12 is regarded in connection with the state of finance of the local authority. The formula seems to be to take the rent that is being -received, plus the amount borne by the rates and the subsidy, to find out the exact amount the house is bringing in.
I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that he is not in favour of some of these extraordinary low rents that we have in Scotland. It is often said that Scotland has about the worst housing situation in the whole of the West of Europe. A little time ago I tried to obtain more facts about the housing situation in various European countries, and to ascertain the level of rents taken as a proportion of the average wages. I can only say that, while I am not certain, it seemed to me from that examination that rents in

21
Scotland were about the lowest, in proportion to wages, in the whole of Western Europe. I believe it is perfectly clear that we shall not get a better housing situation in Scotland if we allow that state of affairs to continue. In all cases it means low rents and high rates.
A little time ago I asked the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for certain figures which I wished to compare. I want to say at once that I do not say that rents in Scotland should be exactly the same as rents in England; there are various reasons for the difference. But What is quite astonishing is to compare the rents and then to compare the nigh rates and to see how nearly those high rates bring rents to the high level of English rents. I should, like to give one or two examples. I asked for the figures for Birmingham and Glasgow. The weekly rent for a four-apartment post-war house is in Birmingham 29s. l0d.; in Glasgow, 10s. 1d. I should perhaps state that those were the figures in England for March, 1961, and in Scotland for November, 1961. But with the addition of rates, the respective amounts payable are: in Birmingham 42s. 6d. a week; in Glasgow 29s. 6d. So the difference between them has been greatly reduced, though there is still a difference. Then I took two fairly similar towns, I thought, Plymouth and Aberdeen. In Plymouth the weekly rent for a four-apartment house was 31s. 5d.; in Aberdeen, 10s. 1d. Again, with rates, the figures were: Plymouth 42s. 2d.; Aberdeen, 29s. 3d. The only places that are practically similar are Manchester and Edinburgh; Manchester being 15s. 9d.; Edinburgh, 15s. 11d. And of the figures for which I particularly asked, 15s. was certainly the largest rent.
I should like to point out these facts, because I believe that we have to get a far more realistic rent scheme in Scotland, and we must realise that many people who have a new house, and others who are living in slums—which I hope will soon be demolished—are finding that they have to face this high rate in order to help the reduction of the rents of those living in very much better houses. It is affecting all districts to a great extent and it is not what we should call just. Is it the case that too many people occupy a subsidised house, though they could pay a full rent if they
22
were able to find a house at the full economic rent, and are therefore keeping others out of those subsidised houses? I think that this is a problem that must be looked at. I am not blaming those people, because after the war their only chance of getting a house was to obtain a local authority subsidised house.
The noble Lord has spoken about rebate. Again I did not quite understand when he said that rebate would be entirely a matter for the local authority. Probably I did not notice that part, because I should have thought that the rent charged, with the rebate, would be the rent that went into the local authority housing account. The noble Lord shakes his head and probably he noticed that point. There are people perfectly able and willing—perhaps, in some cases, more able than willing, which is only natural—to pay a full economic rent. I think people should know the economic rents of these houses. I should like to see the economic rent on every single rent book, so that people would know what it is; and there are a great many people who could quite well pay or get other houses which are now being built by private enterprise. Of course there are cases where the rent must be particularly high—for example, where houses are built on expensive sites. But, after all, if we face the fact, these subsidies are really National Assistance. People go to the National Assistance Board and get help, and get their rents paid because they deserve it and are in need. But at present many people are having National Assistance in the subsidy for their house, though they are not in need and would not pretend that they were. I think that this situation has to stop, and once that happens we shall be able to deal with those who are really in need.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes and I agree on the subject of Dundee, and about the appalling conditions in which a great many people who cannot afford the full economic rent are living. Those are the ones who ought to be at the top of the queue; and these schemes, of course, make it more difficult. The fact that people do get these subsidised rents makes it more difficult for public enterprise to compete. Because, after all, theirs is an economic rent; and, as I say, many people do not even know what

23
the economic rent of their local authority house is. If we are to get private enterprise working again we must more and more have regard to what is the economic rent of the local authority houses. And if we did that, we should see that the rents of the private enterprise houses would probably be no more, if as large.
We have not yet succeeded—though efforts have been made—in regard to housing associations. We have in this Bill the new scheme, which again I welcome, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that I feel that there must be much more propaganda, much more advertising and much more campaigning if we are to get housing associations really going in Scotland. We have not had them to any extent. Few people even know that it is a new venture. If only we could get that point over to the people of Scotland, with an explanation of the difficulties of (he housing problems, I think we might succeed; but without that propaganda and without a really 20-ahead campaign I do not think we shall.
Lastly, improvements. Is the grant big enough? We are not getting on as we ought to with the grants. I cannot answer the question whether the grant is big enough, but I presume the actual factors, the actual expense of modernising a house or a flat, have been taken into account. I am glad that the increase allowed is now to go up from 8 to 12½ per cent., with, of course, the tenant's agreement, because that may help; but I believe that we ought to try to see whether we can do more on this improvements scheme. I would ask the noble Minister whether we really get the best architects on to this subject. Would there be the possibility of some competition? We know the difficulties of some tenants who are in appalling conditions, and of saying that you must turn out some people and take their flats to make them into bathrooms and W.C.s for the others. Have we really got the best people on to this work? Have we tried to make any experiments? Have we thought of a scheme to give each flat a separate W.C. while the bathroom of one flat is shared between possibly two or three? Each tenant could
24
have a key and each could heat the water, having a meter to put a shilling in. It seems to me that we have looked at this problem and said how difficult it is and have then let it lapse.
My Lords, perhaps I have spoken for too long on a subject which I am tremendously keen about. I think it was more than 25, perhaps nearer 30, years ago when I first served on Departmental committees dealing with the housing problem—I know my name has been attached to various Reports—and still to-day we come to the same subject, although it is new in some ways. We did not then think of overspill to the great extent we do now; we did not speak of high flats. But still there are overcrowding, insufficient numbers, slum clearance. I now know that it is a problem—I do not approach this problem now with the same confidence as I did in those days—that is bound to be with us always.
There has always to he an overseeing of this problem of housing; there has always to be change. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I cannot say "Let it be as it is now". I do not think it is good enough. He thinks we are going to make that worse. I think we are going to make it better because it is going to be flexible. We are going to deal with the individual problems. I would ask the Minister to make sure that slum clearance is right in the forefront of the problem. I believe that is absolutely essential. It is the most difficult thing to do. Naturally, no local authority particularly wants to do slum clearance; anything else is easier. But I believe it is absolutely necessary.
Having got away from the need for the large houses for the families, we are getting to the smaller houses for the old people. Can it be arranged that those houses are not in a housing estate far away from the centre of the city but are nearer to where the old people have friends and shops and where they know people? It is far more difficult for the old to get into buses and into the centre of the city. If we can get on with the slum clearance and get private enterprise going and make improvements, we shall no longer be ashamed of the housing situation in Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Baroness misunderstood one point and

25
I should not like it to go toy default. She returned to she same point in her closing remarks. I did not say that Che existing subsidy arrangements were the best. I said that they were merely better than the change. If 1 had chosen my words more carefully I should not have created the erroneous impression in her mind. I said I regarded the existing ones as the lesser of two evils.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, but in listening to him I came to that conclusion because he never told us what would be better.
LORD HUGHES: I will at the Committee stage.
3.42 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it is with trepidation that, as an Englishman, I venture to intervene in this debate. I do so, however, for two reasons. The first is that, having recently settled in Scotland and having some cottages which I have in some cases modernised and improved, I naturally take a very great interest in the Scottish housing problem. I am fortunate in living in the county of Roxburgh, which is, I think, one of the most enlightened of the counties of Scotland. Their rents are about £38 a year, making an average rent of about 15s., which, as anyone who looks at the table on page 7 of Rents of Houses Owned by Local Authorities in Scotland, 1961, will see, is very much higher than in the case of most of the counties. It is, I think, largely for that reason that the housing conditions in Roxburghshire are among the better in Scotland.
The second reason why I venture to speak is that on February 7 I put forward general considerations about housing policy and by implication I criticised the Act that was recently passed dealing with housing in England. I am very glad that in one or two respects it appears to me that this Bill for Scotland is a considerable improvement on the Bill that was introduced for England. I shall nevertheless urge upon my noble friend, Lord Craigton, that in some respects it might be possible to go rather further than has been done in this Bill.
On February 7 I suggested that the time had come when subsidies for the building of houses as such should be
26
brought to an end. I suggested that subsidies should be directed to giving assistance to those individual tenants who were without the means to pay a full economic rent. It is because I think that this Bill goes rather further in this direction than the English Bill, if I understand them both aright, that I feel my noble friend and the Secretary of State have introduced a better Bill.
The subsidies remain unchanged in many cases and they are directed to particular purposes; overspill at £42 remains unchanged, development corporation at £42 remains unchanged; the Scottish Special Housing Association is going to be paid the same subsidy as a corresponding local authority. In the case of the basic subsidy, which I understand has again been directed specially to the needs of different parts of Scotland and different classes of the community, by administrative action of the Secretary of State, a wise distinction is made, similar to that in the case of the English Act: the distinction between the more impoverished local authorities who require a higher subsidy and the smaller subsidy in the case of the wealthier authorities. I would say that I myself feel that the time has come in the case of those wealthier authorities to bring the subsidy completely to an end. That does not mean that assistance cannot be given in the case of special individuals or classes in the community who are unable to pay an economic rent.
Command Paper 1520 sets out extraordinarily plainly the evils of the low rents normally charged in Scotland. I agree with my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh that this is one of the best pieces of writing upon this subject that the Government have produced. They give a number of the evil effects that result from these low rents. First, they say it is a direct cause of bad housing, and so it obviously is. They say that it discourages adequate expenditure in building new houses, in providing amenities, and in the lay-out. If people become accustomed to a very low level of rent, it is difficult to persuade them to pay a higher rent in order to get the better amenities that can thereby be provided. It discourages mobility of labour, it inflates waiting lists and, above all, it is unfair to many of the ratepayers who are obliged to subsidise these rents. At page 6 of the

