Sitting of 11 December 1963

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

  JAMAICA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Jamaica, and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (GIFT OF A BOOKCASE AND A GAVEL)
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a bookcase containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books, together with a gavel for the Speaker, to the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

  SUMMER TIME
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time (1964)Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Gurkha Brigade
    Sir J. Smythasked the Minister of Defence if he will consider a revision of the 1948 agreement with Nepal to provide for a larger number of Gurkhas to be enlisted by the United Kingdom for the Gurkha Brigade.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): As I stated on 20th November in reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), it has been decided to make no reduction in the strength of the Gurkhas for the time being.
    Sir J. Smyth: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, although our agreement with Nepal of 1948 allowed Britain eight battalions of Gurkhas and India 12 battalions, India, I am informed, has at present no fewer than 42 battalions of Gurkhas? I do not blame India for that, but, in view of the drop in British recruiting announced by the Secretary of State for War last Monday, will my right hon. Friend consider recruiting more of these very fine soldiers from Nepal who are extremely eager to serve with the British Army?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Like my right hon. and gallant Friend, I value highly the services of the Gurkhas, but I see no reason to increase their recruitment, which in any case is a long-term remedy, whereas deferment of planned run-down brings immediate benefit.
    Mr. Healey: I support very strongly the request made by the right hon. and

    369
    gallant Member. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Gurkha troops have proved themselves exceptionally suitable for the rôle which British Forces have to perform in the Far East, notably in Malaysia and Hong Kong, and that there is at present a serious shortage of British troops in these areas? Will the Minister, therefore, reconsider the Government's proposal ultimately to cut Gurkha recruiting?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not accept that there is a shortage of British troops in those areas, and I emphasise that the rôle of the Gurkhas is world-wide.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas the recruitment and training of Gurkhas is a long-term policy, there are long-term difficulties in South-East Asia and the area is not likely to be pacified at an early date? Will he, therefore, read my speech last Monday wherein I asked for consideration of an increase in the Gurkha strength in the British Army from 14,600 to 20,000 Gurkhas?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall read my hon. Friend's speech with the same attention that I address to all his speeches. I emphasise again that it would be a great mistake for any of us to talk about the Gurkhas as being associated with one area only. They have a world-wide rôle.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that many of us have pressed that no reduction should be made in the Gurkha strength of the British Army? Would he make it clear that the suggestion made the other day during the debate on the Order continuing the Army Act that the strength should be increased to 20,000 is hopelessly impracticable?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not know about it being impracticable. The Gurkhas are doing a very fine job. There is a good rô1e for them in the numbers which I have planned. I am not prepared to go further than that at present.
    Sir J. Smyth: Will my right hon. Friend realise that the present position whereby the cuts announced on 14th March are not rescinded but are not at present being implemented is not very satisfactory to the people at the other
    370
    end, such as recruiting officers and the men who have to make up their minds whether or not to join the Gurkhas, and particularly to the British officers who have to decide whether or not to make a career in the Gurkhas? Will he consider making a rather firmer and longer-term statement on the whole policy of the recruitment of Gurkhas and British officers for Gurkha regiments?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I fully appreciate the force of my right hon. and gallant Friend's point about having some stability and certainty in these matters, and I will bear it in mind.

    Abandoned War-time Sites
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Defence if he will appoint a committee to investigate how best to achieve the speedy removal of abandoned war-time hostels, military camps and airfields in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir; but if my hon. Friend will let me know the details of what he has in mind, I will investigate the matter myself.
    Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country is covered with old sites which are not only eyesores but a very serious waste of agricultural land? Does he agree that Government policy in the past has made it extremely difficult, for financial reasons, to get these sites restored to their proper use? Will he take action in this matter? It is far too long since the end of the war to have these relics still disfiguring our countryside.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am only suggesting to my hon. Friend that there are better ways of doing these things than by appointing a committee. Some of these sites are owned by my Department, some are not. I cannot do much about those which are not owned by my Department, but if my hon. Friend will let me know, in writing or verbally, precisely what his proposal is, I will do what I canto investigate it myself.
    Mr. Pager: Is the Minister aware that these sites are worth to a small nation such as ours a value quite different from their worth to an individual owner? We cannot afford to leave our countryside cluttered up like this. Will the right hon. Gentleman co-ordinate his

    371
    policy with that of the Minister of Transport under which a lot of hard core is required for the road programme? If these two policies were co-ordinated it could make the clearance of these sites, as is certainly happening in a number of districts, very much cheaper. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this road building opportunity is not missed?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear the point in mind.

    Armed Forces (Transfer of Personnel)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Defence what arrangements are made to assist the transfer of Service men redundant in one Service to another of the Armed Services.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: These arrangements are at this moment being worked out in consultation with the Services.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that very large numbers of men in at least 13 trades in the Royal Air Force are being offered free discharges? Would it not be a pity if this valuable manpower were dissipated without any real attempt being made by somebody to see whether or not use can be made of their services either in the Army or the Navy?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There are 1,300 men who are redundant in the Royal Air Force. Steps are being taken to ensure that they are offered the opportunity of transferring to other Services.

    Hunter and Sea Vixen Aircraft (Replacement)
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Defence when he expects to complete the project study for a replacement for the Hunter and Sea Vixen.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The project study has been completed but it raised a number of problems, the implications of which are the subject of further examination.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is what he has told us previously? Would he make it clear that it is still the Government's intention to proceed with a common aircraft for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman had heard my earlier reply, he would have known that there are difficulties in producing an aircraft capable of common operation from carriers and the land. I do not want to repeat the details of what I stated on an earlier occasion.
    Mr. McMaster: When this aircraft is announced for the Navy, is it anticipated that it will have a vertical takeoff capacity?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The aircraft to which the Question refers is one with a vertical take-off capacity.
    Mr. Healey: Is the Minister aware that there is serious concern in the aircraft industry at widespread reports that the Royal Navy is considering buying Phantoms and that the Royal Air Force is considering the purchase of foreign planes? Can he assure us that a decision will be taken on the future of the P.1154 in the next few weeks? Otherwise, the decision may, in effect, pass out of Her Majesty's Government's hands.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not in the least responsible for speculation in the newspapers, and I would not attempt to answer for it. My concern is to see that any operational requirement is properly studied and that no project is started which is bound to be very expensive, whatever the choice, without a full examination.

    Arms Expenditure
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of President Kennedy's declaration this summer of a moratorium on all United States nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere and of Mr. Khrushchev's decision to cut Soviet arms budgets whether or not the United States of America cuts hers, he will now consider making a cut in Great Britain's arms expenditure.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. Our expenditure is kept to the minimum consistent with our own defence needs and with our obligations to our allies. These commitments have not yet been reduced, either by the Nuclear Test Ban Agreement or by any changes of policy by the Soviet Government.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister admit to the fact stated in the Question and, in addition, the serious proposals being made in certain quarters of the Senate, notably on 2nd August, for an immediate reduction of 10 per cent. in America's arms expenditure without waiting for international agreement? Is not this the moment when Britain should be moving in the same direction rather than increasing her expenditure as she is?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would agree that there has been a Test Ban agreement, for which I think all hon. Members are thankful. I would also agree that Mr. Khrushchev will not build up a surplus of arms that he does not want, and nor will I. But that does not involve a decrease in the defence budget.
    Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the impact on British defence policy and expenditure of the important statement by Mr. McNamara a few weeks ago, in which he indicated that the Western defence experts had been wrong for 10 years in their estimates of Soviet forces, which are now thought to be only half what they were thought to be? Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity to make a statement on that?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman has misread Mr. McNamara's statement. He said nothing of which we did not have full knowledge or with which we disagreed. There is nothing in that statement which would lead to a reduction of British forces in Europe. Indeed, Mr. McNamara would be astounded if any such reduction were made.
    Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman says that I have misread the statement, is he saying that the lengthy report in The Times and the editorial comment in The Times—for which I realise that he is not responsible—were quite wrong?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am saying that the hon. Gentleman's gloss on the report which he gave in his supplementary question was inaccurate.
    Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    N.A.T.O. Multilateral Force
    Mr. Healeyasked the Minister of Defence whether, following the discussions in Washington and Paris, he has now authorised British forces to participate in the proposed mixed-manning trials, in connection with the negotiations for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir; but I think it likely that just as we have participated without any commitments in the talks, we would consider taking some part in an experiment associated with them.
    Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the members of the Government party present at the Western European Union Assembly, meeting in Paris last week, supported the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in opposing the multilateral force? Is the Minister aware that there is deep concern on both sides of the House that Her Majesty's Government may find themselves committed to support the multilateral force by a series of small administrative decisions, rather in the way that, in the end, they were committed to membership of the Common Market, although they went into the negotiations without any prior commitment?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not see why a willingness to discuss problems with one's friends or allies, or even to indulge in small experiments with them, necessarily commits one to courses which one does not wish to follow.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will my right hon. Friend note that although the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) may speak for his side of the House, he must not speak for both sides of the House on an issue of this sort?
    Mr. Ridley: As I was at the meeting of Western European Union and the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was not, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that we on this side were antagonistic to the idea of a nuclear executive for Europe but not necessarily antagonistic to the multilateral force, and that that was the

    375
    reason why we supported the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This question of a multilateral force raises many and difficult issues; that is generally accepted. The Question refers to whether we would participate in an experiment. If the details of one were put before us, we would consider it, but that would not commit us to the enormous expense of going in for this multilateral force any more than would the discussions upon which we are now engaged.
    Mr. Healey: Will the Minister at least maintain his opposition to the previous Foreign Secretary's views on this issue now that the previous Foreign Secretary is Prime Minister?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As the hon. Member knows, the Government speak with one voice in these matters.

    New Equipment (Security)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Defence what security arrangements are put in hand when communications are made to the Press with regard to new equipment supplied to the three Services.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My instructions are that it should be given the maximum of information consistent with not disclosing knowledge which might be useful to an enemy.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the Minister explain why photographs and hitherto secret details of the TSR2 were released to the Press and to potential enemies of this country? Is it not a fact that anyone with an elementary knowledge of aerodynamics could calculate the full operational performance of the TSR2 from this information? Is this not an occasion when the Government have dangerously compromised the security of a new aircraft for the purpose of party advantage?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think so. Those details were released because it was not thought that they would really be of value to an enemy. One can exaggerate the importance of denying information, most of which is published in every technical journal here and in
    376
    America, and pretending that it is somehow a matter of security.
    Mr. Cronin: We cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with this. Is he not aware that about a dozen Members, from both sides of the House, who were specially cleared for security were not permitted to sketch even a model of the TSR2 because of the enormous advantage to a potential enemy of obtaining such information?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It depends when they asked for it. If the hon. Member were to go along now, I should be happy to give him a model if it is of any help to him.
    Mr. Mulley: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, at some date in September, it was possible to release this information whereas consistently during the history of this aircraft he and his right hon. Friends have refused information to hon. Members in answer to Questions in this House?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is quite right in the early stages of development of an aircraft not to publish every detail of what one is doing, but when we are more advanced, as I am happy to say we are now, with the TSR2—which is a magnificent example of British engineering—I see no reason why we should be shy about it and I see no reason why we should not publish photographs of it.

    Sarawak and Sabah (Military Situation)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the military situation in Sarawak and Sabah.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have little to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 25th November in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). Armed incursions, and intrusions by military aircraft, continue to be made from bases in Indonesian territory, and our forces continue to co-operate with those of the Malaysian Government in the protection of Eastern Malaysia.
    Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the large concentrations of Indonesian troops on

    377
    the frontiers of these territories and the frequent violation of Malaysian air space, is the Minister satisfied that the Malaysian and British troops available are adequate for any emergency which might arise? Furthermore, can he reassure the House that every effort will be made to enable the Malaysian forces to participate more in the defence of their territories and, therefore, release British soldiers from this rather disagreeable and arduous task?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The ineffectiveness of the attacks so far and the competence with which they have been handled would seem to indicate that the forces are adequate. As to the Malaysians, theirs is the full responsibility for this area. Malaysia is a free and independent country and I entirely accept the view that the Malaysians should play an ever-increasing part in these events.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As one who recently had the opportunity of visiting Sabah and Sarawak, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied with the provision of the means of communication between the various sections of the Army, and particularly the supply of helicopters and other aircraft, especially the Canadian one? Is he satisfied that this has been attended to?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think so. I never say lightly that I am completely satisfied with equipment I intend to pay a visit to this theatre immediately after Christmas, in the first part of January. If the right hon. Gentleman will ask me when I return, I will give him a more informative answer.
    Mr. Healey: I strongly support my right hon. Friend's reference to the need for helicopters in this theatre of operation. It was impressed upon all members of a recent Parliamentary delegation by those in the forces whom they met. Is there any indication of readiness by the Australian and New Zealand Governments to permit the participation in the campaign in Borneo of troops of the Commonwealth brigade now serving in Malaya?
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. As I put down a Question on this topic to the Minister of Defence for today and it was transferred to the Commonwealth Secretary, how can the Minister of Defence answer it now?
    Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a point of order for me.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question raises a wider issue which, I agree, would be dealt with more appropriately by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary. At least, it is separate from the Question which appears on the Paper today. I am not saying the final word about helicopters, but the requirement recently assessed by the commander-in-chief has been met in full.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Automatic Dialling, Hainault and Loughton
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to his latest plans for the improvement of the telephone service, he will now hasten the introduction of automatic dialling for the Hainault and Loughton exchanges.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): Automatic equipment, with provision for S.T.D., for new exchange sat Hainault and Loughton is now being manufactured. Both exchanges should be ready for service by about the middle of 1965; if we can improve on that timetable, we will.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the very ambitious programme of Post Office development which my right hon. Friend has announced to the House, will everything possible be done further to speed up this very modest improvement which would be most beneficial to the business and social life of my constituency?
    Mr. Mawby: Yes, certainly.

    Faults
    Mr. A. Evansasked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone fault 5 reported, for comparable periods during the years 1952–62, inclusive.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): There are no statistics for the years prior to 1956. I will, with permission, circulate the figures for subsequent years in the Official Report. They show a progressive improvement.
    Mr. Evans: In thanking the Postmaster-General for that reply and for the figures which he is circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I ask whether he is satisfied that the efficiency of this section of his Department is as high and sustained as it might be?
    Mr. Bevins: I am never satisfied with anything, but about 77 per cent. of faults are cleared on the day they are reported.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a lot of complaint in the London area about no pick-up calls, particularly in the telephone area in my constituency? Is he aware that these things do not get reported and that, therefore, unless the maintenance is very good, there is no way of having it put right?
    Mr. Bevins: I have that matter under consideration.
    Following are the figures:
    The following figures show the number of reports made to the fault repair service and the average number of reports per telephone during the period 1956–1962. inclusive.

    Year ending 31st December

    Total Reports

    Average Reports per Telephone

    1956

    …

    …

    9,140,000

    1·34

    1957

    …

    …

    8,950,000

    1·25

    1958

    …

    …

    9,050,000

    1·24

    1959

    …

    …

    8,890,000

    1·19

    1960

    …

    …

    9,200,000

    1·18

    1961

    …

    …

    9,360,000

    1·14

    1962

    …

    …

    9,730,000

    1·14

    Mr. A. Evansasked the Postmaster-General to what extent telephone subscribers are reimbursed for periods when their telephones are out of order.
    Mr. Bevins: Subscribers are not entitled to reimbursement for periods when their telephones are out of order, but telephone managers have discretion to make rebates in individual cases. More than three-quarters of all faults are cleared on the day they are reported; most of those carried over are reported late in the day and are cleared on the following day. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that there appears to be an increasing number
    380
    of faults which are not remedied within the 24 hours? Will he remember, first, his monopoly position in this respect and that it is his business to satisfy subscribers as far as possible? Will he also bear in mind that the telephone is becoming indispensable to more and more people as each month passes? Will he try to make certain that the reliability of his service is attended to with the same care with which he attends to the promotion of technical improvements?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes. I have all those considerations in mind, but the fact is that the proportion of faults which are reported is falling constantly.
    Mr. Mason: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and try to make telephone rental reimbursement an established practice? Is he not aware that because of the rapid change-over which is now taking place from manual to automatic exchanges, some subscribers suffer long delays for engineering maintenance because many of the lines are temporarily out of order? Secondly, there may be branches of a union which occasionally might be working to rule. This is not the fault of the subscribers but, nevertheless, their telephones may be delayed unnecessarily for repair. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of 500 in the technical grades in London and that more are required in those grades in the provinces and that, therefore, until the situation is rectified, reimbursement for telephone rentals should be a recognised practice when the delay is unusually long?
    Mr. Bevins: I am aware of all those factors. From the viewpoint of a residential telephone, however, the value is less than 1s. a day and to give rebates automatically would increase our costs out of all proportion to the amounts involved.

    Irvine
    Mr. Manuelasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inadequate telephone facilities in the new housing areas in the Burgh of Irvine; how many applicants are awaiting installations; what is the average waiting time for installations; and what steps he proposes to take to speed up the provision of telephones in this area.
    Mr. Mawby: My right hon. Friend is sorry about the delays in providing telephones in new housing areas in the Burgh of Irvine, where there are 67 orders on the waiting list. In consequence of the plans announced in the recent White Paper on the Inland Telephone Service, the position is now being reviewed with a view to speeding up matters.
    The composition of the waiting list is constantly changing, and I am sorry that we cannot give a reliable average waiting time.
    Mr. Manuel: I am very pleased that the Assistant Postmaster-General is to review the position, but is he aware, and will he inform his right hon. Friend if he does not know, that the local authority in this area has undertaken an onerous financial burden in order to open up an industrial estate, and has brought many factories there? Should he not measure up to the initiative of the local authority and have his Department moving at the same speed to provide the necessary services to help industrial communications in that area?
    Mr. Mawby: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. It is our aim to make certain that we can keep in line. But I would remind the House that the Question refers to two new housing estates, and that, with many thousands of new housing estates developing throughout the country, there are times when we might lag a little. Nevertheless, with the reorganisation and special attention that is being given, we hope to be a little ahead in the future.

    Lichfield (Overspill Area)
    Mr. Snowasked the Postmaster-General why there is continued inadequate provision of telephone lines for industry going into the overspill area in the neighbourhood of Lichfield.
    Mr. Mawby: I understand that in the overspill area there are no people waiting for business telephones, but there are a number of outstanding applications for home telephones on new residential estates where cable laying is in progress.
    The hon. Member has written to my right hon. Friend about delay in giving residential telephone service to an applicant in an adjoining area. I am looking
    382
    into the particular case to which the hon. Member has drawn my right hon. Friend's attention and will write to him as soon as possible.
    Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that evidently his Departmental intelligence is very seriously lacking? Is he aware that on many occasions I have drawn his attention to the inadequacy of lines for the overspill area requirement, both industrial and private, and since it is a part of national policy to transfer industry and the population attached to industry to the overspill receiving areas, will he look into this matter again? What is the use of advertising that more telephones are available if industrialists cannot get them?
    Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir. Of course, there is no point in advertising unless the telephones are freely available. It is obvious that this is one of the difficult areas. As I have said, I am looking into this particular matter, and I will look at the wider issue again as well.
    Mr. Snow: I have raised it four times.

    Capital Investment
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the total capital investment in the manufacture of telephones and telephone communications for the current year; and what value and percentage is being manufactured in Scotland.
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Postmaster-General what percentage of the contracts, expressed in money terms, in connection with his £900 million capital investment programme during the next five years will go to firms in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Aycliffe, respectively.
    Mr. Mawby: My right hon. Friend expects to spend about £80 million on supplies of this equipment during the current year. Of this, about 1½ per cent. will be spent in Scotland, and about 1¼ per cent. in Northern Ireland. He is sorry that he cannot forecast in detail how orders will be placed in future years, but at present this equipment is not produced in any great quantities in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Aycliffe. Firms in these areas get

    383
    the benefit of the Government's preferential scheme for development districts, and we hope they will take increasing advantage of it.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that if the share-out were based on the use by Scotland of telephones Scotland would get 10 per cent. of this particular share out? Does he further realise that if it were based on Scotland's unemployed population the amount would be 20 per cent? Is it not shameful, therefore, to say to Scotland, with its 100,000 workless, its idle factories, and capable management, "All you are going to receive is 1½ per cent."? Is not this a miserable way to treat Scotland? Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this and at least give Scotland a fair share of his Department's orders?
    Mr. Mawby: While I sympathise completely with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, the fact of the matter is that there are very few firms in Scotland which make telecommunications equipment. As I said earlier, a preferential scheme operates, and wherever a firm decides to move under the preferential treatment arrangements and decides to offer facilities to build telecommunications equipment, then naturally we will look very seriously at its application
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to the figures which he has just given? Does he realise that the figures he has just given are a complete contradiction of the impression which the Minister tried to convey when winding up the debate last Wednesday? In that debate his right hon. Friend—[Hon. Members: "Speech."]—tried to convey the impression that in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and in the North-East we should benefit considerably from this new investment programme. Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to how he has misled the House in this respect?
    Mr. Mawby: I do not see that my right hon. Friend has misled the House at all. In fact, there is no reason at all why development areas should not get a large amount in the future, providing the factories are there; but we cannot issue contracts unless there are people
    384
    engaged there who are prepared to develop. For instance, there is a particular factory which is in course of construction in Aycliffe. If this particular factory decides to produce telecommunications equipment, we will obviously consider very seriously its application and whether we can give it some work, but unless it can offer such facilities we can do very little about it.

    Telephone Equipment (Contracts)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Postmaster-General if he will give a list of the firms to which he has allocated contracts for telephone equipment in the last five years; what was the value of the respective contracts with the respective firms; and where the firms are situated.
    Mr. Mawby: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot readily provide this information, which would take some time to compile. We have available, however, a break-down of Post Office orders in 1962–63 for cable, loading coils, telephone apparatus and exchange equipment which, with permission, my right hon. Friend will publish in the Official Report.
    Mr. J. Wells: Can my hon. Friend indicate what telephone equipment, if any, is purchased from the Prison Commissioners, or their successors in business?
    Mr. Mawby: Not without notice.
    Following is the break-down:
    Post Office orders in 1962–63 for Cable, Loading Coils, Telephone Exchange Equipment and Telephone Apparatus.
    Cable
    All orders were placed with firms party to the bulk supply agreement.

    £

    Connollys (Blackley) Ltd.

    520,000

    Hackbridge Cable Co. Ltd.

    360,000

    Pirelli-General Cable Works Ltd.

    1,422,000

    Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd.

    2,425,000

    British Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd.

    2,131,000

    Telephone Cables Ltd.

    4,193,000

    Loading Coils
    All orders were placed with firms party to the bulk supply agreement.

    £

    Salford Electrical Instruments Ltd.

    230,000

    Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd.

    250,000

    Associated Electrical Industries Ltd.

    120,000

    Telephone Exchange Equipment
    (a) Firms party to the bulk supply agreement.

    £

    Automatic Telephone & Electric Co. Ltd.

    4,628,000

    Ericsson Telephones Ltd.

    7,880,000

    Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd.

    4,849,000

    Associated Electrical Industries Ltd.

    5,632,000

    The General Electric Co. Ltd.

    6,046,000

    (b) Other firms.

    Telephone Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

    184,000

    Whiteley Electric Radio Co. Ltd.

    2,000

    Telephone Apparatus
    (a) Firms party to the bulk supply agreement.

    £

    Automatic Telephone & Electric Co. Ltd.

    977,000

    Ericsson Telephones Ltd.

    708,000

    The General Electric Co. Ltd.

    1,183,000

    Phoenix Telephones Ltd.

    1,278,000

    The Plessey Co. (U.K.) Ltd.

    1,046,000

    Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd.

    1,057,000

    Telephone Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

    1,049,000

    Associated Electrical Industries Ltd.

    1,162,000

    (b) Other firms.

    The Pye Group

    315,000

    EMI Electronics Ltd.

    188,000

    Whiteley Electrical Radio Co. Ltd.

    60,000

    Labgear Ltd.

    1,000

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Pay-Television Experiments (Licences)
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General what conclusions he has now reached with regard to experimental pay-television services.
    Mr. Bevins: I now propose to offer licences for pay-television experiments to the following five groups for a period of three years:

    (1) Caledonian Television Ltd. in Penicuik, near Edinburgh, with a possible extension later elsewhere in Scotland.

    (2) Choiceview Ltd. in Leicester with the option of an extension in a London area.

    (3) Pay-TV Ltd. in

    (i) Sheffield.

    (ii) Certain London Boroughs, with a start initially in Westminster and Southwark.

    (4) Telemeter Programmes Ltd. in

    (i) An area in the north of England.

    (ii) A London area comprising Merton, Mordern, Mitcham and Wimbledon.

    386

    (5) Tolvision Ltd. in

    (i) A grouped area encompassing Luton and Bedford, and stretching I should hope into towns in Hertfordshire.

    (ii) A London area.

    The five companies are entirely independent of each other in control and finance. I hope the areas chosen will help them to develop a variety of approach, as well as covering a good cross-section of the community and forming a reasonably practical basis for an experiment.
    The issue of licences will of course be dependent upon the companies accepting its conditions, including the necessary statistical returns for which I shall ask and the devising of adequate safeguards for the legitimate interests of cinema exhibitors in the experimental areas; on this I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development. I shall also need to be satisfied about the structure of each company before I actually issue licences.
    I will keep the House informed on the progress of the experiment. I shall put a copy of the licence and other documents in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as they are in their final form.
    I shall expect all the companies to start their services within one year from the date of issue of licences.
    Mr. Mason: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Is he aware that whilst not opposing this experiment, we are rather surprised that it should get this priority in the future development of broadcasting and television, especially having in mind that it will be a discriminatory medium, which, on cost alone, will squeeze out a number of old-age pensioners, the permanently sick and disabled, and persons in the lower income groups? Has he told all the companies concerned that this is purely an experiment, that a national pay-television service will not automatically follow, that there will be no advertisements on this medium, and that it will also be subject to the code of conduct embodied in the present Television Act? Could he also inform the House how many subscribers will be initially on this medium and, although he is not directly

    387
    financing, I understand, these five companies or assisting them financially in developing this medium, what will be the cost of the service that he will allow them to use?
    Mr. Bevins: I will try briefly to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementry questions. First, people are entirely free to decide whether or not they take pay-television services. The services do not use frequencies of any sort; they are by wire. No advertisements will be allowed. The contractors will operate under the general requirements as regards the code of behaviour set out in Section 3 of the 1954 Television Act. As we said in the White Paper, there could be no guarantee at this stage of a permanent service but we would have to see what sort of television is produced. If it is good and popular television, I have no doubt that Parliament would wish to go further.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether he can give an assurance that he will watch as far as possible that these firms do not compete with the normal programmes on either Independent Television or the B.B.C. channel, and that he will try to ensure that they bring to the viewer programmes which they would not otherwise see?
    Mr. Bevins: In general, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that the sort of television that will be provided by these companies will be distinctly different from both that of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., and, of course, they will be barred from "hogging" events of national importance for their programmes. I have also made it clear to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. that if they feel that they are being unfairly dealt with regarding this experiment they can always make representations to me.

    I.T.A. Programme Contractors
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the increasing concentration of newspapers in a few hands and the growing influence on public opinion of a handful of newspaper proprietors, he will introduce legislation to enable him to exercise
    388
    supervision over the choice of programme contractors for the Independent Television Authority.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. We had very full discussion about the Press and television during the debates on the Television Act, 1963. Under that Act I and the Authority have been given powers which will be a sufficient safeguard against the possibility that the existence of newspaper holdings in a programme company might lead to results contrary to the public interest.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it right that Beaver-brook Newspapers Ltd. should have any part in the control of a television programme added to its existing circulation and influence on men's minds? Does not the Postmaster-General think that this is a potential threat to democracy and that it should be stopped by law? If not, at least would he have a word in the ear of Lord Hill, the Chairman of the I.T.A.?
    Mr. Bevins: We discussed this matter in principle very fully during our debates on the Television Bill a few months ago. Unhappily, the question which the hon. Gentleman asks is not one for me to answer. It is a matter for the Authority to decide where contracts go.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Postmaster-General aware that recent developments in the newspaper world have made it very difficult for us to use the phrase "a free Press" with the confidence with which we used to use it, and will he give further consideration to the proposal made by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Bevins: No. As I say, the House gave the most exhaustive consideration to this subject only a few months ago, and I think that the decisions which we reached were right.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: To what extent does the Postmaster-General now exercise supervision over television programmes? Has he exercised any influence over the excellent programme "That Was The Week That Was"? Is he aware that if he told the B.B.C. that this programme should be continued in a General Election year so that politicians could be debunked he would be doing an excellent national service which would be very much appreciated?
    Mr. Bevins: That may be true, but the hon. Gentleman is in the wrong shop. This Question refers to the I.T.A., not the B.B.C.

    V.H.F. Television Channel, South Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General whether he has now agreed to the Independent Television Authority's request to be allowed to use a second very high frequency television channel in South Wales to enable viewers in South Wales and the West of England to have their own editions of the Independent Television service next year.
    Mr. Bevins: I have agreed in principle that the Authority may transmit on Channel 7 at its St. Hilary Station in South Wales as from the middle of next year. The Authority intends to appoint a programme contractor to serve the whole of Wales and the West of England area and needs this additional channel to provide distinctive Welsh programmes in South Wales at peak viewing hours.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is welcome news, as a temporary expedient, but that the real solution is that the West of England and Wales should be dealt with by separate independent companies? Will he try to make a definite statement on that as soon as possible?
    Mr. Bevins: In view of my reply to an earlier question by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) I think I had better be rather circumspect in what I say, but I am sure that the Authority will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  ROYAL NAVY

    The Clyde (Radioactivity)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many tests for radioactivity in the waters of the Clyde were made during 1962; and what were the results.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay): Two surveys were made in 1962 in connection with the presence of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines in the Holy Loch. The results showed no
    390
    increase in radioactivity levels attributable to them.
    Mr. Rankin: Besides helping to keep the waters of the Clyde clean, would the hon. Gentleman see what he can do to keep Dunoon clean, in view of the fact that he has some responsibility for Polaris on Clydeside? Is he aware that the most recent vital statistics, published in Scotland yesterday, show that in Dunoon there has been an increase of 400 per cert. since 1961 in the number of illegitimate births, and that that is disturbing the city council very seriously indeed—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not relate that matter to the form of radioactivity we are thinking of on the hon. Member's Question.
    Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it is radioactivity or the American activity, but I think it deserves the consideration of the Minister in view of the fact—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The one would be in order on the particular Question, but the other would not. That is the difference.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Are you ruling, Mr. Speaker, that American activity is in order, but the other aspect not?
    Mr. Speaker: I am simply ruling that in so far as it related to purity, as against radioactivity, then the hon. Member's supplementary Question was in order, but that the rest of it, as far as I remember it, was not.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that the Minister does have some responsibility for both types of activity? All I ask is that he should get in consultation with the city council and the Americans, with his own representatives to see what can be done to modify this situation.
    Mr. Hay: I am not quite sure how much of that supplementary question I should answer. All I can say is that I am not really responsible for illegitimate births in Dunoon.

    Fishery Protection Squadron
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps he proposes to take to reinforce the Fishery Protection Squadron.
    Mr. Hay: There is no evidence that the squadron is inadequate for its task but if circumstances indicate otherwise the position will be urgently reviewed.
    Mr. Wall: Of course we appreciate the excellent work done by the squadron, but is it not the case that during last summer well over 200 foreign trawlers were fishing off the Yorkshire coast at a time when the fishery protection vessel was off station for a refit? Will my hon. Friend consider extending the cover by the squadron by the use of helicopters and fast patrol vessels?
    Mr. Hay: All these matters are constantly under review. We are pretty widely extended at the moment but I will take account of what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: What is the present strength of the squadron in comparison with foreign fishery protection squadrons which have recently been so active in the Scottish fishing grounds?
    Mr. Hay: Our squadron consists of four frigates, four coastal minesweepers and two inshore minesweepers, and, from time to time, two fast patrol boats are deployed. I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question because I am not sure to which other squadrons he is referring.

    Polaris Submarines
    Mr. Wallasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the first of the Polaris submarines will be laid down, and when she is expected to be launched.
    Mr. Hay: Work on the first Polaris submarine has made a good start and construction is going according to plan. The submarine is expected to be laid down early next year. It is not the practice to give notice well in advance of the dates of launching warships being built for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Wall: The time taken to construct "Valiant" was a considerable improvement on the time taken to construct "Dreadnought". Will my hon. Friend see that this improvement is continued in the building of the new Polaris submarines?
    Mr. Hay: I hope that we can give that assurance, although Polaris boats are rather more complex than hunter-killers.

  BRITISH ARMY

    7·62 mm. Rifle (Telescopic Sight)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in developing a suitable telescopic sight for the 7·62 mm. rifle; why the production of a sight has been delayed; and what tests the sight had passed before its use by the Army.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): A telescopic sight for the 7·62 mm. rifle has undergone trials to test continuous firing, accuracy and its ability to resist extremes of climate and rough usage. A decision cannot be taken about production until the evaluation of the results has been completed.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the War Office has delayed these trials, American troops are almost fully equipped with the telescopic sight and that the same applies to certain Continental countries associated with N.A.T.O.? Why has the War Office been so dilatory in providing what is regarded as modern and essential equipment?
    Mr. Kirk: I do not think that we have been dilatory. This project was not high on the priority list because the existing ·303 sniping rifle, although not of the standard N.A.T.O. calibre, was adequate and the requirement for it was extremely small.
    Mr. Paget: We were using telescopic sights in the South African War. Did it not occur to the War Office that, when we got a new rifle, we should require a telescopic sight for it? Why has it taken 12 years to get round to this discovery?
    Mr. Kirk: Of course it occurred to us, and that is why we are carrying out tests on it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Though this is the first time this matter has been ventilated in the House, may I have an assurance

    393
    that these trials will be expedited and that, if the sight proves to be satisfactory, our troops will be provided with it as early as possible?
    Mr. Kirk: We hope that, once the trials are completed, the Army will begin to receive the sights about 18 months later.

    N.A.A.F.I. Club, Colchester
    Mr. Buckasked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been arrived at in consultation with the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes with regard to the future of the former Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes club in Colchester.
    Mr. Kirk: As my hon. Friend was told in the letter my office sent him on 16th September, this club was built by the N.A.A.F.I. on land within the garrison area leased from the War Department in 1946. N.A.A.F.I. has since ceased to run the club and the building is now unused. The Army could use this building in the short term and we are negotiating with the N.A.A.F.I. for the termination of the lease.
    Mr. Buck: Is not my hon. Friend aware that these large and valuable premises have now been empty and idle for over two and a half years? Can he tell us the cause of the hold-up and why they have been kept so long without being utilised for any purpose, either military or civil?
    Mr. Kirk: We are negotiating with the N.A.A.F.I. a suitable price on which we could take them over. The difficulty of turning these buildings over to civilian use is that they are in the middle of barracks.
    Mr. Buck: But what is the hold-up? Why have not the N.A.A.F.I. and the War Office been able to sort out this matter in two and a half years?
    Mr. Kirk: We have not been able to agree on a price.

    Royal Ordnance Factory, Pembrey
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is still his intention to close down the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey; and what
    394
    plans he his to ensure that this factory, which is situated in an area scheduled under the Local Employment Act, is used to provide employment for the workers who would be rendered redundant by its closure.
    Mr. Kirk: As my right hon. Friend explained to the right hon. Gentleman in his letter of 2nd December, we expect the factory to close at the end of next year. Some of our employees have already found new jobs in the area, and others will no doubt do so during the coming months. I regret that we cannot ensure that the factory will continue to provide employment after we have vacated it, but we intend to offer it for sale at about the time it closes, and we shall do everything possible to interest prospective purchasers who might use the property productively.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, of the 450 men now left but who will be without a job at the end of next year, more than half are over 50, each with at least a quarter of a century's service to the nation in war and peace? Does his Department not accept full responsibility for providing alternative employment? Is he aware that this site is the most important and valuable in Carmarthen County? Will he consult the Board of Trade as to whether the factory, with all its services, could be used as a trading estate?
    Mr. Kirk: We are aware of the obligation towards our employees and we will do all we can to ensure that they are found jobs. We are already in touch with the Board of Trade and with the other Government Departments concerned. But this factory has to be decontaminated before it can be used for any other purpose.
    Mr. Paget: This closure, I gather, is in addition to the closure of Woolwich and of other ordnance factories. In view of the state of equipment, particularly the artillery—which is, in the main, equipped with last war or even pre last war designs—the Army will be extremely surprised to hear that what we are suffering from, and have been suffering from, is an excess of capacity.
    Mr. Kirk: They may be surprised to hear it but it is true.
    Lady Megan Lloyd George: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of neighbouring communities, including the hard-hit town of Kidwelly, will be seriously affected by the closure and that there is no alternative work in the area, which is scheduled under the Local Employment Act? Will his Department at least treat this matter as one of urgency?
    Mr. Kirk: We are treating it very seriously. The employment position in the area has improved over the last few months and we hope that it will be possible to provide alternative employment for these people.
    Mr. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the importance of this matter to the County of Carmarthen and my constituency, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  SCOTLAND

    Probation Service (Negotiating Body)
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now set up a single negotiating body for the probation service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State hope very soon to begin discussions with the interested parties about the Morison Committee's recommendation that there should be a single negotiating body for the probation service in Great Britain.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State, in reply to Questions earlier this year, said that consultations would be held as soon as a settlement of salaries for Scottish probation officers had been achieved? This settlement was reached and this is a matter of considerable urgency for the probation service. Will she conclude the negotiations as quickly as possible?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Yes, Sir. But the newly agreed salaries will not come
    396
    into operation altogether until the end of 1964, and therefore this temporary delay will not affect anyone.