27
White Paper this is put so extraordinarily plainly that I venture to read it to your Lordships:
"The result is that there are many old age pensioners and others with low incomes, who are living in privately rented or owner-occupied property and contributing in their rates to the housing of people who are better-off than themselves. This clearly runs counter to the local authority's duty to hold a balance between the interests of their tenants and the interests of the general body of ratepayers."
I do not think that that has ever been more clearly or forcibly put.
The diagnosis in the White Paper is all right, but does this Bill go far enough to rectify the evils pointed out? Why is nothing done in Clause 3 and in the Second Schedule to bring financial influence to bear by making the subsidy in some degree conditional upon reasonable economic rents being charged to those able to pay them? As I understand Clause 3 and the Schedule, it means that in the case of two different authorities with different rent policies the subsidy is the same. There may be one local authority which charges a full economic rent, no doubt having a wise and generous rebate scheme in order to give assistance to those who stand in need of it, and putting no general burden upon the rates other than that special burden which is justified in individual cases. In the other, you may have one of many local authorities in Scotland (as can be seen by looking at page 7 of Cmnd. 1609) which are now charging only 7s. a week, or something like that, and putting the whole of the additional cost upon the rates. What can be the justification for having rents in Scotland at an average, at the time this White Paper was produced, of only 9s. as compared with £1 a week in the case of England? In the case of new houses being built—this is contained in paragraph 17 of the White Paper—" the average Scottish local authority tenant meets rather less than one-fifth of the current cost of providing a house".
I feel that in doing nothing about that in Clause 3 the Secretary of State is missing a great opportunity. But he has a good record in this matter in the past, and he has done a great deal to persuade, and indeed sometimes to coerce, Scottish local authorities into raising their rents. That, again, can be seen from Table 1 on page 6. But how much further there is still to go is shown by
28
Table 2. In the case of Aberdeen, after adjustment to 1961 money values, the rents charged in 1961 were 8s. 7d. a week as compared with 18s. 1d. in 1938. Despite all that has happened, and in spite of the great increase in rent-paying capacity, the actual contribution made by tenants, if you revalue the money in order to enable a fair comparison to be made, is much less than it was before the war.
Clause 29 contains default powers. I think it goes a long way when it enables the Secretary of State to prepare, and to impose upon a local authority, a rents scheme which fixes rents and which may include a rent rebate scheme. To the best of my knowledge, the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England has not yet had the courage to do that. In several speeches, notably that in the debate in another place on February 2, the present Minister has said how strongly he wishes local authorities to charge the full economic rent to those people who can afford to pay it, and to introduce a rebate scheme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is certainly setting him a good example when he is taking power in this Bill to prepare a scheme of that kind if a local authority is in default. I only wish that instead of confining his activities to this rather drastic action in really scandalous cases, of which there have been some in Scotland, the Secretary of State had drafted this Bill in order to give also a general financial encouragement to all the local authorities in Scotland to pursue a wiser policy with regard to rents.
I do not feel that in these respects this Bill goes as far as I should wish it to go, but I regard it as being most definitely a step forward in many respects. I associate myself with almost everything that my noble friend Baroness Horsbrugh has said, and I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister of State that it is the intention of the Secretary of State boldly to go ahead in the direction of ensuring that in Scotland rents are raised, because without that I cannot believe that there will be a revival of the building of houses by private enterprise in Scotland. I do not believe that, without that, there can be a satisfactory solution to the housing problems in that kingdom.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have not the knowledge or the experience of housing subsidies or their application to enter the skirmish to which your Lordships have been listening this afternoon on that subject. There are, however a few small points in this Bill on which I should like to comment, and then perhaps I might venture to draw your Lordships' attention to one matter of, as I think, considerable significance which does not, I am sorry to say, appear in the Bill.
Of the smaller points, the first that I should like to mention is that which appears in Clause 21 of the Bill, which, as I understand my noble friend Lord Craigton, provides the new speeded-up machinery which the informal Committee suggested for demolition and closing orders. The point I should like to make to my noble friend is that he has done away with the machinery by which, in the past, notice has been given to the owner of a house in regard to which such an order was proposed to be made so that he could, if he was able, then give an undertaking to the local authority that he would repair the house and put it in proper condition and thereby avoid having any such order made at all. Now the order can be made in the first place and a certain length of time is given to the owner during Which he may, if he is able, give just such an undertaking as he did before.
But the time limit is the trouble in this particular case. After the service of the order the owner is given only 21 days during which he can give this undertaking. If the undertaking requires a structural survey and professional advice, which it surely must do, 21 days does not seem to me to be a particularly long time for a proper examination to take place. Nevertheless, if a house can be put right by virtue of the work which the owner is prepared to undertake, it seems to me much better that it should be put right and thereby saved for the occupation of the family, rather than that it should be torn down simply for lack of time for a proper examination to be made under professional advice. I hope that I am wrong in that, but it seems to me that three weeks is not long in the circumstances.
Then I turn to Part IV of the Bill, which seems to me to
30
be a good measure, in that it brings the law in Scotland into line with that which came into force in England I think the year before last, when the English Act to this effect was passed. I hope that the provisions in Clause 27 (1), by which, in proper cases, the two parties may apply to the sheriff for some rearrangement of the liabilities which this Part of the Bill lays down, will be used so that where there are proper cases the landlord will not necessarily have to stand the full rigour of the repairing clauses which are implied.
Then there is a small point in Clause 32. Where a house has been allowed a grant for occupation by an agricultural tenant there is a provision already in the law by which the local authority can, if they wish, waive the condition that the occupancy of that house must be that of an agricultural tenant. What is laid down in this particular clause is that the power of the local authority to waive that condition can be used only if the Secretary of State gives his consent. For the most part, these will not be very large houses. The local authority have the power simply to insist on this condition and not to allow a waiver. Apparently Her Majesty's Government think that where the local authority consider the case may be a suitable one for waiver of the condition they should not be allowed, on their own responsibility, to do so, but that the Secretary of State—that great man in Edinburgh—should first be consulted. I wonder whether my right honourable friend in another place does not feel he is using a sledgehammer to crack a rather small nut.
The fourth point I should like to make is to welcome the provisions of the Fourth Schedule, which will provide that where there is a preservation order in respect of an historic building, and a demolition order is proposed to be made, the building shall not be demolished but instead shall be closed. There are no doubt historic buildings which should not be lived in but which are still suitable to be preserved and to enjoy, providing a family does not have to put up with their insanitary arrangements.
The point that this Bill does not contain is one of which my noble friend already has notice, because it was raised in another place. It refers to the structure of rent for controlled houses in

31
Scotland. I do not want to take up an inordinate amount of time upon this subject, but it is one that is so complicated that, unless I explain it at a little length, I do not think anybody could be expected to see the point of what I am saying. Rent control in Scotland, as South of the Border, arose during the First World War, and rents were fixed at a certain level and security of tenure was given. In 1920 a certain increase in the rents for these controlled houses was allowed to be charged and as a matter of broad principle an increase of about 40 per cent. was permitted. In England this produced a system which to a large degree stood the test of time and proved to be tolerably fair; but in Scotland there was a peculiar circumstance which prevented this fairness coming to fruition as it did South of the Border.
That peculiar circumstance was the system in Scotland of owners' rates, by which a part of the rate burden was paid by the tenant and a part by the owner. The 1920 Act provided that no part of the owner's rates could be recouped by the owner in the form of extra rent from the tenant. This provision was, I believe, put in on second thoughts on Report stage of the Bill, whereas it had been rejected in Committee. I think it would have been better, as it turned out, if it had been rejected the second time also, because what happened was that, as the rate poundages rose-as they did between the wars and afterwards—so the owner's return became less and less, although, of course, the tenant continued to pay the same.
In Scotland in 1956 a concept of a "true rent" was produced by the Rating and Valuation Act of that year for the purposes of that Act. It is interesting to see, by using this concept, what were the results of the controlled-rent policy over the period 1920 to 1956, and in order to make a worth-while comparison it is as well to take into the account the 25 per cent. increase which was allowed under the Rent Act, 1957. I have some interesting figures here showing the effect of these various provisions upon rents in Scotland.
Take, as an example, a house with a rent of £20. The true rent—that is to say, the rent less the owner's rates—that would be received by a landlord in
32
Glasgow in 1920 would have been £15 15s. In 1962, taking into account the 25 per cent. increase granted in 1957, the rent received by the landlord would be £15 11s. 8d., which is less than it was in 1920. Similarly, in Dunbartonshire, if the true rent in 1920 was £17 3s. 6d., in 1962 it was £10 7s. 6d. That, of course, meant that the tenant was paying £20 throughout. That, in itself, seems to me to be a strange situation, because, after all, £20 in 1920 is a very different matter from what it is to-day. But the inevitable consequence of this has been that the landlord has simply not had enough money coming in from his property to put it in good order and to keep it up to date. In England and Wales this was put right in 1957, because in that year the rents of controlled houses were changed and a new formula was introdued on the basis of the gross value of the houses; but it was not apparently possible to do so in Scotland because no up-to-date valuation for the purposes of rating had taken place. Therefore, the Secretary of State confessed, quite openly, that the Scottish provisions of the 1957 Act were of a purely interim nature.
May I just quote one small passage from what he said on this matter? [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 567, col. 1421]:
"These rent provisions are, as I have said. of an interim nature and the Government do not look on them as representing a new rent structure for houses remaining in control. It will be necessary, once the new valuations become available in 1961, to make a fresh and comprehensive review of the position as a whole."
I wonder whether the time has not now come for that review. But apparently Hex Majesty's Government do not think so, because nothing appears in this Bill to put it into effect.
The extent of the problem is a very considerable one. There are at the moment under control in Scotland about 450,000 houses. This number, it is true, has decreased by about 150,000 since 1957—that is, within a period of five years—hy means of creeping decontrol. But 450,000 is still a very large number indeed, and I believe it to be the case about one-third of the population of Scotland is involved. Of these houses it is estimated that something less than a third are of very good quality indeed;

33
rather more than a third are of middle quality and could well do with modernisation and bringing up to date; and again something less than a third are of bad quality, probably slums, which should in any case be done away with and demolished. The result however, of the rents structure that has up to now existed has been that the middle third, in particular, of these houses have not been modernised because nobody has been able to afford to do it.
This is borne cut by the use which has been made of various measures which have been introduced since the last war to encourage people to modernise existing sub-standard housing. I believe that since 1950 only 30,000 grants for modernisation have been made in Scotland, and only about 3 per cent. of the controlled houses were actually improved under the Housing (Repairs and Rent) (Scotland) Act, 1954. I do not believe—my noble friend Lady Hors-brugh bore this out—that the matter has improved very much since that date, although the 1957 Act purported to do something to help landowners to improve their houses. The result is that this property has: run down, in many cases prematurely, and what could be good accommodation is in a bad state of repair and is rapidly getting worse.
In the situation about which we have heard in Scotland, this must be a very serious matter. Unfortunately, it appears that Her Majesty's Government have set their face against doing anything about it. An Amendment was introduced in another place to try to bring some arrangement into operation in this Bill in order to effect a remedy, but some sort of undertaking seems to have been given during the 1959 Election campaign which has been interpreted by Her Majesty's Government as being a promise not to deal with this matter. My Lords, it is presumably for Her Majesty's Government to interpret as they see fit their own undertakings. I think it is certainly possible to read the words that were then said by the Secretary of State and by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, in such a way that they mean that measures could be introduced in this Bill to put the matter right. But my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said in another place that the Government have already made it clear
34
that they do not intend in the present Parliament to alter the rent levels laid down in the Rent Act, and according to Her Majesty's Government, that seems to preclude anything to deal with this matter.
No doubt the proper way to deal with it would be to do the same thing as has been done in England; that is, to relate the rent structure for controlled houses in Scotland to the gross annual value, in the same way as in England it is related to the gross value. Since a revaluation took place and came into force last year, all the material must be available for this to be done, so the 1957 excuse that there were not up-to-date valuations is no longer at all relevant or valid. Indeed, that particular way of dealing with it would not mean any further decontrol. It would not mean that Her Majesty's Government would have to employ the powers that they have, to alter the levels at which houses come within control under the Rent Acts; nor would it mean that anybody's security of tenure would be destroyed. However, Her Majesty's Government seem determined not to do it.
I hope, however, that my noble friend can tell me one or two things about Her Majesty's Government's intentions on this matter. First of all, are they satisfied that the houses which are still controlled are being improved and brought up to date under the existing legislation in a proper way and as fast as is desired? I cannot believe that they are satisfied with that. If they are not satisfied, how do they propose to cope with the situation, how long do they intend to stick to the measures that are already in force, how long are these interim measures to stay on the Statute Book? And what about the fresh and comprehensive review that was promised in 1957? Are they going to undertake that, or are they already doing so? When do they think that something is going to be done about it? I believe that, unless all those things are done and done quickly, there will be a grave waste of potentially good housing in Scotland which is just simply not going to be used, and which is going to get into worse and worse disrepair until finally it will have to be demolished and replaced altogether. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government, and my noble friend, will be able to say something