  RAILWAYS

    Proposed Closures
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the procedure adopted when objections are lodged to railway closures under the Beeching plan; in particular, who hears and determines the objection; whether the objectors are allowed to be present in person and/or to be represented by solicitors or counsel; and whether they may adduce written and oral evidence, cross-examine, and address the tribunal.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, provides that, when a passenger closure is proposed, users may lodge objections with the appropriate area transport users consultative committee. The committee is required to consider the objections and report to my right hon. Friend on the hardship it considers will be caused by the proposed closure. In the light of its report and of any other relevant factors my right hon. Friend decides whether the closure should take place. Objectors can submit written evidence and can attend and speak at any meeting held by the committee to hear representations. They can, if they wish, be professionally represented at such meetings, which must be held in public. In general, the committee determines its own procedure but I understand that it allows objectors and their representatives reasonable latitude in the manner in which they present their case. This includes making statements and asking questions relevant to the matters within the scope of the committee's functions.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is not a matter to be treated with levity and that these closures deprive hundreds of Scottish citizens of long-standing and cherished business and social contacts and ought not to be made without there being the proper opportunity to have them considered judicially—presenting the evidence and having the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses—and generally

    397
    treating the matter as a serious social problem? Will he take steps to see that justice is done by readjusting the present procedure?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that there is no disposition whatever to treat this matter with levity, I also point out that, until the Transport Act, 1962, users had no means of objecting to any rail closure, whereas the Government then gave them for the first time a statutory right to lodge objections to passenger rail closures. We are quite satisfied that these committees are properly conducted.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give instructions for these consultative committees to be given professional assistance and for a full transcript of their proceedings to be made available? Is it not quite wrong that I should not be able to have a verbatim record of what passes in the objections made by many hundreds of my constituents about the closure of railway services to which they attach great importance?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That is a slightly different matter from the Question, but I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir C. Osborne: Why cannot these committees be given the most important bit of information which they require? The most relevant question is how much money a line is losing. This the committees are not allowed to know. Why cannot we know how much is being lost and how much would have to be made up for a line to be kept open?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Under the Act the committees are concerned with reporting to the Minister on hardship and on proposals to alleviate it. Hardship is normally shown by the evidence of the objectors. Other questions are considered by my right hon. Friend at the same time as he considers a committee's report on hardship.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the very great importance of this matter, I give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

ADEN (INCIDENT)
Mr. Mayhew(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the bomb outrage at Aden Airport yesterday.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): This incident occurred yesterday morning at Aden Airport, when the High Commissioner and some Ministers and officials were about to leave for constitutional talks in London.
A hand grenade exploded outside the airport building among the departing passengers and people seeing them off. The assailant has not been discovered.
I regret to say that an Indian lady was killed and 43 people were wounded. Among those seriously injured were the Ruler of the Fadhli State and two British administrative officers. I am glad to say that the High Commissioner escaped with a slight hand injury.
The House will, I am sure, wish to express its horror and indignation at this outrage. Hon. Members will also wish to join me in expressing our sympathy to those who have suffered injury or bereavement.
The Supreme Council of the Federation of South Arabia has since declared a state of emergency throughout the Federation and has ordered a number of detentions and deportations in the interests of public security. I have asked the High Commissioner to keep me closely informed of developments.
Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sympathy which he has expressed is shared on both sides of the House and that even those who have some reservations about the Government's policy in this area will not expect them to be diverted from the course which they think right by loathsome acts of violence of this kind? However, will he give an assurance that he will not allow this incident, serious as it is, to prevent further progress, which is already seriously delayed, towards a broader franchise in this area?
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Member is referring to the constitutional talks

399
which we were to have had this week. I am a little uncertain about their immediate future, because some of the Ministers who were to attend them are already in London, having left before the incident, while other delegates, including the High Commissioner himself, are still in Aden, and some of them in the circumstances will no doubt wish to remain there. Therefore, I think that it is clear that the talks cannot begin this week, as we had intended. I am in touch with my right hon. Friend and the High Commissioner and it may be that the talks will have to be postponed for a little while. If so, I would hope that it would not be for very long.
Mr. W. Yates: Will the Under-secretary have a discussion with the Yemeni Government, which Her Majesty's Government have now recognised, concerning the future of South West Arabia, or are the Government now considering a Greater Yemen and a different policy?
Mr. Fisher: There is no different policy. The talks which we were to have had in London this week were concerned merely with constitutional advance and the constitutional future of Aden itself.
Mr. Grimond: While sympathising with the victims of this outrage, may I ask the Under-Secretary to make it clear whether this was an isolated attack; or has there been further trouble in other parts of the Protectorate?
Mr. Fisher: No, Sir. There has been no other trouble of this sort. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there always tend to be border incidents in the Protectorate—these are a time-honoured pursuit in that part of the world—on the undemarcated Yemen frontier with the Federation. But they are quite separate from an incident of this sort, which has not happened before. We hope that it is an isolated incident and not a prelude to other violence of this type.
Mr. Oram: As a member of a very recent delegation to Aden, may I join in the expressions of sympathy to the victims of this explosion? Some were our very kindly hosts, to whom we
400
were very grateful. May I urge the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend to learn the right lessons from this and similar events, which is that there is a need to get the processes of democracy in Aden working very quickly, which means early elections on a widely acceptable franchise? Is it not only by the processes of democracy that violations of law and order of this kind can be forestalled?
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman put that question to me at Question Time yesterday and I can only give him the answer I gave then, which is that the new franchise proposals are under consideration in Aden and will no doubt be discussed when we meet the Ministers from Aden. We have no intention of postponing the elections, which are due to be held there by April of next year.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information about the reports of arrests of people in Aden, including many leaders of the People's Socialist Party? Is he aware of the concern that, in the legitimate anxiety following this event, there should not be any indiscriminate arrests of political leaders, thus aggravating the political situation?
Mr. Fisher: Yes, Sir. Twenty-nine people have been detained by the Federal authorities. I do not yet know the names of those who have been detained, or the details of any charges which may be made. I have sought, and am awaiting, further information from our High Commissioner.
Mr. Mayhew: Does that answer imply that the Minister will deny the protest made by the Aden T.U.C. that 200 people, including leaders of the Aden T.U.C. have been arrested?
Mr. Fisher: I do not know anything about those figures. The figures that I have given are of people arrested, and are the latest that I have from the High Commissioner. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of deportations rather than arrests, and in that context I must tell him that according to my latest report 142 Yemenis have been deported over the border to their own country.

HON. MEMBER FOR DUDLEY (SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION)
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order concerning the choice of words employed by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—to whom I have addressed a note saying that I intended to repeat the point of order to you today—in a further supplementary question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on public opinion polls.
Your reply to my point of order yesterday, raised with you twice, was that you did not yourself hear the words used by the hon. Member for Dudley. I said during the course of a supplementary question that, so far as I was aware, everybody else on my side of the House heard them, and they have been faithfully reported in the Official Report. If I may, I wish to repeat to you now the words used by the hon. Member for Dudley. He said:
"Will the Prime Minister also take into account the amount of pints which he bought the electors during the course of the campaign?"—[Official Report, 10th December, 1963, Vol. 686, c. 213.]
Mr. Wigg: Hear, hear.
Sir G. Nabarro: The purpose of my point of order is to inquire whether it is within the rules of order of this House for any hon. Member to impute to another an electoral impropriety involving corrupt practice and a contravention of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. Mr. Speaker, you did not hear the words yesterday, but they have now been printed. Though you did not hear them, I wrote to you this morning and asked you if you would read them, and I hope now that you will be able to rule that they are out of order and should be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker: I regret that it was not possible from this Chair at that moment to hear the words used with sufficient precision to rule. I know that there have been times when my predecessors have diplomatically not heard things. It was not an instance of that kind. It was physically impossible to hear the words. Had I heard them at the time, it would have been my duty to direct that they should be withdrawn. At this moment of time I have no power so to direct.
Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish, respectfully, to submit that I used the words, but I did not say pints of what. It could have been pints of—
Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to appear to fail to hear the hon. Member again, but I am afraid that I missed a word. For some curious reason it is well known that the position from which the hon. Member is speaking is the worst acoustically from the point of view of the Chair.
Mr. Wigg: I used the words referred to by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sri G. Nabarro). I have not denied it, but I did not say pints of what. It could have been pints of water, or pints of milk but, fortunately, in the Daily Telegraph of 30th October, there is a photograph of the Prime Minister drinking with two gentlemen, one of whom, Mr. Copeland, said:
"The Prime Minister bought me a pint."
Mr. Copeland is seen drinking a pint of beer, and the Prime Minister is drinking whisky. The report quotes Mr. Copeland as saying that he will vote for the Prime Minister.
That was not the only incident. On 31st October, the Daily Mirror carried the following article, which it had extracted from the Daily Telegraph:
"The procession weaved its way into the Amulree Hotel, where Colonel and Mrs. Archie Haddow had assembled the local gamekeepers and shepherds. They had all been given a drink. But they were too shy to ask the Prime Minister questions. He quickly sensed this and made a brief speech instead. 'That was just right. It was lovely,' said Mrs. Haddow."
Cassandra added:
"It wasn't lovely, it was ruddy marvellous."
I could weary the House with other examples, but I want to make two submissions. The first involves reading an extract from the Daily Telegraph, a responsible newspaper for which I have the greatest respect. Referring to this incident, it said:
" 'Treating' is a corrupt practice under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. As such it could be the basis of a petition to unseat a successful candidate.
The essence of the offence is that drink must have been given 'for the purpose of corruptly influencing' someone to vote or

403
refrain from voting, or 'on account of' someone being about to vote or refrain from voting. But it would have to be proved that the drink had been provided 'corruptly'."
My submission is that there is no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister and his friends, in accordance with the feudal practices extant in Scotland, went about buying pints left, right and centre while they drank whisky themselves. I did not allege then, nor do I allege now, that this was a corrupt practice. This is just the way that the Prime Minister behaves.
May I now turn to the hon. Member for Kidderminster?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. Nothing about him arises on the point of order. If the hon. Member is making a serious point of order, I shall of course, hear him, but I cannot have a discussion on the point that has been raised.
Mr. Wigg: Mr. Speaker, this constituted a personal attack of the most vicious and unfair kind. I have no complaint about that. I came into the House at two o'clock and received a note, but the hon. Member for Kidderminster had alerted the whole of the Press and the Gallery. Look at the Gallery. Every Press man in the House is there.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for making himself audible to me now, so conveniently. I should much dislike to have missed it.
Being conscious of my duty to the House, I must now deal with this matter a little more formally. The position is that in the context in which the words were uttered I should have been bound yesterday, had I been able to hear them, to ask the hon. Member to withdraw them, which no doubt, would have given him an opportunity of explaining, but I cannot allow discussion on this to continue. I have no power to require their withdrawal now. The time is past and in the interests of the House we cannot continue this discussion.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two things quite clear. Had you asked me to withdraw this remark yesterday or
404
today I should have refused, and I should have put down a Motion of censure upon you for asking me.
Mr. Speaker: That would not have deterred me from doing what I thought to be my duty. What I conceive to be my duty now is to put an end to this, and to proceed. I have a statement to make to the House.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Sit down!
Mr. Wigg: I did not start this. The hon. Member for Kidderminster started it, but I am going to finish it.
The hon. Member prefaced his remarks today by saying that he gave me notice. Therefore, I surely have a right to draw the attention of my colleagues and the House to the amount of notice given to me. I received notice at two o'clock. The letter was written to me in personal terms, beginning "My Dear George". That term is reserved for my friends, and those whom I respect—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the hon. Member that despite this ritual I have determined that we should go on.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION (COMMITTEE)
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House.
The House should know that I propose to appoint a Committee to advise me on the short-term allocation of the additional accommodation which the Government have made available for Parliamentary purposes on the second, third and fourth floors of No. 1 Bridge Street until the demolition of those premises begins.
The following hon. Members have been good enough to consent to serve on the Committee: Sir James Duncan, as Chairman, Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Charles Pannell and Mr. Roderic Bowen.
It is probably wise to make it clear at once that I understand that it will not be possible to regard the allocation of accommodation now as conferring any title to enjoy other accommodation in the future.

ABOLITION OF RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE
Bill to repeal section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956, and to make it unlawful for supplies of goods to be withheld from retailers cutting suggested prices of such and similar goods, presented by Mr. John Stonehouse; supported by Mr. Oram, Mrs. Harriet Slater, Mr. Anthony Crosland, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. Francis Noel-Baker, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Roy Jenkins, and Mr. Arthur Holt; read the first time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th January, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
TRADING STAMPS
Bill to make provision with respect to trading stamps, including provision for regulating the issue, use and redemption of trading stamps; to provide for regulating the business of issuing and redeeming trading stamps; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. John Osborn; supported by Sir Cyril Osborne, Sir Charles Taylor, Mr. Wilfred Proud foot, Mr. Charles Longbottom, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. John Howard, Mr. Geoffrey Hirst, Mr. John Stonehouse, Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Francis Noel-Baker, and Mr. Arthur Holt; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
REDUNDANT WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY)
Bill to provide minimum terms for severance pay for workers dismissed through redundancy or other causes beyond their control, presented by Mr. Julius Silverman; supported by Mr. John Diamond, Mr. Herbert Butler. Mr. John Rankin, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. Parkin, Mr. Stephen Swingler. Mr. John Stonehouse, and Mr. Ron Ledger; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMUSEMENTS WITH PRIZES)
Bill to amend the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 with respect to the provision of amusements with prizes, presented by Lord John Hope; supported by Mr. Anthony Buck and Sir Lionel Heald; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNIARY INTERESTS)
Bill to amend sections 76 and 123 of the Local Government Act 1933, and sections 52 and 90 of the London Government Act, 1939, presented by Sir Hubert Ashton; supported by Mr. John Arbuthnot, Mr. Bourne-Arton, Mr. Godfrey Lagden, Sir Richard Nugent, Sir Hendrie Oakshott, Mr. Pargiter, Mr. Parkin, Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, Mr. John M. Temple, and Mr. Arthur Skeffington; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
IMPORTATION OF RARE ANIMALS
Bill to restrict the importation of rare animals, presented by Miss Harvie Anderson; supported by Mr. David James, Mr. Ronald Russell, Mr. James H. Hoy, Mr. Archie Manuel, Mr. Leavey, Mr. Stephen Swingler, Mr. Willis, and Mr. Marcus Kimball; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, l0th April, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
MERCHANT SHIPPING
Bill to enable effect to be given to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea signed in London on 17th June 1960; to amend section 271 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. David Webster; supported by Sir Knox Cunningham, Captain Walter Elliot, Mr. Mellish, Sir David Robertson, Dr. Horace King, Mr. Burden, Mr. Farey-Jones, Mr. A. J. Irvine, Sir Kenneth Thompson, and Mr. Wilkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
WIDOWS' PENSIONS
Bill to increase the ten shilling pensions payable to certain widows; and to amend the law regarding earnings of widows in receipt of pensions, presented by Mr. Frank McLeavy; supported by Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. George Jeger, Miss Margaret Herbison, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Mrs. Eirene White, Mr. George Craddock, Mr. Archie Manuel, Mr. Hayman, and Mr. H. Hynd; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS
Bill to regulate the keeping of riding establishments; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Sir Joceyln Lucas; supported by Mr. John Morrison, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Marcus Kimball, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Sir Thomas Moore, Mr. Leavey, Mr. Arthur Moyle, Mr. Hayman, and Mr. Burden; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
ADOPTION
Bill to provide for effect to be given to certain adoption orders made outside Great Britain; to facilitate the proof of adoption orders in different parts of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. George Forrest; supported by Lord Robert Grosvenor; Mr. Stratton Mills, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. John E. Maginnis, Captain Orr, Mr. Arthur Holt, and Mr. Stanley McMaster; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (RIGHT OF REPLY)
Bill to amend the law relating to the prosecution's right of reply at trials on indictment, presented by Mr. John Hall; supported by Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. F. M. Bennett, Sir George Benson, Sir Beresford Craddock, Mr. Charles Doughty, Mr. Edward Gardner, Mr. Hooson, Mr. Elwyn Jones, Mr. Niall MacDermot, Mr. E. L. Mallalieu, and Mr. Norman Miscampbell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT)
Bill to amend subsections (1)(e) and (3)(a) of section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 so as to enable persons temporarily absent from their qualifying address to vote as absent voters; to provide penalties for false declaration; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Rees-Davies; supported by Mr. Iain Macleod, Sir Donald Kaberry, Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Hayman, Sir Leslie Thomas, Mr. William Clark, Mr. F. M. Bennett, and Mr. Harold Gurden; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
TRADE UNION (AMALGAMATIONS, ETC.)
Bill to amend the law relating to the amalgamation of trade unions, the transfer of engagements from one trade union to another, and the alteration of the name of a trade union, presented by Mr. Colin Turner; supported by Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Mr. Dudley Smith, Mr. David James, and Mr. John Page; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
PROTECTION OF TENANTS OF FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION
Bill to provide for the protection of the tenants of furnished accommodation who have applied for or received a decision from a rent tribunal, presented by Mr. George Thomas; supported by Mr. Edward Short, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. J. Idwal Jones, Mr. T. W. Jones, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. Norman Pentland, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, and Mr. Stan Awbery; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE)
Bill to amend the law relating to the qualification by residence for election and holding office as a member of a local authority in England and Wales, presented by Major Sir Frank Markham; supported by Mr. Arthur Tiley, Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith, and Mr. Denzil Freeth; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
PROTECTION OF BIRDS ACT 1954 (AMENDMENT)
Bill to provide that section 10 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland except in so far as it authorises the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland to grant licences for the importation of wild birds or their nests or eggs, presented by Mr. John E. Maginnis; supported by Sir Gerald Wills, Sir Knox Cunningham, Mr. Stratton Mills, Lord Robert Grosvenor, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. George Forrest, Mr. Stanley McMaster, Mr. Prior, and Captain Orr; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
PHARMACY AND POISONS (AMENDMENT)
Bill to make provision for increase of the fees payable by authorised sellers of poisons in connection with the registration of their premises, and for that purpose to amend the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, presented by Sir Hugh Linstead.; supported by Mr. Alan Brown; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

SCRAP METAL DEALERS
Bill to amend the law relating to dealers in scrap metal and similar goods, and to dealers in marine stores, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Sir Donald Kaberry; supported by Mr. R. Gresham Cooke, Mr. Arthur Tiley, Dame Edith Pitt, Mr. Patrick Wall, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Harold Steward, Mr. John Howard, Mr. F. M. Bennett, Mr. John Hollingworth, Mr. Farey-Jones,
410
and Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th January, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES
Bill to amend the law relating to property held by or on behalf of universities and colleges, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Sir Neill Cooper-Key; supported by Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mrs. Eirene White, Sir Hamilton Kerr, and Mr. Charles Grey; read the first time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
NURSES
Bill to make further provision concerning the admission of persons to the roll of nurses maintained for England and Wales under section 2(1)(b) of the Nurses Act 1957 and that maintained for Scotland under section 3(1) of the Nurses (Scotland) Act, 1951, presented by Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith; supported by Lord Balniel, Mr. Christopher Mayhew, Dame Edith Pitt, Mr. Clive Bossom, Mrs. Eveline Hill, Mrs. Braddock, Captain Walter Elliott, Mr. Colin Turner, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Gordon Matthews, and Mrs. Evelyn Emmett; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th January, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

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

SUPPLY
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Pym.]

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (REPORTS)
3.58 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last session of Parliament, and of the Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts."
This is the annual outing of the Public Accounts Committee. On this day we emerge from the cloistered seclusion of a Committee Room upstairs and say something to the House and country of what we have been doing. The House has in its possession the formidable volume of evidence that we have taken during the last Session. Members of the Committee are occupied on this work for two afternoons a week from November to the end of May, and this volume is the product of our labours.
I open the debate in my capacity as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—a position that I have held only since last February, when I was very gratified and honoured to succeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Perhaps I may say a personal word here. After many years in and about Government Departments, and as one of the earliest members of the Royal Institute of Public Administration, I find this work very much to my taste, and fascinating withal.
But my term as Chairman may be a short one. It may be the shortest on record. My days may be numbered because, as the House knows, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee traditionally is a Member of the Opposition. After the General Election next year, I expect to be succeeded by a right hon. or hon. Gentleman from the benches opposite. This will be a great
412
disappointment to me, but—one never knows—it may have its compensations.
I speak in this debate, as my predecessors have done, in a kind of neutral posture, although from this Box, because I speak on behalf of the Committee as a whole, and I must not stray from the path of the discourse which it falls to me to make. We do not do our business in the Public Accounts Committee on party lines, as hon. Members know. Although the Government have a majority of members of the Committee, no one would ever notice it. There nave been only 64 Divisions in the Committee during the last 100 years; none in my short time, none, I believe, in the three years of my predecessor; and probably none in the eight years of the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson).
In nearly every debate on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee reference is made to its founder, Mr. Gladstone, because the Committee was set up on his instigation by Resolution of the House in 1861, which was a year after the last meeting of the National Debt Commissioners. The total of the budget when the Committee was set up was about £69 million which, I suppose, is the small change of public expenditure in a Budget of over £6,000 million. Little did Gladstone foresee that long before we marked the centenary of his death, public expenditure would be a hundred times greater than it was in his time.
This vast amount of public money being spent every year on the nation's business is voted by the House on detailed Estimates presented by Departments and the Treasury. It must satisfy the highest standards of public administration in these matters. The money must be properly spent and accounted for. The books, accounts, and all relevant documents are open to the inspection and audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his officers, and the House must be satisfied that in all this enormous apparatus of public affairs there is a clean bill of health.
We should acknowledge the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and all his officers, without whose diligence, vigilance, zeal and efficiency the work of the Public Accounts Committee would be almost impossible. He is

413
a servant of this House. He can go about his business without fear or favour. He need not look over his shoulder, because he cannot be removed except by a vote of both Houses of Parliament, which puts him in a very strong position. The Comptroller and Auditor General is armed with the powers of inspection and investigation, and if he is obstructed or thwarted in the performance of his duty, he can report the matter to the Public Accounts Committee, and he would have the full support of the Committee and of the House in discharging his duties to his own satisfaction. He and his officers scrutinise and probe, and if anyone wants to know what they are doing and what they are looking for, the answer is "Trouble"; and some of the troubles which he has discovered in the course of his investigations are contained in his Report on the Appropriation Account.
Our duty, as a Public Accounts Committee, is to investigate the matters which he raises and to look into allegations or suggestions of waste, faults or weaknesses of administration. We have to be satisfied, as far as we can, that the country is getting value for money for all its expenditure. We are a committee of inspection or elected auditors, and the big question which overhangs the whole of our work is this: is the business of the Departments being conducted properly, with efficiency, and with due regard to economy in accordance with the decisions on policy, approved or authorised by this House, and with probity and integrity?
One feature of our public administration which we constantly boast about, I think rightly, is how free it all is from corruption and scandal. There can be few countries in the free world where there is so little of a sordid and unpalatable character to report to the Legislature on what has been happening in public Departments and administration. In expenditure, and, of course, on the corresponding revenue side, of these dimensions it would be impossible to carry out our business but for the incorruptibility of the Civil Service, the vigilance of accounting officers and the perceptive and penetrating eye of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Especially in view of my long connection with the Civil Service, perhaps I might
414
be permitted to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the hundreds of thousands of public servants of all grades whose accuracy, zeal and sense of duty enables the Public Accounts Committee to give public administration such a clean bill of health in its Report to the House today.
The anxieties of the Public Accounts Committee lie elsewhere, as our Report clearly shows. They can be classified in this way, in ascending order of importance, and put, if I may say so, quite crudely: first, the exploitation and abuse of compensation payments; secondly, the exploitation and abuse of subsidies; thirdly, the obvious problems of private doctoring at public expense; and fourthly, how to get full value for money and the best terms possible for the Government as a customer, as a buyer of goods and services, on a vast scale, the biggest buyer in the country.
As an example of the first, I draw the attention of the House to paragraphs 56 to 59 of our Report, which relates to the compensation paid under the reorganisation scheme of the cotton industry. The House will see that certain conditions were laid down for the payment of compensation for firms going out of business. This scheme was designed to reduce the size of the cotton industry on both the spinning and the weaving sides in order to make it a more viable industry with the decline in the export trade and the inroads into the home market of tax and quota-free imports from the Commonwealth.
The scheme was introduced with a view to encouraging people to get out of business and so contract and concentrate the industry. The House will see in paragraph 57 that in the case of a company registered under the Companies Act, if one firm in a group wanted to go out of business they all had to go out if they were to receive compensation at premium rates. That was to avoid a company or group of companies contracting themselves, getting compensation for concentration, and probably doing better out of the smaller unit than they did before. What the scheme did not do was to require businesses controlled by principals themselves to go out of the cotton industry so that a firm which was controlled by one big share-

415
holder could go out of the business and get compensation at premium rates, but the principal in that business could either acquire another one or remain in another business and carry on as before, probably getting the benefit from the concentration of his own activities with compensation for a reduction in the scope of his firm, already threatened to some extent by a decline in business.
We are bound to have in all these matters rules and conditions about payment of compensation. If they are too rigid the complaint is that they leave no room, no flexibility, no opportunity, for meeting special cases. If they are not rigid enough we get the sort of incident to which I have referred. Although we were assured by the Board of Trade and the Cotton Board, who came before us, that they had carried out their duty in strict accordance with the Act and the regulations, nevertheless the Committee reports, in paragraph 59, that we were not convinced that it was necessary or desirable for so complete a distinction to have been made between participating companies and their controlling shareholders or directors. There is no suggestion that compensation was improperly paid. I am drawing the attention of the House to the problems of administration when that room for manoeuvre is provided in the conditions laid down in the Regulations.
The next main head of my four points is illustrated by agricultural subsidies. The Report, in paragraphs 85 onwards, deals with one aspect of a wide range of agricultural support subsidies. The House does not need reminding that the Committee does not go into questions of policy. We are not concerned with whether particular policies are good or bad. They have been decided by this House and it is not for the Public Accounts Committee to question them. Our job is to draw attention to the problems of administration of policy. There is no doubt that agricultural support subsidies add up to a very large slice of public expenditure. The Estimates for the current year, 1963–64, put them at £364 million, which is a large sum of money by any reckoning.
We examined during the course of our work the operation of the lime subsidy, which costs the country £9½ million a
416
year. Farmers are encouraged to spread lime on their land and they are given a subsidy of 60 per cent. of the cost of the lime and the cost of spreading. I need scarcely say that there are opportunities for unscrupulous people to buy lime, to get it under the subsidy scheme and not use it for the purpose for which it was intended.
Another matter was that bonus payments under the tuberculosis attested herds scheme, which costs the country £3million a year. A question which arose there was whether, in the farmer's return of the numbers of his attested herd, there should be any check on the accuracy of the numbers. Would it be enough to ring him up on the telephone and ask what the numbers were and take his word for it? It is not easy to decide in matters of this kind whether it would cost more to go and have a look or to keep officers at home and take the risk of this subsidy being abused. Special checks were imposed at the instigation of the Committee, but were found to be quite costly in comparison with the amount of loss through improperly returned numbers.
There are other aspects of the support subsidies which, of course, no one can control, which are at the mercy of the market and of nature. A farmer friend of mine a year ago said, "We have the biggest harvest ever. In 50 years of farming I do not remember anything as bountiful as this, but, by goodness, it is going to cost the British taxpayer a lot of money because the price fell and the gap between the market price and the support price involved the Exchequer in very large payments." It will be noticed that in 1962–63 the wheat and rye price guarantee had risen from £16 million to £34 million. That is the size of this problem.
A particular matter referred to in paragraph 85 of our Report had to do with the certification of live fatstock. The House will see that in a particular season when the price of fatstock fell, farmers decided to sell while prices were low so as to draw the fatstock subsidy which was the difference between the price at which they sold and the support price. There was no obligation on the farmer selling his fatstock to send them immediately to slaughter. He could

417
sell them to another farmer. Then the vendor farmer could buy some more and, when the price rose, he could sell again and reap the benefit of the higher price. It is estimated that that cost the country about £3 million. It was very difficult to estimate.
All kinds of questions have arisen on safeguards. At one hearing we had witnesses come before us with a whole assortment of marking instruments for clipping the ears, dyes and other things which could mark a beast which had been sold, upon which the subsidy was being paid, and upon which a rule might be made that it must be slaughtered within 28 days. But we were told that no suitable identification mark, no date stamp, could be put on a beast which would last for even 28 days. One can clip the ears of calves, apparently, but one cannot clip the ears of grown animals.
We comment on that in paragraph 90 and we express the opinion that the measures so far taken are not sufficient to protect the Exchequer from exploitation by the device of premature presentation of fatstock for certification. We consider that further action should be taken next time to prevent a recurrence of the results experienced in 1961. We understand that the Minister is considering alternative ways of dealing with this problem.
Under the third heading, the obvious problems of private doctoring at public expense, or in socialised medicine, as the Americans call it, I come to the very troublesome and delicate matter of the cost of pharmaceutical services under the National Health Service. This has appeared in the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee for some years. I must preface what I am about to say by emphasising that a doctor has the right, under the Health Service, to use his own clinical judgment and his own responsibility to prescribe for each patient what he thinks best.
There is no question about it. The doctor can choose the treatment he gives to his patient and there is no one to question his clinical judgment in that regard. The doctors insisted upon that. The public has insisted on it, too. Members of the public want to feel that when they see their doctor he is not crabbed and confined by a voluminous instruc-
418
tion from the Ministry of Health that he cannot do this or that, and must not prescribe this or that.
But certain consequences follow from this inviolable condition attaching to the doctor's place in the Health Service. Clinical freedom must be paid for. It is being paid for and when we hear of doctors being carpeted for over-prescribing the charge is generally one of extravagance and not relating to clinical judgment. There could be extravagance in the frequency or quantity of the prescriptions. But the quality of the prescription is within the judgment and responsibility of the doctor.
The main anxieties of the Committee in this sphere fell under two heads. First, the cost of prescriptions. The House will see in paragraph 34 of our Report that although the number of prescriptions fell from 241 million in 1960 to 226 million in 1961, their total cost increased from £88 million to £92 million and the average cost per prescription increased by 12 per cent. from 7s. 3¾d. to 8s. 2¼d. Sample analyses made by this Departments indicated that in 1961 proprietary preparations accounted for £54 million of the total net ingredient cost of £61 million.
The cost of prescriptions has risen by 32 per cent. in the last five years and the Estimate for 1963–64 puts the total cost at over £100 million. Of course, when looking at the cost we have to subtract from the £100 million the amount paid by the patient in prescription charges. But in prescriptions averaging 8s. 2¼d. in cost the patient pays only 2s. Everything beyond that is a charge on the National Health Service.
Another feature about prescriptions which, I think, baffles almost everyone is the variation between doctor and doctor and area and area. Hon. Members will see a reference to this in paragraph 36. Nobody seems to know why prescriptions per patient in the doctor's list in some areas cost so much more than in other areas. Why is it? Is it that some areas have more people suffering from particular kinds of illness requiring particularly expensive drugs? Nobody seems to know. But the Ministry is carrying out a number of studies in an attempt to explain the wide difference in cost between area

419
and area. As the Report says, the results so far have proved disappointing. I think that that is all I need say about the cost of prescriptions.
Our second anxiety is the really touchy one. It is the prescribing of non-standard proprietary drugs, which we refer to in paragraph 39. It will be convenient for me to link with that subject the voluntary price regulation and related matters referred to in paragraphs 42 to 45 and advertising and sales promotion, in paragraph 49. Here I come to the most unhappy "cold war" in the Health Service. I do not think that that is too strong a term to apply to the condition of things in this respect and I will emphasise that in a few moments.
Here the Ministry representative is the guardian of the public interest. The pharmaceutical industry represents its own interests, the interests of research and the interest of high-quality drugs, and, I am glad to say, in a most enlightened form of self-interest, tries to do this job properly. I shall not say anything about the industry, but it is most distressing to the Committee, and certainly to me, to find the cause for such strong feelings on both sides. This controversy cannot be pushed aside or bought off. It has to be tackled.
I have already explained that it is inherent in the Health Service that the general practitioner service and the freedom of the doctor enable a medical practitioner to prescribe proprietary drugs if, in his judgment, they are appropriate for his patient, and it comes down to the general practitioner service. Obviously, there are greater facilities for the control of the use of drugs in hospitals. I have to emphasise that the National Health Service is the biggest customer of the pharmaceutical industry. There is a big and almost insatiable market for drugs of all kinds, and, if the pace and tension of life quickens, we may become even more prone to bodily and mental ills for which the medicine bottle and the tablet offer relief. Mr. Aneurin Bevan once referred to the cascade of medicine being poured down the throats of the British people every day, at the rate of 226 million prescriptions a year at 8s. 2¼d. a time, on average, for which a patient pays a prescription charge of 2s.
420
It is difficult to say where the balance may lie in economies as between a state of affairs where the patient pays something and where the patient may pay nothing. There is a difference of opinion about how far the prescription charge tends to influence the quantity of the prescription given by the doctor in medication. I do not pretend to know the truth about that and I do not suppose that anyone does know. Obviously, it is a temptation to the doctor to prescribe in quantity where he feels that the recurrence of the prescription charge may bear hardly on his patient. The issue is not between the use of one drug rather than another, but between the use of proprietary or branded medicines and an unbranded equivalent. That is referred to in paragraph 39 of the Report.
It is a difficult question, and one on which it is difficult for a layman to speak with any authority. I expect that hon. Members have, during the last days, received copies of the pamphlet, "How equivalent is an 'equivalent'?" We have to be guided by experts in these matters. I cannot pretend to Judge. Obviously, it is a matter for considerable discussion about whether what is called an equivalent is, in fact, an equivalent. When the best advice is given to the Ministry that certain proprietary preparations have an unbranded equivalent at considerably less cost, the Ministry would be failing in its duty if it did not give consideration to the widest use of the unbranded equivalent at the cheaper price.
The other question is: what price shall the Health Service pay for proprietary drugs for which there is no unbranded equivalent? It must be borne in mind that the Ministry of Health is not a bulk buyer of drugs. It does not buy them in quantity and distribute them to the chemists or to the doctors. The doctor prescribes. The chemist makes up the prescription. He buys through the normal channels, but at prices which have been negotiated in many cases between the Ministry and the manufacturers. Therefore, they are charged at an agreed price.
That opens up difficult questions of negotiation of price. The Committee refers, in paragraph 41, to an attempt to get agreement on price under a voluntary price regulation scheme. The actual purchaser is the doctor on behalf of the Health Service. He starts the ball rolling.

421
There is no one purchaser. There are thousands of purchasers. The doctor gives the order, which is the prescription. The patient pays the prescription charge for it. The Health Service pays the balance. It follows that, short of the doctors being given instructions, they are free to act as then clinical judgment dictates.
That puts the drug industry in a very strong position. Its customers are the doctors. The Ministry at best can hope to control the price which is paid for many drugs only through a voluntary price regulation scheme. There is a formula for it. It is to be found in paragraph 4 of our Report. This leaves the industry free to influence the doctors, and we refer in paragraphs 49 and 55 to advertising and sales promotion.
The drug industry is engaged in an extensive system of sales promotion amongst the doctors. They are the people to get at because, after all, they are the people who give the orders. They write out the prescription. If the doctor can be got on the industry's side, he is the man to go for. The industry does not bother about the patient—he does not know and he cannot tell the doctor what to prescribe. So it is the doctor who may be susceptible to sales promotion activities by the various branches of the pharmaceutical industry.
We must not be too harsh in this matter all at once. After all, doctors are entitled to know about new drugs and about variations on old drugs. They are entitled to know what is going on in medicine and drugs. They are entitled to hear some clinical reports on what drugs do. Doctors are busy people. It is sometimes easier to think of the proprietary brand instead of writing out a prescription according to the formulary of an unbranded equivalent.
In these days do not let us disguise the fact that there are many patients who tell their doctors what will be good for them. Many doctors feel that at their own peril they will decline to treat a patient in accordance with his own prescription. Such a patient not only prescribes the medicine he shall have. He diagnoses himself before he goes in. Doctors, in their numerous
422
activities, probably think that faith healing is probably as good as any other and, if it is what the patient thinks will do him good, let him have it, unless the doctor has reason to think that there is anything more seriously wrong.
Mr. Joseph Hiley: Are medicines for prescription advertised? In other words, does the patient generally know what these remedies are?
Mr. Houghton: I do not know what the patient knows.
Mr. Hiley: The hon Gentleman has said that some patients go to their doctors and tell the doctors what sort of treatment they shall have.
Mr. Houghton: The patient may have read about something that he thinks will do him good. I cannot account for what patients think about the treatment they ought to have. A certain amount of publicity is given to drugs which are available on the Health Service, and privately as well, although many of them are not known to the public at large and are the subject of information to doctors only. I was perhaps indulging in a little editorial licence just now about the relations between some patients and their doctors, but there is a grain of truth in it. I do not want to press it too far.
Mr. Hiley: The hon. Gentleman has so far been very fair, but he is just beginning to exaggerate a little. I thought that I ought to remind him.
Mr. Houghton: I have finished exaggerating. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can now sit back in comfort. I was trying to be very fair indeed. However, I have been speaking for a little while; hon. Members opposite were beginning to look weary, and I thought that I would liven them up.
I must now say something about the sequel to all this. After a few hours hard work on this subject yesterday I returned home last night and saw this headline in the Evening Standard:
"Drugs Firms Challenge Government."
The article which followed said this:
"British drug industries flung the gauntlet in the Government's face with this challenge: 'If you don't take the pressure off us, research on new drugs will gradually dry up'."
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: We have heard that before.
Mr. Houghton: I will not trouble the House with the whole story. They particularly criticised the Ministry's authority for imports of drugs from other countries. We have all received "The Drug Makers' Own Medicine", by Christopher George, a reprint from the Statist. We must be very anxious indeed about the maintenance of research in the pharmaceutical industry. None of us wants to do anything which will crab or discourage that research from taking place. It is very difficult for the pharmaceutical industry to put itself in the place of an ordinary supplier to an ordinary customer in a field of this magnitude.
I do not think that I can accept the doctrine of the former Minister of Health, which is quoted in a very excellent new pamphlet, The Health of the Nation. The Second Stage of the N.H.S., by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). The former Minister says this:
"Here, then, I believe is the ground for mutual understanding and respect between the industry and Government: a candid recognition that this ought to be, as nearly as we can make it, a straightforward customer-supplier relationship, the one seeking a good bargain in its vast expenditure, the other side looking to earn a profit in fair competition, and both believing that the public good is served by their respective efforts."
Really, is that a rational description of the relationship between the Health Service, the biggest buyer of drugs in the land, and the pharmaceutical industry?
It must be appreciated that a customer of the size of the Health Service is entitled to special terms and respect and full understanding from the suppliers. I know that the pharmaceutical industry can feel that ft is in a strong position because, in certain circumstances, it does not matter what the Ministry says; the industry can rely on the doctors to buy its stuff. It is a difficult relationship because the principal in the matter may not be the Ministry, but the doctor.
When I put to one witness this sort of question, "Do you ever say to the doctors' You should not prescribe this or that' ", he replied, "That would be more than our life is worth. One cannot tell doctors that they should not;
424
and, as for 'must not,' that is blasphemy. No one would dare say that. One can tell a doctor that he need not prescribe certain proprietary medicines for which there is said to be by the experts an unbranded equivalent, but that still leaves the doctor to please himself what he prescribes." If research is the problem, different and better arrangements could be made between the Government and the industry to ensure that the fullest measure of effective research is conducted.
Time does not permit me to deal with every matter in detail, so I turn to my last main point, which is how to get full value for money in the vast expenditure the Government are undertaking. Our Report is littered with problems of this kind. There are now to be large new programmes of capital expenditure on schools, hospitals, universities, the Post Offices, roads and public works of all kinds. Millions of pounds will be spent in buying supplies, professional services and other services. How can the State secure the best terms, especially in a large sphere of expenditure where there can be no effective commercial competition?
How many firms can build motorways, manufacture all the equipment for telephone exchanges, and so on? There are monopolistic tendencies in the present situation because some of these works require enormous capital outlay and considerable expertise. It is obvious that they should tend to become concentrated into a few hands. Some things can be put out to tender while others cannot be open to effective competition.
We have research contracts involving the use of the services of organisations which obviously cannot be put out on a conventional tendering basis. The normal relationship between customer and supplier cannot exist in these cases. Private firms in a similar position to that of the Government usually resolve this problem by acquiring an interest in the business of their suppliers, by take-over bids to take control, or otherwise by mergers. Industry is full of subsidiaries, associated companies and groups by which the activities of the main customer are concerned with the products of a number of subsidiaries.
I recall hearing at the time of the I.C.I.—Courtaulds controversy that I.C.I.