35
about this matter and indicate that, at any rate, Her Majesty's Government think it is a matter of urgency.
4.13 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to this debate, and I am delighted that in your Lordships' House we should devote a day to discussing Scottish affairs. Last week we had a day devoted to Wales and Welsh affairs, and to-day we are discussing Scottish affairs. I am particularly delighted that we should have chosen for this debate the most important subject of housing. I do not believe there is a more important subject than the question of housing to the community throughout the country. As Lady Horsbrugh has said, it has been a subject in which all of us have been deeply interested for a great many years, so to-day we have embarked on what I believe to be a most important discussion. There seems to be a considerable amount of agreement among all of us. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. While I could not follow him completely in some of the things he said, it was obvious that it was a matter of method rather than of principle which was involved. He on his side, we on our side, are very anxious to do all we can to improve the housing situation in Scotland.
For some sixteen years I have been a member of a housing committee in a rural county in Scotland. In fact, I was gratified to hear the noble Lord, Lord Molson, pay tribute to the work of that committee, since the county in which he lives is the county in which for all those years I have been a member of the housing committee. I am glad that we have managed in that county—it is true that it is a rural county and the problems are not comparable to those of the cities—to build a sufficient amount of houses since the war; that we have managed to keep the rents in step with the rising costs; and that we are not now faced with either a very large deficit on the housing revenue account, or a large number of houses still to build.
The other part of Scotland which I know very well indeed is, of course, the city of Glasgow, and for 25 years I have been intimately associated with that city and its problems. We have in the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, someone who
36
knows that city better than anyone else does, since he was treasurer of the city council for so many years. I may say how delighted we are to see him here, and we are so glad that he is able to take part in the debate. There was a moment when I feared that something had prevented him from getting here, but now I see him and I know that his contribution will be a very valuable one indeed. The problems of Glasgow are greater than those of any other city in Scotland. There is the enormous number of people who flock into that city all the time, and the great difficulty of getting people to leave it, although I have seen people living there in appalling slum conditions. You may say to them, "Why do you not go somewhere else? You would get much better conditions and, probably, in this era of full employment you would get equally good employment"; but they are Glasgow born and Glasgow bred and in Glasgow they are going to stay, whatever the conditions. But many a time I have wondered at such tremendous local patriotism.
In the past I have been critical of the city council and of the way in which it has handled some of its housing problems; because of its reluctance, during those many long years when I was closely associated with one of the constituencies, to explore the possibility of building high, building up. It was forever building and spreading the city wider and wider, with the result that every acre, every inch of ground, has been built over. It is only in the last three, four or five years that the policy has changed and they are now building high. In some of the worst areas such as the Gorbals they are knocking down the slums and building these tall houses. I am sure that that is a wise thing to do in a city the size of Glasgow and, indeed, in many of our great cities in this country. I am glad that in this new Housing Bill we have provision for that type of building.
I am glad, too, that in other parts of the country, particularly in the rural areas, the local authorities have caught up with some of the housing needs. It is now only in the big cities and in certain of the larger boroughs that the shortages still remain. I am also glad that the special needs, mentioned by one or two of your Lordships in the debate

37
this afternoon, are being concentrated upon. I am sure that those special needs and the special types of [houses to which reference has been made are of the greatest importance and in that regard this Bill makes a very valuable contribution.
I also believe that the question is not only one of house building. There are other ancillary services that we should consider in dealing with the question of housing: water being one, electricity another. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the Electricity Boards, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, have enabled us to raise the standard of housing by putting electricity at our disposal, but I think that we might well examine and increase the water supplies, in order to help overcome some of the shortages in which the supply of water is of vital importance. I should also like to congratulate the Government on the standard grants scheme, which has come just at the right time. It enables us to use houses of which the structure is quite good and to bring the amenities up to modern standards. I welcome that scheme very much. I know that in our county we have employed these standard grants, and they will obviously be taken up in many areas because they will be of very great value in solving this particular problem.
I also welcome Clause 32, which allows for a change of use of houses built originally for agricultural workers. If a need for agricultural workers' houses is not in evidence, then one can change their use to that of general needs houses. I think that is very valuable because, as a result of the increase in the use of machinery, the number of people engaged in agriculture to-day is going down. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that it might well be left to the local authorities to decide about the change of use of these houses. The problem is not a very great one, and these houses and their conditions are well known to the housing committees of the local authorities. So I hope that during the Committee stage we may be able to insert an Amendment to that effect.
Undoubtedly by far the most controversial matter in connection with housing is the question of rents. The British
38
public, and perhaps especially the Scots, want two items, in particular (there may be others, but certainly there are two items, in particular), on the cheap: they want cheap houses, and they want cheap politicians. It is very difficult indeed to get anyone to pay politicians, particularly those in another place, an adequate remuneration for their services. They are lower paid, I think, than in any other country in the world. Similarly, it is very difficult to persuade anybody that he should pay an economic rent. I know that these two things are not, perhaps, otherwise comparable, but they are comparable in that the public have a great dislike of paying for either of these particular services at a remunerative rate. "Rent" is a word which has a kind of sinister ring about it. There are such words in the English language which instantly bring reactions. "Mother-in-law", for instance; "beer"; "Wigan" —all these are well-known words which bring instant reactions, on a music-hall stage or anywhere else. I remember someone once saying (I cannot remember if it was my husband, or who it was), when talking about housing: "They are talking about building in refrigerators; they are talking about building in amenities of the most modern kind, but take great care you do not build in your mother-in-law!"
Undoubtedly "rent" is one of the words from which people really cry off. I vividly remember fighting a by-election in the Kelvingrove Division in 1958, during the passage of the Rent Act. The appalling consequences that were predicted by my opponent during the course of that campaign—perfectly legitimately, because we were fighting an Election; and in an Election all is fair—were quite fantastic. Rents, it was said, would go up 100 per cent. or 200 per cent.; people would be evicted; furniture would be put out on the streets, and all the rest of it. There was going to be the most appalling disaster descending upon the great city of Glasgow, and upon other cities in the country. Nothing I could say could convince the Tories—I was not particularly concerned about the Labour vote, because I knew that I should not get that anyway—that this would not happen. In fact, they abstained, and I did not win the seat. But about nine months afterwards I went

39
back, and I had a talk with the Sheriff. I said to him, "How many cases did you have of evictions, or of excessive rent rises? How many cases came before you as a tribunal?" He said, "Two"—and this was out of a possible total of thousands of cases that might have arisen. So that, really and truly, the fear of the word "rent" is greatly exaggerated; and if only the matter can be discussed in a calm and straightforward manner, I am quite sure that we can get over the difficulty and can get a fair rent policy throughout Scotland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh—and I agree entirely with everything that she said about this—has asked why people who live in modern council houses, with all the amenities we want everybody to have, should pay such low rents that the general rate, which is paid by everybody in the city or in the town, has to make a very considerable contribution to their housing conditions? I remember well going around the city of Glasgow and seeing people who were themselves living in desperate conditions paying the full rates, a considerable proportion of which was required to equalise the housing revenue account. I do not believe that that is at all fair, and I think it is a fact which all local authorities must face.
The difficulty, of course, is that in a number of areas the local authority owns so many houses that it requires a great deal of self-sacrifice on the part of the appropriate committee to agree to put up rents, because the members themselves—or a great many of them, anyway—are involved in this process. I think that in the White Paper there is a paragraph which refers to the question of the local authority's becoming a monopoly landlord. That is inevitable, where the local authority has gone ahead, and rightly so, and built so many houses. But it is also very difficult, I appreciate, for the members of that authority to vote themselves very much higher rents. Yet it is a very short-sighted point of view that prevents them from seeing the wisdom of a fair rent—I am not saying an excessive rent, but one that is fair both to those people who do not live in comfortable, modernised houses and to those people who do. It is accepted, I think, that in Scotland rents of local
40
authority houses are about 50 per cent. lower than in England. The Government subsidy in Scotland is 10 per cent. more, and the general rate payment is almost five times what it is in England. That, I think, is something which the Secretary of State, by this Bill, is going to take powers to alter, or cause to be altered, and I am sure that that is a very good thing.
The question of building by private enterprise, which has been referred to, and which I am sure is a very good thing is, of course, very much influenced by the question of the rent that may be charged. It is one thing for a private individual to put a great deal of capital into house building and not to get a full return: it is another for a local authority, which has the general rate to fall back on. So unless this question of rents is dealt with fairly and squarely, you will not get either any big private housing association or private enterprise builders to risk their capital. The admirable scheme whereby, in modernising cottages, one could get a grant of £400 for a full modernisation scheme has been used tremendously in Scotland. But the £400 was, I think, originally supposed to meet something like 50 per cent. of the cost, and if you are really putting a house in good order you cannot do it under between £800 and £1,000, which means that £400, although a great help, is certainly nowhere near 50 per cent. of the cost.
My Lords, these matters are all very difficult. The discussion which has gone on this afternoon on the subject of rents has been of very great interest indeed. It is a complicated subject. I think that in this Bill the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken powers which will enable him to help solve this problem. It is one out of which we want to try to take the dynamite, if we possibly can, because it is in the interests of everyone—it is in the interests of those who live in poorer houses, it is in the interests of house building, and it is in the interests of general fairness all round—that there should be a better rent policy throughout the country. Therefore I hope that that will be one of the products of this Bill.
I commend very strongly the policy of slum clearance which is being concentrated upon by the Secretary of State for