425
regarded it as unhealthy that Courtaulds should be so heavily dependent on I.C.I. for its raw materials. The way to cure that—to relieve Courtaulds of that embarrassing dependence—was to take it over. As a result, what profits Courtaulds would make I.C.I. would share; and this relationship, instead of being between customer and supplier, became one of partnership and unity.
The Government have one hand tied behind their back because they cannot use the same weapons and find similar remedies to those used by private enterprise. If the State were to solve these problems in the commercial way it would be called public control or nationalisation—and these are the last words I must mention this afternoon. I urge hon. Members to study our Report and consider our views on this problem. They should refer to paragraph 15 for our views on the universities, to paragraph 21 for our views on the fees of consulting architects and engineers, to paragraph 25 for our views on furniture and equipment in hospitals and to paragraph 31 for our views on household textiles in hospitals. They will see that our views are all designed to get the fullest advantage from buying big.
We want to lay down economic standards, quality design and use the effective purchasing power of buying in bulk. I sometimes wonder whether it would not be a good idea for the Government to call in someone from Woolworth's or Marks and Spencer's to see how those firms carry on. I am sure that the hospitals, universities and the Ministry could be taught something about buying in quantity. I know how some of it is done. Much of it would not please some of the suppliers of public Departments because it would mean the Departments being able to see how the job is done and they could pass items as they go through the various processes of manufacture.
I appreciate that the Government cannot hold firms up to ransom since they are subject to public pressure. They cannot say that the public must wait for telephones while they engage in a battle with the contractors of telephone equipment. The Government cannot say, "The public must do without medicines while we fight a battle with the pharmaceutical industry." The
426
Government cannot tell people that they must do without new schools or more hospitals until the Government have come to terms with the professional bodies engaged in drawing up the plans, and so on. All these things must go on and Government Departments are left to do the best they can in this difficult situation. Governments throughout the world are vulnerable in this matter. They can be hit, but they cannot hit back because they are under the strong pressure of demand from those who have put them there.
I can only conclude that what is needed in this situation is a reappraisal by private industry of its relations with the Government, who will become an ever-bigger buyer as the years go by. We need a frank and meaningful acceptance by industry, suppliers and contractors that the public interest is at stake and that the public are footing the bill. They are engaged in a service and not a commercial enterprise in this respect.
Of course they must have a fair remuneration and profit, but they must not be "on the make". Firms should put their cards on the table, open their books and allow people representing the Government to find out the truth of their claims of costs and their processes of manufacture. If the spirit of candour and co-operation between private enterprise and the Government is lacking, the theme of modernisation, which is so full of hope and excitement now, will lose some of its attraction as the Public Accounts Committee continues to disclose the problems and difficulties of getting value for money.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Holt: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising one point on the Public Accounts Committee's Third Report. There are a number of others which I should have liked to have raised, but I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I confine myself to the one point since other hon. Members may wish to join the debate, although that was not very apparent a moment ago.
Paragraphs 75 to 80 of the Third Report deal with the renting of State House on behalf of the D.S.I.R. This building, far too large for the requirements of the D.S.I.R., was taken at a rent of £312,000 a year, a rental equal

427
to 30s. a sq. it. If a place had been taken further out of the centre of London accommodation would probably have been obtainable at 16s. or 17s. a sq. ft., and had the D.S.I.R. gone out to the provinces, well away from London, the accommodation would have been a lot cheaper still.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The fashionable word now is regions, not provinces.
Mr. Holt: "Provinces" is the word used in these paragraphs and that is why I have used it, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member will appreciate.
In paragraph 80, after the Committee had taxed the Ministry on its policy, it is said that 26,000 headquarters staff have already been dispersed away from the centre and that firm plans are in hand for the dispersal of a further 7,000. I should like to deal with the question of handling these regional developments effectively and, without damaging the efficiency of central Government, how to get centres of real influence out into the regions and consequently secure much greater opportunities for many able youngsters who are going through the grammar schools and the new universities in those areas.
It is no use just sending out a number of civil servants and certain people from industrial headquarters in London unless we move out people of real influence in the country's affairs. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the first two lines of paragraph 78 of the Report:
"The Ministry stated that D.S.I.R. had close and frequent contacts with other departments, industrial firms and scientific bodies."
The Report went on to say that it was because of this that the Committee felt that the D.S.I.R. should be near the centre of affairs in London.
I would suggest, particularly to a body like the D.S.I.R., that it is far more important that it should have easy access not so much to other Departments, but to industrial firms and scientific bodies. If that is so, there is less reason for its having to be in London. I suggest in no uncertain terms that the D.S.I.R. be sent North. It is true, of course, that we have had the
428
Trend Report on the Organisation of Civil Science. If the Government accepted that Report in relation to the D.S.I.R. it would help the proposal which I should like to make.
According to the Trend Report, the D.S.I.R. should be broken up into three groups. I suggest that the Science Research Council, whose job is chiefly concerned with natural resources—and this means land and water—should go to the area where there are most of these, namely, Scotland. If the D.S.I.R. contemplated the large open spaces and the abundance of water in that area it might do something to put those resources to better use.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the hon. Member referring to the Natural Resources Council.
Mr. Holt: I am sorry, did I not say that? I should have referred to the Natural Resources Council.
The second group is the Science Research Council, which is to be chiefly concerned with the universities and the work going on there. I should have thought that its place for easiest access might be the Midlands. There is obviously a very strong case for sending the third division of the work of the D.S.I.R., that which is to be done by the Industrial Research and Development Authority, to the north of England, to the centre and heart of the old industrial England. It is in these areas that many young people are developing from the excellent opportunities now being provided by the advance of our education, but very few of them are able to find opportunities to develop their abilities in their home area.
An excellent centre for this Authority would be Bolton. I think that I should probably carry the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) with me on this, because what applies to Bolton applies in many respects to Darwen.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Nelson and Colne are half way between the two.
Mr. Holt: Bolton is an excellent centre.
In conversations and in investigations I have carried out over the last 12 months I have been alarmed to find a

429
complete lack of opportunity for the most able youngsters in the area. There is not a single place where they can go to indulge in scientific research. An extremely able young engineer might find a few jobs available but most of these young engineers would have to seek jobs outside.
We have developed a fine educational system which is still being improved. There are excellent services and this area, like many others in that part of Lancashire, will be a great deal more pleasant a place by about 1970, because probably by then it will be smokeless. There will also be easy access to most parts of the country because we are within a few miles of the North-South motorway and of the Lancashire-Yorkshire motorway going straight across the Pennines. There are around Bolton a number of other towns, with very similar problems in this respect, which would gain tremendously by bringing into the area a group of people who were really at the top and were concerned with the development of industrial and scientific matters.
One criticism often made is that we have done excellent work in theoretical research, but there has not been nearly enough early practical commercial application of what is discovered. If the D.I.S.R. were brought up to the Bolton area, I am sure that it would be a great help. Round about, there are Darwen, Chorley, Westhoughton, Farnworth, and Bury. If the hon. Gentleman who intervened a minute or two ago wishes, we can go up the Rossendale Valley to such places as Nelson and Colne. All these towns would develop and greatly benefit as a result of what I suggest. If the Financial Secretary wishes to put in a special plea, we could include Preston as well.
We all know the nature of the problem. During the past year or two, Bolton has not suffered seriously from unemployment among semi-skilled people such as has afflicted the North-East, but this situation has concealed a serious lack of jobs for the ablest of our young people. I am certain that any money which the Government pour into their regional policy will be wasted unless it is understood that the headquarters of organisations or activities related to the Government must move out into the re-
430
gions and so create centres of influence enabling out young people in those areas to say to themselves, "If I want to do a big job, I can do it here. I really can influence the affairs of the country by taking part in something within five or 10 miles of my home". At present, this is not so, and they do not stay.
I have no doubt that an evolution of this kind is in the interests, also, of those who live in the South. I can see no solution for the problems of congestion in London and the exorbitantly high rents which are asked for much property around about until the weight, as it were, is taken off London. At the same time, as I have explained, the regions would derive tremendous benefit.
I had in mind a number of other points arising out of the Report, but I felt that it was more useful to concentrate upon the one matter which I have discussed in order to give time for other hon. Members to get into the debate.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Hiley: The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) will, I hope, forgive me if I do not follow him in his geographical excursion into the wilds of Lancashire.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: "Wilds"?
Mr. Hiley: I begin my referring to one or two points made by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). Taxpayers generally will be reassured, when they read the hon. Gentleman's speech, to know how carefully all forms of expenditure are examined by the Public Accounts Committee. It is not my purpose to criticise the Committee and its efforts, because I am convinced that all forms of Government expenditure must be put under careful scrutiny, but there are times—this is certainly true in private business, at least—when one can attempt to drive too low the price which one is prepared to pay.
The hon. Gentleman began by saying that the Committee did not work on party lines, but it became increasingly clear, towards the end of his speech, that party dogmas were not excluded from its approach to these matters. The hon. Member said that there would have to be a reappraisal of the supply of

431
drugs to our medical services. He did not elaborate. I do not quite know what he meant. But from what I have been able to read of the argument with the drug industry it seems to me that we should pay a little attention to the industry's success in recent years. I am advised, for instance, that the prices of the 50 leading drugs in use are now 12 per cent. lower than they were three years ago.
The drug companies have a record of achievement which, I believe, is unsurpassed. I do not suppose that the industry itself would take credit for all the recent improvements in medical treatment which have been made, but it is entitled to some credit for the fact that the average stay in hospital in 1949 was 49 days whereas it had been reduced to 34 days in 1961. I make no political comments with reference to those two dates, but it is interesting to note the great improvement which has taken place in the National Health Service during that time, as in so many other ways. Everyone knows that the great killing diseases of the past, like pneumonia, diphtheria and tuberculosis, have all been attacked with great success as a result of the achievements of research undertaken by the various drug companies.
This brings me to the subject of research. How can the research be carried out, and what is the result of the research done by the industry? Having discovered a drug and having tested it, the industry's next step, inevitably, is to give it a name, a brand name. Although I have no knowledge whatever of the industry, I know from general commercial experience that, if one gives any product a brand name, this must of necessity be a guarantee of its high quality. Nobody could afford to advertise and maintain the name unless he was extremely zealous at all times that the quality of the branded article was for ever maintained.
This cannot be said of the non-branded article. I do not deny the possibility that an unbranded article or drug may be equally efficacious, but it does not necessarily follow. So there is good reason why the branded article should be sold at a higher price, and there is good reason also why we should support
432
this and recognise that the cost of research, often very high, has to be met. Some firms are spending as much as £4 million a year on research, and this can be done only out of the sale of the product on a branded line basis.
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is it not a fact, also, that in exporting the sale of the branded product is particularly important? I understand that the sales of the pharmaceutical industry overseas total about £50 million, a not inconsiderable part of our volume of exports.
Mr. Hiley: I am grateful for that intervention. It was to be my next point.
The hon. Member for Sowerby, reminiscent of the old stumping days, said that the production and supply of drugs was a service and not a commercial operation. As he used those words, I wondered how he would describe the export business of the drug industry. Surely that must be commercial as far as the interest of the nation is concerned. One-third of the products of the drug industry are exported, and, if the names that we have secured for our products can gain the foreign currency which we so desperately need in this country, that, surely, must be done by an efficient home industry and one by which the products of the industry have secured themselves a good name and reputation.
All these things require the support obviously of the biggest purchaser in the country. The drug industry is not making too high profits. The Committee has investigated them. In one part of the Report it states that one firm is losing money. Therefore, I do not think that we ought to try and drag down the industry and make it less effective and less efficient merely on the grounds of cost.
The references to telling doctors about certain drugs, which some describe as a form of advertisement, could more honestly be described, I think, as the giving of information. The drug companies—as this information is supplied by the men of the highest possible qualification—are indeed rendering a great service to the doctors. The information is not necessarily sent exclusively to doctors so as to influence the sale of particular drugs. It is sent purely as

433
a source of information, and that is why I could not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said that the patients themselves asked doctors to prescribe certain drugs. The bulk of the information which is sent by the industry to doctors is not publicly advertised. It is sent to the doctors in a professional capacity.
I have no more to say except that I think the hon. Gentleman was more moderate than he could have been or might have been, although there was still throughout his speech the suggestion that the drug industry is trying to exploit the nation. That is not so. I think that the nation owes a great debt to the industry and that that is proved by the figures which I have given.
5.13 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: On this occasion I wish to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) and concentrate most of my remarks on the same section of the Report with which he dealt. In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman faintly gibed at my hon. Friend for inserting a little bit of dogma in some of his remarks on the way in which drugs should be provided, but I think that the hon. Gentleman responded, in seeking to defend the drug industry, in similar fairly dogmatic terms.
I take it that we all commend the Public Accounts Committee on the way in which it seeks not to make blacks and whites of this thing, and in my comments I hope that the House will not think that I am in any way trying to make out that there is all good on the side of one approach and all bad on the side of the other. I think that the great service that the Public Accounts Committee renders the House is that it deals with the matter in an objective way and does not seek to find blacks and whites but to find out that the expenditure which the public are making through Government sources is well spent. I hope that my remarks will be taken in that light.
I shall be critical of the drug industry, but I would not bow to the hon. Member for Pudsey in my respect for the achievement of the industry since the inception of the National Health Service. However, before I talk about drugs may I say two things? First, I want to con-
434
gratulate my hon. Friend, because this is the first time that I have participated in a debate on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) as Chairman of a very difficult Committee. In congratulating my hon. Friend on opening the debate, I should like to pay tribute to those who served on the Committee. When we look at the 500 pages of the Report we realise that theirs was no light task, and hon. Members who served on that Committee with my hon. Friend as Chairman should be thanked for all the extra time which they put into the job.
The second thing I want to do before I get on to the question of drugs is to congratulate the Public Accounts Committee and commend it on paragraphs 25 to 30 of its Report, which deals with furniture and equipment in the hospital service. The Committee was quite rightly aware of the fact that we are now in the second year of a vast hospital building programme, not, perhaps so vast as hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes like to think, because last year it was only £30 million, this year £35 million and we do not get up to £45 million until next year. Nevertheless, for 10 years, especially from 1966 onwards, there is to be a vast building programme, and in the buildings erected there must be equipment.
I think that the Public Accounts Committee has done a service in starting already to look at the way in which hospital equipment is purchased and to seeing if some savings can be effected. I very much like the comments which the Committee makes in paragraph 27 of its Report and wonder whether it cannot take a leaf out of another section of the Ministry of Health's service. On hospital building, it has a department which advises on the best possible way of building. I wonder whether something comparable to that excellent Consumers' Association publication Which? could not be considered from the point of view of the equipment going into the new hospitals.
Everyone who serves on a hospital management committee knows the problems of equipment. Every hospital has the same kind of requirements for beds and lockers. But if one goes into five different hospitals, one finds five

435
different types of lockers standing by the beds. If we could have a service which explained why certain equipment was a better buy than others that would be very useful and if it was able to extend buying in bulk in a more thorough fashion public funds would benefit. The Public Accounts Committee is doing a good job in drawing the attention of the spending Departments to these matters.
I come now to the question of drugs. We have to realise that it has been Government policy, and also the policy recommended by the Cohen Committee, the Hinchliffe Committee and the Douglas Committee, that as far as possible the National Formulary shall be used because this is a far more economic use of public funds than the spending of money on proprietaries. The Ministry has the Prescribers' Journal in which it tries to keep people informed and tries to persuade doctors not to prescribe proprietary drugs but those on the National Formulary and drugs in the British Pharmacopoeia. But while the Government are concerned to tell the doctors this the industry is spending large sums trying to persuade them to do the opposite.
My hon. Friend and others have referred to the recent publication which hon. Members have received entitled How Equivalent is an Equivalent? I received this morning another very interesting document from one of the leading drug houses which included an article on generic prescribing with the subtitle "A costly bargain." We must realise that there is a conflict of interest here, because obviously the drug houses are seeking to maximise the sale of branded drugs and inevitably the Ministry is seeking to persuade the doctors to prescribe the National Formulary.
One of the main arguments also used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pudsey was that if there is a reputable firm—and most of the large drug firms are reputable—there is thereby the guarantee that its products are of the highest possible quality and standard, and, therefore, will serve the patient far better. I wonder whether I may quote one of the things which came not from a report issued in this country but resulting from the Kefauver Report,
436
from America, on the examination of how this works out in practice in another country. As the House may know, there is a law in America which covers five of the major antibiotics. When a House Committee examined the way in which the law was affecting the preparations being used in the United States, it was shown that
"firms as large and reputable as the Upjohn company; Squibb's; Parke, Davis; Lederle Laboratories; Pfizer; Merck Sharpe and Dohme; Commercial Solvents and Eli Lilly have on many occasions in the last two fiscal years been caught marketing sizeable quantities of sub-standard drugs."
I am not making any attack on these firms. This is a highly complicated and technical matter. However, I do not think that the case can stand up because, as some of the Birmingham public analyst's reports have shown, the standard in this country is not always all that may be required. One can equally say that the ordinary dispensing chemist, given an EC. 10 from a doctor, might well be producting the correct quality drug which the doctor was seeking to prescribe for his patient.
In paragraph 39 of its Report, the Public Accounts Committee draws attention to the fact that if we made only a limited attack on this matter there could be a saving of £600,000 a year on five drugs. If such a saving can be made on only five drugs, it is more strength to the Minister's elbow in seeking to persuade more doctors to prescribe from the National Formulary. I wonder whether we are too careful about trying to ensure that the general practitioner keeps his prescribing costs low and in so doing whether we spend more perhaps than we save.
In connection with another part of the Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby referred to the methods of the firm of Messrs. Marks and Spencer, which have adopted a streamlined system of purchasing. But it also recently adopted a system whereby it did away with all the control forms used in trying to check whether its assistants were helping themselves to the goods. As a result, this concern has saved about 300 forms and certainly a considerable amount of money. It is convinced that at the end of the day it is not losing financially.
Instead of having the very complicated system under which Ministry medical

437
officers make a check over a complete area after each EC. 10 has been checked and tabulated, with the local average being fixed and those doctors reaching more than 25 per cent. being seen by one of the Ministry's officers, I wonder whether it might be useful to see if over a period of two or three years, as a result of doing away with this check, in a pilot area which most general practitioners resent, we might ultimately save money. In spite of the fact that the majority of drugs are provided through the general practitioner service, I do not think that we can ignore the £15·3 million which it is estimated will be the expenditure of the hospitals on drugs in the coming year. Despite the excellent efforts of the previous Minister in securing bulk supplies and breaking through the monopoly system where the patents law permitted, I am stilt not satisfied that prescribing in hospitals is as effectively checked as is the prescribing of general practitioners. I feel that even more saving could be made in this respect.
In reply to a Question of mine a fortnight ago, the Minister of Health gave the figure of £100,000 as the amount which it cost to keep a check on general practitioners. The answer to the Question about the amount spent on checking hospitals was, "Nothing, Sir". I wonder whether we are satisfied that the way in which prescribing is carried out in hospitals is effective, especially in view of the anomalous position of most consultants being nine-elevenths part of the hospital service and two-elevenths private practitioners.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that those of us on the Public Accounts Committee should not look into the question of general practitioner prescriptions? If so, we have then the important problem on our hands mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), namely, the great difference in areas in the value of prescriptions.
Mr. Pavitt: I would not suggest doing away with the system completely. That would be impossible. We have been using this method since the inception of the National Health Service. However, I should like experiments to be carried out into other means of achieving the same end, because the present
438
system does not do what it sets out to do and arouses considerable resentment among general practitioners. If more research were carried out into the problem of why in particular areas drug prescribing is high—for instance, why it is much higher in Glasgow than in Surrey—we might achieve a more satisfactory saving on the present rather mechanical way of making an assessment from the aggregate of EC.10s.
To return to the question of consultants, I make it clear that I am making no imputation on their integrity. Their clinical and surgical skill is the backbone of the hospital service. However, I think that they are put in a very invidious position if they have private patients who are using partly the hospital service and partly consulting them in their own rooms. They are then in a situation in which it is not clear whether a private patient should pay for his own drugs or whether that part of the service should come under hospital expenditure because he is partly using the hospital service. I suggest that the pink form which a consultant uses in respect of the hospital service should be available only within a certain area of the hospital where he is employed as a part-time consultant and should not range over a wider geographical area.
The question of sales promotion always comes up on debates on drugs. I will not repeat the figures which were given last year, but for every ten general practitioners there is one drug house representative. I challenge the statement of the hon. Member for Pudsey that it is the drug houses' job to provide the general practitioner, particularly, with information. This is the job of the Ministry. General practitioners should have complete backing. They cannot do their job effectively unless they have the proper tools. The Minister's Prescribers' Journal is a step in the right direction, but it is inadequate. The general practitioner should be given all the information and facilities for effective and economic prescribing by the Ministry that he needs.
The general practitioner is influenced mainly by the representative, but I was interested in recent weeks to receive information from a general practitioner showing the number of mailings he had had over the past three years. In the

439
three months May, June and July, 1960, he received 485 mailings from drug houses. In spite of the fact that since that time we have had at least two debates on this subject in the House, and despite the fact that there has been much public and professional discussion about it, the comparable figure for May, June and July of this year was less, it is true, but only a few less—469. Hon. Members can work out the number of mailings a general practitioner receives in a day if he receives 469 in three months. A busy general practitioner, particularly if he has 3,500 patients, cannot assimilate the contents of 469 mailings.
Mr. G. Johnson Smith: Is it not true that the general practitioner can write and tell the people concerned that he does not wish to be on their mailing list?
Mr. Pavitt: He can, and he does, but the average general practitioner, especially the large number of practitioners who have no staff to help them—they act as filing clerks and as their own stenographers, writing their own letters—being faced with the need to write another letter, is inclined to put the brochures straight in the waste paper basket. The other point is that he never knows whether perhaps the 469th may not be something like a calendar or a diary which he can usefully pass over to the next patient who comes in.
Mr. Costain: I am following the hon. Member's argument with interest. He said that the Ministry people ought to be the people to tell the doctor what he should do. Does he not agree that the drug manufacturers are the only people who know what their drugs are and that they ought to advise the Ministry?
Mr. Pavitt: No, I do not. I think the Ministry is quite capable, with its scientists and qualified people, in various other Departments, too, of assessing what the properties and indications or contra-indications of a drug are. Of course, when a drug house puts a drug on a market it will provide information. It seems to me that the general practitioner ought to have an authoritative statement in a standardised form from
440
the Ministry saying just what the properties of a drug are.
I would make a suggestion which would help the industry in this respect. It is followed by some firms already. If all the firms were to give their information in precisely the same form, on cards of precisely the same size, perhaps to fit into a little cabinet which might be provided as an additional service, that would make a useful form of reference. By last year 400 such cards were issued by some of the drug houses, and since my particular Dr. X started collecting them, a total of nearly 500 cards have been collected. What I have suggested would provide a useful, quick, handy reference service, but if there is a large number of assortments of cards of different sizes, with the information being given in different ways, then it is evidently not useful as a form of reference and constitutes only a part of the sales promotion for the commodity.
I think it is true to say that as a result of the work of the Public Accounts Committee a lot of the gimmicks have been dropped. Apart from the excellent sales code which the industry tries to operate, it is true that there has been a diminution of the number of gifts given in trying to promote the sale of products. The fact remains that although doctors do not have to pay for them, nevertheless they are able to secure quite large orders for the drug firms.
It would be helpful, too, if there could be some disentanglement of firms' accounts so that the Public Accounts Committee could be quite clear which part of a firm's activities is devoted to producing drugs and which part of its activities is devoted to the production of something entirely different, fertilisers or some other produce manufactured on a large scale but having nothing whatever to do with drugs or the National Health Service. It must be extremely difficult, one judges from the evidence before the Committee, for the Committee to disentangle the part of a firm's balance sheet what is mainly concerned with drugs and the part concerned with things extraneous to drugs. I think at the same time it would be helpful if there could be clear-cut accounting to show just how a drug house is operating through subsidiaries, so that one could

441
get to the meat of the problem, instead of having to investigate a number of different balance sheets which make it difficult to form a fair assessment.
Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend agree that the logical conclusion of this argument is that the Public Accounts Committee should be allowed to summon expert, outside, technical witnesses?
Mr. Pavitt: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a member of that Committee.
I would make another conclusion, too. I would suggest that the Ministry would be quite entitled to lay down conditions under which firms would be permitted to supply drugs to the National Health Service, and I think that one of those conditions could well be the way in which accounts are submitted, so that information could be easily available both to the Ministry and to any watchdog Committee of this House which wished to look at it. Let us know just how much is spent on research and promotion in each case. When we are spending millions of pounds I think we are entitled to lay down such conditions. In all other buyer-seller relationships conditions are laid down between the two parties, and I cannot see why the Minister cannot insist that as a condition of being a supplier to the National Health Service a firm should conform to certain standards and certain forms, to be generally accepted.
Sir Hugh Linstead: I am very interested in the point the hon. Member has made, but it would amount to saying—would it not?—that the products of firms not on the list could not be prescribed by doctors under the Service. That would be a very substantial breach in the principle that the doctor is the person who should choose.
Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows this matter very well indeed. I accept that this is fraught with difficulties, but I think equally fraught with difficulties is the present situation, where there is a certain amount of mistrust being built up around an excellent industry. I think this is the third or fourth time that in our annual debates on the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee this part of the Reports has been the main item of our discussion. I accept that
442
no one wishes to interfere with the right of the general practitioner to prescribe that which is best for his patient, but I believe that by consultation and negotiation between the industry, the profession and the Government on a particularly thorny problem it could be got over, and I think it would be well worth while getting over it, to achieve the kind of result which I should like to see achieved.
I would conclude by paying tribute, like other hon. Gentlemen, to the amount which the drug industry has saved by reducing the number of days a person has to spend ill or under hospitalisation, an amount which, in a teaching hospital, is now nearly £50 a week. That is saved by keeping a person out of hospital. At the same time I would be prepared to go further. This is one of the areas where I would be a little idealistic. I should like this to be an area in which manufacturers would be prepared to operate, not just as an industry but as a social and public service, and instead of their amassing profits and then forming foundations and charities to give part back in some form or another, I should like to see them deliberately and voluntarily operating on a non-profit basis, because if there is one area in our social life in which one would like to see no profit made at all it is the area of sickness and suffering. No one would take a penny out of the tin of a blind beggar. Surely it is equally relevant that this business should not be just on the buyer-seller relationship which the previous Minister of Health mentioned in his address to the A.B.P.I. We should look to rather higher standards of service and public spirit and for medicines to be taken, if possible, out of the area of sheer profit making.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I should like to take up and support the observations of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) relating to that part of the Third Report of the Committee and found in paragraphs 75 onwards, particularly that relating to State House—and I am delighted to see a representative of the Ministry of Public Building and Works here to listen. It is a most revealing passage because it shows the immense and entrenched influence which the civil servants can

443
maintain against the efforts of the Government to make them disperse. It seems that the D.S.I.R. insisted on being near Whitehall. That seems reasonable, but they were unwilling to move any part of the headquarters out of London, and then come the most revealing words of all,
"or even to Earls Court".
The differences in rent between State House at 30s. a sq. ft. and the accommodation at Earls Court at about 16s. sq. ft. is a very large difference indeed, and the difference in distance—or, rather, in time—between Earls Court and Whitehall, and Holborn and Whitehall, bearing in mind the layout in the inner circle and of traffic generally, is absolutely marginal, and yet in spite of the powers of persuasion of the central Government it was impossible to persuade those distinguished civil servants to move into Earls Court and accept a rental which is about half of what they were prepared to pay. It is amazing.
Then, we find in paragraph 80 that
"Your Committee note the Ministry's assurance"—
that is the Ministry of the Parliamentary Secretary who has come to hear what I have to say—
"that they are keeping up a constant pressure on Government Departments to accept accommodation in the provinces, where rents are much lower than in London. They observe that some 26,000 headquarters staffs have already been dispersed and that firm plans are in hand for dispersal of a further 7,000."
Where are they being dispersed to?
Those of us who are occasionally lucky enough to have to pay a little Surtax notice that we no longer pay Surtax—the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will realise what I am coming to—to a headquarters for collection in London. This, one would have thought, would be all to the good—this dispersal, this regional development—and that it showed that the Government were taking the matter seriously. One might have thought that the work of this fine body of men who accept this heavy tax, but whose functions and work are chiefly clerical, would have been performed in Anglesey, Ilfracombe, the Orkneys, Bolton, the North-East or the North-West, or certainly in Darwen, that it was an ideal function to be dispersed—and instead of one sending it to
444
London one might expect to address the envelope to one of those outlying regions. But not a bit. To where has this body of men been dispersed?—to Worthing. What good does that do to relieve the pressure on the South-East and to provide jobs for highly-trained people in the areas of which we have spoken? It is a shocking example. If that is what they mean by an attempt to disperse from London, all I can say is that it is not far enough and not taking the matter seriously.
It is not good enough to say that we have all to be within computing distance of Whitehall, and certainly not good enough to say that we will not go even as far as Earls Court, which is what the D.S.I.R. said, even though the saving in rent is very considerable. I support the hon. Member for Bolton, West in this because it is very serious. If I might inject in what is usually a non-partisan debate a slightly controversial note, it is said by the Labour Party that one of the things that they would do to cure this imbalance between the South-East and the Rest is to promote public enterprise to do what private enterprise, they maintain, refuses to do, that is to go to these places. All I can say is that the experience of the D.S.I.R., of those who collect Surtax, and of many other Government services shows that it is just as difficult and recalcitrant, if not more so, to persuade public servants to leave the South-East as it is to persuade private service. It is no good saying that the cure is to direct public enterprise to these areas because, judging by the books, public enterprise refuses to go.
Mr. Dalyell: Is this not a reflection on either the strength or the weakness of particular Ministers?
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When the hon. Member, as I am sure he will in his career, has the same experience as the hon. Member for Sowerby has of the great strength and resistance that public servants can put up in this case, then he will be entitled to criticise Ministers as they are today and not before. I appeal to those Ministers today and to any who hope to be Ministers in the future really to see that this dispersal policy is a reality, that the centres of power are dispersed to the areas where we need to give opportunities for people

445
to exercise power and not to send them to State House, Earls Court, or Worthing.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It was nice of my hon. Friend for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) to say thank you to members of the Public Accounts Committee. As one who has just completed his first year, I, too, should like to say thank you to the Clerk of the Committee, to the immensely patient shorthand reporters, whose toughest assignment it may well be, and in particular to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Edmund Compton, who has shown infinite patience in explaining the ins and outs of our work.
To return for a moment to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), if it is true, as he says, and I agree with him, that there is formidable resistance on the part of civil servants—the last 12 months has shown me, if nothing else, how formidable they are—nevertheless, it is equally true that certain Ministers have succeeded in dispersal, to Newcastle and to Cardiff, for example, in cases that we know of. If certain Ministers can succeed, why is it that others do not succeed? Is that not a legitimate question?
I would draw the attention of the Minister representing the Treasury to paragraph 15 and ask some specific questions of which I have given notice. All these questions relate to Class IV, Vote 12. May we hear from the Minister what has been done in the last three years since the Public Accounts Committee recommendation that
"the University Grants Committee should energetically pursue the further development of standard costs…"?
This particular question assumes added significance in the light of the Robbins Committee's Report and the fact that we may have seven new universities of fairly modest size at a cost of some £40 million plus.
Another specific question is to what extent is there liaison between his Department and the Ministry of Public Building and Works Development Unit under Sir Donald Gibson. Perhaps some time could be devoted to this, as it seems to be of crucial importance. I
446
thought that 6 per cent. was a significant overall difference between U.G.C. standards and Ministry of Education standards. Surely, sound proofing is as important to the Ministry of Education needs as it is to those of the U.G.C.
In paragraph 17 I was a little frightened by the quotation that
"…the Treasury intended to neglect no opportunity of developing further the organisation for securing due economy in the higher education building programme by all available means."
I hope that we will not have silly little economies, purely marginal, which do not save much money, which do not save any significant amount of resources, but which make some difference to the completed building. If we are to make savings, let them be significant and not marginal chips off such-and-such a programme here and there at random.
I refer to Questions 1319 to 1324 that were put to witnesses. No guidance on building design has yet been circulated to universities. Why not? Is not this a rather slothful way of carrying on, and is it not more important than ever, in the light of the Robbins Report, that information and experience should be circulated from one place to another? I realise that since the Committee met last Session, steps forward may have been taken. This is an opportunity to explain any steps that have been taken in recent months.
I draw the Minister's attention to Question 1329 concerning the analysis of cost of special scientific services. Again, the inquiry took place six months ago and we would like to know what has happened since Does it not amount to an argument for zoning certain highly expensive subjects such as plasma-physics, radiation physics and molecular biology at three or four institutions throughout the country?
I do not think that anybody who reads the passage in my Question No. 1345 can be entirely satisfied with the explanations given of the efforts of the University Grants Committee to get expert staff. If a real effort were made, it seems inconceivable that the U.G.C. could not attract a number of fairly young men of vast ability when it can offer such a challenge to them to make their names.

447
There are two general points which, as a member of the Committee, I should like to raise. One concerns the whole question of universities being excluded from the orbit of the Public Accounts Committee. This was understandable in the last century when there were questions of academic freedom. It was understandable when university expenditure was not all that significant. I do not want to be in the position of being dogmatic to the effect that expenditure by the U.G.C. should come within the purview of the Public Accounts Committee, because there are certain disadvantages in that which are fairly obvious to all hon. Members. At the same time, when university expenditure, as it will do in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, runs to the order of £600 million, £700 million and £800 million a year, questions of democracy arise. Is this order of expenditure not to be subject to Parliament?
Sir George Benson: The expenditure of Government money expended by the University Grants Committee on buildings can come within our orbit if we wish. We had a great battle some years ago with the U.G.C. and established our right.
Mr. Dalyell: Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), who was a member of the Public Accounts Committee before I was born, is right concerning buildings, but he would agree with me that there are vast sectors of U.G.C. spending which do not come within the purview of the Public Accounts Committee.
Sir G. Benson: We have never claimed anything except to have some say on building costs. We have never suggested that we should interfere in the academic exercises.
Mr. Dalyell: My further reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is that no less a man than the Provost of King's College, Cambridge, in a recent controversy in the Sunday Times, stated that he thought there was, perhaps, an argument for the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons having a rather closer look at university expenditure, because in this way it might be possible to persuade public opinion to accept considerable
448
increases even, perhaps, above what the Robbins Committee recommended.
I do not raise this argument merely for the sake of raising an argument, because there is a point of substance behind all this. That is the question of the extent to which undergraduates should become cost conscious. Of course, I believe that undergraduate education should be basically paid for out of State funds. At the same time, however, I would like many undergraduates and students to have a far better idea than they have now of precisely what it costs their fellow human beings in the community to keep them at colleges of advanced technology or at universities.
There are various ways of doing that. Perhaps it should be that the students be given a full grant, which would mean, for example, that those studying, perhaps, physics at Imperial College, London, would have to pay something like £1,200 or £1,300 a year—an accounting operation. For art students, it might be £500 or £600 a year. For medical students, the figure, I think, is about £1,100 a year. It is, however, important that somehow or other our student generation becomes a little more cost-conscious than it is now, because if they became more cost-conscious many of them might work a little harder. I am certain that there are many students who have not the slightest idea of how much it costs their fellow human beings to keep them, rightly in my opinion, in higher education.
My last point is again generalised concerning the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Hon. Members may have read the long questioning that took place six months ago between the members of the Committee and Sir Harry Melville, as accounting officer of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. In what I am about to say, I do not for one moment doubt either the ability or the honesty of the Secretary of the D.S.I.R.—there is no question about that. There is, however, a question of our competence to extract from him the relevant answers to what we really wanted to know. For the sake of clarity, I will argue this in concrete terms.
One of the most important questions concerned the European nuclear physics centre at Geneva. This is not a question

449
of thousands or tens of thousands of £s. It is a question of tens of millions of £s and, therefore, becomes significant. It is a question, furthermore, of the necessity for setting up a big machine of, say, 28 GeV or some highly sophisticated piece of apparatus. My question is whether we are really competent to put this sort of question. Are we not entirely in the hands of the accounting officer? How are we to argue with him?
I am not saying that any of the evidence which he gave was suspect, but there is a question here that will become much more important in future decades. From now on, the C.E.R.N.s of the world will increase both in number and cost and will not decrease. When this problem first worried me, my immediate action was to write to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who very courteously received me and told me that he thought that on the whole it would be unsatisfactory if there was to be a small group of permanent scientists of the staff of the House of Commons, because he thought that power might be unhealthily concentrated among them. This was a rational, understandable argument.
The next possibility was that we should be much better briefed by some representatives from the Research Department.
It is my good fortune that the Chairman of the Library Committee is present, for once again I can put the plea that we should have attached to the research staff at least one qualified scientist, or preferably, as I have suggested before, a qualified physicist, a qualified chemist, a qualified biologist and—possibly more important than any of these individuals—a qualified engineer, so that Members of the Committee, and other hon. Members at all times could consult them. They could also assist in putting forward relevant documents and that, too, would surely be useful.
Sir H. Linstead: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposal he has made has been very carefully considered only this afternoon by the Library Committee and that further investigations are being made to see if a
450
worth-while career could be offered to the right type of people in the Library of the House.
Mr. Dalyell: One is conscious of the problem of status within the House of Commons stiff and that, for reasons of status, it may be felt necessary to take on a fairly young man. I would respectfully disagree with that point of view. Perhaps the best servant the House could have would be someone who has finished his likely research career—someone aged about 45 or 50—and has a mature judgment. Perhaps he could be put in a special category.
I think that the Chairman of the Library Committee accepts the need for members of the Public Accounts Committee—and other hon. Members—to be rather better informed than at present if they are to cross-question the Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It is not just a matter of science, which is perhaps the most dramatic example. Involved is the whole question of investment in sophisticated industries and in all sorts of international co-operation.
Indeed this covers not only science proper, but many other Departments of State. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), if he were here, would agree that, in dealing with the Post Office, it is becoming more and more necessary to have some kind of technical advice. It is on this theme of proper technical advice that I sit down.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: As a Member of the Public Accounts Committee from this side of the House, I, too, would like to congratulate our new Chairman on the fair and comprehensive way in which he summed up our work for this year. I feel that this is not an occasion for members of the Committee to speak at length. I think that it is rather a time for other hon. Members who have had an opportunity of reading our work to add their deliberations to it.
As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has raised one or two points with which I am not in full agreement, perhaps I might be allowed a few moments to dwell on them. I think that the Public Accounts Com-

451
mittee—and I spoke at some length on this last year—still needs a competent yardstick, a factor by which it can judge efficiency. But I cross swords with the hon. Member on his suggestion of having technical experts whom we could consult in order to cross-question other witnesses.
I do not think that the Committee would be properly carrying out its job if it did that. A board of directors does not have to take evidence from other specialists to enable it to judge whether the information its executive officers are supplying is "bull" or otherwise—to use a very vulgar expression. Members of the Public Accounts Committee are men of judgment who are able to make adequate assessments. I agree that they cannot do so on the greatest technical detail, but even if this Chamber had scientific experts allocated to it through the Library Committee, I doubt if we would be able to encourage the employment of a specialist who would be able to advise on all subjects.
Surely it is the object of each Government Department to have these experts on its staff. I have great admiration for their accounting officers. They have to satisfy themselves about the evidence they get. They themselves are experts and they present their case to the Committee. The hon. Member suggested, however, that the Committee should have the right to call expert professional witnesses.
My knowledge of the Committee is not much greater than his, but we have hon. Members here who have served on the Committee for much longer. I have always been under the impression that the Committee can summon anyone to give evidence and that there is no restriction on the way we should take that evidence. If on a narrow scientific point we are not quite satisfied with the evidence given by an accounting officer, it would be better for the Committee to get the greatest scientific knowledge it can find in the country on that point, rather than retain scientists who would be there for general discussion and a general appraisal of the situation.
Mr. Dalyell: I agree that a retained scientist would be dangerous, for the reasons which were given by the right
452
hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). But would it not be sensible to invite, at our own discretion, those whom we think are competent? For instance, the hon. Member might invite Professor Denys Wilkinson and I might have occasion to invite Professor Blackett if we were talking about nuclear physics. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that he and I are competent to pass judgment on contracting but not on particle physics?
Mr. Costain: I take the point. However, I think that, in turn, the hon. Member is suggesting that the Committee should get down to too great detail. We are dealing with some 500 or 600 accounts. If we were to get expert witnesses on anything that might occur to us, the Committee would have to sit not twice a week but 48 hours a day during the Session. I do not consider that that is the job of the Committee any more than I consider that it is the job of a board of directors to run the executive side of a company. That is really what we are talking about.
We have all paid well-deserved tribute to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is of invaluable help to the Committee. He himself has a set of experts, and it is surely their job to ferret out information and present to the Committee those items from their reports which it would be right and proper for the Committee to investigate further.
Membership of the Committee is one of the most interesting jobs any hon. Member can have. To me it is a privilege to be on it. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) has, I believe, been a member of the Committee for more than 30 years, and I think he will agree that every year one learns something new. The longer one sits on the Committee the more benefit one can be to the House.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) in paying my tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), both upon the speech with which he opened the debate and upon his work as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee during most of the past Session. My hon. Friend came

453
into the Chair when it was relinquished, to our regret, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he assumed that office in the early part of this year. My right hon. Friend was a difficult person to replace, and we were very sorry to lose him when he was, as it were, called to higher service. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has proved himself to be a most competent chairman and we have been glad to serve under his leadership.
I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the pharmaceutical industry. Other hon. Members have followed suit, and I, too, want to say a few words about it, because this is a theme which I discussed in the debate on the Public Accounts Report 12 months ago. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) said, we are in fact paying an enormous amount annually in our National Health Service bill for pharmaceutical products. It has been our experience during the last few years that it is extremely difficult to ascertain the true cost of production and therefore the reasonableness or otherwise of the profit which these firms make. What we have gathered—and this evidence is available to the hon. Member for Pudsey in the Report if he cares to read it—is that the profit element in the sales of drugs is very large.
Mr. Hiley: Would not the hon. Gentleman regard the export price as a reasonable basis for negotiation on prices, which has been done?
Mr. Hughes: That is true in part, but the Ministry of Health have constantly said during its investigations in the last three years that they are not satisfied that they have had adequate access to all the facts to enable them to arrive at the true profit made by the pharmaceutical firms.
Let me take one aspect of this matter to which the hon. Member for Pudsey referred, namely, the expenditure on advertising and sales promotion. I am glad that he raised it, because I want to take him up on that subject. He did not seem to think that this was a significant factor, but I disagree profoundly. In these days, we are all subjected to advertising pressures of one kind or another, but general practitioners are subjected to sales pressure
454
almost more than any other section of the community. The family doctor in this country is positively drenched with samples.
I do not know whether the hon. Member has read our Reports on the extent of this expenditure. In 1961–62, the Public Accounts Committee was told that out of total sales by drug manufacturers, amounting to £67 million, the cost of advertising was about £6·5 million, or 9·78 per cent. of the total. We were not given a breakdown of the figures among the firms, but we were told that some spent much more than 10 per cent. of their sales receipts on promotion costs.
This is an exorbitant element in the total sales expenditure. We should also remember that the figure did not include the selling and advertising costs of parent companies in America—I am talking now specifically of the subsidiary companies in this country. The figure of £6·5 million, or 10 per cent., does not include expenditure in sales to chemists, but relates to doctors alone. The costs of sales in the United States are allocated as overhead costs of the United Kingdom subsidiaries, so that in a sense we are paying twice and the element of expenditure on sales and advertising is more than 10 per cent.
I agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to the pharmaceutical industry, but we are not now talking about the efficacy of drugs or the export contribution they make, but the cost of the drugs and especially the cost of advertising. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 50 of the Report which states that the Ministry of Health had said:
"The reasonableness of the expenditure was, however, largely a matter of commercial judgment. They had taken up the question with four firms whose costs seemed high but without effect. They also did what they could to see that doctors were properly informed both in general and in relation to particular drugs."
Paragraph 55 says:
"…it is apparent that the Ministry's efforts have been ineffective in securing a reduction in sales promotion costs which they considered excessive. The National Health Service, as the main purchaser of drugs in this country, bears in the cost of those drugs the bulk of the sales promotion expenditure incurred by the drug manufacturers."