41
Scotland, the increase in house building for old people, and the reconstruction of the old but fit houses—that is to say, fit structurally, but not containing the amenities which we want in modern houses. I hope that by this Bill, and by the support which I believe it will have from all sections of the public, the Government will be able to tackle these problems faster and more effectively, and that will be of enormous benefit to everybody in Scotland.
4.33 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, although I support the matter contained in this Bill, I will not occupy your Lordships' time in praising it, because I remember the advice about long speeches given to us all in Tam o'Shanter. Although I am a proud burgess of the City of Glasgow, I will not deal with the great cities; I will let my noble friend Lord Greenhill have a clear field there. But I should like to say a word or two to your Lordships about the smaller Scottish burghs, which are really the places where the history of the country has been made, and where the social system has really been framed.
In the smaller Scottish burghs there has been, all through time so far as I can remember, a great sales resistance on the part of the public to paying for housing, although the climate demands that they should be well housed. Yet a very large proportion of that population think that a man has not properly succeeded in life unless he has built or bought a house of his own in his native burgh. For that reason, I was a little sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in introducing this Bill, while paying a well-deserved tribute to the local authorities, seemed to be more hesitant about the building done by private enterprise. My knowledge, especially of the smaller Scottish burghs, is that a great deal of building has been done by private enterprise, largely by citizens who have built their own houses, but there has also been some amount of building speculation by firms. This has presented more difficulties, and these firms run far more risk of loss, because, after all, only a limited proportion of the public is willing to follow the old traditional line.
The noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, said that it is prefectly true, that the
42
whole of society in these burghs is very largely housed in council houses—so far as I can make out, there is no difference in rank or occupation between people housed in their own houses, or in houses built by private enterprise, and people housed in council houses. It is true that a certain distinction is drawn by banks, insurance companies, and businesses of that kind, who think it incumbent upon them, and very properly so, to house their principal employees—their managers, and so on. However, the Postmaster General does not feel the same necessity, and he triumphantly comes in and gets council houses for his postmasters; and some burghs have the honour of housing quite a large number of old retired postmasters in council houses. When there is a lead like that from the Postmaster General himself, it appears to me that nobody can cast stones at anyone who prefers to have a council house and has been able to get it. What Lady Horsbrugh said was abundantly true: there will always be housing difficulties in Scotland until some distinction is drawn between those who are entitled to assistance in housing and those who are not in need of it, and therefore must fail.
That brings me to another point. I had not altogether understood Clause 11, I am afraid, but it seems to me that the Government's experiment in renting houses shows that, unless housing associations have very much wider powers than private proprietors have in getting an economic rent, or resuming possession if the conditions of a lease are not carried out and the rent goes into default, it will not be easy for them to get houses; and I am rather afraid the experiment will fail.
The other point which drew my attention was Clause 32, and I should be very glad of some sort of clarification there. Clause 32 provides that a local authority may waive a restriction on a house built for an agricultural tenant if that house is no longer required for agricultural purposes. My own experience in that line happened some time ago, and I think this question will need rather careful consideration. Take the case of a farmer who has some houses for his workers, either houses nearby, such as council houses, or as part of the equipment of the farm. The farmer

43
then changes one of his employees. Instead of employing another married man in place of one who is leaving and going somewhere else, he employs what we call a half-lin, a son or relative of a neighbour. The farmer carries on, and he has his full equipment on the farm. When that half-lin gets married, he may have to go away and take a house somewhere else—because he must go where he can find a house.
In my experience, the Farmers' Union and the Farm Servants' Union combine to do a great injury, I think, to the farm services of Scotland by insisting on short-term engagements. If a man is offered employment and the chance of a house, he must take it. He dare not leave the opportunity untaken, because it might be long enough before he finds another. For that reason, it seems to me that if a local authority waives the requirement that a house must be used for an agricultural tenant, later they may find themselves faced with a demand for a house for an agricultural tenant when they have already let it. I am afraid that I am putting the point badly, but it seems to me that difficulty will arise here unless the local authority has power to re-establish the house as an agricultural house. In that case, they will have to give notice to the tenant whom they have allowed in. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will be able to answer this point off-hand, but I wanted to bring it before him because it is one that requires a little study. Subject to that, I give the Bill my warm and wholehearted support.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in the debate, but there is one question that I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government. At present, there is a £400 maximum grant for modernising houses. What I want to know is: can that grant be increased under Part II of this Bill? Although a great many houses have been improved with the aid of this grant, there still remains a hard core; and I, for one, do not believe that this hard core will be dealt with under the present grant. The amount of the grant was thought suitable in 1954, and it is hardly surprising
44
that many people do not think it adequate now, because £400 will not buy today what it did in 1954.
4.43 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for not being here earlier to-day. On the other hand, my purpose in coming down to-day was not so much to go over the whole Bill that is before your Lordships as to concentrate on the position of Glasgow, which needs special consideration. The noble Lord will be aware that last Tuesday there were municipal elections in Scotland, and in Glasgow one Party received not only a substantial majority but an increase in the number of adherents to its political views, doubtless after they had read about the Second Reading of this Bill in another place. Whether that was a case of cause and effect, I do not know, but I am sure that it is something over which the noble Lord will ponder.
I was disarmed by the kind remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. It is true that I have come down because I am concerned about the position of housing in Glasgow. I am not going to deal with any of the clauses in the Bill, because an opportunity will be given to us in Committee stage of submitting such Amendments as we think necessary, and we can argue the details then. I prefer to take instead the picture as drawn in the White Paper that has been issued. There we find, in spite of the polite and kindly language which the compilers of White Papers usually adopt, one or two sinister points, which I think warrant serious consideration.
Nor am I going to trouble the House by going into the long string of figures which were given in the course of the Second Reading debate in another place. These figures indicated that Glasgow's problem, as the White Paper says, is a special one. To-day I want not so much to criticise the policy of the Government in this measure as to plead with the Government to treat Glasgow as a special case, and not as one of the 300-odd local authorities in this country. In Glasgow, we have what is called an overspill problem. It is true that Glasgow has succeeded in persuading a number of burghs to take some of our overspill population by agreeing to pay

45
a certain amount over a number of years. One would imagine that other burghs would be very willing to take advantage of this and help with the overspill to the fullest extent of their powers. The point of view that I want to submit is that these burghs receiving overspill are benefiting from the intake of the overspill, while Glasgow is becoming impoverished to an irreparable extent. The people who are leaving Glasgow to go and live elsewhere are not the old folk or the people who are unable to fend for themselves. They are the young, active heads of young families, who take with them their skills, leaving Glasgow, by the loss of such highly desirable citizens, still more impoverished than she already is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has pointed out that, with the exception of a couple of areas, there is now no space at all available in Glasgow for housing. Only yesterday, when I had occasion to pass through the district called Knightswood, I was led to compare the housing there with the horrible structures that are going up now in Gorbals and other parts of Glasgow. They may house a great many people, but they are horrible to look at. The amenities are not what one associates with desirable residences. Although admittedly there has been an extravagant use of land in the Knightswood area, reckoned in terms of to-day, we see there what might be called gracious living in beautiful surroundings, and presumably at a cost which Knightswood people can pay and are willing to pay.
It has been said in the White Paper, and also by the noble Baroness, that there is a long tradition in Scotland of low rents. I will not contend that a town council is acting legally in refusing to obey a law which lays down that there must be a revision of rents. I am not suggesting that the tribunal before which they appeared, and which inquired into these problems, was wrong in its findings. But what I think it is equally important to remember is that the action—and we may as well mention names—of Dumbarton and the County of Glasgow, in not fully obeying the terms of the law, was not due to any rebellious spirit by these people, on the ground that they thought the prices charged were adequate for the accommodation
46
the tenants were receiving, but was the natural and understandable reaction of people who felt frustrated and displayed their attitude by their refusal to obey.
As the White Paper itself admits, rents have been increased slightly. But let us not forget that this so-called tradition of low rents is a tradition in the real sense of the word, in that it goes back for many years. Indeed, it would not be exaggerating to say that it goes back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution, when the industrialists of those days paid wages on which the people could not manage to live, so that when anything was taken from their wages it left them too little to pay rents of any magnitude. One side effect of that was that the conditions under which they were asked to live, the houses which were built for them, were ramshackle, dirty, filthy, and unsafe. And it is no wonder that, until the medical profession found means of remedying the incidence of tuberculosis, Glasgow had the unenviable reputation of being the city with the highest incidence of that kind of disease.
When I speak in these terms, it is not that I am saying that Dunbarton County did right in their action, or that even Glasgow did right, when it came to these inquiries. I say that in the circumstances their reaction was understandable: that to pay a high rent, as they considered it, seemed to them to be unfair for what they were getting in return. I need not remind noble Lords—at any rate, those who have gone round some of the slummier parts of Glasgow—that no human being could possibly tolerate the conditions under which, even to-day, people are living there. Let us remember this fact, too: this tradition is a tradition in which the ordinary working man and woman in Scotland was made to tolerate conditions which to-day would not be tolerated by their children. That is due to the normal development of taste; to the higher level of education; to the demand for a higher standard of living which nobody in your Lordships' House would say they do not deserve. Therefore, without going into the merits of the finances and subsidies (and, incidentally, I do not think these improved subsidies will bring about the remedies which the Secretary of State

47
himself rather suggested they would), I say that until Glasgow is taken out of the context of all the other local authorities, and is treated in a way commensurate with its importance, we can never expect her to become once again the great city she was.
Let us remember, also, that changes are taking place, not merely in the demands of the people, not merely in their attitude to what they consider the minimum requirements of life, but also in the very means of communication, of transport and so on. Whereas ships were once the great industry for Glasgow, and whereas railway engines were once the product of Glasgow, with heavy industry generally, to-day we see that all that is changing. My fear is that unless Glasgow is treated as a special problem it will become a derelict city, because of the very matters now being adumbrated in this White Paper.
What it says here is that in a time of changing industry, with new towns being built and so on, there is opportunity for different attitudes to housing. That may be so. But it does not apply to Glasgow. It is interesting that in the current number of Town and Country Planning, a copy of which was sent in January, 1962, to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we find this rather important point of view expressed: that, whereas the Clyde Valley Scheme was one which took into consideration a very large area for the purposes of developing in the way that is well known to-day, that is no longer adequate. To-day, what one needs by way of development is something which covers not merely the Clyde Valley but the Forth Valley as well. Until we get a wider Council, as is demanded by present-day conditions, we cannot hope to get the improvements we wish and which we think we ought to have. So, my Lords, I come back to my point. The Government admit that Glasgow is a special problem; therefore, they should treat Glasgow as a special case. Whatever may be done under the general heading of subsidies for all the other places, consideration should be given to the setting up of some special body, for the particular purpose of trying to save Glasgow from becoming, as I fear it might, a derelict city.
4.57 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations of all Scottish noble Lords on this side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. We are glad that he is now better and able to take part in our deliberations. I should like to thank him for the great experience which he has brought to bear in a thoughtful and well-balanced speech. I am glad, too, that my noble friend Lord Molson—I am sorry he is not here now—thinks that the Bill is better than the English Act. We think that about all our Scottish Bills. I am grateful for his appreciation, and for the appreciation of the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, of Command 1520, Housing in Scotland. As both have said, the position is clearly put, and that is because we really understand the problem.
Correct diagnosis is, I think, the first step to a final cure, and there have been many such steps over the years. I feel that this is just another step in the right direction. I agree with my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood that there has been considerable agreement among all speakers, and I thank her for her welcome to the Bill. It is difficult enough to handle a Bill like this which touches on rents, and I am glad that it has nothing to do with mothers-in-law. One would expect a little opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but I could not think of a worse description to give a skilfully detailed Bill than that it was completely irrelevant. I think he seemed to prefer the status quo. I must tell him that one day he may be standing where I am now, and he will not get far by preferring the status quo.
What is the purpose of the Bill? To stimulate house building until everyone has a proper home; and for that we have to make a change. The noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Greenhill, mentioned Glasgow. I must confess that I do not know whether Glasgow gets £12 or £32, though I would remind the noble Lord that whether the result of the election depended on £12 or £32—I know he was only joking—one of his honourable friends in another place calculated that Glasgow would get £32. But we ourselves do not know. I think I must join issue with the noble Lord on his suggestion that we should treat Glasgow as a separate case, because going back over