455
That is the bulk of the £6,500 million.
"Part of this expenditure is incurred in promoting the sale of proprietary preparations within the National Health Service in competition not only with similar proprietary preparations but with unbranded standard equivalents which are frequently available at lower prices. Although the expenditure is no doubt commercially sound from the point of view of the manufacturer it may involve a twofold extra charge to the Health Service, first for the sales promotion expenditure itself and secondly for the excess of the cost of the proprietary preparations over the cost of unbranded standard equivalents. In order to secure better control of expenditure by the industry on advertising and sales promotion, your Committee recommend that when the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme comes up for review, the Ministry should press for regular disclosure by all manufacturers of their promotion expenditure in relation to sales."
The hon. Member for Pudsey said that there was a tendency in some hon. Members to be dogmatic, and I think he was referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. However, that is not the case. The Public Accounts Committee is an all-party committee and these are recommendations of a Committee composed of hon. Friends of the hon. Members as well as hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Hiley: Even a Tory can make a mistake sometimes.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member has made an admission which is unusual on his side of the House. But it is not one but several Conservatives who serve on this Committee, as do my hon. Friends who are members, in order to serve the House and the country dispassionately. I hope that the manufacturers will take this recommendation to heart and do so at once. They are making very big profits on their products.
I now draw the attention of the House to another aspect of the drug problem. This is mentioned on page 156 of our Report. We found that in one instance the same group of firms was producing virtually the same preparation under different names. The basic drug in this instance is paracetamol. One of the preparations is Panadol and another is Hedex. One is produced by Bayer and the other by Phillips, Scott and Turner, both firms being members of the Winthrop group. Then we discovered that there are two other similar prepara-
456
tions know as Tabalgin and Calpol made by two other firms. In short we have four products based on Paracetamol being sold over the counter. Why is there this duplication of effort and research in this country with a drug of this kind? I see no reason for it, except possibly to stimulate sales, and if that be the case it must be condemned.
The whole aspect of Pharmaceuticals in this country ought to be inquired into very carefully. For four years the Public Accounts Committee has done its best to elicit information. We have pursued our inquiries as best we could, but there is still a wide field in which we have been unable to obtain satisfactory information upon which to base our calculations and our recommendations to this House. There should be a careful examination of the position, and I hope that a future Labour Government will pursue such an enquiry with vigour, for the sake of the National Health Service, and in the interests of the public purse.
I turn now to a different subject. During the Session the Public Accounts Committee was extremely concerned at the way in which the cost of reconstructing the three Downing Street Houses and the Treasury Building increased. We know the reasons for this, and they are set out in the Report. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works is in the Chamber to hear this. The increase was due to the fact that the Downing Street houses were occupied right up to the time of commencing the constructional work. I understand that a survey prior to commencing work would have taken anything from six to nine months. No proper survey was carried out, presumably because it would have caused inconvenience to the occupants of those buildings. Perhaps I might add in parenthesis that that inconvenience would have been caused at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was engaged in imposing severe financial restrictions.
The estimate for the work was out by 100 per cent. It increased from £1·25 million in April, 1960, to £2·5 million in November, 1962—£900,000 for Downing Street and £1,600,000 for the Treasury. We, as a Committee, are anxious that proper surveys should be made in future, and that jobs of this kind should be properly assessed. I

457
hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to his right hon. Friend the strong feelings of the Committee on this point.
As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, the Report is available for hon. Members to read, and as a member of the Committee I do not propose to dilate on it further. I often wish that we could debate some of the items in the Report following our examination of witnesses, when the issue is "red hot" as it were. The Report is published in August or September, and we have to wait until December before we can debate the matters which the Committee has been investigating, with the result that in many cases the issues have "cooled down".
The Committee does a valuable back room job, but it would not be able to do so without the assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Edmund Compton, and his staff, to whom we are greatly indebted. There are some critics of this House who, because they do not see hon. Members constantly on their feet at Question Time, or in debate, accuse us of idling away a good deal of our time in the cafeteria drinking tea. The fact is, of course, that on Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee, the Committee on Nationalised Industries and others, hon. Members put in endless hours of quiet and effective work. One of the dangers of televising the proceedings in this House is that it might give the impression that all the work is done in this Chamber. I do not know whether the answer is to televise the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee, but, in any event, I hope that this Report, which is a good one, will be heeded in all the appropriate places.
6.25 p.m.
Sir George Benson: The function of the Public Accounts Committee has been raised today, and I had better say that it is an extremely narrow one. It is concerned with the expenditure of money by Government Departments. Its first purpose is to see that that money is spent according to the Appropriation Bill which allocates the money for certain purposes, and its second is to see that the money is spent economically.
458
This is a unanimous Report. It is based on the draft report of the Chairman, which we discuss and modify, but for many years there has been no division in the Committee on the presentation of its Report. We have established a tradition of unity, and a tradition that in the P.A.C. there are no politics. We represent the House as against the Government, and that is the strength of the P.A.C. in this country. I think it true to say that this unity of purpose does not exist in the Public Accounts Committees throughout the Commonwealth which have grown up as a result of our century-old Committee.
Our meetings are normally held in private, but we make one exception. We are always willing to allow members representing the Exchequer and Audit Departments of the Commonwealth to sit in with us. We have done that for a long time and only yesterday three representatives of the Exchequer and Audit Department of Siam listened to our discussions.
When I was Chairman, I always stressed to visitors that we were a united body, and that politics did not enter into our discussions. I always emphasised that in this unity lay the real strength of our Committee. On one occasion a lady from one of the Commonwealth Committees sat in at our discussions. I gave her the usual little homily about there being no party politics, and that we represented the House as against the Government. She was rather sceptical, so I invited her to listen to our discussion and to tell me at the end of the meeting to which party various members belonged.
As usual, the questioning was on non-party lines. We were, as always, a united body, and at the conclusion of our proceedings, feeling rather cock-a-hoop, I said to this lady, "Well, can you tell me to which party so-and-so belongs?" She said, "I think so. I think that gentleman over there is a Conservative, and I think that the gentleman who sits next to him is a Conservative, and those two gentlemen are Conservatives and the gentlemen who sit there are Conservatives." She was right, and it rather took my breath away. I said, "How could you know?" She said, "I thought that their clothes looked rather more expensive".

459
The most difficult problem that has been mentioned today, and one which has given the Public Accounts Committee plenty of headaches, is the cost of National Health Service drugs. There are so many proprietary articles and so many non-proprietary equivalents that we think that the cheaper, unbranded equivalents should always be chosen by the doctors. On the other hand, it is very much simpler for a doctor to write the name of a proprietary article than the name of a complicated formula for a drug. Unfortunately, from our point of view, the doctor has an inviolable right to do his own prescribing.
Questions concerning hospitals and the medical service have taken up by far the largest part of the debate. The question of economic prescribing and of the freedom of the doctor is admittedly an extremely difficult one, and we have not yet succeeded in resolving it. We probably never shall. On the other hand, in the last year the question has arisen of the purchase of hospital equipment, which is a very different one. In 1961–62, approximately £4 million was spent on hospital equipment. There was a great difference between Scottish hospitals and English hospitals. Apparently the Scottish hospitals have obtained some control over expenditure.
Since the purchase of hospital equipment runs into millions of pounds a year we feel that considerably greater savings could be made than are made at present. In this case we are not impinging on any ethical question of a doctor's right to prescribe. Hospital furniture is either efficient or inefficient. It is about time that the Public Accounts Committee and the Ministry of Health looked into the question of equipment more carefully.
Time is getting on, and we have reviewed the year's work. It is easy to criticise. As Byron said:
"Man must serve his time to any trade
Save censure—critics all are ready made."
We in the Public Accounts Committee are critics, and our criticisms over the years have borne fruit.
Lastly, I want to pay a tribute to the Secretary of the Exchequer and Audit Department, Mr. P. J. Curtis, who, for
460
the last 10 years, has sat with us and with the Comptroller and Auditor General in our meetings. Mr. Curtis is now retiring, and I would like to say, in public and on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, that we owe him a great debt of gratitude for the service that he has rendered to the Committee.
6.35 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): I am a novice in respect of the affairs of the Public Accounts Committee. It is by virtue of my present office that I am a member of that Committee, and I want to state simply and directly that I find myself honoured by that fact. If I can do anything at all to help in the work of the Committee I shall gladly do so.
On these occasions it is proper and customary to remind the House of the Committee's main purposes and functions. Both the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the present Chairman, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), a past Chairman, have carried out this proper task very admirably. Indeed, I could not have hoped to hear a more sympathetic and clear description of the essence of the Committee's work than that which the hon. Member for Chesterfield gave. It was so well put that I am extremely doubtful whether I can hold the House at all after that.
In 1961, the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Chairman of the Committee, said that perhaps it was not going too far to say that the Public Accounts Committee was the only blood sport which was sanctioned by Parliament. The then hon. Member for Dorset, South—now the noble Lord Sandwich—promptly complained that not much blood was shed. I do not feel particularly like a carted stag. Nor do I think that I should have that feeling, because the collective energy of the Committee is turned to the promotion of efficiency and the elimination of waste. These must be objectives very dear to the heart of any Financial Secretary to the Treasury. If it is a blood sport, I am not necessarily the objective of the hue and cry.
It is also true that the objectives of the Committee have no chance of being

461
met without a most patient application to detail—that hard slogging which may not itself make the headlines but without which no valuable story ever gets written. It is patient work which I am bound to praise, having read the Report and as much of the evidence as I have had time to read. But in an era when printed criticism of Parliament is quite frequent and often-times harsh, it is worth making the point that it is not unreasonable to draw attention in public to what parliamentarians actually do, very often unsung and quite often unnoticed. It is proper also to pay tribute to the immense help that we all receive from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
A second historic and continuing objective was also touched upon by the hon. Member for Chesterfield, namely, that the Committee should be satisfied and be able to record its satisfaction to the House, if need be—and certainly its dissatisfaction—
Sir G. Benson: Do we ever hear a note of satisfaction?
Mr. Green: I have known it to happen. But it is proper to record dissatisfaction if Departments have spent money not in accordance with the parliamentary authority under which they received it. That is a very important function of the Committee.
I trust that it is not mere repetition for a Financial Secretary to the Treasury publicily to remind himself of these two main functions, because the maintenance of obviously good objectives does not necessarily carry any implications of a closed mind, or an aversion to a change of method. In this age, when many hon. Members on both sides are accused of being too conservative in their parliamentary habits, it is worth noting what remarkable changes of method the Committee has achieved over a long period. The conservative process may be there, but it works.
On the general point, I make a short reference to the non-party character of the Committee. We can at least be sung in this respect, that in a Session when hon. Members naturally have felt more concerned than usual with prospects for the next Session, we still managed to work in a non-party way in this Com-
462
mittee. I am happy to pay my tribute to what the Committee does.
I shall deal with one or two groups of points which have been made, because the discussion has not ranged very widely. I refer, first, to the comments made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) on the matter of dispersal from London of civil servants. The Fleming Report, which recommends dispersal and suggests many ways in which it can be achieved, is, I assure both hon. Members, being actively pressed and pursued. My hon. Friend made some play with the removal of Surtax collection to Worthing. I think that he overlooked the fact that it went there almost immediately after the war and it is not part of the present process of dispersal.
What is a part of it, and is a small illustration, though not so small for the people affected, is getting out of London quite a substantial volume of London's P.A.Y.E. work. This is actually being done and I quote it as an illustration that dispersal is being undertaken whenever possible. Before we get too vicious in our attacks on those who do not like to be dispersed—and very few like it— it is well to remember that dispersal may bring more headaches than it alleviates if what is dispersed is policy-making bodies. Then difficulties arise in getting a quick policy decision or a quick execution of it. One has to balance the possible loss of time and money against what is genuinely desired, the dispersal of as many people as possible from the centre of London. I ask that that balancing item should be borne in mind. In my present post I must not give any indications of preference about where we should send them.
A particular kind of difficulty in controlling the expenditure of public money which has cropped out throughout the debate has been in connection with the cost of drugs. It is true that the cost per prescription has increased. The hon. Member for Sowerby gave figures and I shall not repeat them. He will agree, I am sure, that the general rise in costs, the general rise in wages and other cost elements which enter into all things, including drugs, is one of the

463
causes which contribute to this rise. That has to be borne in mind.
Secondly, in recent years some extremely powerful and efficacious new drugs have been discovered and put to work. I do not know how many failures a drug house has before it produces a really effective drug, but I suppose that it is a very large number. This is where part of the cost comes in and why high profits are sought on the drugs which do see the light of day, for many of them do not.
Those are two elements producing part of the increase in the cost of prescribing. None the less, the Ministry of Health and certainly the Treasury—as I know very well from hearing of it first-hand—continue to share the greatest concern about this particular item of public expenditure and the difficulty of controlling it.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I am a little concerned about the drive for economy in this direction. The Minister knows that I live in an area where people suffer more from bronchitis than those in any other part of the world. When the medical profession arrives at the point where doctors can give preventive drugs, that saves a great deal of time and unnecessary suffering. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
Mr. Green: That was the other qualifying point I was about to make. Of course, it is not possible to gauge the gain that is got from drugs which cure more quickly, more completely or perfectly. That is the sort of gain that cannot be measured.
Nevertheless, we are obviously bound to be concerned with the wide variations in costs of prescriptions and the apparently much less wide variations in efficacy of prescriptions. This is a point which concerns all of us. The hon. Member for Sowerby put his finger on the major difficulty. I think that he used the term "cold war," but I do not want to use that term. There is a genuine conflict, a genuine difficulty, to be resolved here between what I am certain must be preserved—the doctor's freedom—and the desire of all of us, I strongly suspect of most doctors also, to get a proper control over the cost
464
of prescribing. This is desperately difficult.
The Ministry of Health is taking such further action as is currently open to it. On the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme, for example, it agrees completely that, unless all members of the industry adhere to it, it cannot work and the Ministry is seeking to get all members of drug houses to subscribe to it. As the Committee knows, the Ministry is doing its best to draw the attention of all doctors to the fact that non-proprietary drugs, suitable for particular treatments, are much cheaper than the branded variety and are encouraging their use.
There is also being pursued the idea of a survey in very high-cost areas to try to establish why these things happen in such places and in such ways as they do. The Ministry is pressing on with this and is very much concerned about it. I am sure that it will seek to do its best to meet the wishes of the Committee in this respect, because it fully shares those wishes.
The hon. Member for Sowerby mentioned the method of working of the Cotton Industry Act. What lay between the Committee and the Board of Trade was basically a matter of judgment whether the scheme was, in fact, sufficiently flexible or not. We are quite satisfied that the Board of Trade had under the scheme quite sufficient means of discovering whether or not a business had really ceased. The Board did not have the power to differentiate in a new way between corporate bodies and their shareholders. We do not think it should have that power. On the point of judgment whether it should or should not have that ability, there is a difference of view between the Committee and the Department. I do not think that I can usefully add to what the Treasury Minute said on that point.
The hon. Member for Sowerby said that he was putting points forward in ascending order and he referred next to getting value for money. Here, the work of the Committee is extremely welcome to the Treasury and, I think, to all Departments without exception. Out of the evidence and thoughts of the Committee come proposals for Ministries to set up groups which can study and produce a standardisation of items,

465
new methods of purchasing and, perhaps most important of all, a cross-fertilisation of one Department's efficiency with that of another. All these methods of marketing and more efficient purchasing are not only being studied, but increasingly being practised.
I must be frank and say that I cannot report any dramatic new advance in this matter. But I think that the hon. Gentleman, from his own experience, will know that these new methods of purchasing, and preparing for purchase—which is the better way to put it—are being practised on an increasing scale by all Departments of which I am aware. Certainly, it is in the interest of the Treasury to secure that that goes on.
The second major point concerns the universities and was referred to by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He asked one or two specific questions and put a general point. The U.G.C. is energetically pursuing the question of standard costs. It requires a little more experience before it can begin—I will not say to be dogmatic about standards—rather more to be forceful, clear and helpful to separate universities than it is at the moment. But it is pursuing the point with energy, and I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works that it is in close liaison with Sir Donald Gibson's Committee, so that there need be no fears about that.
On question of guidance for design, we now have the National Building Agency, which has just been set up and that will have a part to play. All I can say about the problem of attracting staff is that it is a difficulty. Highly-qualified architects are in short supply and that is the plain truth of the matter. But I gather that some recruitment has taken place recently and that they desire to get themselves up to full complement so that they may the more readily and properly do their work.
On the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, whether there should be more or less direct control by the Public Accounts Committee of the U.G.C. expenditure, this has a long history, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield will know better than I. The best way in
466
which I can answer the hon. Member is to say, and to put on record once again, so that it may remind me if no one else, what was concluded by the Committee on this matter in 1956–57:
"Your Committee appreciate that the Treasury have gone some way towards meeting their wishes in the way of closer control, both by ensuring that in future the Accounting Officer is better informed as to the projects on which voted money is being spent and by making a substantial amount of additional information available to the Comptroller and Auditor General. They recommend that the new arrangements should be given a trial over a period of three years, when the matter might be further reviewed by the Committee of the Session then current."
This was done and a trial of three years was accorded.
The Comptroller and Auditor General looked into the matter and made his first report as to the efficiency of the new processing methods. Having made that report the Committee concluded its Report in 1961 with these words.
"Having regard to the assurances given by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Treasury, your Committee consider that the new arrangements have worked satisfactorily, and they recommend that these arrangements should remain in operation, subject to continued vigilance on the part of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to report by him at any time of developments which he thinks should be considered by future Committees of Public Accounts."
I should have thought that in an area as difficult as this, that was a satisfactory report to be able to make. It illustrates extremely well the way in which change acceptable to people difficult to reconcile to this sort of change has been effected through machinery made up of the Public Accounts Committee taking evidence, reporting, and having to receive back—insisting on receiving back—a Treasury Minute which has to carry the argument further. This process of exchange between Committee, Treasury and Department, when everything that is said is published and reported and comes into the open, can provide—as Ministers know to their cost—a continuing supply of ammunition for hon. Members on the back benches. All these factors add up to a first-class vindication of the work of the Committee and the wisdom of the House in retaining the Committee in its present form.
Mr. Dalyell: Has the Minister anything to say about the question I raised

467
of special scientific services and analysis of their cost?—Committee Question 1329?
Mr. Green: I will look at that question. May I crave the indulgence of the hon. Gentleman and have a word about this with him separately. I do not think that it is, strictly speaking, a matter that concerns the Committee in the way in which it has reported. But I appreciate the interest shown by the hon. Gentleman and I should like to see him separately on the matter.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
Proposed words there added.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last session of Parliament, and of the Special Report from the Committee of Public Accounts.
Committee Tomorrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
6.58 p.m.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main proposals of the Government, and the general object of the Bill, is to give effect to such of the changes proposed in the White Paper on Local Authority Borrowing, Cmd. 2162, as require legislation. Some of the proposed changes do not require legislation to bring them into effect. For example, the proposed control over the temporary borrowing which can be done under the existing Control of Borrowing Order powers. And some of the other changes, such as the formula governing access to the Public Works Loan Board, do not require legislation at all, but are matters for administrative action.
The Bill consists chiefly of provisions designed to increase the sums available for lending by the Public Works Loan Commissioners and to repeal what have, in fact, become obsolete restrictions on
468
the Board's lending powers and the way in which local authorities are required to account for Public Works Loan Board loans. There are two related matters provided for by the Bill. The first is the removal of certain restrictions on the power of local authorities to reborrow both from the Board and from other sources. The second is an increase in the amount the Treasury can advance to the Government of Northern Ireland for the purposes of loans for public works in Northern Ireland. Earlier provisions for loans to Northern Ireland have been made in the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Acts,1950 and 1955, and the Bill provides a convenient, and I think an appropriate, opportunity to extend this limit on the Treasury's lending powers. I hope that Northern Ireland Members will welcome it.
It is now about six years since a Treasury Minister last moved the Second Reading of a Public Works Loans Bill. I think that I am right in saying that this is a record interval. During this period new policies and new practices have gradually evolved. These require new Measures which can be brought forward as a result of the experience gained both in inquiries undertaken by the Treasury and from the practices to which I have referred. So I now ask the House to approve a Bill which is a prelude to important changes in local authority borrowing arrangements.
I should like to deal briefly with these borrowing arrangements before I come to the provisions of the Bill. The main Government proposals are that local authorities' temporary borrowing shall be limited to 20 per cent. of their outstanding loan debt and that authorities whose temporary borrowing exceeds this figure shall be allowed four years to get down to it. Local authorities will have freer access than up to now to the Public Works Loans Board. The intention is that local authorities shall be allowed to meet 20 per cent. of their long-term borrowing needs from the Public Works Loan Board in the first year of the new arrangements and that this proportion will rise by 10 per cent. a year until the fourth year, when authorities will be able to meet half their long-term needs from the Board. These loans will be

469
made at the Government credit rate—that is, the rate at which the Government themselves borrow for similar periods—plus a small margin for expenses.
This proposed control over temporary borowing must be looked at in a national perspective. Local authority borrowing operations are very large indeed. Their annual new borowing is at times even greater than that of the Government. In 1962, new works required £550 million. Re-financing maturing debt, for example, takes about £370 million annually. The scale of local authority borrowing operations is such that it can affect the monetary situation generally, and the Government are bound to take an interest in the pattern of local authority borrowing for this very reason.
During the last few years the pattern has undoubtedly been a great increase in temporary borrowing. The Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System commented on it in its Report in August, 1959. At that time the difficulties that this practice could cause—that is, a large proportion of temporary borrowing—was recognised, but we did not then feel that the scale of temporary borrowing was such as to need Government intervention. It was, however, as a result of the Radcliffe Report and the debates which stemmed from it that the Government undertook to collect more information about the whole extent and pattern of local authority borrowing.
It was the information collected as a result of the Radcliffe Report and the debate on it that enabled a close watch to be kept on the situation. It is in the light of the information so collected that we have reached the conclusion that the rate of growth of temporary borrowing should not be allowed to go unchecked. I think that I am right in assuming that others have shared this conclusion. As far as I recollect, reference was made to this situation on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, 1962.
Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The Economic Secretary has drawn attention to the amount of local authority borrowing. The whole tone of his speech so far has been that local authorities have done something rather
470
wrong. Would he not admit that this situation has come about only because of the way in which Government policy has forced local authorities to borrow money? Local authorities are not responsible for this situation.
Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has somewhat anticipated the point I intended to make. At the moment, I am on the first part of the proposals, which are not contained in the details of the Bill, but in the White Paper which preceded it and which are indeed responsible for some of the provisions in the Bill—that is, the proposals to limit and control local authority temporary borrowing.
I am not suggesting that they were wrong to do it. I merely say that it is a practice which has created certain difficulties for the Government, in money management among other things, and that the extent to which it has happened makes it necessary to put a limit on it. During the various debates there were suggestions that the extent of local authority temporary borrowing would be damaging to local authorities. It is, in fact, a greater danger to Government control rather than to local authorities, because, as various hon. Members have pointed out, including my predecessors at this Box, the Public Works Loan Board has always been available in the case of local authorities not being able to refund short-term debt.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: Is not the Economic Secretary evading the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds)? What the hon. Gentleman is not telling the House is that local authorities were driven on to the market by Government policy announced in 1955. Local authorities found that on the market it was cheaper to borrow short, with the result that temporary loans, many of them on seven-day call, have grown to large proportions. The Government are now trying to rectify that position, but they are dealing with the consequences of their own actions. If the Economic Secretary will deal with that, it will save me exposing it in a few minutes' time.
Mr. Macmillan: That is exactly why I said that the hon. Member for Islington, North was anticipating my point. However, I will make it now. Before

471
1955 there was a rigid control over local authority temporary borrowing. On the other hand, before 1955 local authorities had unlimited access to the Public Works Loan Board. For the reasons given in 1955—Ihave them all here—if the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) would like me to repeat them—
Mr. Houghton: No. I have them myself.
Mr. Macmillan: For those reasons and for the reasons also expressed in the debate in 1959 on the Radcliffe Report, it was felt right that local authorities should go to the market. At the same time, in 1955 the restrictions on temporary borrowing were removed. As a result of the Radcliffe Report, and of the debates on it, disquiet was expressed and the Government of the day undertook to examine the problem.
Now we have evolved from there, but not back to the 1955 situation, because we are now trying to create a situation in which there is some limitation on temporary borrowing without the rigidity which existed before 1955, and, in addition, some of the restrictions on access to the Public Works Loan Board have been removed. The complete freedom of earlier situations has not been restored, however. In other words, a compromise has been produced by considering the problems arising from the varying needs of central Government and of local government. If the hon. Member for Sowerby will have a little patience, I shall reach the point later and will make it all over again, if he would like me to do so.
For various reasons which we have dealt with, and doubtless will come on to again, local authorities have tended to regard new temporary borrowing as a method of financing their activities rather than its chief use of being bridging finance. The House will agree that it is difficult to decide what is a safe level of temporary borrowing. The fact that local authorities have always been able to replace short-term borrowing, even at a time of credit restraint or during the withdrawal of foreign funds, by access to the Public Works Loan Board has made it a great deal safer for them than for others.
472
This does not mean that no risk is attached to local authority temporary borrowing. A risk is always involved in borrowing short and lending long. Although, to individual authorities, the risk may seem small and may seem a price worth paying for the advantage of raising money more cheaply—and I do not blame authorities for wanting to do that—if all authorities were to take this view then short-term borrowing in this part of the public sector would assume vast proportions.
As it is, local authority temporary debt stands at over £1,250 million, and the Government feel that the time has come to limit the rate of growth in this form of borrowing. It is better to do so now, in awareness of the risks which this practice has for monetary policy, debt management and our balance of payments, than to do it later, in a hurry, after a crisis has occurred. It is the recognition of this, combined with the recognition that local authorities have considerable problems of their own—and they have shown a good deal of initiative in overcoming them—that has led the Government to produce this compromise Measure. For national reasons we feel that we must intervene, but this has been done in a way which will minimise the impact of the new arrangements on local authorities.
It is for this reason that we have given those local authorities—and there are only 300 of them out of a total of about 1,800—whose debt exceeds the new limits four years in which to get down to those limits, and we hope to see a progressive reduction. In addition—and here I come to the Bill rather than the White Paper—the control of temporary borrowing will be linked to the new arrangements for giving access to the Public Works Loan Board and for making loans at the Government credit rate. This is the main purpose of the Bill.
The reason for the change is simple. If local authorities' freedom to borrow temporarily is to be restricted, they must raise more money longer term and they could, in theory, be required to find it on the market. This might place undue strain on the arrangements, particularly as capital expenditure on housing, education and other services is increasing

473
sharply. The Government have, therefore, taken the view that local authorities should have greater access to the Public Works Loan Board than in recent years, but that the same considerations which applied before should mean that that greater access should be for some of their money only. In conjunction with that, it is no longer necessary for the Board to charge the local authority the market rate on such money. Thus the Board will make its advances at the Government rate.
This will cheapen the long-term rate at which local authorities borrow. As the four-year period advances that advantage will accrue to more local authorities. Ultimately, they will be allowed to borrow all but half of their total long-term borrowing needs. The idea is that this should be met by a gradual change of that proportion. If we were to put it up to half at once it might increase the demands on the Exchequer by as much as £500 million a year and monetary management would be seriously complicated by a shift of this size.
In the first year local authorities will be able to meet 20 per cent. of their needs from the Board. In the second year the figure will be 30 per cent., in the third year 40 per cent. and in the fourth year a half. It is not intended to apply this formula rigidly, in a way which might create difficulties for authorities with modest borrowing requirements and which already get a substantial proportion of their funds from the Public Works Loan Board. We propose, therefore, that every authority should be allowed to meet the first £50,000 of its long-term borrowing needs from the Board.
This arrangement means that between 300 and 400 local authorities can meet all of their borrowing needs from the Board—that is, the smaller authorities—during the first year. The main beneficiaries of this ruling are likely to be the rural and urban district councils in England and Wales and the small burghs in Scotland. Many more authorities, including a number of the small non-county boroughs and large burghs in Scotland, will also benefit from the arrangement.
In subsequent years it may be possible to allow local authorities to borrow up to £100,000 from the Board, if this is
474
greater than their percentage quota for the year otherwise would be. These quotas are based on the assumption that local authorities will be able to find the rest of their needs on the market. This should be possible because the total calls on the local authority market will be reduced. We shall certainly expect local authorities to do their utmost to get the balance of their money in this way. There is, however, a chance that some will not always be able to find the funds they need on the market at a particular time. The Board will, accordingly, continue to act as a lender of last resort and will make additional loans if it is satisfied that an authority cannot raise the money on the market.
These additional loans will normally carry interest at the local authority market rate, not at the gilt-edged rate. In certain circumstances the Board may permit an authority to offset an additional loan against its quota for the following year. The Board will also have discretion to permit an authority to adjust, in the same way, any inadvertent over-drawings.
It is estimated that the call on the Exchequer under these arrangements will amount to £200 million in the first year and rise by about £100 million each year to £500 million in the fourth year. Actual lending by the Board will be rather higher, since the flow of repayments to the Board permits a certain amount of money to be advanced without the need for new Exchequer issues. In the first year, for example, the Board could lend up to £240 million without the need for more than £200 million being advanced by the Exchequer.
I turn to the provisions of the Bill. The first and most obvious need which the Bill meets is to increase the sums at the disposal of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Clause 1 provides £650 million for this purpose. This should permit the Board to operate the new arrangements for about two years after the introduction of the measures set out in the White Paper. The Clause also provides necessary matching provision for Board commitments. The provision covers two years because we felt that it was desirable to get adequate experience of the new arrangements before coming back to the House for a further increase in the sums to be placed at the Board's disposal.

475
Clause 2 consolidates and amends the Treasury's existing powers to fix and vary the rates of interest charged by the Board. To a large extent, the provisions of this Clause actually reproduce existing legislation, but the Clause is also designed to provide for the introduction of the dual interest rate system described in the White Paper.
Clause 3 provides for a number of repeals in existing legislation about the terms on which the Board shall lend and in the law relating to temporary borrowing by local authorities in Scotland. I do not think that I need go into this matter in detail.
Clauses 4 and 5 provide for the write off and remission of various nineteenth century loans to four harbour authorities. In all these cases, the harbour revenues have proved insufficient to meet the Board's loans, either because of a fall in the number of vessels using the harbour or because expenditure on essential repairs has exceeded expectations.
Clause 6, which I found rather complicated, amends and qualifies the powers of a local authority or other public authority to reborrow when the original borrowing is repayable by instalments or by sinking fund. With the development of borrowing and accounting techniques, some of the provisions contained in the Local Government Act are more difficult to apply and in some circumstances might be held to impede reborrowing. For example, as the law stands there is doubt about an authority's power to reborrow where it originally borrowed for less than the loan sanction period. This seemed a suitable opportunity to clarify the law in that respect.
Mr. Houghton: Does the complexity of Clause 6 explain why it takes only three lines in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to tell us all about it?
Mr. Macmillan: I think that the complexity of the Clause is caused by the difficulty of the subject rather than the Clause, and perhaps it was felt that hon. Gentlemen who had anything to contribute on the Clause would have a deep understanding of the subject.
Clause 7 increases the limit on outstanding Treasury advances to the Government of Northern Ireland for the use
476
of Northern Ireland Government Loans Fund. This fund makes loans for public works, mostly to local authorities in Northern Ireland. Originally, power to make loans for this purpose was provided for in the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, and the limit on such loans was increased from £15 million to £30 million in 1955. Outstanding advances amount to over £23 million. Calls on the Government Loans Fund are expected to rise in future when the Northern Ireland Government introduce similar changes in the borrowing arrangements for their local authorities. It seemed appropriate, therefore, to take powers in the present Bill to increase our contribution towards the Government Loans Fund.
Clause 8 provides for any increase in rate-deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant that becomes payable as the result of any increase or rephasing of local authority expenditure arising from the changes in borrowing and accounting arrangements under the Bill. It is customary to include a provision of this kind whenever there is a possibility of this sort of thing happening.
I am sure that there will be some reference in the speeches that follow to going some way back to 1955, but not going back far enough. It is fair to say that although there is a feeling that local authorities should be allowed more liberal access to the Public Works Loan Board and that we should allow them to borrow as much as they like, there are equally valid reasons why this cannot be done. As hon. Members will know, these reasons were rehearsed in 1955 and again in 1959.
The reasons, broadly, are three. The first is that it is extremely difficult, in practice, to allow more liberal access. Local authority borrowing is now in the region of £1,000 million a year. It is hardly feasible to give local authorities freedom to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board up to this figure. It would create a great problem for the Exchequer and for monetary management. The amount of money involved is too great for us to switch over from this heavy reliance of local authorities on market borrowing to equally heavy reliance on borrowing from the Exchequer.
Secondly, it is felt that it is hardly prudent to allow local authorities free

477
access to Government funds at a time when other calls on the Exchequer are rising so rapidly. In the next few years there will be increasing demands on public funds for a wide variety of purposes such as higher education, roads, ports, and the expansion of the electricity industry. Against this background we feel that it would be unwise to allow local authorities to pre-empt too much of Government funds even though the additional amount that they borrowed would be balanced by a pro rata fall in the amount of market borrowing. There is a limit to the amount of switching that can be done between private and public sources of capital. Our chief concern is to avoid taking on commitments which might be difficult to fulfil later on.
The third reason for allowing only limited access to the Public Works Loan Board is that experience during the last few years has shown that the larger authorities, at least, can raise the funds they require on the market. There is no doubt that in the last few years the technical skill of local authorities in market borrowing has increased and it would be foolish to make arrangements that gave them no opportunity or incentive to exercise their skill, especially at a time when the other calls on the Exchequer will be rising so much.
Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman says that he thinks local authorities should not be prevented from exercising their ability to obtain money in certain quarters, but is it not true that the Bill will do precisely that? Is it not true that many of the largest authorities, such as Leeds, to avoid paying excessively high market rates of interest, are borrowing short-term in large amounts and that the Bill will restrict their ability to do this and thereby will involve the citizens of Leeds and of other big cities in paying hundreds of thousands of pounds extra in interest?
Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry that I did not make it clear to the hon. Member that this is not because of the Bill, but because of the measures which the Government are taking. The Government decided to take these measures because it was felt that the amount of short-term borrowing had increased dangerously over the last few years.
478
I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to explain, at the beginning of my speech, that this was a compromise and that we have not reverted to the pre-1955 situation, when local authorities had unrestricted access to the Public Works Loan Board but had also, to all intents and purposes, a complete prohibition on their borrowing short and raising temporary funds and when, therefore, the level of their loans was marginally below the market rate from the Public Works Loan Board. In the intervening period, between 1955 and the introduction of this method, the situation was that there was no restraint on local authorities' short-term borrowing but there was a strong restraint on access to the Public Works Loan Board.
Experience which has developed since then and the investigations which the Government undertook to make and subsequently made have indicated that a compromise solution was the best for the Government and the local authorities together. There is no question but that this is a compromise. It is appreciated that the burden on the ratepayers will be increased, but this is only likely where local authorities have contributed to the situation by the extent of their short-term borrowing. This is a compromise between the burden on the ratepayers and the danger to the taxpayer.
I realise fully that these proposals will not be welcomed universally by local authorities. I know that some feel that the limit on temporary borrowing is too stringent, and even that there should be no limit at all. Others would like bigger and quicker access to the Public Works Loan Board. These proposals equally are not ideal from the Treasury's and the Government's point of view, because this is a field in which the needs and interests of the central Government and those of local government are not identical. We should not be too dogmatic about the needs of local authorities because they, too, have varied widely, but within that variation the present compromise seems to accommodate a reasonable proportion of short-term finance and reasonable access to the Public Works Loan Board with the balance, up to a half at the end of the interim period, from the market. The Public Works Loan Board will always be there as a source in the last resort.

479
I must express my gratitude to the local authority associations and those local authority treasurers who have helped us to frame these compromises. The proposals are Government proposals, but they have been reached by a process of consultation. I believe that we have reached a sensible compromise which holds a reasonable balance between the responsibility of the Government for the efficient management of our monetary policy and the responsibility of local authorities to raise money as cheaply as is consistent with prudent financial practice.
This view is not mine alone. It was more or less quoted in an article by Ronald Bird in the Banker in December this year, in which it was said:
"…local authorities will have a wide range of decision over the shape of their borrowing from the board, and will no longer be subject to the governessy limitations imposed on them under long out-of-date statutes. It begins to look, indeed, as if both the methods and instruments of local borrowing are being given a contemporary shape."
That is the opinion of the Government. It will, I hope, be the opinion of the House.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: I apologise to the House for imposing myself in its debates for the second time today, but as I do not think that any hon. Member present now was here at 4 o'clock when I began for the first time, perhaps the tedium will be reserved for those who read Hansard tomorrow, which will be very much like my parish magazine.
Whenever a Minister comes to the Box to make an announcement or to introduce a Bill nowadays, he ought to come in on his head. The Economic Secretary should be leaning backwards, now because the policy he has introduced in moving the Second Reading of the Bill reverses the consequences of earlier policies. This goes back to the second Budget of 1955, a historic year Budget-wise, and we may well see a repetition of 1955 in 1964 because we then had a Budget in the spring, a short Finance Bill, Budget Resolutions tightly drawn, the House visibly in decay, and then off we went to the General Election in May, 1955. On 26th October, 1955, the then
480
Chancellor had to put right all the silly things which had been done wrong earlier in the year.
The House will recall that that was the year in which substantial reductions in direct taxation were made in the April Budget, and the tax reliefs then given were reimposed not on the direct taxpayer but on the housewife's pots and pans. That Budget became known as the "pots and pans" Budget, and in it came the restrictions on the freedom of local authorities to borrow, which the Bill is intended, in part at least, to remove.
When the Government wished to put a check on the total volume of borrowing by local authorities, they threw them on to the market to sink or swim. They told those that were in danger of sinking that they would be rescued by the Public Works Loan Board, but not until there were visible signs that they were sinking were they to go for rescue to the Public Works Loan Board. Even when they did, they were to be given terms of interest representing not the Government's credit to borrow but the particular local authority's credit to borrow which might not be as good as that of the Government, and, therefore, they might not get their money as cheaply. This was the policy which the Government pursued to curb the borrowing of local authorities.
Now, when local authority borrowing is to be increased, the Government are pulling them back sharply from the market and not letting them pursue the ways which were forced upon them by the policies of 1955, the dangers of which were mentioned by the Radcliffe Commission in 1959. What the local authorities have done, of course, has been to make the best of the position in which they were put in 1955. They have found a way of meeting their loan requirements which is now an embarrassment nationally to the position of sterling and which the Government wish to correct.
Local authorities found that they could borrow short-term. They found that they could borrow more cheaply short-term than long-term. The result now is that the short-term borrowing of all local authorities amounts to nearly 25 per cent. of the local authorities' total debt, and of this temporary borrowing 62 per cent., that is, £800 million out of £1,300 million.