49
the last number of years I think that is what we have done, and we are simply adding to it in this Bill. For example, there is the expensive sites subsidy—a brand new subsidy. What is that in essence but treating Glasgow as a separate case in that particular field? By its operation that is a provision that will specially benefit Glasgow. Glasgow considerations were borne in mind in preparing the expensive sites subsidy, as were, of course, all Glasgow's problems. The same, too, with the high fiats subsidy and the help given by the S.S.H.A.
Will the noble Lord cast his mind back to the Housing and Town Development Act, the overspill Act? Surely that is treating Glasgow as a separate case. I feel that we are doing in this Bill all that we should to help Glasgow within the ambit of the Bill. If there is something else we should do about Glasgow, something else perhaps to improve the overspill operation, let us by all means keep open minds and see whether we cannot do something to help improve what is being dons already. The noble Lord said that he appreciated the problems that overspill causes; but the Glasgow Corporation, I think, do a wonderful job with overspill. He also, says, and I agree with him, that the intolerable conditions must go. There can be no alternative but for the people of Glasgow to leave Glasgow if the conditions are to go and the peopel of Glasgow are to have a city and housing conditions that they really deserve while I agree with him in posing these problems, the problems will remain the overs pill Problem is solved, which can be by people leaving Glasgow.
The noble Lord's friend mentioned the difficulties of Dundee, which he said would get £12 over the next two years. Of course, as he knows, the object of this Bill is to get the worst-off at the head of the queue, and if Dundee are not at the head of the queue then they will not be one of the very worst-off authorities. He believed that £60 was not an unreasonable rent to charge Is that what the noble Lord said?
LORD HUGHES: I said it was not an unreasonable inference to take from his remarks that the noble Minister considered it a reasonable rent.
LORD CRAIGTON: That makes it olear in my own mind that the noble Lord does not have the position quite clear. I do not blame him, but I will try to explain. In the first place, £60 is not the target figure for all authorities. In fact the figure for an individual authority will be half-way between the average gross value of the local authority's houses and £60. In Scotland as a whole the average figure will be something like £53. In the second place, even this average figure of £53 is not a figure for rent alone. It is an assumed income from both rents and rates and it is left to the local authority, as at present, to decide in what proportion the expenditure will actually be met from rents and from the rate fund. In fact, it would not be necessary for most authorities at present to charge as much as £53 rent to balance their accounts provided there is a reasonable contribution from the rates.
The noble Lord asked: why £60? Where did we get this figure of £60? I will try to answer. The answer is that £60 is admittedly an empirical figure which appeared, after a process "trial and error, to be the figure to produce the right results. It produced a fair balance between local authorities with relatively inadequate and those with relatively adequate resources, so that we could give a substantial increase to those authorities who need it while maintaining overall Exchequer assistance to housing at about the present rate of increase.
Starting from the assumption that the rate of increase in this Exahequer com-mitment should remain about the same over the next few years, we had to determine two things—the form of the resources test and what the new rates of subsidy should be—in such a way as to achieve the result we wanted; and each of these two things clearly conditions the other. The object is to give a higher subsidy to a local authority Which, even if it takes credit for the full notional income from rates and rent, can reasonably expect to be still seriously in deficit. Authorities in deficit should have really increased subsidies, but the total paid out in this way should not be more than we can afford. We had, therefore, to find a formula that had the greatest possible regard for local conditions and for sound housing account finance.

51
Every local authority, as the noble Lord knows, has a fixed income from existing subsidies, and the balance is now made up from rent and rates as each local authority decides. With the new valuations we have a more realistic valuation of the houses on the basis of which we can fix notional income from rent and rates in the Bill—not from rent alone. But we had in some way to limit the notional deficit authorities so that we paid no more in the high subsidy bracket than we could afford, and we had, at the same time, to cushion the impact of the new valuations on the new arrangements. This was better -achieved by the "half-way to £60" formula, which brings closer together the areas of high valuation and the areas of low valuation, than would have been the case if we had taken actual valuation as a yardstick. If, for example, we based notional income from rent and rates on gross value as it stands, without any reference to £60 or any other figure, we should then have more local authorities in deficit, and we could not have afforded to pay such a high rate as we have done. The effect will be to increase the average Scottish valuation from its present figure of £46 to something, as I said, of the order of £53: that is, £46 plus halfway to £60, which equals £7, making £53.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord just to say that no one would pretend that these figures are arrived at arbitrarily. They are arrived at on the basis of such information as is available at the time of making these figures. But experience has shown repeatedly that although you have come to certain definite figures, after a very short time—and equalisation grant is an obvious example—you have to change the very figures upon which you arrived previously, and there is, therefore, no finality, in my view, about that kind of figure. It will be alterable according to circumstances as they change, and they are rapidly changing just about now.
LORD CRAIGTON: The Secretary of State has powers under the Bill to alter the £60.
LORD HUGHES: He cannot give more money.
LORD CRAIGTON: That is right; but to answer the noble Lord, Lord Green-hill, of course the subsidy is regulated every year so that the authority can go in and out of deficit. It does not seem to me unreasonable to pay the lower rate of subsidy, £12, to a local authority who can reasonably be expected to obtain an income of the order of £53 from rents and rate fund contributions, and who, if they did, would have no housing deficit. The average income from rent alone in England, as the noble Lord may know, is already more than this—about one guinea a week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, asked how the figure of £12 was arrived at. It was arrived at in the same way as the £32 and the £60; it is the best answer we could work out to give the results we wanted. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, then raised another point. He said this Bill transferred liability from the taxpayer to the ratepayer. But it does not, of course. It re-distributes the taxpayer's contribution so that it is used to better advantage. For the next few years we expect the rate of increase of Exchequer costs to be about the same; then it will rise. But if the ratepayer's present burden is high in any area, this is the result of unduly low rents, and if the Secretary of State's efforts to get rents on to a more realistic basis can succeed, that will help the hardly-done-in by ratepayer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I am glad he said that he is not seeking to justify the unusually low rents in certain areas, this is a matter of concern to us on; both sides of the House. I think this Bill will be a great help. My right honourable friend will continue to do all he can.
My noble friend Lord Molson asked me to say something as to what exactly my right honourable friend proposes to do. First of all before I come to that point, the noble Lord felt that there should be greater powers in Clause 3 so as in some way to say, "Unless you are good boys you are not going to get the subsidy". But Clause 3, in effect, says to the local authority who is getting the £12, "You may feel you ought to have a higher subsidy, but the facts show that if you are in financial difficulty there is a substantial remedy in your own hands in revising your rent policy." To that extent I think Clause 3 does What the noble Lord wants.

53
My right honourable friend's powers really lie in Clause 29, which does not give my right honourable friend any new power to put a local authority into default. The existing procedure which my right honourable friend may put into motion, either on receipt of a complaint or on his own initiative, remains as it is at present. What Clause 29 does is to put "teeth" into these provisions so that when a default has been established the Secretary of State can do something effective to ensure that it is put right. These new powers are a last resort, to be used only where a local authority is found in default and has not been ready to put the default right by itself. My right honourable friend will not hesitate to use his powers, if necessary, but he will be much happier if it is not necessary at all. The fixing of rents has been entrusted by Statute to local authorities, and I am sure we ought to be able to rely on them to carry out this duty in a reasonable way.
My right honourable friend is doing everything possible to urge on local authorities the importance of getting rents on a reasonable basis, both by the issue of information and guidance and by action against local authorities who do not appear to be exercising their functions reasonably. There has been a remarkable movement in rents over the past few months, the average in Scotland going up very quickly, helped on, no doubt, by the exercise of the default procedure in a recent case. My right honourable friend has every confidence that this movement will continue, and that the anomalies of the present position can be got rid of by the reasonable exercise by local authorities of their statutory duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was worried about my right honourable friend's powers in Clause 8 after ten years to reduce or abolish subsidies retrospectively. (The answer to my noble friend, Lady Horsbrugh, by the way, is, that there are similar provisions in the English Bill.) I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to bear in mind that, before my right honourable friend takes this action, he goes through two motions. First of all, he has full discussions with the local authorities, and although the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may think that "full discussions" means telling the local authorities what
54
they are to do, I have considerable experience of this and I can assure him that it is not the case at all; these discussions are very frank and very helpful, and often the local authorities have it their way rather than the Government having it their way.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? He is well aware of the fact that I have frequently been in these negotiations with him, but I have been on the local authority side, and I know how very seldom we have made any change at all in what has come to us from St. Andrew's House.
LORD CRAIGTON: I can think of more than one occasion when the noble Lord's silver-tongued oratory prevailed over us, and, as he knows, on many occasions these things have been worked out by officials before they get as far as our deliberations. The second step which my right honourable friend takes is to get his action approved in another place, and that gives full democratic right to ventilate the pros and cons.
The noble Lord was also worried about rent rebates not being included in the calculation for notional deficit. I think he overlooks the fact that it is only a calculation; it is a calculation of qualification for subsidy. The question of whether rent rebate is to be paid by the ratepayer or the taxpayer does not arise at all in this calculation. It would have been a far more complicated calculation and probably we should have arrived at exactly the same answer in the end.
I am grateful to my noble friend, Lady Horsbrugh, for her constructive speech, and especially for the welcome she and my noble friend Lady Elliot of Har-wood gave to our efforts to stimulate private house building. I agree with the noble Baroness about the need for propaganda: Governments must put things over like any business firm if they are to succeed. She referred to the advisability of trying to secure an economic rent for the new houses as they are built. I am not sure whether she had one point quite clear. She will bear in mind that most local authorities own considerable numbers of houses built when prices were low, and that for housing account purposes the benefits

55
and burdens should be fairly shared among all local authority householders.
My noble friend Lord Saltoun talked about the position of private building in small burghs. He said I was hesitant about raising the question of building houses for sale by private enterprise. The Bill does not affect private enterprise, but I did attempt to explain the new steps we are taking to stimulate capital, government and private, to build houses for letting at economic rents; and in that I hope the Bill will be a considerable help.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made a typical speech in which he made a very clear statement, I thought, on the question of controlled rents. As I think my noble friend will agree, any alteration of controlled rents would be more appropriate to the Rent Acts than the Housing Acts; but, apart from this, we have repeatedly made it clear that we do not intend in the present Parliament to alter the rent levels laid down in the 1957 Act; and in particular we are bound by a pledge—and Parties must stick by election pledges—given by Mr. Henry Brooke, in September, 1959, at a pre-election Press conference, that the Government did not intend in the next Parliament to alter the rent levels laid down by the Rent Act of 1957. On this occasion Mr. Brooke was quite clearly speaking, not as an English Minister of Housing, but as one of a number of spokesmen on the Conservative Party's general policies. The Government cannot therefore hold out any possibility of making provision in the present Bill to deal with the rents of houses still remaining in control.
My noble friend made reference to what the Secretary of State said and I am advised that he quoted my right honourable friend correctly. What my right honourable friend promised was a comprehensive review of the provisions of the Rent Acts; he certainly did not imply that any legislation to amend those Acts would be introduced immediately the new valuations were available. The collection of information about current rents and new gross values of houses as well as about the working of the existing Acts so as to enable a review of the whole position to take place will obviously take time. But I
56
can give an assurance that the promised review will be put in hand just as soon as the necessary data can be obtained from the assessors, who are still, as my noble friend knows, hard pressed with work over the recent revaluation. So preliminary inquiries have been put in hand and a proper inquiry will be held as soon as possible.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Colville of Culross and Lady Horsbrugh about the importance of improvements. The noble Baroness asked whether we had experts to help us with improvements, and whether we had done our best. I can assure her that I myself have made the most exhaustive attempts to keep up the momentum in this question of improvements, but I should be being less than fair if I did not say that I am most disappointed. We are still trying. We need more improvement work. What I can tell her is that I expect that the increase in the permitted rent allowance from 8 to 12½ per cent. will help. We want the local authorities to do more, and we hope that they will be ready, in conjunction with private owners, to undertake large-scale schemes for improvements in areas of sub-standard houses which, though they may be sub-standard, are not bad enough to be demolished.
I am glad to know that some authorities are considering this. I think of Glasgow and Paisley and Port Glasgow. The large scheme recently carried out in Port Glasgow by Messrs. Lithgow shows what can be done by proper organisation and good planning. We can only do everything we can to push on every front to try to get more improvements in Glasgow. I am not sure that the noble Baroness is not right in saying that the Glasgow type of house makes improvement more difficult than the type of houses in England and Wales.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross asked about Clause 21. He was worried about the giving of an undertaking in 21 days, and thought that this might not be long enough. I think that I should draw his attention to an Amendment put down in another place to line 19, at page 19, whereby the local authority has power to extend the period of 21 days. But, quite apart from the Amendment, the local authorities have,

57
by tradition, always been most helpful and reasonable about the strict conditions of the Acts. I am quite sure that they will know just as well as the proprietor whether the job will take more than 21 days, and that they will "play along" with him in a fair manner.
My noble friend Lord Forbes asked whether the £400 maximum for improvement grant was increased under this Bill. The answer is: No; it is not.
LORD FORBES: My Lord, I am sorry, but that is not quite correct. I asked: Could it be increased?
LORD CRAIGTON: The answer is; No; it cannot be. But I will say that we still think that £400 is a reasonable maximum, as it seems to hold the right balance between the house-owner and the taxpayer. We base our belief on the fact that the average grant paid is about £300. That does not suggest that many applications are being turned down because they are over the limit.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I do not quite see how that applies. If £400 was thought to be the right amount in 1954, why is it still the right amount to-day?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, it still appears to be the right amount. But there are other Bills—I am quite serious about this—and if this point arises, and it is felt that there is substance in it, then, if a suitable instrument comes along, we can amend it.
My noble friends Lord Colville of Culross and Lady Elliot of Harwood referred to Clause 32, to the small point about the Secretary of State having to approve the change in occupation in regard to agricultural workers' houses. T will look at what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said. The answer is that this is taxpayers' money and we thought it right that my right honourable friend should be brought in when the local authority waived one of the conditions of grant. It is a small point, and I am quite willing to look at it. On that happy note, I hope that your Lordships will now agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GRANGEMOUTH BURGH BILL [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I do not exactly know what is the function of a member of the Opposition here. It seems to me that this is a matter in regard to which, so far as I can see, there are objections. But it is not for me to act as advocate in regard to any objections, and I therefore support the Motion.
THE EARL of MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, not because I feel that the Burgh of Grangemouth necessarily has a convincing case, but because I believe the issues involved are of the greatest importance to the whole future concept and wellbeing of local government in Scotland, at any rate in the industrial belt of the country. I consider that these issues are such as to warrant the closest examination not only of the facts but also, and more importantly, of the general situation which could arise if Grangemouth achieved its object. The only way in which such an examination can now be made is by means of detailed discussion and consideration in Select Committee, to which this Bill must go if it is given a Second Reading.
The Town Council of Grangemouth are anxious to achieve large burgh status, on the ground that the population of the town is approaching 20,000, which is the minimum under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, for the grant of such status, and also on the ground that this young and thriving centre of modern industry, with its fine sea communications, expects, and appears to have every reason to expect, to continue to expand considerably over the years. In fact, they expect to achieve a population of 22,500 by 1964 and 30,000 by 1975. They consider that it is desirable,

59
and indeed financially practicable, to have as much direct control as they can in order to plan this not inconsiderable development over the years. I think it will be agreed by your Lordships that, in the circumstances, this is a reasonable line of thought, and one which is in no way biased by the natural antipathy which small burghs invariably have against their big brother the county council.
On the other hand, the petitioners, for a variety of valid reasons, are opposed to Grangemouth's desire. The two county councils are, of course, concerned at the loss of income from industrial valuation and the consequential danger that rates would have to rise in the remainder of the counties. The County of Stirling, in particular, can point out that over the years they have geared their administrative arrangements to meet their responsibilities with regard to Grangemouth, and that the removal of 20,000 souls from a population of 130,000 will not result in any proportionate or even appreciable reduction in expenditure by the county council. To give an example, Stirling County's children's department consists of the children's officer and two assistants. Grangemouth's population represents about one-sixth of the total, but it would be impossible to reduce the staff of this department by one-sixth. Stirling County can also rightly say that many who work in Grangemouth live outside the burgh boundaries, and indeed outside the proposed new boundaries. If Grangemouth becomes a large burgh, the county will still have to continue to provide the same services to these workers without any assistance from the employers.
There are many other points which both sides have made in their submissions, but I do not intend to bore your Lordships by recounting them. I should, however, like to make some observations on general policy. No new large burgh has been formed since 1929, when Arbroath, with a population of under 20,000, was given that status as an exception. At present, there are half-a-dozen or so small burghs in the industrial belt which are either just over 20,000, or close on that figure. If Grangemouth succeeds in its desire to become a large burgh, a precedent will have been set; and even if circumstances
60
are different, it will be difficult to deny to one something which has already been given to another.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when speaking to members of the Association of County Councils in Scotland on March 16 this year, spoke about the inter-dependence of communities and the need in these days to look far beyond the old administrative boundaries which were defined centuries ago to suit the conditions of a very different age from ours. He rightly stressed that the natural economic region is often far larger than most counties or burghs. We must therefore recognise that developments in one district tend to benefit a much wider area than was the case even, shall I say, 25 years ago. My Lords, I agree with my right honourable friend, and I have often wished, from my own local government experience, that the parish pump watered a larger area.
In conclusion, I hope that I have made it clear to your Lordships, without bias to one side or to the other, and without going into too much detail, that, apart from the facts of this particular case, there is a real need to consider the problem in the wider field and to study all the implications which could arise, whether or not Grangemouth is finally successful in its object. I would therefore ask my noble friend Lord Craigton for an assurance that at the appropriate time the wider problem will be very carefully considered, and, in order to ensure that it will be, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.33 p.m.
LORD FERRlER: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Earl who has just sat down, and there is of course great weight in what he has said in general terms and in terms of administration. I hope your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading and to commit it, but, if I were to disagree with the noble Earl, it would be because he implied that Grangemouth was much like any other small burgh. I take the contrary view, and, with your permission, I feel it would be proper for me to bring to your Lordships' notice, if only for the record, the features of the Bill which attract attention—or which certainly attract my attention.

61
The fact is, my Lords, that there is more in this matter, to me, than just the dry-as-dust administrative problems, because there iS a romance about Grangemouth and its growth which thrills me and much of the Scottish countryside. Its growth since I was a boy has been remarkable; and, of course, the proportion of its growth which has taken place in the last decade has been absolutely fantastic. The Forth and Clyde Canal created Grangemouth. Why?—because John Smeaton decided that at that spot the sea-lock at the Canal's eastern end should be located. The Canal was completed in 1790, only three years after Grangemouth's foundation-stone had been laid, and it is difficult at this distance of time to appreciate what that Canal must have meant, a century and a half ago, to Scottish industry and to the development of Scotland's industrial belt.
Enterprise, my Lords, has always been Grangemouth's watchword. Ingenium vincit omnia is its motto. In 1802 the first practical steamship in the world, the "Charlotte Dundas", was built there to operate as a tug on the Canal. Many a carronade for Nelson's ships must have been shipped from its quays to the dockyards in the South. The burgh as such was formed in 1872, with an area of about 450 acres and a population of 2,500. To-day it covers something approaching 3,500 acres, with a population approaching 19,000—which is expected to increase to 30,000 by 1975. The rateable value, at £1,053,000, is higher than in 14 out of the 20 large burghs which exist to-day, and higher than in 20 of the 33 county councils in Scotland. It is now the second largest port in Scotland, and is the centre of the Scottish oil-refining and petrochemical industry; Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, have a large chemical works there. It has a large timber trade and a growing export business, particularly on the short routes to the Continent, which many of us believe have a great future.
With these introductory remarks, my Lords, I turn to the main objects of the Bill. It contains 36 clauses, but, happily, I need not deal with them, certainly not in detail, as they contain the usual administrative provisions consequential upon the powers which are
62
being sought, powers such as are contained in many a local authority Bill which passes through your Lordships' hands in a year. In any case, these are really meat for a Committee. The first main object of the Bill is to be found in Part II, which contains powers to extend the boundaries: namely, to take in 419 acres of land from the County of Stirling, and 1,107 acres of foreshore; and 590 acres of land from the County of West Lothian, and 482 acres of foreshore. I am informed that the Town Council's main concern is to provide and service additional lands for expanding and incoming industries. These industries, I would emphasise, are already in the burgh and are served by the burgh. Would it not be better that that relationship should continue? In addition to actual industries, there is, of course, the concomitant need for housing, schools and open spaces which must accompany it. The areas it is proposed to bring within the burgh are already largely owned by the Grangemouth Town Council and industrialists who are established in the burgh.
The second main feature, Part III, is where it is proposed that Grangemouth should become a large burgh, and here is the problem which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has just brought so wisely to your Lordships' notice. The large and small burghs of Scotland are set out in Parts III and IV of the First Schedule of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. Prior to that Act a large burgh was defined as follows:
"Large burgh means a burgh containing a population of 20,000 or upwards and includes the Burgh of Arbroath."
Now, my Lords, Arbroath's population is less than 20,000.
The question of the population of large burghs was considered by the Jeffrey Committee which reported in 1939–1 quoted from the Act of 1929—and it is possibly proper that I should quote to you from the Jeffrey Report, where at paragraph 82 it says:
"The existing law in regard to local government makes no provision for changing a small burgh into a large burgh, and it was suggested to us that this was an omission which ought to be remedied. It appears to us that the questions which must arise in connection with a proposal to add to the number of large burghs will be so complicated and so important that it would not be appropriate to include provision on the subject in our