481
is on seven-day loans—money within call on seven days' notice.
A good deal of this is hot money, admittedly. When the Government, as part of their financial measures, put the Bank Rate up to 7 per cent. and local authorities had then to pay 6¼ per cent. on their temporary loans, hot money came in from abroad attracted by the high rates of interest. The Government were, in fact, buying support for sterling and making the local authorities foot the bill. In came money from abroad supporting sterling, and the Government made the local authorities pay for it because that was the only borrowing which they could undertake to satisify their needs.
The Government have now got a bit frightened. The Radcliffe Commission drew attention to what was happening, but the Government did not think that there was anything very much to worry about then. Now they think that there is. Why?—because local authorities will now have to borrow more, and, if they are left alone, they will go on borrowing in the way that suits them best, which may mean that they will go on borrowing a great deal more on short term, and this represents, from the point of view of the national Exchequer, a danger and an embarrassment. The Bill is designed to correct this because restrictions are to be placed upon the proportion of the local authorities' total debt which they may borrow on short-term conditions.
As I have said, nearly 25 per cent. of the local authorities' total debt is on short term, and the Bill proposes that the proportion should be reduced to 20 per cent. Undoubtedly, some local authorities will find themselves with a higher proportion of short-term loans than they will be allowed to have when the Bill is fully operative. It is being done by instalments. It is being done gradually, in order, as the Economic Secretary said, to reduce the impact on particular local authorities.
This really is an important Bill because, as the Economic Secretary pointed out, it has to do with large scale financial operations by local authorities to fulfil the national plan, if there is such a thing. Local authorities will have to borrow more for the expansion of housing schemes and many other
482
local authority works such as modernisation and clearance schemes. What is worrying a number of local authorities about the Bill's proposals is whether they will have to pay more, not less, than they are paying now. At times, the rate of interest which local authorities have paid for short-term borrowing has been 2 per cent. lower than the rate being charged by the Public Works Loan Board. They have been borrowing below the market rate and they have had the advantage of that. In a great many cases they have not been upset by the short-term call on their money because it has not been called in, or, if it has, they have been able to make alternative arrangements.
I should like the Minister to explain a little more the relationship between the lending rate of the Public Works Loan Board and the borrowing rate which local authorities may have to pay for loans on mortgage and other outside financial accommodation. Has any estimate been made as to whether local authority loans will, on the whole, be more costly under the Bill than before? Is this really a Bill to adjust the overall financial implications of what local authorities have been doing? Or is it intended to help local authorities, because some of them certainly would be able to continue to get what they want outside the Public Works Loan Board, although I think that it must be admitted that, with the stepping up of local authority expenditure, it is unlikely that they could meet all their requirements in this way. This goes to the very heart of the cost of local administration and local government.
When one thinks of the enormous tribute which is being paid by this nation for the use of two commodities only, land and money, one realises how much is being extracted from our resources to satisfy the demands of those who possess these two things. In terms of the national well-being, our productive capacity and the improvement of our wealth, I regard what the nation and local authorities are paying for money and land as a gigantic extortion from the wealth of this country. There is nothing in the Bill which will facilitate local authority borrowing on terms which enable them to do their work and satisfy the demands of their citizens at reasonable cost.

483
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is here, because on 3rd December he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
"reconsider reintroducing the 3 per cent. maximum rate which applied under the Labour Government".
The right hon. Gentleman said:
"No, Sir. Our assistance to local authorities is very large and is growing. We think that the right way to subsidise local authorities is in this more open way rather than by providing hidden subsidies in the form of artificial rates of interest."—[Official Report, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 953.]
Since when have the Government been so puritan on this question of subsidies and the desire not to hide things when aid is being given in the public interest?
If one surveyed the whole field of subsidies, which we were doing earlier when we were considering the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, one sees plenty of things which are not exactly exposed to public view. The ordinary person would not see them unless he had a very good look. In any case, the point is that one utilises financial aid and subsidies in order to achieve certain results. It is not, I think, a matter for a doctrinaire approach to the question of subsidies.
At one time the Government were appalled at the idea of subsidising public enterprise. But they do it freely now. They objected to subsidising other activities because they thought that they should be made to pay. But the Government are having to do it quite freely now. The question of differential rates of interest, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls artificial rates of interest, has attracted a good deal of attention. I think that there is nothing wrong financially, socially or politically in lending money for approved public purposes at a lower rate than would be payable in the market, the Government covering the difference between their borrowing rate and lending rate.
There is nothing wicked about that. It may be a matter of considerable argument whether it should be done that way and whether it would achieve the desired purposes rather better than an alternative method, but I think that this solution to local government borrowing may have to be considered as time goes on because local authorities will be
484
borrowing increasingly large sums of money for their essential operations. Interest rates as a whole are too high, and I should think that a great honour awaits the Government which can bring them down because there is no doubt that in present circumstances the public is paying a great deal too dearly for the use of money.
Turning to the narrow issues raised by the Bill, we want to know what will be the effect on the interest rate at which local authorities will borrow. We are told that this money which will be borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board will be made available at Government lending rates—that is, the rate at which the Government borrow with a small addition to cover Exchequer costs. They will add on the costs of postage, telephone calls and all the other incidental expenses connected with these operations.
I think that I heard the Economic Secretary talk of preferential rates, or differential rates. Will there be differential rates? This is very important. Will local authorities be forced off short-term borrowing at lower rates of interest on to mortgage or other loans at a higher rate of interest, or on to the Public Works Loan Board, also at a higher rate of interest? That is a crucial question, and it will affect some local authorities much more than others.
We will be able to examine the Bill, including the complexities of Clause 6, in Committee. That may give us an opportunity of going more fully into the possible effect of some of the provisions of the Bill. I am sure that the House will be glad to know that there has been close consultation with the representatives of the local authorities. It is at least a comfort that they have looked at the matter broadly from their point of view. We hear that they regard the proposals as a fair compromise, which rather suggests that the Government were pressing them, in the first instance, further than they thought they should go. It rather seems as if this was not the bountiful gift from Her Majesty's Government which was being taken to the local authority associations. It was something that they did not like when they first saw it. This, we are told, is a reasonable compromise. It is not, therefore, a beneficent Bill after all. This is a form of discipline.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: It is possible to have a compromise between two sets of interests which is not necessarily arrived at by a battle between two groups of people.
Mr. Houghton: We shall probably hear more about the battle, if there was one, by the time the Bill gets to Committee, because when there are differences of opinion we are not usually kept in ignorance of them by the local authority organisations. We shall be glad to hear what they have to say.
I can only test the matter out for myself with local authorities in my constituency. They are small ones, as the Economic Secretary knows, because our constituencies are neighbours, and very good neighbours, too, and it pains me very much to have to talk sternly to the hon. Gentleman. The local authorities which I have consulted have very mixed feelings about these proposals and they have expressed the fear, of which I have spoken, that at the end of the day they will be paying more and not less for their local authority borrowing.
We shall not, however, oppose the Bill, because it is obvious that in present circumstances something has to be done if for no other purpose than providing a satisfactory starting point for this very large expansion of local authority activity which will require them to borrow a good deal more money in the next few years than during the last four or five.
7.52 p.m.
Sir Knox Cunningham: I do not wish to take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes, but I want to welcome the Bill and to refer to a few matters which affect Northern Ireland.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that it is not necessary for me to deal with Clause 6, because, although the aim is clear, it is a little complex. On the other hand, Clause 5, which goes with Schedule 2, is a Clause which extinguishes a debt which is between 90 and 100 years old—a loan of £80,000 to the Carlingford Lough Commission.
As the House knows, Carlingford Lough is a strip of water which divides Northern Ireland from the Republic of
486
Eire. The work for which the loan was given was largely on the Northern Ireland side, and at the end of the lough is the Port of Newry. I am happy to say that when the Government of Northern Ireland took over that part of Ireland the debt was not transferred to them. This is, therefore, of no direct interest to Northern Ireland, but I am happy to welcome the breath of realism which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has brought to the extinguishment of the debt.
A matter which is of real importance to Northern Ireland is that of the increase in the loan limit by £10 million. My hon. Friend has referred to the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, under which the Treasury was empowered to make loans to the Northern Ireland Exchequer. A limit of £15 million was then fixed for capital outstanding at any one time. In 1955, this limit was extended to £30 million and the Bill seeks to extend it to £40 million. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, only £23½ million of such loans are now outstanding. Thus, under the existing provisions, there is still room to borrow £6½ million.
Public investment has for many years been maintained at a high level in Northern Ireland. A large part of that investment is carried out by local authorities with the aid of Government loans. This is particularly true of housing, which makes by far the largest demand on the Government Loan Fund. The figures to which I have referred show that it is not a lack of capital which is at present responsible for restricting development in industry and the absorption of the unemployment pool, but rather physical shortages, for example, a shortage of skilled labour. It is the speedy training of skilled labour that will be the solution.
The Hall Report dealt with this matter in referring to restrictive practices in the building industry. It is surely in the public interest and also in the interest of labour and management to get rid of restrictive practices in Northern Ireland and to develop to the full methods of apprentice training. I greatly hope that the trade unions and management will get together with this aim in view. If they do, it will prove to be a way to conquer the spectre of unemployment in Ulster.

487
As capital investment rises in Ulster, there will be larger and larger demands for loans; and the Treasury has agreed to meet a substantial part of such loans from the United Kingdom Exchequer. That is the reason for the limit of such loans to Northern Ireland being raised in the Bill from £30 million to £40 million of capital outstanding at any one time.
A further technical matter is raised in Clause 7(2), which construes that references in the United Kingdom Statutes to these loans shall not be affected if the Northern Ireland Parliament amends the Government Loans Act (Northern Ireland), 1957. That is a technical point, but its purpose is to clear that particular matter.
For the reasons which I have given, we Ulster Members welcome the Bill and give it our support. It will be of considerable help to Northern Ireland and I trust that soon, with the efforts of my hon. Friend, it will be on the Statute Book.
7.58 p.m.
Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I am glad that on behalf of Ulster the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) has welcomed the Bill, which is yet another example of the Government's slow, creeping move towards Socialism which we have seen happen quite a lot during the past few months.
I am disappointed that in moving the Second Reading of the Bill the Economic Secretary to the Treasury appeared to go deliberately out of his way, whilst not actually saying so, to put the blame for the situation upon the local authorities. He was not even as generous as the White Paper, which, frankly, does not go very far. It states, in paragraph (2):
"This is not to criticise local authorities who have sought to adapt their borrowing practices to meet both their growing capital commitments and the conditions prevailing in the capital market."
That is all right as far as it goes, but the main reason is not the growing capital commitments or the conditions prevailing in the capital market. The main reason is that in 1955 the Government deliberately decided that local authorities should be forced to finance their capital expenditure on the market.
488
Having deliberately forced local authorities to do that, the Government are not admitting their part in the responsibility, because the local authorities have discovered very quickly—and many of the treasurers responsible for this work had little experience of it before the war—the best way to operate in the free market, which is what the Government wanted them to do. Now, the Government are putting restrictions upon their free operation in the market, having forced them on to it only eight years ago.
It is not the fault of the local authorities that these restrictions have become necessary. They have become necessary, we are told, because of the general position concerning hot money. But also, as the Radcliffe Report pointed out in 1959, because the operations have "gone on too long to be without effect on the market for the central Government's bonds": in other words, because the local authority treasurers were getting, perhaps, a little too efficient at this game for the liking of the Government Broker and the Treasury, because they were not receiving as good a deal as they hoped once they forced the local authority treasurers completely out into the market.
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Economic Secretary also used the phrase that the time had come to limit the rate of growth of this short-term borrowing. That is rather different from the general tone of the White Paper, which, in paragraph (3), states that:
"The essence of the proposals is that a limit should be placed on local authority temporary borrowing".
It goes on, in paragraph (9), to say that:
"action must now be taken to limit temporary borrowing".
The Minister, however, referred to the time having come to limit the rate of growth, which is rather closer to the intention of the Government than is the White Paper, because my view is that it will not in the next year or two reduce the amount of such money on short-term borrowing to local authorities and it will in the future not hold the amount even at its present level but will limit the growth for such period as the Act remains in force.
This is a death-bed repentance of the Government and a complete reversal of

489
their former policy. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government can use the expression which he is now wearing, but even he must admit that this is a complete reversal of Government policy since 1955. There is no way in which the Government can escape the charge of trying, in effect, to blame local authorities for operating in the way in which the Government have wanted and forced them to do since1955, when we were told that the local authorities must stand on their own feet and pay the market rate of interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said. Now, we are being told that local authorities can have money at the Government's rate of credit. If that is not a complete reversal of Government policy on these matters, I do not know what is.
The Government have been making quite a nice profit from the operations of the Public Works Loan Board for the last eight years. Admittedly, the operations have not been on a very large scale—between £30 million and £50 million a year—but it has been the general view in local authority financial circles that the Public Works Loan Board rate of interest has been considerably above the market rate for local authorities of good standing. Not only has it not followed the rate of interest at which local authorities of good standing should obtain money, but it has led the way to forcing up the rate of interest. The Government for the past eight years have been able to borrow at the Government rate of interest and lend it back to local authorities at a higher rate of interest than would have been the local authority rate had the Government not increased, arbitrarily, on many occasions, the rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board. That is not my expression of opinion; it is the opinion which has been put to the Government on many occasions by the Local Authorities Standing Joint Committee, which considers and discusses the various aspects of it with the Government from time to time on behalf of the local authorities.
We are now told by the Minister that it would not be possible to revert completely to the 1955 position because £1,000 million a year would be a sum virtually impossible for the Government
490
to borrow on the market without completely upsetting the whole of the credit arrangements. This is a point that I cannot understand. In effect, as I see it, the Minister is saying that 1,800 borough and district council treasurers can more efficiently raise £1,000 million a year in the market than can the Government broker and the Treasury.
This is a situation which is rather farcical. One thousand million pounds has to be borrowed from somewhere, on the Minister's own figure, for new capital expenditure and reborrowing on various items which fall due for repayment. If £1,000 million has to be borrowed, theoretically I should have thought it easier for one borrower to obtain it and lend it out at a small charge for the service rather than 1,800 separate local authorities. We will presumably be in the position with the new arrangements with the Public Works Loan Board that 1,800 local authority treasurers will borrow next year £200 million less on the market and the Treasury will borrow £200 million more at, we hope, a slightly lower rate of interest, thus saving the local authorities a certain amount on interest charges.
I cannot accept the Minister's charge that the needs of central and local government are not identical. I would have thought that the needs would have been about the same in both cases, in other words, to keep interest charges for local authorities capital work at the lowest possible level. I was surprised to hear the Minister refer to the new contemporary shape for local authority borrowing which I can only assume to mean that the new contemporary modernisation ideas of the present Conservative Government are to put more controls on the way in which local authorities can borrow money. This is a magnificent reversal from the grand battle cry of 1951, "Set the people free", if we are now to go back on what was done in 1955 and reimpose controls on local authorities.
I disagree slightly with the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. The Minister told us that some 300 out of 1,800 local authorities at present hold more than 20 per cent. of their total outstanding capital in short-term money repayable in twelve months or less.

491
According to the White Paper, this sum of money is something over £1,200 million. As far as I can see from the various statistics that were published, the local authorities debt outstanding at present is about £6,000 million in England and Wales and £800 million in Scotland.
If my arithmetic is correct, 20 per cent. of that means that after a given date which the Government intend to introduce if all local authorities took full advantage and borrowed or held 20 per cent. of their money on short-term the total amount of short-term money would increase from £1,200 million to about £1,360 million. My calculations show that the present holding of short-term money taken over all local authorities is about 19 per cent., and it may be increased under the arrangements which the Government are now suggesting up to 20 per cent., which is £1,360 million.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Fifteen per cent.
Mr. Reynolds: The Minister obviously has more up-to-date statistics than I have. The published ones which I have are about twelve months old. In fact, that reinforces my argument. There could be an increase of something like £400 million a year up to £1,600 million from the present level of short-term money of £1,200 million. I suggest that the Government White Paper will encourage over the next two years a quite considerable increase in the amount of local authority short-term money.
We know that some authorities, Leeds, has something over 50 per cent. of its capital debt in short-term money, Reading, nearly 80 per cent. in the very enterprising policy which they have been following there, which I would have thought a little risky, but nevertheless they have obtained their money on short-term borrowing of less than twelve months. Many of these authorities—300 of them according to the Minister—are to be given four years to get down to the 20 per cent. level. Presumably the regulations will provide by what proportion they have to go down each year, or something to that effect. Nevertheless, they have four years to get down to it.
492
But there are 1,500 at present, or at the time of publication of the White Paper, and the position has altered a lot since then, with less than 20 per cent. of their capital requirements being met by loans over a period of twelve months or less. Many of these authorities are quite small ones and would not in any event go in for short-term borrowing. On the other hand, their capital requirements are very small as well, and that sort of local authority is satisfied by borrowing some £50,000 from the Public Works Loan Board, which would probably cover two years of its capital expenditure. In working out these figures, borrowing by such authorities does not play a very large part in arriving at the total. Others, however, of these authorities are large ones with a considerable amount of capital, and some medium sized ones have several millions of capital outstanding, and up to the present they have been holding in some cases 4 per cent., 5 per cent., 6 per cent., 10 per cent., of their money on periods of loan of less than 12 months.
Now the Government White Paper has laid it down quite clearly that it is perfectly respectable, finance-wise, to hold up to 20 per cent. of one's capital in short-term money. There have been many, during the last month or two, since the publication of the White Paper, small and medium sized authorities, which up to now have been acting very conservatively in this respect, which have increased their holdings of short-term money because the Government have produced a White Paper which says that 20 per cent. is all right. So I am absolutely convinced that, at any rate over the next two years far from a downward move, those authorities with less than 20 per cent. at the moment will gradually—because a large number of authorities have kept well below 20 per cent. mark—be encouraged by the fact that this 20 per cent. is one which has been given a certain aura of respectability and will be likely to increase their holdings quite considerably and thus increase the figure of some £1,200 million.
I really cannot understand why the Government have allowed this to happen. If they are concerned with the amount of hot money which is

493
included in this sum, if they are concerned about the possible effects on the economy as a whole of this type of activity, why have they taken the action which will increase the amount of hot money which local authorities have got during the next 12 to 18 months. In fact, the proposals in the White Paper itself will not reduce the amount of short-term money very largely. As I have already explained, some authorities will have to reduce their holdings, others will increase them but in fact the total local authority capital expenditure will go up by at least £600 million per year in the foreseeable future, and for every year, if one allows a little bit for capital repayments, they will be able to add 20 per cent., or about £100 million a year, of short-term debt which they carry, and the permissible figure will increase by some £100 million per year, so that in four or five years' time we shall be in the position that the total amount of short-term money held by local authorities will exceed that which they hold at the present time.
This is not what one reads in the White Paper, but, as I explained a moment or two ago, it is what one reads in the Minister's remark, because he said the time had come to limit the rate of growth. I think it is generally recognised, as it is by financial journalists connected with local government, that the rate of growth over the last few years has been fast but indications are that it is now slowing down.
So far as this aspect of the Government's proposals is concerned, many local authorities will now begin to take a greater interest, and because the total amount which can be held on short term automatically increases every year, I cannot see that it will have any great effect in putting the Government in a less vulnerable position in relation to the total amount of hot money.
I should like to know a little more about the actual position. We are told that local authorities have got some £1,200 million on short-term loan. I understand from the inquiries I have made that probably 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of this money originates in the first place from sources outside this country. But I think that as the main reason for this action being taken is the amount of hot money involved we really
494
ought to be given a few estimates from the Treasury Bench as to exactly how much is involved. My information is from purely private sources involved in lending this money to local authorities. We ought to be told how much of it is considered to be in that form; we ought to be given some sort of definition; we ought to have some idea of what the definition is as well, because it will make a difference to the answer. But how much of it is hot money?
Local authorities are warned off this type of money. This is what always happens when the Government are composed of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for they only control the public sector. What proportion of money of this kind is borrowed by local authorities? Who else is getting it? How much is going into private industry? I have not the faintest idea, but as this is the case for introducing this type of control, I think the House should be given more information as to what caused the Government to take this action, and whether the Government themselves have got some of this money, as well as the local authorities. I would not claim to be an expert in how central Government finance is curried on, but it would not surprise me if the Government had even more hot money than local authorities, but the local authorities cannot control the Government whereas the Government can control the local authorities, and so the local authorities get the worst end of the stick whichever way it goes.
I should like to say a word or two about the money which local authorities will soon be able to obtain from the Public Works Loan Board. I understand that the Minister has told them that as from next year they will be able to get some 20 per cent. of their total capital requirements going up each year. I make a special plea for one particular type of capital requirement of local authorities. We have been told ever since hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in power that they want a property-owning democracy, that they want to encourage owner-occupation. Ever since, they have been forcing up the rate of interest charged to the local authorities on mortgages from 3¼ per cent. to 6½ per cent. and by building societies from 4½ per cent. to 6½ per

495
cent. It is rather a queer way of encouraging a property-owning democracy, but nevertheless this is how hon. Members have encouraged owner-occupation and the purchase of houses. Local authorities have been forced to borrow money on the market for the purpose of making advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, and the Housing Act, 1949.
Many of them over the last few years have been forced to curtail their activities, and for a comparatively simple reason—if a local authority borrows money from the Public Works Loan Board to lend to prospective owner-occupiers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act and the Housing Act, 1949, even though the interest rate is high, they cannot lose. Because if the rate of interest is later reduced then the person with the mortgage can go to a building society, reborrow at a lower rate and repay the local authority. The local authority which has borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board in the first place can then give notice to the Board and repay the money so that the local authority suffers no financial loss.
But if the local authority makes advances from money it is forced to borrow from the market on 10-year or 15-year mortgages, or whatever is the current best period of years, and then lends at ¼ per cent. above the figure at which it borrowed, then the rate of interest will be above 6½ per cent. Then if the rate of interest falls and people reborrow and repay the local authority it cannot then repay the money but must hold on to 6½ per cent. money.
I have no doubt whatsoever that a local authority which wanted to borrow money at that particular time probably got it at rather less than 4½ per cent. Nevertheless, if a local authority operates on a 15-year loan from an insurance company or a merchant bank or some other organisation, it must keep the money while paying a higher rate of interest than it should have been able to borrow at. If the Government wish to encourage owner-occupation, and if they are relaxing borrowing conditions for local authorities, then they should allow local authorities to borrow as much as they wish from the Public Works Loan Board for making allowances under the
496
1959 Act and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.
According to calculations made in local government circles on the basis of the White Paper, the Government will probably charge about 5 per cent. for long-term loans by the Board. Borrowing at that rate of interest would enable local authorities to lend money to owner-occupiers at about 5¼ per cent. which is rather less than the figure of 6 per cent. or 6¼ per cent. or even higher that they are having to pay now to building societies and, indeed, to local authorities.
If the Minister wishes to help owner-occupiers and those building their own houses, here is his opportunity. I know that I can speak here on behalf of the Acton Borough Council—I am chairman of its Finance Committee—and I believe that it represents the views of many others as well. That council would be only too pleased to wipe out all restrictions on borrowing for owner-occupation if it could get sufficient money from the Public Works Loan Board at no risk to local ratepayers.
I believe that it would be possible, without undue strain on the Exchequer, to allow local authorities, in addition to the 20 per cent. they will be allowed to take up—if they so desire—from the Board next year, to allow them to take as much as they need for assisting owner-occupation. This would be a demonstration of genuine interest by the Government in owner-occupation.
Since 1951 the Government have made it financially more and more difficult for people to buy their own homes. Through this Bill, there has been a somersault in the relations between local government and the central Government over the borrowing of money. I hope that we can have an even bigger somersault and get a Government which will assist owner-occupation in a way that will compare favourably with this present Government's past policy of making it more difficult.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. William Hannan: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has made some of the points to which I intended to refer and, therefore, it will probably relieve the House to know that I shall curtail my remarks. The hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South

497
(Sir Knox Cunningham) referred—andNorthern Ireland is to be congratulated on this—to signs of attention to Northern Ireland in the Bill. I do not regret that, but I hope that the Minister will explain paragraph 13 of the White Paper, which says:
"The proposed limit on total temporary borrowing is higher than that at present in force in Scotland under section 260 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947."
This being so, the White Paper goes on to say that there are no grounds now for maintaining the former favourable situation which Scotland enjoyed. This comes as a disappointment and surprise to Scotland. Why should the Government take this view?
The Government profess to be paying particular attention to Scotland at the moment. Their usual practice, however, is to allow interest rates and unemployment figures to creep up and then reduce them again, but by not quite as much as they have gone up. They then preen themselves on securing an improvement. What are the grounds for the previous arrangements for borrowing not being maintained? Circumstances in Scotland have not improved to such an extent that this can be justified.
The White Paper itself shows up the contradictions and difficulties in the Government's position. In paragraph 5 there is a reference to
"…the rising cost of short-term borrowing has not held demand in check because the only alternative for local authorities has been to commit themselves for a longer term at rates which were generally even higher".
Apparently the Government have tumbled to the fact that local authorities are trying to find ways and means of overcoming the difficulties which the Government themselves have placed in their way for many years. The Government have realised at last that short-term borrowing is difficult and that local authorities are preferring longer-term borrowing. The result is that the three months' period is out and short-term borrowing is to be interpreted as meaning 12 months. If it allows past conditions to continue, then the Government must resort to such methods.
Paragraph 6, however, contradicts paragraph 5. It says:
"…the development of a local authority temporary borrowing market has meant the growth of a large volume of short-term debt that is insensitive to interest rate policy."
498
Here is the evidence that the Government's methods have failed to deal with the problem of short-term borrowing and that high interest rates have had no effect. But, as has been indicated, we are not now just going back to pre-1955 days, for the Minister is talking about a possible compromise. Since 1955, the Government have failed completely in their policy of putting local authorities on to the open market for money borrowing.
Hon. Members, especially those from Scotland, will recall that in December, 1955, some of us put questions to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Foreign Secretary, about the failure of the Glasgow Corporation loan. The Corporation had been forced to go to the market for a loan of £5 million, but it had been a complete flop and the underwriters had had to accept 97 per cent. of it. Glasgow's humiliating experience only made it more difficult for smaller authorities to go to the market, and it also meant that exorbitant rates of interest were demanded by the market to finance the serious work of local authorities and help them discharge their statutory duties.
The White Paper also makes it clear that the Bill is to bring local authorities into line so that they have to have regard to national considerations and not act indiscriminately out with Government policy. This, too, is something new. Whet all local authorities had free access to the Public Works Loan Board for their borrowing needs, in 1955, an election was looming. We can all recall the promises which were then made and the give-away Budget of 1955. But immediately after the election there came the restrictions on expenditure by local authorities and other public bodies. Despite all the promises and the flamboyant policies offered to the electorate, this action is now suggested in the White Paper.
The most important aspect of financing house building, the problem which bedevils local authorities and relations between the Government and the local authorities and between the authorities and tenants or owner-occupiers, is that of the rate of interests. The Government have made it clear that the Bank Rate is their principal instrument for

499
managing the economy. Their use of this one instrument has led to the policy of stop and go and the Government have landed themselves in repeated contradictions over the past 12 years because of it.
For local authorities the rate of interest is even more important than subsidies. Moreover, it is precisely this factor which creates confusion and indecision in their planning. Consequently, if in their priorities and budgets they are subjected to the vagaries and uncertainties of Government policy, it is no wonder that we have the conflict which is partly responsible for the present rating position, which the Government are now trying to rectify by the introduction of another Bill.
In proof of what I am saying, since 1951 there have been no fewer than 23 changes in the rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board. These have varied from 3½ per cent., as we left it, to 7 per cent. and 8 per cent., and are now around 5 or 6 per cent., despite local difficulties. The Government have now taken so much from Labour's policy that they should go a little further. Having accepted planning, they ought to use planning in financing local authority and other projects.
For example, in 1961, Glasgow Corportion completed 16 three-apartment houses. The estimated cost of each house was £2,200, made up of labour, materials, land, roads, sewers and professional fees. The repayment of the capital alone over 60 years cost 14s. 1d. per week, but to repay capital plus interest at 5 per cent. meant a repayment of 44s. 8d. a week. That meant that 30s. 7d. was paid in interest every week in respect of each house. How can the Government justify that wicked method of dealing with an urgent problem? To put it another way, the capital and interest over 60 years on a house costing £2,200 amounts to £6,973, which is three times the initial cost of the house itself. If the rate of interest was reduced by even 1per cent., over a period of 60 years it would make a difference of 7s. 3d. per week.
The Government ought to consider this problem in their own interests, because it is here that trouble arises between local authorities, tenants and
500
owner-occupiers. It is because people have to pay extortionate rates of interest that we continually run into rating difficulties. If the Government want to commit political suicide, who am I to say them nay, but it means that local authorities, tenants and owner-occupiers are having to suffer because of the indecision of the Government and because of the varying rates of interest charged year by year. The present state of affairs prevents people from planning for the future, and is harmful to the economic welfare of the nation.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craig-ton): I thought that when the Economic Secretary was introducing the Bill, he was rather reticent about the fundamental considerations which had led to the need for it. The White Paper is the most devastating criticism that it is possible to make of the Government's policy of using the monetary instrument as the Government's main weapon of economic policy during the last eight to 10 years.
In 1955 the Government forced local authorities away from the Public Works Loan Board on to the market in an attempt to instil financial discipline into local authority borrowing. We are told in the White Paper that the Government have recently carried out a review of that policy, and have come to the conclusion that it ought to be changed. In fact, there is nothing in the White Paper that was not said in the Radcliffe Committee Report in August, 1959. All the disadvantages of denying local authorities access to the P.W.L.B. were set out in full in that Report.
The basic criticism made by the Radcliffe Committee was that there was no need for the Government, whatever they might have been doing in the economy as a whole, to use the monetary instrument to control local authority borrowing. The Government already have control over local authority borrowing in two ways. First, because a local authority cannot borrow money without getting loan sanction from the Government. Secondly, because most of the capital expenditure incurred by local authorities is the result not so much of local authority policy but, rather, the result of the application by local authorities of national Government

501
policy. The Government therefore have all the control they need over local authority borrowing.
The reason given in October, 1955, for forcing local authorities on to the market was therefore a completely pointless one. The various disadvantages that the Radcliffe Report warned might flow from that policy have eventuated. The White Paper simply says what Radcliffe said about four years ago. There has naturally been a tendency for local authorities to indulge in a considerable amount of temporary borrowing, because in a period of high interest rates local authorities, in trying to protect their ratepayers, have been reluctant to fund their borrowing. Temporary borrowing, whatever the other disadvantages have been, from their point of view has at least given local authorities the opportunity of paying lower rates of interest.
As the Economic Secretary pointed out, the growth of temporary borrowing has been very marked since 1955. It has risen sevenfold since the new policy was introduced, and it has been rising particularly rapidly over the last two or three years, as the local authorities' need for funds to finance their increasing capital expenditure has risen.
As the Economic Secretary also recognised—and this is also a confession of error in Government policy—from the national point of view this is an extremely undesirable and insecure way of financing local government borrowing. For example, there has been a considerable attraction of foreign funds, although it is difficult to discover how much of the money that local authorities have been borrowing has come from abroad, and how much is hot money. I hope that the Economic Secretary will answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds).
One of the criticisms made in the Radcliffe Report was that there was not sufficient statistical information available about local authority borrowing and, for that matter, that there was a general dearth of financial statistics. We hope that that has to some extent been put right in the last four years, and that the Economic Secretary will be able to give us more information this evening.
502
Hon. Members on this side of the House naturally welcome the Government's proposal to allow local authorities to have readier access to borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board—20 per cent. in the first year, rising over a period of four years to a total of 50 per cent. We would like to see access to the Public Works Loan Board liberalised even further. There is an interesting comparison between the gradual change which the Government are now making for a more liberal use of the Public Works Loan Board and what happened in 1955. When the boot was on the other foot and it was a question of the Government's seriously inconveniencing local authorities, there vas no gradual transition to the new policy; it was put into operation virtually overnight. The disastrous attempt of Glasgow Corporation to float a large stock issue took place in December, 1955, only two months after the change of Government policy in October of that year What happened in Glasgow was repeated, although perhaps not in such a spectacular fashion, with other local authorities.
One of the effects of Government policy introduced n 1955 was to place further difficulties in the way of local authorities—which difficulties have continued over the last eight years—in the process of raising money for their essential purposes. Those purposes are essential, as the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) reminded us with reference to Northern Ireland. The kind of schemes that local authorities are financing are schemes of housing, education, roads and the like, which the Government themselves have admitted to be essential by in the first place giving them sanction to borrow the money.
Apart from increased access to the P.W.L.B., which we certainly welcome and should like to see extended, the Government are now proposing that there should be limits put on the level of temporary borrowing. It is worth pointing out that these limits have always operated in Scotland. The limit for temporary borrowing at 15 per cent. of the total loan debt provided for in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 was rather more stringent than the new limit which the Government are now introducing for Scotland as well as for England and

503
Wales. Over the last eight years Scotland has suffered from two different points of view. It has been prevented from getting access to the Public Works Loan Board and has not had the same facilities for temporary borrowing as local authorities in England and Wales have had.
It is still an open question as to what the actual effect of the Government's new proposals will be on the level of temporary borrowing. The extremely interesting analysis given by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North of what he considered the effect would be of the next two years, requires an answer from the Economic Secretary. There is a certain conflict of interest here. Obviously, from the Government's point of view, the point of view of national policy and monetary management, it is important that the level of temporary borrowing should be reduced, or at least that it should not continue to increase.
We on this side of the House will accept that, but it is not such an obvious bargain from the point of view of the local authority which by the insecure method of increasing its temporary borrowing as a proportion of its total borrowing has thereby managed to obtain lower rates of interest than it would be forced to pay on the market for longer-term borrowing.
While we would accept in principle that it is right that some attempt should be made to put a limit on the total level of temporary borrowing, I do not think we can give an unreserved welcome to this part of the Government's proposals unless they are able to give us some satisfaction about the rates of interest which local authorities will have to pay when in future they go to the Public Works Loan Board. This is something about which the Economic Secretary said absolutely nothing, but it is basic from the point of view of local government finance.
It is basic also in a much wider sphere. The Government's attempt to use the monetary instrument as one of its main instruments of economic policy has not only, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) pointed out, created a considerable amount of uncertainty, because
504
the P.W.L.B. rates of interest have changed nearly 40 times since November, 1951, whereas in the six years of Labour Government they changed only twice. It has not only created uncertainty but very much added to the cost of all kinds of borrowing.
Quite apart from the increased cost of local authority borrowing, it is worth making the point that as long as the Government continue to have a high interest rate policy, they are suffering financial disadvantages in the financing of the national debt. For example, between 1951 and 1962 the national debt increased by about 11 per cent., but in the same period the total interest paid on the national debt—and this comes out of the taxpayers'pockets—rose by nearly twice. This is not a question of a few million pounds or even £100 million; the increased cost of Government financing because of their high interest rate policy was £400 million, comparing 1962 with 1951. From every point of view I wonder why the Government persist in attempting to run the economy—and not even successfully—at these high rates of interest.
The burden on the local authorities is similarly increased. One of the arguments of Government spokesmen when this has been drawn to their attention has always been that one has to consider not just the rate of borrowing by local authorities in any year but the broad picture, adding the particular year's rate of borrowing to the total borrowing of local authorities so that the high rate of interest currently being paid did not make much difference. But these small differences in average rates of interest in one year after another eventually have a considerable cumulative effect.
The average rate of interest which Scottish local authorities paid for all their borrowing—not just that over the current year—in 1950–51 was 3 per cent. whereas in 1961–62 it had risen to 5 per cent. These figures come from an Answer given by the Secretary of State this afternoon. The additional burden on local authorities because of these higher interest rates amounted to no less than £17 million in 1961–62. The figures for England and Wales must approach £200 million. If the Government are concerned with improving the

505
prospect of local authorities and giving them some financial relief, the simplest and most fundamental step would be to reduce the rates of interest on sums loaned to local authorities.
It is in that context that we must consider the new Government proposals and, in particular, the additional access which is to be allowed to the Public Works Loan Board. If this simply means that local authorities will have to restrict their temporary borrowing and to go to the Public Works Loan Board at the current rate of interest, then I doubt whether local authorities, taken as a whole, will get any financial advantage at all from the Government's proposals, certainly in respect of interest payments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North pointed out in his interesting speech that the rates being charged at present by the Public Works Loan Board for borrowing are higher than the rates which are available to local authorities of good standing for loans of a comparable period in the open market. This follows from what the Government have been doing with the Public Works Loan Board since 1955, because the Government have been placing the Board's loans at rates which would be equivalent to those which authorities having to resort to the Board would have to pay in the open market. Since the Board has been a lender only of last resort and larger local authorities and those of good financial standing have not been borrowing from the Board, by definition the rates of interest which the Board currently charges are higher than those which would have to be paid by local authorities of good standing in the open market.
With the Government's change of policy, local authorities of good financial standing will come for part of their requirements to the Board. It seems to follow, even from the Government's policy, apart from it being desirable in itself, that the rates of interest currently being charged by the Board will be too high in the new circumstances. The current rate is 5¾ per cent. One would expect the new rate to be significantly lower.
I hope that the Economic Secretary will make an announcement about this and will be able to assure us tonight that the Board's new rate of interest will be
506
lower than the rates which are currently charged. If they are not, I repeat that there will be very little advantage, at any rate from the interest point of view, to local authorities in the new arrangements, even if they welcome the more liberal access which they are to have to the Board.
On the whole, therefore, although we welcome the Bill, we have some reservations about it. It does not come anywhere near solving the fundamental problems of local authority finance. I do not believe that these can be solved without a fundamental review of the whole structure of the rating system and local authority finance generally. So far as it goes, the Bill is on the whole welcome, but it merely puts right something that need never have happened. It merely remedies the disastrous effect of the Government's action in 1955 of following the doctrinaire philosophy that local authorities should be subject to the financial disciplines of the free market. We did no; accept that in 1955. Our view on this was vindicated by the Radcliffe Report in 1959. We welcome the Government's conversion to our view, however belated it has been, and the introduction of the Bill.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: By leave of the House; I am grateful to have this opportunity to reply to some of the points that have been made during the debate, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). It has been an interesting debate and we have had an interesting series of discussions on both the White Paper—
Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. Are we to take it that the hon. Member is objecting to the fact that my hon. Friend drew attention to the me agre attendance in the House?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): That is not a point of order.
Mr. Macmillan: I was not objecting to that. I was expressing my gratitude that the end result had not prevented our proceedings from being concluded.