63
draft Bill. The matter is one which, like the alteration of the boundaries of counties and large burghs, can be dealt with satisfactorily only by special legislation.
"The formation of a populous place into a large burgh would raise similar complicated and important questions and the draft Bill, like the existing law, makes no provision for it. We regard the granting of the status of a large burgh as a matter for special legislation."
It is clear, from what is happening today and from the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, that that view expressed in the Jeffrey Report was a very wise one. By the way, 1 think that the noble Earl has just confirmed that this is the first occasion in the 33 years since the 1929 Act that a small burgh has sought to become a large burgh.
When the Act of 1947 was passed, large and small burghs were listed, but the population figure of 20,000 had disappeared. However that may be, if 20,000 is still regarded as the population figure which justifies the establishment of a large burgh—and, clearly, it is so regarded in some people's minds, if it is not actually in the Act—then Grangemouth will have reached that figure by the time this Act comes into force in May, 1963. But even so, population may not be the only criterion in an industrial place like Grangemouth. The type of plant in the oil and chemical undertakings in Grangemouth does not call for large numbers of operatives, no matter how large the installation may be. Indeed, in my view the number of operatives is no longer the yardstick of the magnitude of an industrial undertaking. There are, of course, other criteria—community of interest, trading services, town planning.
I am tempted to refer to a paper read only a few weeks ago at the 69th Health Congress at Scarborough, where in a paper on "The Shape of the Future", Dr. Bronowski used the words:
"The small town of the future can be as well equipped, physically and intellectually, as the largest modern city.
"He went on to say:
"I think that you can do all these things in a town round about thirty thousand strong, and this is my forecast of the size of the new industrial communities in the future."
The unique planning problems related to the expansion of Grangemouth would,
64
I feel, best be solved by the Town Council's having its own planning arrangements, which, of course, are not available under small burgh status; though, indeed, the town to-day employs its own planning consultant.
I come now to the -third object of the Bill—namely, that the Council shall become the water authority responsible for water supply in the areas proposed to be added. This seems to me a logical consequence. The Town Council have the necessary resources. Indeed, the Council have recently taken a prominent part in the development of an additional source of supply—I refer, of course, to the Loch Turret scheme—and Grangemouth is now one of the largest water undertakings in Scotland. This has been developed to meet the needs of existing and incoming industry. The Council own all the water that the area uses, and it uses it in great quantity, 80 per cent. of it being supplied to industry. In any event, I am advised that other water boards in the area could not supply such needs from their existing resources.
In coming to Parliament for these powers Grangemouth may be creating a precedent, but I feel confident that, if your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to go to Committee, it will be shown on the merits that there is a special case for the powers which Grangemouth seeks—Grangemouth, the hum of whose activities and the blaze of whose light dominate the upper reaches of the Firth of Forth. My Lords, I support the Motion for the Second Reading.
5.47 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. It so happens that Grangemouth was part of the constituency which I represented in another place 30 years ago, but that is not my reason for seeking to address your Lordships this afternoon. I would say nothing about the burgh expansion or the water supply provisions. Those are in familiar form. Committees of this House have been accustomed to dealing with them for generations, and I do not suppose that any special, novel point is raised by these matters. But the third main provision of the Bill, the change of status from a small burgh to a large burgh is, as has been said, a novelty,

65
and I think it is worthy of a little consideration. I do not suppose the relevant facts will be in dispute at all, but policy probably will be.
As your Lordships know, the division between large and small burghs originated in the legislation of 1929. I am bound to say that there were quite a number of provisions in that Act which I never liked, but I have always thought that the division between large and small burghs was, on the Whole, a good one, and that the line was drawn in about the right place. I have no reason to suppose that that situation has seriously changed. It is perfectly true that no one has attempted to alter the status of any burgh during the last 33 years, but I think the reason is that there has never really been a comparable case. I am afraid that one's recollection about these matters becomes, perhaps, a little hazy, and I have not checked what I am about to say. When these matters were discussed at the end of the last war this point came up, and I do not remember anybody suggesting, in public or in private, that there should never be a change in the present lists. Undoubtedly at that stage there was no sufficient case for moving any burgh from one list to the other. However, there might well be such a case in the future; and there were two things which could have been done.
On the one hand, the new Act might have contained a statement of the conditions which had to be fulfilled if a burgh was to remain in, or join, the ranks of the large burghs. The other way was the way which was adopted following on the recommendation of the Jeffrey Committee: that the matter should be left for consideration in each particular case as it arose. I think that everybody who hoped that Scotland would develop—and everybody did—realised that the time would come, sooner or later (and preferably sooner, rather than later), when some change would be necessary; and it will be for the consideration of the Committee whether that time has now come with regard to Grangemouth.
I think that one has to consider not only the present position but the apparent future trend. Because if the present growth of Grangemouth continues as everybody supposes it will, and if it should then appear inevitable that
66
a Change ought to be made, one would suppose that convenience would require the Change to be made sooner rather than later. If, on the other hand, of course, the future development of the town were wholly problematical, the case would be quite different. But I do not myself see why this should be delayed simply because there may have to be, sooner or later, some general reorganisation of the local government "set-up" (if I may use the word) in Scotland. It may be that some day the present arrangements will have to be overhauled as a whole, but those things have a habit of taking longer to achieve than one expects, and I see no reason why that should be an argument for postponing the consideration of this particular issue.
When one finds a burgh which is already on the threshold of having the requisite population, which has a larger rateable value than is normal with populations of that kind, and which shows every sign of growing pretty rapidly, I should have thought that there was a very strong case to send to the Committee. Of course, what the Committee will decide one does not know, but I assume that they will be assisted by evidence from the Scottish Office, and I assume that they will be fully in a position to decide the matters of policy which inevitably arise on this application. I see no reason to suppose that those matters will not be fully, adequately and rightly considered, and properly decided, and I would therefore firmly support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for making a second speech in the same afternoon. Whether or not it will prove to be what my noble friend referred to as "another typical speech", I can hardly tell. I believe the key to this debate is found in that part of the Petition by the County of West Lothian which was originally presented against the Provisional Order where they say:
"Your Petitioners believe that there is no justification for the constitution of the Burgh of Grangemouth as a large Burgh and that any such alteration of the status of the Burgh in the circumstances now existing would be contrary to the interests of good local government and administration in Scotland".

67
In other words, they draw attention to the matter of broadest principle which is inherent in this Bill, and which I think is also implicit in the fact that it is being dealt with by a substituted Private Bill, its having been refused permission to proceed as a Provisional Order by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and his colleague, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in another place.
I, too, would support the Motion that this Bill should be read a second time, but in sending it upstairs to a Select Committee I do hope that the debate this afternoon will have presented a broad background to the considerations of that Committee, against which they can view the effects of this particular Bill in the whole setting of local government in Scotland to-day. Although the creation of a new large burgh has not previously come before your Lordships' House since 1929, it is, of course, very similar to what is a most familiar characteristic of Private Bills—that is, a request by an English urban district council to be turned into a county borough. This has been going on frequently over the past 30 years. South of the Border there has, of course, been a chequered history of local government reform proposals, ending up with the 1958 Local Government Act, which set up the Commission which is at present sitting. At the same time, the Herbert Commission was appointed, which went into the local government of the London Area and whose Report will no doubt be very recent in the memory of your Lordships.
The wider Commission has, of course, made the most remarkable and fundamental suggestions with regard to English local government, which is as far as it has reached so far. For instance, it has suggested the abolition of the county boroughs of Burton and of Worcester; it has suggested doing away with Rutland and merging the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough Council; it has put forward a completely new conglomeration of county boroughs in the Birmingham area; and it has proposed an entirely new local government borough for Tyneside. So, quite apart from the London proposals, south of the Border the matter has been fundamentally looked at, and some very far-reaching and startling ideas have
68
emerged. Of course, the purpose behind all the considerations of both Commissions has been that the cardinal object of local government is the efficient and economic administration of the sort of services provided by local government, and not local government for the sake of local government or for the personal satisfaction of the people involved in it, whether councillors or officials. Of course, the people involved must be enthusiastic, and must feel that they have something worth while carrying out, but theirs is not the prime reason for the existence of local government, or for the services which it administers.
In Scotland, in contrast to the picture south of the Border, there has recently been no such general overhaul and examination of the structure. The 1929 Act was the last that produced any major reorganisation, and the Jeffrey Committee, to which reference has been made by several noble Lords this afternoon, was not set up with anything but terms of reference to deal with consolidation and machinery, except that they were allowed to put forward amendments to the law which would facilitate consolidation and secure simplicity, uniformity and conciseness; and their Report was very largely implemented by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
My Lords, what I have just been saying on the very broad picture is, I believe, relevant to this Bill because a large burgh in Scotland is more or less equivalent to a county borough in England. Within it there is single-tier government, except for the purposes of education: and, of course, there is a difference in the population levels, too, because whereas in England the generally acceptable level for county borough status is about 100,000 people, in Scotland it still seems to be in the region of 20,000, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, that is not mentioned in the 1947 Act. In fact, the largest of the large burghs in Scotland is Paisley, with a population of 95,000; and, if my arithmetic is correct, I make the average of all the large burghs to have been about 43,500 in 196l. Grangemouth, I believe, has got a perfectly reasonable case to put forward. Other noble Lords have mentioned its present population, and

69
that to which it will rise, or is intended to rise according to the development plan, by 1975.
My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie also mentioned, I think, the rateable value, which in 1961 was £969,000, and in fact at the moment is calculated to be just over £1 million. I notice also that there are only 6 out of the 20 existing large burghs which exceed that figure. Grangemouth, too, has a rateable value per head of population which is twice the highest of that of any large burgh or county city in the whole of Scotland. It is clear that this is a growing and thriving place. Industry is at the moment the real tonic which Scotland needs, and I am sure that that is the point which noble Lords opposite were really making when discussing the Housing Bill earlier this afternoon.
With Cumbernauld, Grangemouth is probably the "white hope" of industry and the expansion of the Scottish economy at the moment, and in such circumstances I am sure it is right that everything possible should be done which would enable it efficiently (o expand, attract industry, grow and thrive. Also, it is probably right to distinguish between a small burgh which is growing in that way and one which is, although much the same in size of population, more or less a static, and possibly even stagnant, community. So I do not think that anyone would disagree that there is a prima facie case here which ought to go upstairs to the Select Committee; nor indeed say that the town council of Grangemouth have been wrong in choosing private legislation as the method of promoting their case. I am sure that the Jeffrey Committee were right when they said that this was the proper method of doing it, and so other noble Lords have thought this afternoon. However, the fact that the legislation is promoted is not necessarily the same as saying that it will be passed, and that is why I wish the Select, Committee to take extra care in their consideration of this particular Bill.
My Lords, I have already said that there is no Commission in Scotland at the moment inquiring into local government in general. I wonder, first of all, whether the very fact that Grangemouth has applied to become a large
70
burgh might not be the spur which Her Majesty's Government need to set up such a Commission. In view of what I am about to say, I hope that my noble friend Lord Graigton may be able to say something in his speech in reply in a moment. It is true—and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, is right—that even if this were to be set up, it is not necessarily right that Grangemouth should wait for its results before the proposals in this Bill are considered. Nevertheless, I do believe that this is an introduction to the more general issue.
The background against which I think the Select Committee ought to look at this Bill, and also the evidence which the Scottish Office will, I am sure, prepare for it, should be looked at in two ways. First of all, will this bring forward a flow of other similar applications? My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie suggested that there were other places which might like, as it were, to jump on the band wagon. Looking at the figures, Buckhaven and Methil have a population of 21,000, and Johnstone, Kirkintilloch and Renfrew are all in the region of 18,000 and are possible candidates. They are all growing places, and Renfrew has a very high rateable value and rateable value per head of population. Although it is a new town at the moment, no doubt later on East Kilbride might also be a candidate, for it already has a population of 32,000 people.
What seems to me to be the real crux of this matter has, I think, been mentioned by nobody else this afternoon so far, and that is that the proposais in this Bill are proposals towards fragmentation of local government. So far as I can make out, this is directly in contrast to the present trend of local government north of the Border. The Jeffrey Report mentioned and reinforced the powers of all sorts of local authorities to combine voluntarily by means of joint committees to fulfil various duties which were laid upon them, and I see that in Section 119 of the 1947 Local Government (Scotland) Act the suggestion of the Jeffrey Committee on the powers of the Secretary of State to force compulsory combinations has in fact been adopted.
But whatever the powers may be, the opportunities presented by them have