507
As I was saying, we have had an interesting series of discussions on the White Paper, the Bill, and on the problems of local government finance. We have also at intervals discussed interest rate policy generally.
I would like to begin by correcting several points of fact about which some hon. Members seem to have become confused. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred to the temporary borrowing figure as being 25 per cent. As defined in the White Paper, the temporary borrowing proportion is 15 per cent. and not 25 per cent. The 25 per cent. figure is the sum of temporary borrowing plus long-term debt within one year of maturity. This latter proportion is not being limited in the arrangement set out in the White Paper.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) welcomed the Bill in that it would, he hoped, provide some assistance to the special problems of Northern Ireland. I am glad that he made that point. Fears were expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that the limit on temporary borrowing would discriminate unfairly against Scotland. In fact, it removes the discrimination that now exists in that the limit at the moment on temporary borrowing by Scottish local authorities is 15 per cent. and it will become 20 per cent., in parallel with England and Wales.
There is always apt to be a conflict of interest as between local and national government and the share of the financial burdens of Government expenditure as between the ratepayer and taxpayer. In suggesting that the previsions we have been discussing were a solution that attempted to find a compromise to this conflict, I was not suggesting that there had been serious disagreement or that either of the parties concerned were to blame. The hon. Member for Islington, North deplored the fact that I appeared to blame the local authorities. I had no intention of doing that, and, if I did, I apologise.
There is no blame attached at all to this situation, but that does not mean to say that it is not the responsibility of the central Government to remedy it
508
once it has arisen. I should like to make that quite clear. Nor is it a reasonable criticism to blame the central Government on a matter of dogma. The situation in 1955 was one which in the judgment of the then Government required the local authorities to go to the market and not have any longer exclusive reliance, at any time they wanted and in any amount they wanted, on the Public Works Loan Board.
Meanwhile, the situation was changing, as situations particularly today do change. In 1959 the Radcliffe Report warned of the dangers of this and the difficulties which it was likely to bring and it proposed that we should go back to the 1955 situation. In the course of debates the Government took note of the warning and expressed the view that this was a real danger, but that the situation was not yet such as to require Government action and therefore what was happening would be kept under review and inquiries and investigations would be made. Now the situation has changed again, and since 1959 it has led to the view that it is necessary to make these limitations on short-term local authority borrowing. This was not returning by any means to the pre-1955 position when local authorities were not able in practice to borrow short-term, but it was a return, as I have said, to a mean, so to speak, between the two previous situations.
I do not think that this is at all a subject for a doctrinaire approach. This is much more a question of technical control and of a method of managing the monetary side of our economy. A great deal of the argument, apart from some of the questions which were asked, turned on the interest-rates policy in general terms rather than on the particular provisions of the White Paper or the Bill. The argument which was put forward was answered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was quoted in the debate, when he said that in the matter of differential rates of interest for local authorities for housing or other purposes the Government preferred to deal directly, rather than indirectly, with the subsidy that this implied. I do not think that I have much to add to that statement. Whatever one may say, either the arguments put forward from the benches opposite were a plea for a cheap money

509
policy or they were a plea for a subsidy to local authorities by means of differential rates of interest.
The hon. Member for Sowerby asked me some specific questions on the comparative cost of borrowing and on hot money. First, on the hot money side; the money from overseas is only one of the reasons for these measures. The implication during part of the debate was that this was the main and indeed the only reason impelling the Government to take this course. One of the difficulties is that it is not possible to know in advance or at the time exactly what foreign money is coming to local authorities. This is the real problem. There is no method of knowing it except retrospectively and even then only with extreme difficulty.
I cannot give this evening the quantity or the nature of the foreign money. We know that at the end of June, 1963, loans by foreign banks to local authorities totalled £160 million. But this, of course, is only part of the picture. I have no figures available for loans of foreign money coming through English banks and other English intermediaries.
As to the comparative costs of borrowing, the current seven-day rate is 4⅛ per cent. The current three-month rate is 4⅜ per cent., and the current 364-day rate is 5 per cent. I think that there has been a little confusion about the Public Works Loan Board rates. The current rate for all periods is 5¾ per cent., and this is the rate which at the moment, would be available for local authorities borrowing above the quota. The quota borrowing, so to speak, would be at the Government credit rate, and this is calculated by reference to what it costs the Government to borrow for a comparable period; it is calculated from the yields of Government stocks, and the expenses incurred by the Government are covered by rounding up the yields to the nearest ⅛ per cent. There is no constant differential between the Government credit rate and the local authority market rate. It usually runs to a figure of about ¼ per cent., but it has ranged during the past year or so between nothing and ¾ per cent. I appreciate that this is a slightly incomplete argument at the moment, and I shall come later to some of the argu-
510
ments raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
It is true that local authorities which have been relying very heavily on temporary borrowing will have to pay more for some of their money. The money which they have previously borrowed short and will in future have to borrow long will cost them more. They will save money on some of their long-term borrowing, by and large, through the Public Works Loan Board, and over the full transition period, of course, this can be up to 50 per cent. of their total borrowing. There will, in fact, be a balance, and the local authority with the heavy short-term debt will have to pay a bit more on balance, but no more than those which are already borrowing long. The authorities which are already borrowing long will be better off under the new arrangement, and, I remind the House again, these are the great majority of the local authorities.
The hon. Member for Islington, North seemed to think that there was some disagreement between myself and the White Paper as to the object of these measures. This is not so. I was trying to express, in a rather moderate way, what we were claiming for them. I took the point, which was made in the debate, that the total amount of short-term borrowing may not be reduced initially, and, indeed, as the whole amount of local authority borrowing extends, it may well rise; but this is precisely the point I tried to make earlier in explaining why the Government thought it right to take early action now rather than take panic measures when the situation became really difficult. Hon. Members appreciate that we do not really know what is the hot money situation and how it will develop, and indeed it is not possible to know.
This is why we have set the limit of 20 per cent. We have given four years for the local authorities to get to it. The method of doing it has not been laid down and is a matter for adjustment between the local authorities and the Government So far, I think, it is being left more or less to them, but, of course, it will be expected that they will show a proportionate increase in the cost of borrowing according to the total size of their short-term borrowings. It is the uncertainty in the situation, to which the

511
hon. Gentleman referred, which has led to the setting of a percentage limit, which, of course, reduces the vulnerability of the Government; it depends not so much on the absolute amount of the debt but on a proportion, as he knows.
Mr. Reynolds: It is precisely the uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman is referring which reinforces my argument. If there is not to be included in regulations actual steps or stages through which local authorities with more than 20 per cent. have to go to reach the 20 per cent., then, because of the uncertainty of the political situation, they will be unlikely to take any action to reduce their short-term holdings at least until after the General Election. In fact, there will be a greater increase in the total amount than I foretold.
Mr. Macmillan: I think that that is a rather improbable argument, begging several questions. Local authorities with any significant holdings of short-term money which might be dangerous are comparatively few. The total number of authorities above the proposed limit already is only 300. I do not think that the relationships between the Ministries and the local authorities are so strained as not to be able to cope with the rate of scaling down of those authoties which have very large short-term borrowing, and without composing a complete set of regulations which might be difficult for some of the individual authorities. I think that that can be left to the good sense and co-operation of the officials concerned.
The force of the hon. Member's argument would be more apparent were he to give a hint or undertaking as to whether, if the party opposite were to win the General Election, they would repeal the Bill. I think that we can leave that point and go on to the other point made by the hon. Member, namely, that the Public Works Loan Board has led instead of followed the local authority market rate. I do not think that this is so. The Public Works Loan Board rates have been calculated with strict regard to the rate paid by local authorities on the market. I agree that it is sometimes argued that this creates a vicious circle and that the Board's rate acts, so to speak, as a floor to the market rates. But this argu-
512
ment is not susceptible of proof because fundamentally it is an argument as to which comes first—the chicken or the egg—and I do not think that I can give the hon. Gentleman any information which would help him in it.
The question of owner-occupation has been raised. I think that I am summarising the point fairly in this way: if the Government cannot allow unrestricted access to the Public Works Loan Board, why cannot they allow access to owner-occupiers under the appropriate Acts over and above the quota? This would not be possible simply because it would add about £100 million a year, which certainly, in the beginning, is a significant proportion of the total amount for which local authorities can go to the Board at the Government borrowing rate. It is half the first year's quota, so to speak. The whole idea would be inconsistent with the desire to keep the calls of local authorities on the Board within prescribed limits. It would probably, in any case, have to be at the expense of loans by the Board for other purposes and, in view of the fact that proportionately to local authority borrowing the total of loans for these purposes is very small, it is better to leave the local authorities concerned to make use of their Public Works Loan Board quota for these purposes among others. The proportion is about 100 to 1,000 million.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill was concerned about interest rates. I think that one of his main points was that he was against the local authorities going to the market. I shall have something to say, I hope, about his argument later. The debate turned back, so to speak, on the question of subsidised and low interest rates. Naturally, I do not agree with the contention of the hon. Member for Craigton that the White Paper is a devastating criticism of the Government's policy. As I explained at the beginning of my reply, I do not regard this as going back to 1955 as has been suggested, or to the Radcliffe Report. As we hinted in 1959, the position created in 1955 is no longer suitable to the conditions, which have changed a great deal since then. This is not in any way attempting to attach blame to the local authorities but is a recognition of a

513
de facto situation, which the hon. Member agreed had to be dealt with.
The argument which has been behind all this is that the interest rates are too high. I will not go into the dangers and difficulties of trying to run a cheap money policy when world interest rates are high. I point out in passing that the cost in interest to the Government of borrowing money is returned to the taxpayer by way of interest on the investment in his savings, which produce loans for the Government. It is not as if the taxpayer had no return directly and indirectly from the interest on gilt-edged. That can be seen in the immense rise in savings over the last few years. The hon. Member's analysis of what might happen was a little theoretical and appeared to ignore the fact that a great deal of it was purely speculative and making a number of assumptions which might or might not come about.
As to interest rates in general, over the last 10 years long-term interest rates have risen throughout the world. This reflects the world-wide pressure of demand for capital for all forms of investment. In this country, as in most other countries of sophisticated economies, the capital market has been progressively freed of restrictions on borrowers and lenders of funds capable of investment.
This enhanced freedom of capital to move in response to demand means that the price of capital—the rate of interest—is bound to be subject, first and foremost, to the normal play of supply and demand in the market. The Government have, of course, considerable influence on the long-term rate of interest and are by no means indifferent to the rate prevailing at any one time. However, the experience certainly of the party opposite should have provided a warning against trying to hold long-term interest rates at a lower level than the market rate and the difficulties that a policy of that nature builds up for itself over a period of years.
In the most favourable circumstances, the ability of any Government to control the long-term interest rates is limited by factors of a technical nature as well as by policy. It is essential that budgetary and monetary policy should complement each other. Each impose certain limitations on what can be done in the market
514
to influence the long-term rate. The free character of the market reflects the choice which is open to investors. No Government could force the public to hold securities on which the yield was considered to be too low.
Despite the higher interest rates, the Government credit rates will, on the whole, be favourable for the local authorities compared with the market long-term rate. Secondly, there is a point which underlies some of the doubts expressed about the difference between the two rates. If hon. Members are worried about the recent fall in gilt-edged market prices, with the consequent rise in the Government credit rate, it is fair to say that at a time when the economy is expanding an adjustment in investors' preferences and in the yield relationships between equities and gilt-edged is only to be expected. There is no question of the Government either approving or disapproving adjustments of that kind and they certainly have no long-term results on the economy. We shall doubtless return to some of these major problems of interest rate policy, particularly low rates for local authorities, when we come to discuss the details of the Bill.
All that I can do this evening is to sum up the provisions contained in the White Paper and in the Bill. We are imposing a limit on the extent to which local authorities may borrow short-term, and we are extending their capacity over a period to go to the Public Works Loan Board at Government credit rates for up to 50 per cent. of their total long-term requirements. The Public Works Loan Board remains as the final underwriting cushion, so to speak, for local authorities in the last resort no matter from what source their loans may have been obtained.
Mr. Houghton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)? What is the rate of interest to be charged by the Public Works Loan Board? Is it to be lower than the present figure?
Mr. Macmillan: I thought I had explained that. The rate of interest which is quoted and which was 5¾ is not the Government rate.
Mr. E. G. Willis: What is the Government rate?
Mr. Macmillan: The Government rate is not published, but it would normally be expected to be lower than that. The Government rate is calculated from time to time from the yield on Government stocks. I tried to explain that the short-term movement of gilt-edged was not a factor which would remain for very long and that there would be an adjustment between the yield of gilt-edged and equities. In calculating the Government credit rate, the attempt is made to even it out so that it would not fluctuate too rapidly, but normally one would expect the Government credit rate to be lower, and, as I have said, in the last year it has been between 3/4 per cent. below and level with the local authority market borrowing rate.
It would be abnormal for the Government credit rate to be higher than the quota rate charged by the Public Works Loan Board, and normal for it to be lower—in the past, it has varied between nothing and ¾ per cent.—and the variation, I am now informed, would be between 4¾ and 5¾ per cent. So the benefit is absolute to local authorities not yet borrowing up to their full quota short-term, and whose access to the Public Works Loan Board will, therefore, be of definite benefit, and will add a slight charge on the rate of interest for those authorities which are of course causing the most risk by having the highest proportion of their money on short-term.
I have tried to answer most of the points which have been made in the debate. There will be other opportunities to raise them, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Mr. Hannan: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I asked a question about paragraph 13. It is true I was absent from the House for just a few moments while he was speaking. I wonder whether he could clarify that at all—about the proposal for temporary borrowing and the charge being higher in Scotland?
Mr. Macmillan: I did, in fact, answer the hon. Gentleman in his
516
absence. Happily for Scotland, he has got it the wrong way round. The proposal is removing the disability which was on Scotland, and the treatment of Scotland is equal though not superior to that of England and Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time
Bill committed to a Standing Comittee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [MONEY]
[Queen's Recommendation signified]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees.)
[Sir Robert Grimston in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to loans out of the Local Loans Fund, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the remission of unpaid balances of principal and all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of any loans specified for that purpose in the said Act;

(b) any increase in the sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund or in the moneys to be raised under the National Loans Act 1939 which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session increasing the limit in section 2(1) of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1950 on the sums which may be advanced to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland by way of loan under that section;

(c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums so payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

Mr. David Webster discharged from the Estimates Committee: Mr. Anthony Royle added.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to navy, army and air force reserves, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under any other Act attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session extending the operation of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act 1950 and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act1951.
Resolution agreed to.

SCOTLAND (SCHOOLS CODE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]
9.32 p.m.
Sir David Robertson: The matter I refer to tonight concerns the breaking of the law by the education authority in Caithness and by the Secretary of State for Scotland also, the law as laid down in the Schools (Scotland) Code, 1956, made on 8th June, laid before Parliament on 18th June, and coming into operation on 1st August.
This matter reached me on 17th July this year in Caithness, when I was asked to meet a body of citizens, including a number of teachers. I found it a very impressive meeting. I have forgotten many other meetings, but I will always remember that one, because they were extremely angry. They felt that this code, which lays down the regulations for Scotland, had been broken—and for no other purpose than to enable a certain person to get a job who was not qualified to get this job under this code.
The facts are as follows. There was a new school built in Penny land in 1962–63, I suppose to take up the additional children. Because of the siting of the atomic energy station in Dounreay, in Caithness, the population of Thurso, which used to be 3,000, has grown to about 10,000. I imagine that Miller Academy was bursting at the seams, and had too many children in the classes, and that this other school was built to relieve the pressure. The
518
director of education went up in May to Thurso from Wick, and he told the teachers in Miller Academy that the usual practice of advertising was not to be followed, but that the authority would try to take teachers in Miller Academy, who had become surplus, to the new school at Pennyland.
There was a fully qualified teacher, a Miss Grant, in Miller Academy, and she asked the director for the job. He said, "You are fully qualified, and have had 20 years' teaching experience, but we have not appointed a headmaster yet. We are going to advertise for one and it would hardly be fair to handicap a new headmaster with an infants' mistress without a year's probation".
Miss Grant said that under these conditions she would not dream of taking the job, although she had all the qualifications necessary, both by examination and experience. But it was only a ruse to keep her from getting the job. The director knew very well that no one with any spirit would accept a job under those conditions. That opened the door to the jobbery which came along afterwards.
On 19th July I wrote to the Secretary of State, giving all the facts. I always start like that. I never begin by putting in a Question to the Table. I have here a thick file of correspondence demonstrating my efforts to keep this case from becoming public and taking up the time of Parliament. It took a long time for a reply to arrive to my letter of 19th July. I did not accept that reply and so the thing went on. I was forced, in the end, to put down a Question. It will help hon. Members if I read out the exchange which took place in the House on 27th November last.
"Sir D. ROBERTSON asked the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason he has supported the temporary appointment of an infants mistress to a Thurso school who does not hold the qualifications appropriate to the post; and why no steps were taken to obtain applications for the appointment from teachers in Caithness or elsewhere who are qualified under the Schools (Scotland) Code, 1956.
Lady TWEEDSMUIR: As has been explained to the hon. Member, my right hon. Friend considers that the education authority acted reasonably. The teacher concerned was a certificated teacher already in their service and of proven ability, who undertook to obtain at summer courses the additional qualification necessary for a permanent appointment. The

519
authority already knew the appropriately qualified teachers in Caithness and their circumstances, and had given local teachers an assurance that promoted posts in this school would be filled as far as possible from teachers serving in it.
Sir D. ROBERTSON: When did it become possible for any Minister, either senior or junior, to override the law of Scotland and support a group who had broken it? Is the hon. Lady aware that this post is only one of dozens of posts and that all the others have been advertised but this one was not, and that the teachers of Caithness regard it as a piece of jobbery?
Lady TWEEDSMUIR: The Schools (Scotland) Code allows a certain amount of discretion to local school managers. The local authority's policy has, of course, been to fill promoted posts wherever possible. The teacher in question has been with the authority since 1958 and has undertaken to get the necessary infant mistress's endorsement
Mr. ROSS: Was there no one in the area with the requisite qualifications and, failing there being anyone in the area, was there no advertisement to ensure that somebody with the requisite qualifications could apply?
Lady TWEEDSMUIR: There was no advertisement of this post because the local authority had given an assurance to the local teachers that as far as possible it would try to fill the post from among the school's existing teachers, and the mistress in question had given very good service with great ability for some years and had undertaken to take the extra endorsement."—[Official Report, 27th November, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 252–3.]
I expressed dissatisfaction with my hon. Friend's replies and that is why we are discussing this tonight. I want to repeat her last words. She said:
"…the mistress in question had given very good service with great ability for some years and had undertaken to take the extra endorsement"
But the school opened in spring this year and I understand that now that they are found out this lady is to take the endorsement next year. The whole thing reeks of something radically wrong and the Scottish Education Department cannot be divorced from it.
There has never been a suggestion that Miss Grant, the first qualified lady in the Miller Academy, was other than a very competent teacher. In all this file of correspondence, there is not a word to suggest that. I hope that no such suggestion is made tonight. If it is, I will certainly deal with it. The post was never advertised. The post of the new headmaster was advertised, but every step was taken to ensure that this appointment came through.
520
During the years that I have been in the Northern Highlands I have found out from my early days that we have "fixers", people who can arrange things, curious people who are in the background and who wield some kind of influence. Without being immodest, I think I can say that I have forced a few of them out of business. I hope that it happens in this case, because this is a serious matter. Teachers are almost the most precious persons in this or any other country. Caithness has always had a very fine reputation, as have other Scottish counties and towns, for the quality of its teachers and teaching.
I felt that the men I met, the fellows who impressed me so much, had lost confidence and thought that if that kind of thing could go on it only pointed to the question, "What is the good of trying to teach children to behave and to be decent and honest citizens when jobbery of this kind can happen in a school?". I make it clear to my hon. Friend that I know the people concerned and that I have not the slightest doubt that this was complete jobbery and entirely contrary to the law. I am amazed that the Secretary of State for Scotland upheld it.
9.41 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), I do not know any of the people involved in this case. I know nothing of the teacher who has been appointed and none of the teachers in the area. However, it seems to me that they have a just grievance. It is important that we should have somewhere like the House of Commons where that grievance can be aired and, perhaps, something done to get rid of it.
I have always understood that when an infants' mistress is appointed everything possible is done to get a woman teacher with the infants' mistress endorsement. That means a teacher not only qualified as a teacher in general subjects but one who has given her time—sometimes during the summer, and it may be a number of summers—to take further training resulting in her receiving the infants' mistress endorsement. I have also understood that before she receives such endorsement one of Her Majesty's Inspectors goes to her school

521
to examine her work, and that it is only on that examination, over and above the extra classes which she has taken, that the infants' mistress finally receives the endorsement.
My first question to the noble Lady is whether there was no single woman teacher in the whole of this education authority area, not just the town involved, with the infants' mistress endorsement. It is the strangest story that I have ever heard when a director of an education authority says to a group of teachers in one school, Miller Academy, that, whatever promoted posts are going in the new school, they will be confined as far as possible to the teachers of Miller Academy. That was another grave injustice to all the teachers outside that Academy, and to any teacher in Caithness who had the infants' mistress qualification. When a complaint was made, the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to have inquired why this promise had ever been given to any group of teachers instead of replying to my hon. Friend as he did, "Well, this was a promise that was made."
If a teacher at the Miller Academy had this; qualification, she ought to have been considered before any other teacher in that education area. It is true that the Regulations provide that under special, circumstances a teacher who has not the necessary qualification can be appointed, but what are these special circumstances? The situation must be such that it is impossible to find a teacher with the requisite qualifications who is willing to take the job. My information—and no doubt the Undersecretary of State will tell me if I am wrong—is that women teachers with the necessary qualification were available for the job. Those teachers had to stand aside. They were not even interviewed to see whether they were otherwise suitable for the job.
I have no complaint against the lady who was given the appointment. I do not know her, and she may be a very good teacher. My complaint is that this appointment has caused discontent among those in the teaching profession in that area. The Under-Secretary of State knows how difficult it is to attract people to the teaching profession. She
522
knows what a muddle she and her right hon. Friends are in over the proposed payment of an extra £50, yet we move from muddle to muddle on that question.
The hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend ought jealously to guard the position of qualified teachers. I understand, and I can well believe it to be true, that the other teachers feel a great sense of injustice. They are aggrieved and frustrated because of this appointment. When this sort of thing happens the teachers become the worst recruiters for their own profession, and the right hon. Gentleman should therefore safeguard their rights to avoid them feeling any sense of grievance or frustration.
This unqualified teacher is in charge of an infants' department, with authority over qualified teachers. She has promised the Director of Education, or the education authority, that she will obtain the necessary qualifications at some time in the future. What will happen if she fails to get that qualification? What will happen if she obtains it and one of Her Majesty's Inspectors, after examining her work, her standards, and her methods of teaching, decides that she should not be given the infants mistress endorsement?
That sometimes happens. What a position the lady herself would be in, and what a position the director of education and the education authority would be in. Were these points taken into consideration by the Secretary of State when they were brought to his notice by the hon. Member? Unless the Under Secretary has an overwhelming case to show why this lady and no other teacher in this area should have been appointed, after tonight the sense of grievance in this area will be greater than ever. The fact that a post in a bright new school to which so many people want to go was not advertised has created a great deal of suspicion.
I want to hear something better than this foolish statement that a promise was given that wherever possible the promotions would come from this school. I want to know what was the real reason why, when the headmaster's post was advertised, the post of infants' mistress was not similarly advertised.
9.50 p.m.
Sir Myer Galpern: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I have no first-hand knowledge of the circumstances of this case, but I place great reliance on the accuracy of the statements made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). If the facts are as he has given them to the House this evening—and I have no reason to believe that they are not—there has been a grave miscarriage of justice to the teaching service in that area.
There is only one point about which I am not clear. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but I believe that he stated specifically that there was another teacher in the area who had the infants' mistress endorsement, and that he then made some qualification about a probationary period. I was not clear about that. Can he tell us what he meant by the probationary period?
Sir D. Robertson: This person is still at Miller Academy. She is fully qualified, with the Scottish three-year qualification, and she has been teaching for 20 years. The probation issue arose when she applied to the director of education for the job on 30th May, when he visited Miller Academy and spoke to the teachers. He was the man who said that it would not be fair to the headmaster, whom they had not yet engaged, to allow her to go there and take over as assistant mistress, and that she would need to undergo a probationary period of about a year.
Sir M. Galpern: The main point is that this lady had the infants' mistress endorsement, and the question was whether she should go to this school and serve first for a probationary period in order to see whether she would prove satisfactory to a headmaster who was still to be appointed. It seems strange that in the case of a teacher so qualified a headmaster still be to appointed had to be brought into the area first and had to vet the teacher. Surely the education authority itself was abundantly qualified to judge whether an individual was qualified—in terms of the academic requirements of the Act and the capabilities of the teacher—without reference to a headmaster still to be
524
appointed, asking him whether he would like Miss So-and-So to be the infants' mistress.
Now that this case has been brought to the House of Commons it will receive widespread publicity. It does not redound to the credit of the teaching profession or of the administration at St. Andrews House. Not long ago there were two similar cases in Glasgow, where teachers banded together and sent a protest to the Scottish Education Department referring to the proposed appointment of people whom they regarded as being not suitably qualified for certain posts because there were better qualified people, with longer periods of service, who had been passed over. On the occasion, the Scottish Office decided to hold up the appointments.
It seems a strange course of action that in the one case in Glasgow the Department decided to investigate the circumstances, and find whether there was a better qualified person for a particular promoted post than the one nominated by the education authority, yet in Caithness, where it would be more important to get a properly qualified teacher when one was so available, the Department took an entirely different action despite the protest of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
It is not long ago, as hon. Members will recollect, that we were discussing how to attract more people to the teaching profession. Many speeches were made then about promotion. We spent a considerable time on that and we incorporated in the Bill permission to local authorities to meet the wishes of the teaching profession by allowing the profession to nominate to education authorities and to have a greater say in promotion and be properly treated. Here we have a glaring case of a deliberate attack. I cannot characterise the action as anything less than one to destroy the faith which the Department is anxious to build up in the profession.
This matter will cause repercussions throughout Scotland and through the entire profession. It will give rise to the feeling that one cannot get to the top unless one knows the right people; as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, unless one knows the people who can fix things. That is

525
regrettable. I do not know what could be adduced against a teacher who has been callously passed over and who has the requisite qualifications, but has to submit herself to this iniquitous treatment and serve under a teacher who has not the requisite qualifications.
The very least that can be done to restore the faith of the people in the Caithness area and throughout Scotland generally in the belief that they will get a square deal by the Scottish Office is to ask this lady forthwith to resign her position and to restore the one who has the qualifications to this post. Too often in the past these promises have proved to be empty assertions on the part of teachers and once they have been put into posts under exceptional circumstances they usually have found some reason or other why they should not fulfil the promise they gave to acquire the higher qualification.
My experience in Glasgow has been that before the Scottish Education Department would allow us to appoint a teacher without the requisite qualifications it insisted that we should go through the motions of advertising the post. In this case, the Department seems to have dispensed with that, despite the fact that a serious attempt was made to do justice. I hope that unless the Under-Secretary can say something against the character of the person concerned, and can show that it is not possible for her to be in the charge of an infants' department, she will say that the Department will instal the teacher who was passed over and ask the other one to retire.
9.59 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): We have had a forceful and characteristic speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) ably supported by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). The words of the hon. Member from the far north did not accurately describe the circumstances of this case. Therefore, as he has been lucky enough to initiate this Adjournment debate with longer time available than is usually the case, I
526
should like to recapitulate, for the benefit of the House, the circumstances of this case.
I must take exception to the way in which the hon. Member attacked the education authority by using, once again, the word "jobbery" and even other words which I took down, such as that the members of the authority were "fixers" undertaking a ruse. The main point of this Adjournment is to draw attention to what my hon. Friend called a breach of the Schools (Scotland) Code. In my view, neither the suggestion of a breach is sound as he put it forward nor do I think, personally, that his attack on the authority is justified.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]
Lady Tweedsmuir: I should like to start with the rather narrow legal point of the terms of the Schools (Scotland) Code. The relevant sections are Regulations 4 and 5. Regulation 4 imposes certain requirements on authorities in making appointments to teaching posts. Briefly, these are that an education authority shall employ or arrange for the services of an adequate staff of certificated teachers holding the qualifications prescribed by the code for the posts in which they are employed.
The post in question in this case was that of an infant mistress. Regulation 5 prescribes that the appropriate qualification for an infant mistress is the Teacher's General Certificate with an endorsement to act as infant mistress.
If, however, we turn back to Regulation 4 we see that in certain circumstances—and this was brought out by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North—an authority may, at its discretion, appoint a teacher who is not qualified in terms of the code. The point at issue between the hon. Member and myself is whether the circumstances in this case were such that the authority was justified in appointing a teacher who, although certificated, did not hold the additional qualification appropriate for appointment as an infant mistress.

527
The hon. Gentleman described the circumstances, and I should like to go into a little more detail for the benefit of those hon. Members who have shown interest in the matter tonight. A new school, Pennyland Primary School, was opened at the beginning of the session 1962–63. The pupils entering the school were transferred from Miller Academy, which had become seriously overcrowded. In May, 1962, the director of education called a meeting of all primary teachers in Thurso and asked for volunteers to help staff the school. He explained to them that appointments to promoted posts within the school would be made, if possible, from among the staff recruited to the school and on the advice of the headmaster, once the headmaster had had time to see the staff in action. The hon. Member suggested that this probationary period, as he called it, would amount to at least a year. It was intended to amount to one term or, at the very most, two, but probably one term.
I should like shortly to go into greater detail over the circumstances of Miss Grant. It seems to me that in both these particulars—the taking of the local teachers into its confidence and the deferring of a final decision on promoted posts until the headmaster had had a chance to assess the quality of his staff—the authority went out of its way to follow the type of practice which teachers and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been advocating for many years—in other words, good, sound personal relationships.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North may recall the report of the Working Party on Relations between Education Authorities and Teachers which was set up by my right hon. Friend's predecessor and which included representatives of teachers' associations. The working party considered the two methods normally adopted in the promotion of teachers—first, inviting applications by public advertisement from all teachers with appropriate qualifications, and secondly, giving preference to teachers already in the authority's service.
While the working party felt unable to express an opinion on the relative merits of these two methods, beyond saying that it would be undesirable for
528
either to be followed too rigidly, it pointed out that the second
"which is designed to give teachers reasonable prospects of promotion within a more restricted area, has obvious advantages for the teachers in areas where it is practised."
Miss Herbison: I have no objection at all to the part which the noble Lady has read from the Report. Indeed, that was what I based my case on. I said the whole education authority area, whereas this was confining any promoted post to one school in the area. What the hon. Lady quoted to us in no way supports her case. It supports my case.
Lady Tweedsmuir: Before returning to that point, I should like to continue by saying this. On the first method—advertisement—it is possible to say now, looking back on all these circumstances, that perhaps the authority would have been wiser to have advertised the post, as the hon. Lady said, perhaps throughout Scotland as well as in Caithness.
But it is very important to keep a proper sense of proportion and to bear in mind the following factors. First, it has been the authority's practice for many years to promote as far as possible teachers who are already in service with the authority and hold posts in the schools concerned. Secondly, this practice has been warmly endorsed by the local teachers. Indeed, this appointment is no exception. I understand that it is very popular in Pennyland School. I understand that it is in the few cases where the authority has felt impelled to advertise that it has met with opposition from teachers in its service.
Miss Herbison: If the hon. Lady has a case, she is ruining it. I have tried to explain that I accept that most local authorities for a position of infant mistress do the advertising through the schools but covering the whole area over which they have control. We have no objection to that. That is what we say should have been done in this area.
Sir M. Galpern: Does not the Scottish Education Department, before allowing the code to be broken by the appointment of a teacher not qualified for a specific post, insist upon advertising? Only when the authority can show that it was unable to attract any applicants for the post should the Department give power to appoint somebody who is not qualified.
Lady Tweedsmuir: The answer is "No, Sir", because, as I have already explained, the School (Scotland) Code allows these two methods, one of which does not involve the advertisement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I must conclude the description of this case, because unless it is seen as a whole, these interruptions rather impede the flow of the argument. It must be remembered that Caithness, as the hon. Member who represents it knows very well, is an exceptionally sparsely populated county. So it is possible for the education authority to know the disposition and quality of the staff whom it can draw in a way which would be quite impossible in a more populous area.
I return to the point raised by the hon. Lady about the teachers who were or were not available in the area.
Mr. E. G. Willis: If the authority knew the qualifications of these teachers so well, why the year's probation?
Lady Tweedsmuir: I fear that the hon. Gentleman, who usually listens with such attention to what is said in the House, did not hear me say that it was not a year's probation, but one term or, at the most, two.
One of the teachers to whom the post was made known at this stage held the infants' mistress endorsement. This was the Miss Grant to whom reference has been made. She volunteered to transfer to the new school and the expectation was that she would have been appointed to the post of infant mistress in due course. Unfortunately, however, shortly after the meeting at which the director of education made known his plans for the staffing of the school, she withdrew her application on the ground that she was a sufficiently experienced teacher to be given the job straight away without the headmaster assessing her work in the new school.
It is probably quite clear that had she continued with her original application—this is almost certainly so—she would have been appointed infants' mistress at the end of the second term. It was made clear to her that her pay would probably have been backdated to the beginning of her appointment there. However, she withdrew and, as a result, the other lady—who has not been named tonight; she
530
is a Mrs. pearson, a certificated teacher who does not hold the appropriate endorsement—carried out the duties of infants' mistress acting in an unpaid capacity.
She proved in the eyes of the headmaster and our District Inspector of Schools to be an excellent teacher for the job. Accordingly, in April, 1963, the headmaster recommended that she should be formally appointed to the post. Because the teacher did not hold the additional qualification prescribed by the code, the authority could not appoint her to a permanent post without the approval of the Secretary of State. However, the authority was within its rights to appoint her, as it did, on a temporary basis without reference to my right hon. Friend.
Sir D. Robertson: Would my hon. Friend quote the words from the code which cover that point?
Lady Tweedsmuir: Certainly, I had intended to come to that. There appear to be a large number of interventions from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland tonight.
The hon. Member for Shettleston asked how anyone could be assured that Mrs. Pearson's wish to take the course which would entitle her to the infants' mistress endorsement was not merely hopeful aspirations. Would that not mean that she would remain indefinitely in a kind of temporary post without getting the endorsement he asked. It was unfortunate that she did not start the course then, due to domestic and personal reasons. Because she has to go to a College of Education, she will have to take the course for two periods, in 1964 and 1965. It is perfectly clear, however, that if she cannot get these qualifications something else will have to be done.
As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland strenuously pointed out, where teachers who do not hold the appropriate qualifications for a particular post are appointed temporarily to it, the authority is enjoined, in terms of the code, to continue to "take all reasonable steps" to recruit teachers with these qualifications. I fully accept that it is a natural and reasonable interpretation of this section of the code that an authority should advertise the post

531
or circularise it among its own staff, depending on the policy it follows in this matter.
But in the circumstances of this case the Authority took the view that, first, this would be pointless, since from its knowledge of the disposition of the staff in its area it was sure that it would not get any suitable applicants; and, secondly, that this would be undesirable, since in its consultations with the local primary school teachers it had given an undertaking that promoted posts in the school would be filled by teachers recruited to it.
Furthermore, they thought that it was unnecessary because the certificated teacher appointed in a temporary capacity had undertaken to obtain the appropriate qualifications by courses of in-service training. It was quite clear in her mind and in the mind of the authority at the time of her appointment that she should take the appropriate training course. I should explain why this course will take so long. Teachers living near colleges of education can take the college classes on Saturday mornings, but those living outside travelling distance must take the classes in two successive summer courses of two weeks each.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North pointed out, during school session both they and teachers attending Saturday morning classes receive practical supervision in the form of visits from college lecturers and there are of course visits from inspectors of schools.
Normally, new infants' mistress courses start at Moray House and Jordanhill each year, but at Dundee and Aberdeen, which are the nearest, only every second year because of the smaller number of applicants. In the summer of 1964, Aberdeen College will be doing the second part of the course only and it is expected that Mrs. Pearson will go to the Jordanhill courses. All this, the original meeting and the opening of Pennyland, took place in August, 1962, at which time the director of education informed the Educational Institute of Scotland of these matters. No objection whatsoever was raised by them until June, 1963. I think that in the circumstances of this case, realising that it is
532
a temporary appointment and that these summer courses are going to be undertaken, the authority, which has latitude under the Schools (Scotland) Code, is acting in a reasonable way.
I would also say, particularly because of the pleas made by two hon. Members opposite who spoke of the shortage of teachers and the difficulty of getting them in all parts of Scotland, that I hope that the pressure of publicity which has resulted from the zeal of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in alleging a breach of the regulations, does not have the one serious and important effect of forcing out of service a good teacher whom we can ill afford to lose. I understand that the teacher concerned, Mrs. Pearson—and I think that the House of Commons always recognises these personal problems of a particular teacher—in view of the publicity is under a great nervous strain. She is said to have asked for and to have received police protection from reporters and, in the words of the director of education:
"If this goes on much longer I will not have an infants' mistress."
Sir D. Robertson: Will the hon. Lady read to the House, and not slur over it as she did in her speech, the exact clause or subsections where she justifies the appointment of an unqualified person when there are qualified persons available? I have not found it, nor have the lawyers who have been looking into this case for the Institute in Caithness.
Lady Tweedsmuir: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Schools (Scotland) Code, of which I sent him a copy and, therefore, I know that he has it, he will find on page 5 in Regulation 4(3,b) that it is laid down that the education authority may
"appoint temporarily to the said post a certificated teacher who does not hold the qualifications appropriate to the post or an uncertificated teacher, provided that they shall continue to take all reasonable steps to obtain applications for appointment to the post from certificated teachers holding qualifications appropriate to the post."
Then, in Regulation 5(2), it is provided that one must have the necessary infant endorsement.
As I pointed out earlier, and as the Report of the Working Party on the Relations between Education Authorities

533
and Teachers said, there are the two main methods of proceedings, either by advertisement or by promotion from among teachers in the employ of the local authority. Therefore, in the circumstances, in view of the assurance given that a very able teacher will get the extra endorsement, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that this lady should be left in peace to carry on her excellent work.
10.21 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: The Under-Secretary of State has given a most unsatisfactory answer to the debate. Nobody wishes to place the lady who is now the infants' mistress in an uncomfortable position, but, at the same time, one has to see that justice is done to the other lady. By far the greater part of the Under-Secretary of State's speech was devoted to a justification of this appointment. It seemed to me that she protested too much. This was not so much in question as the manner in which the other lady was treated.
As I understand them, the facts are quite simple. Here was a lady with 20 year's experience, fully qualified, with her endorsement, and, in the words of the noble Lady herself, working under an authority in which the education committee and the education officer would know her qualifications and record. She offers herself for the post. I am not quite sure what happened then, but, as I understand, she was told that she had to serve a probation period. In fact, the headmaster was not even appointed, so I do not know who said this.
This seems to be an intolerable situation in which to put a lady with this record. Quite rightly, she asked, "Why should I have to serve this probation period?". The noble Lady has spoken for 20 minutes, but she has not told us why this particular infants' mistress had to serve a probation period. Why was she told? If she had not been told that, the whole business would not have arisen. Is this customary in the circumstances? These are the questions to which we should have answers, but we are still left asking ourselves why Miss Grant was not appointed.
Why was Miss Grant subjected to such treatment? Did the education
534
officer or the education committee have information about her which would disqualify her or lead the committee to say, "True, you have served us very well for 20 years. You are very competent. You are highly qualified. But, in spite of all this, we are going to make you serve a probation period"?
It is an intolerable state of affairs. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has an excellent case, and the noble Lady has not yet answered it. She has said nothing at all about the matters which I have raised, which seem to me, at least, to be at the kernel of the case.
Mr. A. Woodburn: If I understood it correctly, the part of the code which the noble Lady read out assumed that the appointment of an unqualified or un-certificated person was that the authority had not yet found anyone else. I gather that when a temporary appointment is made, it is the business of the authority to get busy and find someone with the necessary qualifications. Although it is not said directly, the inference seems to be that it is only permissible to make this type of temporary appointment when there is no person with the requisite qualifications available. Can the noble Lady confirm that?
Lady Tweedsmuir: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak briefly again.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked me specifically why Miss Grant was asked to serve, as he calls it, a probationary period. It was because appointment to a promoted post, which is what is in question, is not a matter of right on the basis of qualifications. It is made on merit as well. It seemed reasonable that, in anew school with a new headmaster, he should have some say in the appointment and the final promotion of those who were going to serve in the school.
Mr. Willis: The noble Lady will recall that during her speech she told us that the very fact that this was a small authority meant that the education officer knew the qualifications of the people in it. Anyone who knows Caithness knows that this is not a large authority. The numbers involved are very small. As the noble Lady quite

535
rightly said, the education officer knew what this woman was like. He had employed her for 20 years and knew all about her. Therefore, why was she required to undergo a probationary period?
Miss Herbison: Since the noble Lady is so keen to support the idea that the lady in question should have a probationary period under a headmaster who had not yet been appointed, may I ask under whom the headmaster should have served his probationary period to discover whether he was suitable? Does not the noble Lady think that it was a shocking indignity to put on the head of any woman to say that she had to be vetted by a headmaster who had not to serve a probationary period?
The Under-Secretary of State cannot put the onus on us for the trouble that the lady doing the job, and perhaps doing it very well, is suffering. That trouble stems from the injustice which has run right through this case.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I think that the matter which has really distressed the education authority and committee very much is the words used by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland accusing them of jobbery, and of being fixers and much worse things. I understand that they are very upset about that indeed.
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), if I can remember his question rightly, asked whether this should have been done only by public advertisement or whether there was any other method by which the appointment could be made?
Mr. Woodburn: The noble Lady read out a condition in the code. I gathered that the inference was that only if somebody with suitable qualifications could
536
not be found should a temporary appointment be made and that thereafter, at the earliest possible moment, someone with the necessary qualifications should be found. Since that is said, is there not clearly an unwritten instruction that only qualified people should be appointed?
Lady Tweedsmuir: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not quite heard what I said. This lady is a certificated teacher, but she needs the extra endorsement. She is not an uncertificated teacher. The provision in the code which I read out says that the authority has discretion to appoint temporarily—this is a temporary appointment—a teacher and after that to take all reasonable steps to get a fully qualified teacher. The reasonable steps which it is taking are to ensure that this particular certificated teacher shall take, through summer courses, the infant mistress endorsement which will ensure that she is a fully qualified teacher.
Surely the real point behind this debate is whether, taking into account the discretion which is clearly given within this code to local authorities and which I have read out this evening, the authority has acted in a reasonable manner in a sparsely populated district in opening a new school and trying to make a success of it with teachers who have been in their employment for some time. I suggest to the House that when Miss Grant withdrew her application the authority acted in a reasonable manner to give—
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned a half-past Ten o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Arms Reduction Study
  Arms Reduction Study
  Nurses
  Nurses
BRITISH ARMY
  Bedding Contract
  Bedding Contract
SCOTLAND
  Derelict Sites
  Derelict Sites
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Local Authorities (Interest and Capital Debt)
  Local Authorities (Interest and Capital Debt)
ROADS
  Felhurst Crescent, Dagenham
  Felhurst Crescent, Dagenham
  Motorways (Illuminated Signs)
  Motorways (Illuminated Signs)
  M.4 (Berkshire and Wiltshire)
  M.4 (Berkshire and Wiltshire)
  North Circular Road (Underpass)
  North Circular Road (Underpass)
  Parking (London)
  Parking (London)
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  North Orbital Road
  North Orbital Road
  Traffic Restrictions (Uniformity)
  Traffic Restrictions (Uniformity)
  Osborne Road, Windsor
  Osborne Road, Windsor
  Relief Road, Windsor
  Relief Road, Windsor
TRANSPORT
  Cycles (Rear Lamps)
  Cycles (Rear Lamps)
RAILWAYS
  Rail Closures, Dorset
  Rail Closures, Dorset
  Somerset and Dorset Line
  Somerset and Dorset Line
SHIPPING
  Land's End (Light and Fog Signal)
  Land's End (Light and Fog Signal)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Piccadilly Circus
  Piccadilly Circus
ROYAL NAVY
  Leave Warrants (Air Travel)
  Leave Warrants (Air Travel)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Boy Entrants
  Boy Entrants
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Grey Seal and Fisheries
  Grey Seal and Fisheries
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Gatwick Airport (Runway Extension)
  Gatwick Airport (Runway Extension)
  Travel Agents
  Travel Agents
EDUCATION
  Secondary Education, Surrey
  Secondary Education, Surrey
  Grammar School Education
  Grammar School Education
  Classes (Size)
  Classes (Size)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Students)
  Universities and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Students)
  FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION
  FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION
GHANA
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Stalybridge and Hyde
  Stalybridge and Hyde
  Capital Investment Programme
  Capital Investment Programme
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Bridges Committee (Report)
  Bridges Committee (Report)

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

BRITISH FORCES IN KENYA
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what forces will move to the United Kingdom and to Aden respectively from Kenya after independence; and what forces will remain in Kenya and for how long.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, in accordance with the agreement announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies after his talks with Kenya Ministers last June, and published in Command Paper No. 2082, we plan a phased withdrawal of our forces based in Kenya over a period of twelve months from independence day, to-morrow. Most of the main Army units concerned will return to the United Kingdom. Headquarters 24 Brigade and certain of its support units will be transferred to Aden.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him whether the Government have obtained full landing rights in Nairobi to support the Kenya Government in an effective evacuation of European personnel in the unhappy event of inter-tribal fighting?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that is really rather another question. But I should like to reaffirm what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in our debate on Kenya last July; namely, that we do not contemplate
1200
the use of British troops in circumstances which would amount to an interference in the internal affairs of an independent Commonwealth country.