71
been grasped most strongly by Scottish local authorities, and I should like to give your Lordships a small example of what has been done in terms of combination of authorities in order to fulfil local government duties. I have selected a county which seems to have come in for much mention this afternoon already, Roxburghshire. 1 see that it is combined with Selkirkshire for civil defence and its valuation committee. It is combined with the surrounding counties for its fire services, with Selkirk and Berwick for its police, probation and road safety committee; with Berwick, Selkirk and Peebles for Tweed River purification and weights and measures; and with Peebles and Selkirk for its superannuation committee. Stirlingshire, which is one of the counties involved in this particular Bill, is combined with Clackmannan for police, fire services, probation and valuation. It is also combined with Fife, Perth, Clackmannan, West Lothian and the large burghs therein for Forth River purification; with Falkirk and Stirling for accident prevention, road safety and also weights and measures; and with Falkirk for water.
There are, of course, many other similar examples all over Scotland which could be quoted. It is a widespread pattern and I think it is inevitable when you have small counties and big, some of the counties, indeed, being the smallest. For example, there are Kinross, Nairn and Bute, where I have noted, as a matter of interest, that not since number plates on motor vehicles began has any of those counties registered, I believe, many more than 3,000 motor vehicles—a remarkable state of affairs for a period of some 60 years. Kinross and Nairn are, of course, statutorily combined with Perthshire and Morayshire for a large number of county council functions.
My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie mentioned the approval given for this sort of trend by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he spoke in March of this year. I will not repeat what he said, but the whole emphasis of what he was saying in the context of the growth of industry and the economy of Scotland is, of course, most closely and vitally tied up with the question of planning—of regional planning, and of planning
72
for larger areas than simply county councils. Again, one of the most important things the provisions of this Bill would lead to would be rather the fragmentation of planning into smaller areas than the building up of planning provisions into larger economic regions, because Grangemouth Town Council would become the town planning authority for its own area.
There are, of course, the usual questions in matters of this kind, which again have already been mentioned, such as the viability of Stirlingshire without Grangemouth's rates—indeed, a very large chunk of the rateable value of the county would inevitably go—the proportionally increased burden in terms of staff, and the possibility, which 1 think is a considerable one, of the county, and perhaps West Lothian, too, having to house the workers in Grangemouth, provide them with services, education, and so on, while the new large burgh would get the rates from the industry in which they work. They are all familiar questions in matters of this kind, and questions which the Select Committee will have to consider on their merits. But the fundamental question must be that of the reorganisation of local government, whether or not this Bill is premature in that respect, and 1 wonder whether, in fact, Her Majesty's Government have any plans for a Commission for Scotland similar to that now doing such noble and challenging work south of the Border.
There is one other respect in which I believe the Select Committee ought to consider the question of prematurity; and that is, the question of water supplies. Perhaps, on the face of it, it is a small matter that Grangemouth should seek to take into the area of its water undertaking all the areas constituting the burgh, including, no doubt, those which it hopes will be added under this Bill; but the fact remains that the world of water in central Scotland is at the moment a very troubled one. The Secretary of State has recently reconstituted the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, with a remit to advise him about the whole problem of water supplies in central Scotland, which are by no means in a healthy position.
Grangemouth has plenty of water at the moment, as, wisely and with great

73
foresight, it has joined with Perthshire and Clackmannanshire in getting water from the Loch Turret scheme. It also gets water from the Stirlingshire and Falkirk Water Board, which supplies, in part at least, almost all the other area undertakings in the centre of Scotland. But that Board has now reached the position where it has been forced to say that, unless some peculiar and fundamental steps are taken, it is in danger of being able to produce no more bulk supplies. The Board has had to say to the New Town of Cumbernauld (which is one of the main focal points of industrial growth in central Scotland) that it may not be able to supply any more water. And if that were to happen the subsequent growth of this town might cease altogether. The new car factory at Bathgate and the proposed New Town of Livingstone will no doubt increase the difficulty.
Although, no doubt, plans can be worked out to cope with the situation, probably by sharing out the Loch Turret water, any provision of this Bill to alter the present set-up must inevitably come within the scope of the Advisory Committee and be liable to be altered. But in taking this step, presumably the matter will be dealt with more quickly than through the general reorganisation of local government in Scotland, and I think that the Select Committee should carefully consider whether this matter of water ought not to be left out of the Bill and dealt with in the general reorganisation that I think is bound to come. Therefore Part V of the Bill, which deals with water provision, may also be premature. This is the range of matters which I hope that the Select Committee will consider carefully and in which their views will be helped by evidence from the Scottish Office. As I have said, I do not wish to delay the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe that it is an important and novel measure before Parliament, which ought to receive scrutiny of the highest care and diligence.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have been in and out of Grangemouth many times in the last twenty years and it has always struck me as a place that seemed to grow in front of my eyes. One thing I am quite sure of is that if I were an
74
inhabitant of Grangemouth I should think it of great importance that the town should become its own planning authority. The whole future of Grangemouth and the comfort of its inhabitants will depend on good planning. I do not cast any aspersion on any planning authority in Scotland, and certainly, and specifically, not on the planning authority of West Lothian. But my experience teils me that sometimes small burghs feel that they do not get as good planning as they would like. They probably feel that they are thought of as humble, and planning takes place more with regard to economy than with regard to amenities. I am sure that this is not the case with West Lothian, and I am not suggesting it for a moment. Probably it is not the case with any planning authority in Scotland. But I quite understand that small burghs may feel a little restive, and when they grow to the size of Grangemouth I am perfectly certain that they would feel much happier if they were responsible for their own planning.
6.16 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I will speak only briefly. By allowing the Bill a Second Reading, your Lordships will be taking the view, with which the Government agree, that there should be an opportunity for its merits and demerits to be further examined. The Select Comimittee, of course, will hear the views both of the promoters and of the objectors and it will be open to the Committee to reject all or any part of the Bill after careful examination.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier referred to the Report of the Jeffrey Committee on Local Government Law Consolidation, which explains why there is no provision in the 1947 Act. It is clear that, though they are the first to seek such a change, Grangemouth are nevertheless taking the steps that it was expected would be taken when the 1947 Act was passed.
It has been suggested by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, in a typically well-informed speech, that the Government should institute a full inquiry into the structure of local government in Scotland. The Governmen't are not committed to any such inquiry, and it would be wrong for me to commit them in the

75
context of this Bill. I do not deny, however, that in the light of the Toot-hill Report, and the emphasis which must be placed in the future on economic growth, an examination of the Scottish local government system may well be necessary. But I agree with my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, that the possiblity of such an examination should not be allowed to hold up the proper consideration of practical proposals considered urgent in particular areas. The Government do not express any views on the merits of the case at this stage. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, my right honourable friend will follow the normal practice of making a Report to the Select Committee. I hope that your Lordships will decide to follow the usual practice on this occasion and allow this Bill to proceed.
6.18 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in reply on this Bill. First of all, there may have been a little surprise in some quarters that I did not make a speech in moving that the Bill be read a second time. May I therefore explain that it is not customary for the Chairman of Committees to make a speech in moving the Second Reading of any Private Bill? If he apprehends that there is sufficient opposition to the Bill to make it possible or likely that the Bill might be rejected, then it is his duty to secure some other Member of your Lordships' House to be an advoca'te on the Second Reading of the Bill. Today, although I was aware that several Members of the House wished to comment on this Bill, I was informed, in response to inquiries, that no Member wished to move the rejection of this Bill and, so far as I could ascertain, that no Member wished to prevent its having a Second Reading. Therefore, in moving the Second Reading without any comment I followed custom, and if I unwittingly embarrassed the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, by so doing, I apologise to him. However, I did send him a note warning him of what I was going to do, and I hope therefore that I was not wrong. Incidentally, may I say how glad I am to see him back after his illness?
There are very few things I want to say in reply to this debate. Another
76
point which perhaps your Lordships may be a little curious about is this. How comes it, you may ask, that a Private Bill, related wholly to Scotland, is moved on the Floor of the House, whereas in almost every case the Bill proceeds in Scotland by a Provisional Order and not by Private Bill? It may be of interest if I explain that under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, the normal course is for Bills which are on all fours with Private Bills in England to proceed instead in Scotland by a Provisional Order. But there are provisions in that Act which provide that where the Provisional Order procedure is objeoted to, an appeal can be made to the Chairman of Ways and Means and myself. If, in our opinion, a sufficient case is made out for the Bill to proceed not by Provisional Order, but by Private Bill, then we so decide.
I may mention that that happened in this case. There was a controversy about the procedure to be adopted. Some of the petitioners against the Bill were of the opinion that part of the Bill should proceed by Private Bill and part by Provisional Order. To cut the story short, I may say that we decided—I hope rightly—that the whole Bill should proceed by way of Private Bill procedure. I have explained why there are so few Private Bills from Scotland on the Floor of the House; but once that decision is taken—and it was taken in February—the Bill proceeds in exactly the same way as any other Private Bill. The fact that it comes from Scotland is henceforward irrelevant. I may add that in deciding whether it should proceed by Private Bill or by Provisional Order the two questions which the two Chairmen have to bear in mind are: first, whether it relates to matters outside Scotland—and in this case that, of course, did not apply; and secondly, whether it relates to matters which are "of such novelty and importance" (those are the exact words) that it ought to be dealt with by a Private Bill. So I was comforted to hear the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, that this was at any rate a question of novelty, if not of importance, and I hope we came to the right decision. That is how the Bill comes here to-day.
Having said that, may I say this? So far as I am aware, beyond that point there is nothing about this Bill which is

77
unusual. The fact that it is opposed is, of course, not unusual at all. That leads me to say this. Throughout this debate, with the exception of the noble Lord who has just sat down, who expressed no opinion on the merits of the Bill, every speaker, so far as I can tell, has been on the whole in favour, if not of the Bill's becoming law, at least of its being referred to a Select Committee.
I should just like to say what will happen. The Bill will go to a Select Committee in the ordinary way. The fact that it is a Scottish Bill, as I have said, makes no difference. The Committee is to sit soon under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—and I should like to say this because the debate has been so onesided this afternoon. It is my province to protect the interests of the opponents of this Bill alike with the interests of the promoters. I am told that the Committee stage of the Bill may occupy anything from ten to fourteen days, which may be some indication to your Lordships that the real debate may not be quite so one-sided as it has been this afternoon. There are six petitioners against the Bill: the County Councils of Stirling and West Lothian, the Burghs of Kilsyth and Bo'ness and two water boards. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that those six petitioners are likely to have quite a little to say about this Bill upstairs.
There is one other detail which I think I might mention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, both mentioned that no doubt there would be evidence from the Scottish Office on this Bill. I should like to make a slight correction there. I do not think there is any difference with this Bill, so I am saying, with some confidence, that Government Departments cannot give evidence before Private Bill Committees. The procedure is that Government Departments—and no doubt the Scottish Office will follow the usual procedure—make a report to the Committee on the Bill. The Committee consider the report. The report is either considered by the Select Committee, or by myself later. I wanted to say that it is not proper for any Government Department to give evidence on oath on a Private
78
Bill Committee. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I make that small correction. Those are the only comments that I should like to make in reply to this debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; (viz.):

L. Sinclair

L. Allerton

L. Douglas of Barlocn

B. Horsbrugh

L. Hughes (Chairman)

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

AIR GUNS AND SHOT GUNS, ETC. BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
LAW REFORM (DAMAGES AND SOLATIUM) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
POLICE FEDERATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House, That they have ordered that the Select Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee appointed by this House on House of Lords Reform do meet the Lords Committee in Committee Room C on Wednesday next, at Eleven o'clock, as proposed by this House.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to foe delivered out except to Members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past six o'clock.