BRITISH LOW-LEVEL MISSILE TEST
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the test of a new low-level air-launched missile to supersede Blue Steel.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there have been no tests on a new missile to supersede Blue Steel. In recent tests, however, Blue Steel itself has been successfully launched at low level at Woomera.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend by how many years it is expected that the life of the V-bomber force will be extended as a result of the Blue Steel capability which is now revealed by the discovery of this new weapon?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should not like to go too closely into precise years, but I think it has been made quite clear to your Lordships' House on previous occasions that we certainly envisage that the V-bomber force will be operational until the Polaris submarine force comes into operation. The development to which my noble friend's Question was addressed is one of the special measures being taken to improve the operational capacity of V-bombers during this period.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, in view of the Answer he has given, whether it is the Government's intention to modify the V-bombers so that they may become low-level attack aircraft?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should prefer not to give an off-the-cuff reply to the noble Lord's question. If he would put a Question down on that subject, I will then answer it.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether or not the experiments which have been carried out with Blue Steel have actually been done with other than the V-bomber force?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, when the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition reads the Answer which I gave to my noble friend on this Question I think he will see that his Question was answered there.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, did not the noble Earl say that the new low-level or launched missile was to be used by the V-bomber force? Was it not intended that such a missile should be used by the TSR 2?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not quite catch what the noble Lord said.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I am surprised to hear that the V-bomber force is to have the advantage of this new missile. Is it the case that it is not intended for the TSR 2?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am certain that if it is suitable for the V-bomber force it will be equally suitable for the TSR 2. If there is a technical difficulty here, which I discern from the noble Lord's supplementary, I shall be glad to answer it if he will put down a specific Question.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not fairly obvious that if we are going to use V-bombers at low level they will be shot to pieces?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the Answer to the noble Earl's supplementary is definitely, No.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether he is getting confused with the old Mark II Blue Steel, which, like so many weapons, has already been cancelled? Is it, in fact, being revived? Since, as I understand it, there is no possibility of using the V-bomber force in the sense that has been suggested, can he not then say whether this is connected with the weapon which the TSR 2 is intended to use, which is a totally different weapon from Blue Steel as originally designed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I have given an absolutely clear and specific Answer to the original Question which was put to me. I am quite prepared to answer further questions on this, but I should much prefer, in an area of which I have not first-hand knowledge, to answer specific Questions put down on the Order Paper.

MEMBERSHIP OF PUBLIC BOARDS
2.43 p.m.
LORD REITH: 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, in the list of members of public Boards of a commercial character (Cmnd. 1903), they will consider in future distinguishing, by use of an asterisk or otherwise, those members who have previously served as civil servants, or as members of the Foreign Service, or as Regular officers in the Armed Forces.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): No, my Lords.
LORD REITH: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether that is a right Answer to give? I think it is inadequate, unhelpful and extremely rude.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will put it another way. The answer is in the negative.
LORD REITH: I have two words: petitio principii.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, might I ask the Minister whether he would think it proper that, in the event of Her Majesty's Government deciding to answer this Question in the affirmative, they would consider it right to apply a similar stigma to firms acting under private enterprise, many hundreds of which have directors and chairmen drawn from the prescribed classes.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it might also be right to disclose any discreditable antecedents which we might discover about the other members of the public Boards.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be reasonable to give information to Members of both Houses of Parliament with regard to the records of people of the actual service which suits them for the particular job? This is a matter of courtesy to the House. Surely we should not have had such an Answer as we have had to-day.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not agree at all, my Lords. Anybody who wants to know anything about the past history of any member in the published list of these public Boards can easily look it up in a standard book of reference. There is no good reason either to distinguish or to stigmatise any class of members of these Boards, whether they are civil servants, ex-Army officers, or anybody else with an asterisk. It seems to me a new variation of the doctrine of apartheid.
LORD REITH: My Lords, it is quite clear that the Government think there is something here to hide.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, you are not going to reveal it so plainly with nothing more than an asterisk, and I would suggest that if you are going to reveal what may be considered discreditable about one member, you should do it about all of them.

UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS
2.46 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: 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 how many suitably qualified applicants were dealt with by the Universities Central Council on Admissions, prior to the start of the academic year 1963–64; how many were found places in universities and other institutions of higher education; and how many were unable to be placed.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, I understand that the Universities Central Council on Admissions will report on this year's operations early next year. The Council is responsible
1204
to the universities, who are themselves the judges of which applicants are suitably qualified for admission to the courses of study each wishes to pursue.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I ask who pays for the Council? I am not criticising the Council in any way, nor, indeed, ungrateful to the noble Earl for his Answer, because I am glad that the information is to be given in January and, I take it, will be given publicly. Who pays for the Council?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, this is, of course, the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of replying to your Lordships, and perhaps I may be proved wrong. As I understand it, this Council is paid for out of funds from Her Majesty's Government, but in fact it is not the Government who are responsible for their operations.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not the fact, however, that the Government already know that it was not possible to find the number of places required for qualified candidates to get into universities on this occasion?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I deplore the implications in the noble Earl's remarks.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: There are no implications at all.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: We have heard from Mr. Harold Wilson the attack which he made on the Council, and I feel that I am here to defend it. This Council was set up after long negotiations between the universities. It represents a great step forward in providing a clearing-house for applications for admissions, and the attack and implication which the noble Earl has made in supporting the criticism made by Mr. Harold Wilson in another place is, I feel, unwarrantable. The Council has itself denied all responsibility for the allegation which has been made.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl has replied by an attack upon me and Mr. Harold Wilson to a question which did not require that sort of answer at all. I asked whether Her Majesty's

1205
Government knew, and know now, that hundreds of students who were qualified could not obtain places in the universities because there was no accommodation available to them. That is the question I want answered.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think we must wait until the figures are published in January.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is about time you withdrew your last answer to me, which was profoundly rude. Not a very good beginning.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am not hostile in any way to this particular body, nor was my question intended as a hostile question. I happen to admire the work of this body very much indeed. I am interested to find, however, that the noble Earl is prepared to defend it, but not to answer about it. This is a peculiar and a new constitutional doctrine, which I think we shall be enlarging upon in a few minutes.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: No doubt we shall, my Lords. I apologise to the noble Earl if he felt that in my first answers to Questions I went beyond what I should have done. I apologise for that, but I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, will agree that it is an indispensable part of academic freedom that entrance procedures should be in the hands of the universities. The Government warmly welcome the decision of the universities to establish clearing-house arrangements, but have always made it clear that they are a university responsibility.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this is a very simple question which has been complicated by the noble Earl. The simple question is: how many suitable applicants were there for entry to the universities, and how many were not able to find places? The noble Earl said that we must wait for publication. Are the figures available now? If they are, cannot we have them?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I really must correct a misunderstanding. We are not suggesting that the universities should not be responsible for their entrants. In fact, it is our wish that they should be responsible for their entrants.
1206
I do not think the noble Earl should impute that motive to our Question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Earl assure us that those students who qualified for a university education and who have not been accommodated this year will be offered a place next year?
EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think another Question should perhaps be put down about that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, could I ask my noble friend whether all these applicants were suitably qualified in the opinions of the universities concerned, or just in the opinion of the Central Council on Admissions?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, as the question was directed to Her Majesty's Government and we accept that the Council itself may not be able to give these particular figures, whether it is not a fact that the Ministry of Education itself must be aware of the position? As the Question has been directed to Her Majesty's Government, may I ask whether the facts are not available to Her Majesty's Government? If the Minister has not got them now and we were to put down a Question for answer next week, could he give us a reply then?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I will certainly make immediate inquiries to see what will be possible.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
Order of the day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(a) Library
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee, V. Simonds (Chairman). V. Soulbury, L. Amulree, L. Burden, L. Carrington, L. Chorley, L. Merthyr, L. Reid, B. Wootton of Abinger and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(b) Refreshment Department
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, L. Amulree. L. Killearn, L. Macpherson of Drumochter. L. Shepherd. B. Swanborough, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, with

1207
power to co-opt further members and to appoint its own Chairman.
(c) House of Lords' Estimates
The Sub-Committee on the House of Lords' Estimates was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, E. Lucan, L. Amulree and L. Merthyr (Chairman).
2. PICTURES
The Committee were informed of the completion of the portrait of the Marquess of Cholmondeley now hanging in the Cholmondeley Room and of the continued progress of the painting of the House in session.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE AND LIBRARY
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the following appointments:—

(a) Mr. Peter Gordon Henderson to be Principal Clerk of Public Bills in the place of Mr. Robert Westby Perceval from August 10, 1963.

(b) Mr. John Victor Duncombe Webb to be Chief Clerk, Committee and Private Bill Office.

(c) Mr. Roger Hugh Vaughan Charles Morgan (lately Senior Library Clerk in the House of Commons) to be Assistant Librarian in the place of Mr. Robin Murray Price from October 1, 1963.

4. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—
E.C. 24/63 Pay of the Higher Civil Service;
E.C. 25/63 Between the Principal's maxi, mum and the Assistant Secretary's minimum
to analogous grades of Officers of the House of Lords.
The Committee also authorised a revised scale of salary for the Accountant as from April 1, 1963.
5. ESTIMATES
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1964–65 were laid before the Committee and approved.
6. RETIREMENTS
The Committee learned with regret of the retirement on January 1, 1964, of Mr. H. M. Burrows. C.B.E., the Clerk Assistant, and expressed their unanimous appreciation of his 38 years in the service of the House. The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance to him under the Superannuation Acts.
The Committee also sanctioned the payment of the following awards under the Superannuation Acts:—

(a) pension and additional allowance to Mr. Alfred John Dadswell, the Principal Doorkeeper, on his retirement on December 31, 1963:

(b) pension and additional allowance to Mr. Alfred Elias Green, Leading Custodian Fireman, on his retirement on February 23, 1964;

(c) revised pension and additional allowance to Mr. George Charles Searle, Inspector of Custodians, who retired on September 29, 1963;

(d) revised gratuity to Mr. Edward George Herbert, Custodian, who retired on August 7, 1963.

7. HEAD HOUSEMAID
The Committee authorised an increase in the allowance to the Head Housemaid in the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department.
8. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the arrangements for delivery of Opinions in Appeals to the House of Lords in accordance with Practice Direction dated November 21, 1963, and of the effect on the remuneration of the Official Shorthand Writer. The Clerk of the Parliaments was asked to negotiate a settlement, subject to Treasury approval, with the Official Shorthand Writer (the settlement to take immediate effect); and to report to the Committee at its next meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HIGHER EDUCATION
2.52 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR rose to call attention to the Robbins Report (Cmnd. 2154), to the years of crisis facing higher education in Britain, and to the need for immediate and long-term action; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a debate about boys and girls. We are having it because they have been doing so well at school—far better than we did, and better than ever before. They are the real heroes and heroines of the story; but they are also the niggers in the woodpile, though I hasten to add that it is our fault rather than theirs. The problem is that there are so many of them. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, tells us that there will be 936,000 18-year-olds in two years' time, which is more than ever before in history. These two facts put together—the unparalleled success of the boys and girls in the sixth forms of our schools in reaching university entrance standards and the post-war increase in the birth rate—are the cause of the crisis which has led to the Robbins Report on Higher Education.
My Lords, we shall be hearing a great deal about statistics in this debate, and I am going to begin with a very simple one. Our debate is going on for two days, for at least for twelve and perhaps for fourteen hours. When I speak to your Lordships my speed averages about 130 words a minute, which is on the high side, though not as high as the speed of my noble friend Lord Longford, who is the quickest speaker, I think, in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: What about Lord St. Oswald?
LORD TAYLOR: If we take an average of about 120 words a minute, in the course of the next two days we shall be uttering something like 12 times 60 times 120 words, making 86,400 words—the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is very good at sums, will correct me if I am wrong—and if we go on for fourteen hours the figure will be over 100,000.
Among the twenty-five noble Lords who will be speaking are some of the wisest people in the land. They include the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who will, I hope, be saying something about the selection of students; the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of London, who I know knows a great deal about higher education overseas; my noble friend Lord Todd, who advises the Government on science; the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, who, until to-day, advised the Government on medicine; the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, the former headmaster of a great public school and the Vice-Chancellor of what will soon be a great university; the noble Lord, Lord McNair, whose report on the training of teachers was a very important advance in our history; and not least, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and many others.
In listening to this great volume of distilled wisdom I hope your Lordships will all the time remember that it is about young boys and girls and their future that we shall be talking. They are looking forward to their careers as scientists or teachers, as doctors or clergymen, as engineers or architects, lawyers or civil servants, business men or perhaps even politicians; and their road to these careers is now almost
1210
entirely through higher education, particularly through the universities. Unless we act now, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, tells us to act, the bars will be up for many of them and there will be no room for them in the inn.
To meet their need means change in our well-established ways; change on a huge and unprecedented scale; and such change is always painful to many of us. Robbins is bound to hurt. No one can escape from the unpleasantness of over-large classes in the universities at the start; from the appalling difficulties of housing these young people; from some loss of time and leisure for research in the next five years. But unless we face these changes we must bang the doors of our universities in many young and eager faces. Surely, this is a challenge to which we must respond in a determination to give them at least as good an opportunity as we had, or as their brothers and sisters had only five years ago.
To attempt to cover the whole field in an opening speech would be both foolish and unnecessary. To-day my noble friend Lord Greenhill will be speaking about adult education, to which he has given a life-time of service. To-morrow my noble friend Lord Silkin will be dealing with the place of the arts in higher education and also, I hope, with the very important subject of the teacher training colleges, or colleges of education, as Robbins would have us call them. My noble friend Lord Chorley will, I expect, be speaking for many of the teachers in our universities, and my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be dealing with training for business and the need for schools of business administration on the lines of that at Harvard. My noble friend Lord Longford will certainly be speaking about ministerial responsibility as, I hope, will also the noble Lord, Lord Eccles.
This afternoon, in a very little while, we shall be having the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, as a Minister, and I may say that we are looking forward to it very much, and I will not take to heart his recent remarks. We shall, however, I must confess, miss his predecessor's erudition and ebullience and also his occasional excursions into science fiction; but we wish the noble

1211
Earl well in his new work. Then, winding up, we shall have the ripe wisdom of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I always admire his wonderful capacity to speak without a note. I do not know whether he will do so to-morrow, but I hope he will answer all our questions whether or not he has any notes. So we shall be having a multilateral, mixed force. I hope we shall attack the target area.
When the Robbins Committee were appointed there were two courses open to them. They might, as second-rate committees have done since time immemorial, have taken the evidence, raised their finger to the wind to see which way it was blowing, and then played for safety, and in due course they would have slipped back into richly deserved obscurity. Or they might have sought out the true facts of the situation by every means in their power. They might have evaluated the evidence for what it was worth—and some of it was worth a great deal and some of it was no more than a plea for the maintenance of the status quo—and then worked out the best solution of which human minds were capable: and this is, I think, precisely what they did. That is why the Robbins Report now stands beside the Beveridge Report, and the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law of 1909, which some of your Lordships may remember, as one of the great social documents of our age.
I suspect that the Government chose Robbins because they regarded him as a safe man. He is not quite as safe, though, as he looks. I think they thought he was a sound orthodox economist who would not be taken in by a lot of clever radicals. It so happens that Lord Robbins is a first-class social and economic scientist who would not be content with anything less than the truth and who would follow it wherever it led.
The Robbins Report has been claimed as a victory for the expansionists. It is not: it is a victory for sober statistical science over emotionally motivated prejudice. Lord Robbins is one of the great figures of the London School of Economics, as also was Lord Beveridge, and it was the authors of the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on
1212
the Poor Law, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, who founded the London School of Economics; and so we always come back to those old Fabians who built far better than they knew and are still building the social fabric of our country. We are in for another full dose of Fabian Socialism, and I cannot help being a little amused at the thought that it was the first duty of our first aristocratic Conservative Prime Minister for the past sixty years to announce his acceptance of it.
I learned the details of the Robbins Committee recommendations at the Brunel College of Technology just at the moment of its publication, and almost immediately afterwards I was due to make a television broadcast about it. And as I read them through, I could hardly believe my eyes. I must say I felt a tremendous inner glow of satisfaction, for I realised straight away two things. The first was that Lord Robbins's conclusions were in almost every respect identical with our Labour Party report on higher education, The Years of Crisis, which we had published seven months before. And incidentally there had been a good deal of laughter when we said what would have to be done. However, those people are perhaps laughing in another sort of way now. I knew then what I was not sure of before, and that was that we, in our amateur way, had managed to do our sums right. Lord Robbins's exercise in statistics is a very great exercise indeed. A wonderful collection of social work has been put into this Report. It proves its case up to the hilt, and I do not think there can be any real argument if one takes the trouble to read it—but I am afraid a lot of people who are criticising it now have not yet taken that trouble.
When I had read those conclusions, the second thing I realised was that because Lord Robbins's findings were virtually the same as ours the Government was bound to accept them, for obvious political reasons, though I must confess I was a little surprised at the speed with which the Government accepted them. Lord Robbins starts off with an axiom: that courses of higher education should be available for all who are qualified by ability or attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so. We, in our little document,

1213
The Years of Crisis, had used almost exactly the same words:
"We start from the assumption that all young people should be able to receive higher education to whatever extent their capabilities fit them to benefit from it. All boys and girls who gain entrance qualifications should be able, if they wish, to gain a place."
The Government has accepted the axiom of Lord Robbins without modification, and this is a wonderful charter for the young people of our country.
Note that the criterion is the ability and attainment of the boys and girls, and not the national needs for the products of higher education. Lord Robbins tells a little story of how he was talking to the Rector of Moscow University and said to him (and he will correct me if I have got it wrong), "Here you are, in Russia, producing all these young people with higher qualifications. Can you be sure of absorbing them in the U.S.S.R.?" The Rector of Moscow University replied, "In the U.S.S.R. we can be certain of doing this", and Lord Robbins went on, "Surely in Britain we must be able to do as well as they can"; and I entirely agree with that.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may interrupt the noble Lord to make a slight correction? It was not the Rector of Moscow University; it was an official of the Gosplan.
LORD TAYLOR: I readily accept the noble Lord's correction; I was quoting from memory. I think I am right in attributing to the noble Lord his following remark that we should do as well.
Notice something else. The proposals in the Robbins Report seem almost astronomical in terms of what we are used to, but they are no more proportionately—in fact they are rather less—than our great neighbours, the United States, the U.S.S.R. and France are doing or proposing to do. We differ from these three great countries in one important way; we have to earn our living in the world, not by exploiting our own soil or raw materials but by the use of our brain power. So if we are prudent we ought to be doing proportionately more to nourish that brain power than are our great neighbours. To those who are more concerned with the balance of payments and standard of living than with the duties of democracy
1214
towards its citizens I would say, Robbins is the absolute minimum for survival, and time is not in our favour. Already there are faint hearts who are up in arms telling us the thing is being rushed too fast. I remember they said exactly the same thing about the National Health Service; yet we did not hear the sick people complaining. It is just the same now; we do not hear the boys and girls complaining. We must rush, because to-morrow will be too late. These boys and girls are growing up now and we must be ready for them.
I said that the Robbins axiom was built on ability and attainment. This leads to our first great question: what are to be the criteria we use in judging the necessary ability and attainment? We can determine the size of the problem we have to solve simply by varying the mesh of the net we use to catch or reject the students of to-morrow. In other words, if we make things tough enough, we can cut the numbers to any extent we wish. Lord Robbins broadly assumed the continuation of the present examination standards, the present entry standards, and I think I am right in saying the Government have accepted this. But I would ask your Lordships to remember that it is far harder academically to get into a university now than it was thirty years ago, when many of us were entering university. When I went to London University all I needed was five "O" levels, but now it is three "A" levels, and not merely three "A" levels but three good "A" levels; and those who are talking, rather cruelly I think, about dilution and about letting people into the universities ought to remember the terribly tough academic standards we are applying at the moment.
We on this side of the House think entry at the moment is too hard rather than too easy. And because it is too hard, school curricula are being distorted and young minds are being forced to specialise far too early. Some of your Lordships may have heard, or read in the Listener, those excellent Reith Lectures by Dr. Sloman, the new Vice-Chancellor of the University of Essex; and I am going to quote a small passage because it is exactly on these lines:
"Universities deplore premature specialisation, but it is in part of their own making, for by their entrance requirements they demand a

1215
standard in two, and often three, related subjects at the Advanced level that can only be reached if pupils specialise early. In fact, were an enlightened school to produce a pupil familiar with the greatest achievements of the human mind over the whole field of modern knowledge but without good marks in a narrow field, there would be a real risk that none of the English universities would admit him."
That is a terrible state of affairs. Dr. Sloman goes on:
"Less competition for university places as a result of large-scale expansion would of itself greatly ease the problem of the schools."
I have been thinking, and I believe that it would be possible now to get into a university with two or three "A" levels without having read a single Shakespeare play. I think that is a deplorable state of affairs. Something has gone wrong. What has gone wrong is that we have pushed an academic grid far too tight and we are thereby cutting out many excellent people who should be going to universities.
In his observations on general degrees the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, accepts this view, so far as university teaching is concerned. Here we fully agree with him. We believe that the case for the wide, general degree, with much less specialisation at an early stage, is proved beyond measure. But the implications of what may be called non-competitive university entry in terms of the number of places needed, has not yet begun to be explored. Time and again, in presenting their figures, Lord Robbins and his colleagues have stressed that they have been deliberately conservative. I am sure this is right. If you read The Times yesterday you would have seen the former Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University saying exactly the same thing—that, if anything, it is highly probable that the Robbins figures are on the low side.
What Lord Robbins had to recommend was so enormous that only a conservative approach could make it acceptable at all. But Lord Robbins has clearly warned us that his proposals are the minimum needed to achieve this generally accepted axiom. If we are to take in all the boys and girls who can both benefit from and contribute to higher education, the numbers may be far greater even than Lord Robbins and his colleagues have contemplated. In our little Report The Years of Crisis, which was only a brief document of
1216
40 pages, as compared with Lord Robbins' 300 pages, we devoted about one-fifth of it to what, strangely enough, we both call "the years of crisis" immediately facing higher education. Lord Robbins devoted only one-twentyfifth of his big Report to it; but we cannot complain about that, because in his one-twentyfifth he made almost all the important points.
He points out that the trouble and the difficulty we are facing immediately is essentially a crisis in university places as opposed to other kinds of places. Between now and 1967–68, on the Government's pre-Robbins plan, there would have been a turning away from university of 78,000 boys and girls, and this would have reached a maximum in 1967–68, when in one year 25,000 would have been turned away. I think this is really a measure of the terrible failure of planning which has occurred in the last twelve years. I would add that I greatly doubt, however hard we try—and this applies to any Government—whether we can now put the matter fully right. I think we shall have great difficulty in doing so.
But, my Lords, there is one way not to do it. Your Lordships may have seen a letter in The Times from Mr. Williams revealing that a directive or an advice had been sent from the University Grants Committee to universities asking them not to increase proportionately with the other increases the number of students from the Commonwealth going to our universities. In his Report Lord Robbins (I think I am quoting him correctly, but if I am wrong I hope he will tell me so) said that we must not cut the proportion of Commonwealth students coming into our universities. We knew that to cut down on the intake of overseas students would be the easy way to cope with this crisis, and we said that this method must not be adopted. In my view, it is absolutely wrong that we should do this, because it is the one real contribution we can make to the developing countries, to our new Commonwealth. Yet we have this extraordinary situation of a directive, or an advice, going out from the University Grants Committee—and I can assure your Lordships that it has gone out—advising universities to keep the numbers of Commonwealth students at their present figure so that the percentage of new intake will fall.

1217
Of course, it might have been worse: they might have said, "We are going to cut it."
I want now to ask the Government a most important question, apart from the rights or wrongs of this matter—namely, who, in effect, has reversed the Robbins recommendation? Is it the Government, or is it the University Grants Committee? If it is the Government, have they considered the matter, or discussed it with the Commonwealth Relations Office? Have the University Grants Commission discussed it with the Commonwealth Relations Office; or how did they arrive at this decision not to increase the Commonwealth intake pari passu with the general intake? I am sorry to ask this question, but, fortunately, we are having a two-day debate, which will enable the noble Earl to obtain the answer. It is of great importance because it illustrates the great difficulties we are going to get into by putting the Universities Grants Committee in as a buffer between the Government and the universities. I am not for one moment against that, but we are going to have great problems arising over such matters as student intake; whether we should take in our Commonwealth fellows; and, if so, to what extent?
In fact, we can just about deal with this problem of the bulge, this crisis in the next five years. I think we fully agree with Lord Robbins that the young teachers will come forward; that the university teachers will be prepared to make the tremendous effort and the sacrifices that are required of them in the next five years, and that it will be possible to find the teaching accommodation. The real crisis and the real difficulty is going to be housing these students. Lord Robbins mentioned this in paragraph 590 of his Report, but he did not go into it in any detail. We went into it in quite a little detail.
The trouble is that since the war, quite reasonably, all the boys and girls have been, as I might call it, going on a university merry-go-round. A student does not go to his nearest university. If he lives in London, he goes to Leeds, Sussex or Sheffield; and if he lives in Sheffield, he goes to Exeter. They all want to get away from home; and, of course, for the first time, thanks to grants, they can afford to get away from
1218
home and to go to a distant university—and a very good thing too! At the same time, this presents the most tremendous accommodation problem, and it will be the hardest problem of all to solve in the next five years—and I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Robbins nodding agreement. We have said that we think the only answer is that a great many of them will have to go to their nearest university and live at home. We do not like it, but we cannot see how this problem can be otherwise dealt with in the immediate crisis period. I think it is only fair to make this clear, because I think this course will be forced on the Government, the University Grants Committee and the universities within a couple of years.
That brings me on to my next point: residence. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has recommended 225,000 additional student residences in the next seventeen years. As a result of that we should have 54 per cent. of our students in residence. This lends support to the remark of the former noble Viscount, Mr. Quintin Hogg, that the Robbins Report would involve building the equivalent of several new towns. But this is only half the story because universities are very heavily staffed institutions. The teacher/student ratio is roughly 1 to 7. It might change for the worse in this emergency period, but besides the teachers there are all sorts of other people who have to be housed in a university. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, is going to say something about the problem of technicians, and certainly we shall need a great increase in their numbers. Then there are the various domestic staff at university, the cleaning staff, the cooking staff, the maintenance staff and all the rest. I have seen estimates which show that for every student one needs one person besides in the environment of a university in order to make that university go. It may be high, but that is the estimate I have seen. So if one has a new university of 10,000 students it will need, say, 5,400 places for students and "digs" for the rest, and then it will need ordinary homes with family accommodation for at least 3,000 people, and perhaps a great many more than that—I am assuming that many of the people will be recruited locally. This involves an enormous building operation.

1219
I want to couple this with another Robbins recommendation, with which we fully agree: that the next batch of new universities should be inside our great cities and should not be located in Lancaster and York. We have nothing against what has been done so far, but we consider that the next batch, for very good reasons, ought to be within our great cities. How on earth is this to be done? We faced this issue in our little report, and we said that the only answer was to do comprehensive urban redevelopment; that is to say, to designate an area of a city and to put in something like a development corporation, with powers of compulsory purchase and with machinery to take the necessary population overspill in new towns and all the rest. As Lord Robbins rightly says, we must get on with this very quickly indeed to meet the crisis; ordinary local authority machinery will almost certainly be too slow. We must have new machinery and I think that development corporation machinery is the most appropriate.
Remember that Lord Robbins has recommended six extra new universities at once. Remember also that there is good reason for thinking that his figures are the minimum, and we say that there must be legislation to get the thing going. It is too much to expect the Government to put any more legislation into their legislative programme; I think it is full already. I would most earnestly and sincerely ask them to set up a committee at once to study the means necessary for locating new universities inside great cities. We are not asking this as a Party political point, but as a practical issue. It is no good asking the University Grants Committee to do this because it involves town planning and political and economic considerations far beyond their province. Somebody has got to deal with the legislation quickly, within about a couple of years, and the sooner we can have specific studies made on this point the better.
The next point is as to the size of the universities. We do not know what the right size of a university is, but we do know that it is very much easier to expand an existing university than to create a new one. Lord Robbins and his colleagues have a "hunch", and I
1220
agree with it, that the maximum size ought to be about 8,000 to 10,000 undergraduate students. Some people do not agree with that; they want a much bigger number. I have talked to the heads of American universities, which are much bigger than ours, and they have said to me, "Do not make our mistake; do not let them get bigger than 8,000 to 10,000. We have suffered from it ourselves." If your Lordships feel, as I do, that this figure is probably about right, I hope that instead of opposing Robbins you will throw your weight in behind the idea of trying to keep university sizes to 8,000 to 10,000. This is going to mean something else. It is going to mean that we again have to consider the question of more universities whenever a university shows signs of passing the 8,000 to 10,000 size.
It follows from this that the size of the University of London, which is between 24,000 and 27,000, is far too big. I think most people agree with this, except the Principal of the University of London, who is a very fine man and a very good administrator. But this problem is now urgent. Again I am going to ask the Government to think about this and take action quickly. The reason why it is urgent is that there are in London several potential colleges of advanced technology of university status. Are they to be added on to make the University of London even bigger? What about the new sister institution at South Kensington, the Imperial College of Science and Technology? This is going to change its status. Is it going to be part of the University of London, or is it going to be part of a new university of West London, as I think it ought to be? And what about taking into it the Queen Elizabeth College, which is just adjacent, because that would fit in very well? This, again, is an urgent problem which must be solved as a part of the job of university expansion; and I do not think it can be left, as Lord Robbins suggests, to the University of London itself because the University of London is, through its Principal, committed. So I think that we ought to have a good look at this matter, and that a proper committee or commission should be set up to look at it, and it must work very fast indeed.
I am going to leave out a whole host of subjects because other people will be

1221
dealing with them, and I have already spoken rather long. I am not going to say anything about the CATS; I am not going to say anything about the SISTERS (a horrible word, which means Special Institutions for Scientific and Technological Education and Research) because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, is going to speak about them. I will say almost nothing about the teacher training colleges or the colleges of education and the very good idea for a bachelor of education degree. I am not going to speak about the brilliant idea for a council for national academic awards—how I wish I had thought of that one; we missed out on that—or about the University Central Council on Admissions. Everybody can make mistakes at the start, but by and large I think they have done a very good job; and it is very good that Oxford and Cambridge and the medical schools, who have managed to keep out of it, should come in as Lord Robbins has recommended. It is very important they should all be in. I am not going to say anything about the higher education advisory service because we were of the same opinion as Lord Robbins on that; or about his idea for correspondence courses; or about the use of radio and television, or the need for more post-graduate or part-time facilities.
We agree with almost every word of the Robbins proposals. We are particularly pleased about his proposals for teacher training colleges. I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has to say about them because your Lordships will remember his Report on this subject. If I may say so, with great respect, that Report was split fifty-fifty: his Committee had ten members, five went one way and five another. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, was rather against the teacher training colleges coming into the university ambit, and some of his colleagues took the opposite view. I shall be interested to see whether he has changed his opinion over all these years; because they have, in fact, already started to come in through the institutes of education.
I would remind those who think that the teacher training colleges should not come in of two others of Lord Robbins' axioms. The first is that equal academic rewards should be given for equal performance.
1222
The second is that there should be no freezing of institutions into established hierarchies; on the contrary, there should be a recognition and encouragement of excellence whenever and wherever it occurs. I think those are the things to remember when we are dealing with teacher training colleges and their future. I am not going to say anything about Lord Robbins's controversial proposal to raise universities' fees (he has a very good case for it), or about our wish to do away with the means test and to make the universities free. The two proposals are not mutually incompatible, but I do not think they are so important that we should argue about them now.
I want to turn to one final point, which is in some ways the most important question of all. I am going to assume that Lord Robbins's arguments about what has to be done are established beyond doubt. The question remains: how is it to be done? I venture to think that here the Robbins Report is weakest; and that here, as practical politicians, we may be able to make the greatest contribution. The Robbins proposal is for a powerful University Grants Commission to act as a buffer between the Government and the universities, to keep the money clean and uncontaminated by political considerations. I do not accept the idea that politics is a dirty business. I believe that universities are no less political than Parliament. Indeed, any reader of Sir Charles Snow can see this for himself. In Britain our two-Party system ensures that the dirt in politics is quickly exposed and dealt with far more quickly than in any other human occupation. It is true that we fight hard, but we fight according to well-established rules; and we have to work as teams, and in this we learn to sink our egos in a common purpose.
As I have listened to the pleas of some eminent academics to be kept out of politics, while receiving all the largesse which only political action can give, I have wondered whether they remember or, indeed whether they have ever read their Aristotle. In Book I of the Ethics, Aristotle says this:
"It is political science which prescribes what subjects are to be taught in states, which of these the different sections of the population are to learn, and up to what point."

1223
Whether they like it or not, it is we as politicians who must determine the broad pattern of our educational system, simply because only we have the power and the means at our disposal to do it.
At the end of the Robbins era, in 1980–81, the University Grants Commission will be allocating at least £500 million a year of public money. This leaves out the student maintenance of £221 million. If we accept the University Grants Commission principle, it is surely right to scrutinise with the utmost care what we are doing; for this is something quite new constitutionally. I remember pleading for the National Health Service to be run not by the Ministry of Health but by a National Health Service Corporation. I always gave the University Grants Committee as an analogy, and I was always told that Parliament and the Treasury—and particularly the Treasury—would never consider handing over control of huge sums of public money to a corporate body. But this is, in effect, what is now being proposed.
There are two jobs to be done; there is the broad strategy, and there are the detailed tactics of planning and developing our advance in higher education. Our present disastrous situation is due to a failure of strategic planning. Here we cannot absolve either the Government or the University Grants Committee; but it must never happen again. Someone must do the sums—the political arithmetic if you like—and must go on doing them, year in year out, so that we have a ten-year plan which is kept ten years ahead; and that, indeed, is what Lord Robbins says. This job itself has two parts. The first is the assessment of the potential intake of students to institutes of higher education (which is what Lord Robbins did) and the second is the assessment of the national needs for the products of the institutes of higher education; that is to say, the teachers, the doctors, the engineers, the scientists and all the rest. We have no complaint that Lord Robbins confined himself to the first; I think he was quite right to do this. But both jobs must be done in the future.
If you look at page 165 of the Robbins Report, your Lordships will see a little footnote about his allowance for doctors
1224
in the future. There is a strange cutting down in the percentage of students, so that we hardly go up by the percentage of the population increase over the next 20 years. Lord Robbins adds that he got this figure from the University Grants Committee. Where did they get it from? I have no idea. It is a most extraordinary thing. We are starved of general practitioners; we are relying on India and Pakistan, and all the countries overseas which are developing, to send us people to keep our National Health Service going. Yet here we find the University Grants Committee recommending virtually no increase in the proportion of doctors qualifying. This is not the way to do it. This is no good at all. Fortunately, I see my noble friends Lord Brain and Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, and I hope they are going to say something later on this point. Who is going to do these sums? Could the new University Grants Commission do them? I do not think so. They will be saying not merely how to spend the money, but how much money to spend. They will be doing the lot. This is really an abrogation of Government. Should the Government do it? Should the Civil Service do it? I do not think so. I believe that it is much better done, as we suggested it should be done, by a National Universities Development Council; and you will find a sort of pale echo of this in Lord Robbins' Report, in the proposed Consultative Council on Higher Education. We think that this strategic planning ought to be the job of some specific body, doing it regularly and taking an overall view.
Next, my Lords, I come to the tactics. We accept the principle of a buffer. I think it is a very good principle. I also think that Lord Robbins was quite right to reject the functional fragmentation of the University Grants Commission, by which there would have been one for CATS, one for universities, one for teacher training colleges and all the rest, which was what many people wanted. It was a very bad idea. But I am not quite sure that he is right to reject regionalisation of the University Grants Commission's work. I could argue that, but I will not argue it, on the basis of the necessary knowledge which a University Grants Commission must have of the work of the universities it is looking after.

1225
But there is one thing that I think ought to have been looked at. Lord Robbins examined university government in great detail, and he concluded that the final arbiters of every university should be laymen, and not academics. But when it came to the proposed University Grants Commission he did not say this. Of course the present Committee is more than an academically controlled body. It has a Chairman who is both Chairman and Managing Director. He is the overlord of the university world, and we have endowed the Chairman of the University Grants Committee with quite extraordinary powers. Indeed, I should say that if you antagonised the Chairman of the University Grants Committee you could thereafter expect to have quite a job in getting what you wanted. That is a thoroughly bad situation. I am not reflecting on either past or present University Grants Committee Chairmen, but we have invested too much power in the Chairman of the University Grants Committee.
I make an earnest plea for the Government to look at this matter and to see whether we ought not to have something more like the B.B.C.—a corporation of laymen with a big planning commission of technical people, and a Director-General responsible to a corporation. I throw this out only as an idea, as one possible solution to what I think is a very dangerous situation as regards the universities themselves. I think our academic friends should be much more fussed about the nature of the U.G.C. than about which Minister is going to control them. They need not be frightened of a Minister, whoever he is, because he can always be called to account in Parliament. The long-term danger to academic freedom is control by anonymous civil servants or an irresponsible University Grants Committee.
My Lords, beware of the secret directive. We had a secret directive to the University Grants Committee a couple of years ago, when they were told to cut. The University Grants Committee had no powers of public reply. That is thoroughly bad. In the case of the B.B.C., very properly, there is provision for the Government to give directives to the B.B.C. if the need arises, and the B.B.C. can make a reply, but both have
1226
to be public. Of course there must be consultation between whichever Minister is concerned and the University Grams Committee—constant consultation—but if the Minister decides to issue a directive to the University Grants Committee And the University Grants Committee do not like it, then I think that this must be done in public for the future, and that it is a statutory safeguard which the universities ought to be thinking about a great deal more than they are. I am going to say nothing about which Minister ought to control university education. I have said my say in The Times, and my noble friend Lord Longford will be dealing with it in considerable detail later on.
In accepting the Robbins Report we are doing two things. First, we are deciding to change our universities beyond measure. I am going to suggest that this change is a very exciting, stimulating and vital thing. Fortunately, there are many people in the university and academic world who feel thus. One has only to read Dr. Sloman's Reith lectures about Essex to feel this exciting new surge forward which is coming; and by changing the universities we are going to change all our patterns of life, because it is the people in the universities who make society what it is. Of course, we must stick to and hold fast to the good things. I do not expect there will be great changes at Oxford and Cambridge. They do not need to change a great deal, although they need to change in some ways. My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth grunts, and wants to see them changed greatly. I do not. I think they are pretty good, except for certain elements of entry and certain matters of the machinery of government. We want to have lots of experiment, lots of new ideas, lots of try-outs—and there will be some mistakes.
The second thing we are doing is this. We are giving a unique opportunity to one-fifth of our future citizens, and I want to say just one word to them because special opportunities carry with them special and unique obligations. Our students of to-day seem to me to be more hard-working, more intellectually honest and much more balanced people than they were, but they seem to be just a little lacking in drive, in ambition and in a desire to turn the world topsy-turvy and perhaps make it a better place but certainly alter it. They are almost

1227
too content. I do not blame them for this. I think it is partly due to this over-specialisation and to having to work too hard. But they cannot opt out of the responsibility of leadership.
A university degree is not a passport to a safe or easy life, to take a ride on the back of society. Indeed, the first draft of our Labour Party report on higher education we called not "The Years of Crisis" but "Learning to Serve", to emphasise this conception of a university course as a preparation for a life of service to one's fellows. I think that teachers of universities have not only a technical responsibility to turn out men and women with professional competence, but a social and a moral responsibility as well. I suppose this is best taught, not by precept but by example: and one cannot help remembering Chaucer's description of the Clerk of Oxenford, which I think is perhaps the ideal at which we should all aim:
"Sounding in moral virtue was his speech,
And gladly would he learn and glady teach."
There are two pieces of legislation which I must say have given me, in my lifetime, the greatest personal pleasure. The first was the National Health Service Act and the second the New Towns Act. Both were made and implemented by a Labour Government. I hope that the privilege—and it will be a privilege—of implementing the Robbins Report may fall, in not too long a time, to a Labour Government. If it does, as I hope it will, we shall certainly strive to be worthy of it; but, if not, we will do all we can to help the Government of the day to do the job as it should be done, for in turning Robbins from paper to reality we shall be building a good pattern of life for all our citizens in the years ahead. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.46 p.m.
LORD MCNAIR: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for drawing our attention to this Report, and also for alerting us to the magnitude and the urgency of the problem which this remarkable Report has brought to light. We are also indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his illuminating survey of the main points made in this Report.
1228
It might well be convenient that later speakers should deal with particular aspects of the Report, and that is what I propose to do. I should like to make it quite clear, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, indicated the credentials, the representational authority, of certain of your Lordships who are taking part in this debate, that I am not speaking in any representative capacity. I now hold no administrative or teaching office in any university. My justification for speaking to your Lordships is that I have spent nearly the whole of my working life on the staffs of three universities of different types, and I was Vice-Chancellor of one of them for eight years. In that capacity I was a member of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and therefore in close touch both individually and collectively with the University Grants Committee and many Government Departments. But I am really speaking for myself and from my own experience.
I must add my tribute to the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and his colleagues have tackled their immense task. I do not believe that the educational system of any country has at any time been the subject of so thorough and so imaginative an investigation and Report as we now have. It is assured of an honoured place in the long line of great Government Reports that began in the nineteenth century. It is packed full of good "meat", and one does not know where to begin; but I intend to concentrate my speech on one out of the very many important points—namely, the future relation of our universities to Government, together with a comment on the Robbins criterion for the admission of students to a university. In specialising in that way I must not be thought to underrate the importance of the many other educational topics dealt with in this Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the training colleges. I have not yet made up my mind as to the future position of the training colleges. I can, however, assure your Lordships that the contact between the universities and the training colleges is very much closer today than it was twenty years ago. That is largely due to the institutes of education which the universities have set up. But I want to look to the long-term problem raised in the Robbins Report of

1229
the future relation of the universities to Government; and I shall try to describe to your Lordships the present situation as I understand it.
As your Lordships know, the present link between the universities and the central Government is the University Grants Committee, appointed first in 1919 and responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my experience, which is somewhat out-of-date, this is a most valuable body. It not only examines the needs of the universities and allocates block grants to them—and I may, in passing, mention that one of the features of a block grant is the degree of flexibility which it permits—but is available for advice to the universities and has both permanent and temporary sub-committees on matters of common interest to universities.
I recollect, with the greatest possible pleasure, the contacts I had, as Vice-Chancellor, with Sir Walter Moberly, who was Chairman of the Committee at that time. He was most helpful; one could go and see him at any time. And I feel quite sure, from what I know of Sir John Wolfenden, the new Chairman, that the situation will be the same under his chairmanship. It is proposed in the Robbins Report and accepted by the Government that the scope of the duties of this Committee—in future to be called the University Grants Commission—shall be broadened and that it shall be used for distributing much larger sums of money both to the universities and to certain other institutions to be brought within its scope. It is considered to be anomalous that a Commission charged with the duty of distributing large sums of money should be attached to the Treasury; but it cannot float in space and it must find another home. That other home is a matter which concerns the universities deeply, as I shall hope to show.
When considering what to do with the University Grants Commission and the universities in the future, it is wise to ask ourselves what have been the main conditions of such success as the universities may have achieved during the past eighty years in which the present pattern has emerged. My submission is that the first condition of their success has been their freedom and independence; and the second, their flexibility of administration and their variety.
1230
They enjoy freedom from political influence and governmental control and they have enjoyed a measure of independence by reason of ancient or modern endowments or their ability to attract money from private sources and, more recently, from local authorities and the Treasury.
The local authorities and the Treasury have respected that independence and have trusted the universities to make the best use of the grants once given. Most local authorities are proud of what they call "our university", and I, at any rate, have never heard of any attempt to exercise any influence upon them. It is only during the last forty years that they have become so heavily dependent upon the Exchequer. Freedom and independence are not mere catchwords. Let me try to illustrate. In making appointments the universities are free to select the man or woman who, by personality and intellect, is best suited for the position regardless of his or her views upon politics or religion (except, of course, in the case of the very few theological Chairs which are linked with a particular religious foundation), regardless of the question whether he or she is or is not persona grata to the Government or any Government Department, and regardless of nationality. I could give your Lordships a string of names of very distinguished foreigners whom the universities have been able to enlist in their service. I will mention only two names well-known to many of your Lordships: Arthur Goodhart of Oxford and Professor Chain of Oxford, who, with Professor Florey and Professor Fleming, shared the Nobel Prize in connection with their development of penicillin. That is the atmosphere in which the universities live. It exerts a powerful attraction on many men and women of independent mind and is a great help in recruiting their staffs. Moreover, when a university has good leadership this atmosphere percolates down through all levels and has its effect upon teaching and research of all kinds, scientific, literary, historical and so forth.
It is the duty of a university both to increase knowledge and to impart it. The best teacher is almost certain to be a learner—which means, in the natural sciences, that he must be an investigator. Both Professor J. J.

1231
Thomson and Lord Rutherford used to insist upon the reciprocal value of teaching and research. Students are stimulated by the knowledge that important research is being done in their department and by their own professors and lecturers; and they pay more attention to a teacher whom they know to be adding to knowledge. Research has both a direct value in its product and a collateral value in that it fertilises teaching. At any rate in science, fruitful research often comes in bursts of great activity, which may be followed by periods of frustration and disappointment. It is then that the teaching duties of the researcher come to his rescue and enable him to find satisfaction in a more routine task. In short, I regard research, in the sense of increasing knowledge, as the life-blood of a university and the primary test of its success. "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
My Lords, I will turn now to the second condition of their success, flexibility of administration and variety. I speak only from my own experience. There is in the universities much more flexibility in arriving at how members of the staff shall carry out their duties, how they shall divide their time between their different duties, what staff is needed for this or that department, what the departmental expenditure ought to be, what promotion is due to members of the staff, than we should, I think, find in the Civil Service or any of the other services.
A great deal of the administration in the universities is done by persons who are, or have been, teachers and researchers. Moreover, it often calls for rapid action, as when a Vice-Chancellor has to secure an option on a new site or has to avert the loss of a valued member of the staff who has been tempted to go elsewhere, perhaps across the Atlantic. When circumstances like these arise he has to act at once and has no time to consult any Government Department. This freedom and flexibility encourages variety. No two universities are the same. Witness what is happening under our eyes in the new universities, which are now being founded with the aid of the University Grants Committee. They are full of new ideas and experiments, due to the
1232
personal initiative of imaginative men and women, as Dr. Sloman's Reith Lectures show. So, as I see it, the real problem for the future is how to reconcile these characteristics, freedom, independence and infinite variety and a certain flexibility of administration, which the universities have inherited from the past, with what has now become an increasing dependence upon public funds.
At this point it may be useful to look abroad. Time after time I have heard professors in foreign universities express envy of the autonomy and independence of our universities. I have recently made inquiries in two neighbouring countries, France and Holland, and I shall try to summarise the results. In France, where the universities are under the Ministry of Education, academic freedom is in practice complete so far as concerns the appointment and promotion of university teachers and their power to express opinions without danger of interference. But in other ways it is seriously restricted. So long as a university wants to make no change there is no trouble. But, if I may quote a letter of a French professor:
"Trouble begins if we want new subjects to be taught or investigated, new professorships to be created, new appropriations to be made for the creation of a new centre or the development of a new line of research. New funds will then be necessary, and in order to get them we have to appeal to the Ministry of Finance through the channel of the Ministry of National Education."
I continue my summary. The French universities suffer from rigidity and uniformity, partly by reason of the fact that university degrees are necessary for admission to so many professions. Thus, studies are organised in the same way throughout the universities, with, however, the advantage that the degrees of all the universities are of equal value. The professor adds:
"Whether this uniformity is a necessary consequence of a Ministry, or is due to Napoleonic authoritarianism, remains an open question."
He continues:
"A comparable rigidity exists as regards personnel."
Professors are civil servants, which means that only French citizens can be appointed. He continues:
"Foreigners can be engaged only on a contractual, that is, a temporary, basis. We have

1233
been perfectly unable therefore to follow the British example in 1933, when exiles from Germany have been most generously received in your universities.… As regards students also, we have no choice left to us: we are obliged to accept all applicants who are qualified to enter the university.… We could not decide, for instance, that we want to have no more than a certain number.… This again has some advantages: class prejudices will be excluded, but may have also, and has had, some inconveniences; we receive many students who are not well prepared to study in our field, with the consequence of numerous failures at the time of the examinations."
I turn to Holland, where there are three State universities, or more if one understands the term "university" in the Dutch sense. There are other universities, which are run by churches and confessional bodies, and one by a municipality. As for the State universities, the Ministry of Education controls the whole field of their activities. He appoints professors directors and other high personnel, and has a complete discretion to accept or not the recommendation of the universities; but in practice, if he cannot accept it, he will invite the governing body of the university to reconsider it or to consult with him. The universities are not content with this situation. After the liberation in 1945, an unsuccessful attempt was made to secure the autonomy of the universities. My informant, who, in his own words, "immensely prefers" our system, says:
"On the financial side we felt very jealous of your English system of grants without any further dependence on Government."
It is an interesting testimony to the permanence of some of the work of Napoleon that both my French and Dutch informants should mention him, though the Napoleonic occupation of Holland lasted for only about ten years. So much for the foreign evidence, though it might be extended. That would be interesting.
I am not suggesting that, if our universities were placed under the Ministry of Education, many such changes would soon take place. At first, things would go along much as they are, but we all know that there is a strong tendency for Government Departments to extend their jurisdiction, even though our civil servants are most loyal in carrying out strictly the terms of their mandate. All governmental administra
1234
tion tends towards uniformity and rigidity. The Government have now agreed with the Robbins Committee that universities
"should draw the Government's financial support through an independent body on similar lines to the present University Grants Committee".
leaving the question of Ministerial responsibility for later decision.
On this question of Ministerial responsibility, the Robbins Committee considered the possible attachment of the University Grants Commission to the Lord President of the Council or to the Ministry of Education, and they rejected both those proposals. One of the reasons given by the Robbins Committee for not placing the universities and other autonomous institutions under the Ministry of Education is contained in their paragraph 781, which includes this passage:
"… the business of the main institutions of higher learning is not only education: it is also the advancement and preservation of knowledge … it is essential that much research should be domiciled in institutions of higher education".
I underline that reason. I may be wrong, but I think I am right in saying that, apart from educational research, the Ministry of Education has no experience in assessing the value of research projects or their degree of priority, or of estimating their probable cost; and I doubt whether any Ministry of Education could understand the vital part played in the universities by research, and the absolute necessity of supporting it on a large scale.
Accordingly, the Robbins Committee recommends the creation of a new Ministry—namely, a Ministry of Arts and Science, which would become responsible for the new and enlarged University Grants Commission and, through that body, for the universities, the Research Councils, the Arts Council and certain other bodies. I believe that this is the right solution. The universities and the Research Councils have already much in common, and they share in the application of the principle of block grants, while being left with a wide discretion in the detailed spending of the money.
My Lords, I commend to you the following short extract from a public

1235
address recently given by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Liverpool, Mr. Winston Barnes, who said:
"Universities do not merely provide a tertiary stage of education beyond that of the primary and secondary schools. Their business extends beyond education into the wider sphere that Bacon called 'the advancement of learning'. Through the research, which is the air they breathe, universities are related to the research councils and to research wherever it is conducted."
I have now only a few words to say on the admission of students to a university. So far, everything that I have said is, I hope, in support of the Robbins Committee. I must now become critical on one point. In paragraph 31 it is stated as an axiom that
"courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so."
That is a sentence which is characteristic of the generous spirit which pervades this Report. I hope that the expression "wish to do so" means something more than "applies for admission". I hope it means that the applicant for admission must apply with a purpose—not necessarily a vocational purpose, but a desire to improve himself and make himself a more useful citizen. If your Lordships will consider your own children or other children known to you, is it not the fact that a number of young persons, quite intelligent and equipped with the necessary levels, are at the age of 16 to 18 completely "fed up" with the years of learning, studying and examinations, and are eager to do something practical—farming, engineering, business, local government service and so forth? I have known many such quite intelligent but not bookishly-inclined children, genuinely keen to start doing something different, to be on their own, and to enjoy the feeling of earning. I believe that some members of this group, after a few years of practical work, will want to go to university and will be all the better able to profit from it by reason of what they have been doing.
It is most important to facilitate late entry into higher education. But I doubt very much the wisdom of encouraging or persuading this type of boy or girl to go straight from school to a university. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is now a considerable financial
1236
temptation to go to a university. To such a boy or girl, having acquired the necessary "A" levels, the State now offers, subject to a generous means test, a cheque for about £1,000 for maintenance during the three-year course, or £1,330 for a four-year course, plus approved fees. To many parents this may seem to be a very attractive solution of the problem of what to do with the boy or girl for the next few years.
It is for these reasons that, in my opinion, it is important that, apart from the large number of boys and girls who admit themselves by winning open scholarships and exhibitions and thereby demonstrate their keen desire to go to university, the university should have a say in the matter and should satisfy itself by interview, enquiry of the school and so on, before admitting an applicant, that he really wants to go to the university and is likely to profit from it and is not merely following the line of least resistance or yielding to parental persuasion. Universities can do much good; they can also do much harm to those students who have come to them in the wrong frame of mind. So I am opposed to any wholesale, automatic, procedure of admission to the universities, and consider that it should be under careful control.
My Lords, I thank you for your patience. In my judgment, we have the best university system in the world, or, at any rate, on this side of the Atlantic. It can be improved; but let us not damage the principles of freedom, independence and flexibility upon which it rests.
4.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think it is only a matter of some 25 hours since I have been responsible in your Lordships' House for matters concerning university grants: indeed, only since my right honourable friend took his seat in another place yesterday. Many of your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, are highly qualified to speak, from great experience, on the Motion that is before us to-day. It is, therefore, with especial humility that I venture to address your Lordships for the first time from this place. This is a subject on which the House has, indeed, much to offer by way of wisdom, and I am sure that we are all deeply

1237
grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for giving us this early opportunity of considering the Robbins Report and the decisions upon it. The noble Lord has made, if I may say so, some wise and objective remarks about it. There is evidently a wide measure of agreement in what I might call the triangle of Lord Robbins, Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. It seems to me that there was a great deal with which we on this side of the House could go along with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I am sure, however, that my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council, whom we all in this House—and not least your humble servant—miss so very much, will take them into full consideration in making up his mind about certain recommendations on which the Government have not so far declared themselves.
We have also been privileged to hear an interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who not only took a First in Law at my old university and is one of the principal authorities in your Lordships' House on International Law, but has also, as we have heard, been associated with no fewer than three universities, is most knowledgeable about teacher training colleges and has told us some very interesting things (at any rate, they interested me) about the French experience of universities coming under the Ministry of Education and also in regard to reseach and universities. The two noble Lords who have so far spoken have certainly given this important debate a most auspicious start. We are all, I feel sure, particularly glad to see in his place the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who has already intervened in the debate. I am sure that, whatever else there may be in my remarks from which certain noble Lords may feel obliged to differ, I carry the whole House with me in extending congratulations to Lord Robbins and his colleagues on his Committee for their truly impressive Report. It surveys, for the first time in our history, the whole of our system of higher education, and propounds the course of its future development. Few State Papers of this century have been more definitive or decisive than this one. None, I would venture to say, has been more compre-
1238
hensive, or is likely to have a greater bearing on the future.
Apart from the question of expansion, which is what we are mainly discussing to-day, the Robbins Committee discuss, I think for the first time in any public document since the Reformation, what higher education is about; what the universities are; what we want them for. And the conclusions to which the Committee have come are of vital importance for the future of our society. I had the opportunity, prior to this debate, of a brief discussion with my right honourable friend the Lord President. He has inspired me in this matter. He is a man who has been concerned with these problems for some seven years, and there is hardly, I imagine, anyone on either side of the House who will be more qualified to speak in another place. My right honourable friend asked me particularly to say to the House that, in accepting at once the immediate targets for expansion, the Government regard them without doubt as realistic and capable of fulfilment, and are determined to see them fulfilled by the provision of the necessary resources.
My right honourable friend has also asked me to say that in his view the clue to the success of the operation lies at the post-graduate end of the spectrum. Undergraduate places are a useful yardstick, indicating the scale of expansion, but a university is not a teaching factory. Even if it were, the clue to the expansion of undergraduate places lies in the training of staff and the provision of post-graduate facilities of all kinds, including research, which will enable staff of adequate quality to be recruited in sufficient numbers by providing them with the opportunities for work at their own level which will render the life of the university teacher attractive and rewarding in itself.
It is now nearly three years since my right honourable friend, Mr. Harold Macmillan, as Prime Minister, sought the advice of Lord Robbins and his colleagues. Memories are short. It has sometimes been suggested that the three years during which Lord Robbins and his Committee were labouring have been years of marking time so far as higher education was concerned. The very opposite is the case, my Lords. Almost

1239
at the same time as the Prime Minister announced the appointment of the Robbins Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a massive new capital programme for university development, totalling £110 million worth of building work alone to be begun in the four years 1962 to 1965. This programme was designed to be compatible with further development after 1965 to expand the university population, should it be so decided, to about 170,000 by the early 1970s. At that time, three years ago, the university population was only just in excess of 100,000. During the years that followed, this work has gone steadily forward, and it is estimated that this year there will be 125,000 students at the universities. In the course of the past four years, seven completely new universities have been founded on the initiative of the Government—an event quite unparalleled in the history of this country.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl, though I know it is his maiden speech as a Minister? If he is reviewing progress in the last few years and congratulating the Government on their remarkable showing, is he going to say anything about the severe cuts which were imposed by the same Government, and which led to such severe protests from the heads of universities?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I could refer to some savage cuts in educational grants towards the end of the life of the last Labour Government. If we go in for that, and the reduction in expenditure on education, I think I should have to say something about that as well. However, let me now say that in the course of the past four years seven new universities have been founded, and in the course of seven years ten colleges of advanced technology have been developed, first under the protective wing of the local education authorities, and then as national institutions under the wing of the Ministry of Education.
These ten CATS have been brought to the pitch at which the Robbins Committee found them fit for university status. During these years, too, with the knowledge of the Government, the Royal College of Technology in Glasgow has been raised in status, and is
1240
now known as the University of Strathclyde. In successive years since 1958 the Government have authorised massive increases in the training colleges, culminating in the Minister of Education's announcement in January of this year of an accelerated programme of expansion, to bring students numbers in the colleges to 80,000 by 1970. This was a decision whose merits and scope have, I consider, been vindicated by the Robbins Report. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Eccles will be participating in this debate. A great deal of credit is due to him and, of course, to his successor. Substantial programmes for the expansion of the Scottish Central Institutions and Colleges of Education have also been initiated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. These were the occasions, if any, on which the Government might have been accused of hasty action; and yet, curiously enough, it is only now when we know the facts that such accusations are heard.
No responsible Government would have launched developments of these dimensions, and of such complexity and importance, until they had satisfied themselves and the country that in doing so they were proceeding on the right lines. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said in another place, the base had already been laid, but without the full array of facts and figures, and the authoritative judgment of Lord Robbins and his colleagues, I wonder whether any of your Lordships would have considered that the Government could have carried the country with them on the scale of development which they have now accepted.
There are those who claim that we have been dilatory and those who say that we have been hasty. I submit that these critics cannot have it both ways. The true position is that having established the facts we are able to make effective decisions and go forward with a wide measure of agreement from very well-prepared positions. Expansion of higher education, my Lords, is a matter on which a wide measure of agreement is, indeed, necessary for success. It needs the freely given collaboration of the universities and other institutions of higher education. The expansion to which we look forward must not be

1241
a forced or mechanical affair: that is the very opposite of all that higher education in this country stands for. I am glad to say that in the conferences which my right honourable friend the Lord President and Minister for Science has so far had with the universities on these matters—he has already conferred with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers—this willing collaboration has been freely offered on the understanding that the Government will play their part.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? The noble Earl has made frequent reference to his right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science. I understood that there was a struggle going on in the Government—a long struggle; in fact too long—as to whether they were to have two Ministers or one; whether the Lord President was to win or whether the Minister of Education would have a say. Are we to take it from the noble Earl's frequent reference to the work of his right honourable friend in this sphere that he is prejudging the issue as to whether the Lord President is to be Minister of Higher Education?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The Government have taken absolutely no decision in this matter, and, indeed, I am going to deal with this question a little later in my speech. There are differing views on both sides of the House, as well as within Parties, I may say; but I need not go further into that at the moment.
Some people tend to talk as if universities were some kind of public utility such as roads. They are not. If they are to fulfil their end in our system they must remain what they are to-day, free and independent institutions. Some of the most emphatic passages in the Robbins Report are devoted to this issue and to the safeguards required for academic independence. In particular I quote from paragraph 731 of the Report.
"We regard the principle exemplified by the University Grants Committee as an essential ingredient of any future government machinery …"
1242
This principle the Government wholeheartedly accept, and I am glad to be able to reaffirm it on their behalf so early in the tenure of my right honourable friend's new responsibilities. I am glad, too, that it is my friend, who is also a friend of several of your Lordships, Sir John Wolfenden, the new Chairman of the University Grants Committee, who will be largely responsible for this work.
Beside this question of principle, the ultimate distribution of Ministerial responsibilities—now I come to this point—and departmental organisation seems to me to be much less important. But, as I have already told your Lordships, there are strong and differing views, and all deserve respect. Some we have already read in the Press, and others will, I have no doubt, be expounded by your Lordships in the course of the debate.
Until the Treasury relinquished their responsibility for universities—they were finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile these with the main body of their duties—there were five Ministers, not two or three, who had responsibilities in the field of education: first, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has been responsible for the grants to the University Grants Committee; secondly, the Lord President of the Council, who has been concerned with post-graduate awards and scientific grants; thirdly, the Minister of Education himself, who is responsible for the teacher training colleges, the CATS and other establishments of further education; fourthly, the Secretary of State for Scotland in so far as education there is concerned; fifthly, the Minister of Labour, whose interest is in industrial training.
These arrangements have not worked badly, but some have argued that one Minister should assume all these responsibilities; others that they should be distributed in various ways between two or three Ministers. The Government are most anxious—and I am very glad to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, on this point—to weigh all that is said on this subject before reaching a conclusion upon it. Few would deny, however, that in the immediate future, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, especially emphasises in

1243
the Motion before us to-day, there is a major need at Ministerial level for co-ordination of what I might term the short-term expansion of higher education to which we are all committed. I would remind your Lordships briefly what these commitments are.
Before Lord Robbins reported, the Government were planning for, and had undertaken to finance, 150,000 full-time university places and 15,000 places in Colleges of Advanced Technology and the equivalent institutions in Scotland by 1966–67; altogether, 168,000 places of degree standard or higher. The new short-term objective, as set by Robbins, is for the following year, 1967–68, and is for 197,000 places. Since this is a year after the end of the current university quinquennium on which detailed planning is based, no specific target had obviously been set for this year, but I think we might well have got beyond the modest increase of 4,000 places over 1966–67, which is shown on page 260 of the Robbins Report as "places planned". After all, the increase this October has been 9,000.
However that may be, the objective of 197,000 places four years from now is a formidable one. Determination, ingenuity and improvisation will be called for from all concerned, as well as finance; and, as we know, our building industry is very heavily loaded. After this period, which we hope will be a period of stimulation in our universities, demographic considerations will allow us to enter a period which will become one of consolidation. The age groups from which students come, after rising to a spectacular peak of nearly one million eighteen-year-olds in 1965 (the post-war bulge in the birth rate), will begin to fall away in the next few years before mounting again in the 'seventies. During this period the universities will still be expanding, but our hopes of additional students in the late 'sixties and early 'seventies are based on what we expect to be the greater proportion who every year will be staying on in the sixth forms and getting to the standards required. During this period also—the latter part of the ten-year programme which the University Grants Committee have been asked to frame—the base must be established before the further considerable expan-
1244
sion of the later 'seventies when demography again takes charge of our educational system.
I hope it will not be said that by taking decisions over the next ten years we have ignored the recommendations made in the Robbins Report about the scale of expansion down to 1980. Specific commitments, even for as much as ten years ahead, in this uncertain world, are unusual, but they are justified in this case not only by the elaborate provision that is needed but by the Government's desire to give an assurance both to the universities and to families that these pledges will be transformed into reality. The figures for 1981 are, as the Report says, not of the same nature as those for earlier years, which are put forward as:
"…the basis for an immediate commitment of effort and resources".
There are, of course, critics who fear that we are attempting too much by what has been described as docile acceptance of this measure of expansion. Their arguments, though I do not agree with them, are not negligible, though in an important respect at least they appear to rest on a misunderstanding. It is said that standards would inevitably fall, that students and staff of sufficient calibre will not be coming forward. It is said that the great numbers with degrees will not find commensurate jobs but will be reduced to earn their livings on an office stool in some kind of discontent. Above all, it is argued that higher education does not have the generative qualities in society that have been claimed for it.
If these critics should prove right, this country is indeed condemned to contract and diminish. The Government have espoused the great principle that higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue it, and I have no doubt there will not be a speaker in your Lordships' House who does not reiterate that great principle. In so espousing it the Government believe, with the Robbins Committee and, I should judge, the great majority in this country, that higher education makes a man better both in himself and in relation to society. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, ventured to quote Chaucer. May I quote the words of Christopher Marlowe:
aspiring minds".
"Nature itself doth teach us all to have

1245
To the extent that higher education does not do so, it is indeed a barren scholasticism of the kind that the historian Gibbon found at Oxford in the 18th century, where
"dull and deep potations excused the brisk intemperance of youth".
That great historian found his fourteen months at Magdalen the most unprofitable of his whole life. Here, indeed, was the failure of an educational system. To-day the Government, for their part, will not shrink from their share in this venture of free partnership between them, the Government, and the institutions of higher education. They are giving it a high priority among the many other possibilities of expenditure which crowd in upon us.
I said a little earlier that in one important respect the critics of expansion base their views on a misunderstanding of the situation; namely, that standards for admission and the intellectual quality of students will deteriorate. If, my Lords, a certain leaven of the less intellectual sixth-formers were in fact to get into our universities, the sort of student whose qualities of character are good for the university community and who can get a great deal of good, if not first-class honours, from this education, I think it would be no bad thing.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? This is a very important point and one with which I am most heartily in agreement with him. But if one accepts this view—and I accept this view—the corollary is that the expansion must be much greater than Robbins. I am with the noble Earl 100 per cent. on this matter.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I think it would be most interesting to get the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, himself on this point. He is certainly more qualified than I to give an opinion. But, on the whole, the Government have accepted the plan.
The whole foundation, as I see it, of the Robbins Report, and the figures which have been accepted by the Government, is that no deterioration of standards or student quality is involved, and as Lord Robbins demonstrates on page 88 of Appendix I of the Report, there are indeed considerable reserves of ability. I think that chapter on the
1246
pool of ability in Appendix I is a most interesting one and I commend it to those of your Lordships who have not already read it. There is no doubt that the number of new entrants will be large. But the fact is that they represent the growing numbers of actual young people in the age groups concerned, and the best estimates that can be made of the proportion—again a growing one—who will get to the present standards required and wish to pursue their studies.
My Lords I should like to conclude what I have to say by dwelling upon what for me, and I am certain for my right honourable friend and also for many of your Lordships, was one of the most satisfying features of the Report. It demonstrates—contrary to the views of professional pessimists—how high a place our university system in Britain occupies in the world to-day. The guarantees of its freedom are very generally admired and envied. Its rate of success among the students who enter it is outstanding. Its overall proportion of staff to students, while perhaps falling short of what many of us would like to see, is outstanding, and notably better than that in any of the countries visited by Lord Robbins, including the United States and the Soviet Union. Despite the expansion of the last few years, the recruitment of staff has on the whole kept pace with the growing number of students, although there have been some difficulties, of course, in certain faculties.
I might perhaps now deal with one point to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor referred in regard to the U.G.C. and overseas students. It is not true that the U.G.C. have advised the universities to keep the proportion of overseas students at the present level. I cannot read the whole letter of Sir John Wolfenden on this matter, but I think I ought to quote this sentence:
"It is certainly the Government's hope that as the expansion programme develops the universities will be able to offer facilities for an increasing number of overseas students, particularly at post-graduate level".
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl again, since he has quoted me, and it makes it look as though I was misinformed. I am on a school council of a university, and as a member of that council have received a directive asking us not to increase the intake of overseas students above the

1247
present figure for the next five years. Surely there must be more in the letter than the noble Earl has revealed. He has revealed his bit but not our bit.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I certainly cannot read the whole letter through.
LORD TAYLOR: A piece will do.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: The noble Lord no doubt has a copy of it as well. It is Sir John Wolfenden's announcement regarding the Robbins Report, dated October 24. I am certain I am right in saying that there will in fact be an increase, even if it may slow up to a certain extent. But, at any rate, people from abroad, particularly from the Commonwealth, continue to flock to our universities and other institutions. They know the value of the education they will receive. They constitute fully 10 per cent. of our university population; and even if, during the immediate years ahead, when our own age groups are increasing so rapidly, the proportion of students from overseas should fall slightly, I hope there will never be a year in which their numbers fall away, or indeed fail to increase, even if the rate may be a little slower.
LORD TAYLOR: That is what I said.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: It is most fortunate then that on yet another matter there is general agreement on both sides of the House
My Lords, this indeed is a timely debate. It comes at a moment when certain major proposals have been accepted and ways of implementing them are being worked out; and when other problems still require decision. I know that the views which so many of your Lordships are so well qualified to express will be taken into full account, and I am sure that those views will weigh with the University Grants Committee and those in the educational world who are concerned with planning this great advance towards higher levels of civilisation, and, indeed, all those who, again in Marlowe's words, are "climbing after knowledge infinite".
In the modern world the future of higher education may be the secret for
1248
the success of free government. As Lord Robbins has shown, the university lies at the heart of the intellectual life of the country. This is where new knowledge is found and new thought is developed. This is where the real cadre of administrative talent is trained in all professions. This, above all, is the true mixer of classes. This is the point at which the egalitarianism of democracy and the aristocracy of merit become one. All should have an equal opportunity of getting there, but once there each will reach the level of his own ability. Therefore, the Government attach to this work the highest importance, since they regard the implementation of these proposals as of cardinal importance in their design for a free society.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that we have heard at some length the views of the Lord President of the Council who is the ministerial chief of the noble Earl, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Science, and we should like to congratulate the Lord President on being so narrowly returned recently to the House of Commons. But, having informed us as to what the Lord President thinks about it, can the noble Earl tell us something that is equally relevant—namely, what view the Minister of Education takes about this Report, and the debate to-day? I think it is relevant and I should be obliged to the noble Earl if he could tell us.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that there is no difference between the views of my two right honourable friends on this matter. I do not, in fact, reply for the Minister of Education, but we may hear more on this later. I can assure the noble Lord that these views are fully accepted by both my right honourable friends.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I must say that I thought the noble Earl was replying for the Government as a whole. This is a new doctrine, for a Minister in this House to reply for one Minister, and not for another Minister who is equally concerned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then why did the noble Lord ask his question?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: As they say in Lancashire, "Tha knows".
4.56 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sure that, despite this little exchange of the last minute or so, all your Lordships will be with me when I say how gladly we have heard the noble Earl who has spoken for the Government. I myself have admired the lucidity and vigour with which has has spoken. It never occurred to me, listening to him, that he was doing other than speaking for Her Majesty's Government. My own interest in this important subject is coloured by the fact that I was for a good many years a university teacher, and my experience included both an ancient and a modern university. I learned to admire the virtues of both and to see some of the difficulties of both. Were I still in academic life I am sure that I should be looking forward to the exciting possibilities in view as a result of the Robbins Report, and I join with all who have paid tribute to it as a remarkable document.
The public discussion of the Robbins Report has been chiefly around the question: Will the quality of university standards be maintained amidst an increase of the university population by 40 per cent. in the next three years, and by threefold by the year 1980? The Report argues that the standards can be maintained, since the increase of university population will bring with it the necessary increase of teachers, research workers and good scholars. But it argues the case with no sort of complacency, and it makes and implies some important caveats: that there must be special efforts to safeguard research; that there must be a better-thought-out balance between the broad courses and specialised courses of study; that there must be good tutorial methods developed, with the right sort of contact between teachers and students; and, above all, there is the plea that two-thirds of the coming expansion must be residential expansion. My fear is that the policy of expansion may go forward, but that, as years pass, the important caveats may not all, whether through pressure of expansion or for other reasons, be safeguarded as they
1250
should be. For instance, it would be most regrettable if the policy of making two-thirds of the increased university population residential were dropped or modified, on the ground that the best can be the enemy of the good. I believe that if a compromise like that were made, we might get neither the good nor the best, but the worst in academic development.
Nor am I sure that the Robbins Report sufficiently brings out what the quality of good standards really means. It describes penetratingly the chief elements in good standards: the needs of research, the varieties in the kinds of good teacher, the value of tutorial work, the value of residence, and so forth. But I believe that the secret of a good university lies not just in the existence of those elements in requisite quantities but, in a community wherein they are interrelated one to another, in a certain kind of indefinable genius. Mr. X or Miss Y enters a university, whether Oxbridge or Redbrick, or some species yet to be invented. What does he or she expect? To be trained for his profession, or taken along part of the way towards it? Yes. To collect a lot of knowledge so as to become a well-informed citizen? Yes. But there is far more that he should expect—namely, to give and to get in a community of minds and personalities. In this community of minds and personalities a number of things need to be happening, and happening altogether.
The man will be learning about his own subjects in more depth. He will also be getting some idea of what other people's subjects are about, his mental curiosity being stretched and his imagination widened. This widening happens partly through the element of breadth in certain parts of the curriculum and partly through the large unofficial world of intellectual activities which surround the working hours. The man, too, will expect teachers of more than one sort. Some will be teachers with a gift for being interested not only in their subject but in people, and they can help the student to find himself mentally and spiritually. Other teachers, without necessarily being less human, will be devoting themselves to research and the enlargement of knowledge: and I would say that a university fails unless every undergraduate gets a little of the

1251
inspiration from being in a place where there are people devoted to the pursuit of the sciences and the arts for their own sake.
All these things mixed together make up the virtue of a good university. The community aspect of it is vital. It means that minds are trained in such a way that character is inevitably being trained as well. It is not difficult to produce sophisticated men and women by collecting them to learn certain subjects. But it is not sophisticated men and women that a good university tries to produce. It is men and women whose knowledge grows with character, and with reverence for persons and for the things of the mind.
So, my Lords, when we talk about the quality of standards it is something like that which we mean. And when we ask whether these standards will continue amid a vast expansion, we have to realise—and no one in this debate has yet mentioned this point—that already they are greatly under strain. At present there are too many university students who have a lonely life in lodgings, long distances to travel daily, and little of the intellectual community which is so important. At present there are too many courses which lack the proper personal relations between teachers and students. It is also alarming to know that already in the years 1959–61 of the intake of new university teachers only 52 per cent. had themselves first-class degrees. Already there come to our universities some entrants with little ability to give and to get in the way that a university needs. This has nothing to do with social background or the wage-group of their parents: nothing whatever. It is to do with a failure to have the mind able to take its part in the institution for their mutual good.
Here, I would say something about selection. The problem of selection has not yet really been solved by the universities, or by the schools or by the Robbins Report. The Robbins Report approaches the question most helpfully, but I wish it could have had space to probe into it further. The only method so far discovered is to pick boys and girls who secure the highest marks in the appointed test. But I am sure it is possible for a boy or girl to get a high
1252
mark at that stage and yet to have worn out his mental powers and mental ambitions in the process. He has gone mentally as far as he will go at that time, though, as Lord McNair has reminded us, it is possible that after the lapse of a few years his powers might recover and mature. Such a man, although he has gained a high entrance mark, does not grow in the appreciation of what is going to be offered to him in the university.
It is possible, too, for a pupil at school to be less able to hit a high notch in university entrance and yet to be capable of all the development which university life calls for. The Robbins Committee mentions the need to look at the pupil's school record over back years. But do we not need more than that, if only we could discover what? The Americans use the word "motivation", and so does the Robbins Report, without pursuing the matter far. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, did not use the word "motivation" but spoke vigorously about this matter, and I support him whole-heartedly. The questions to ask are: "Why do you want to go to the University? What do you hope to do, to learn, to become, when you get there?" That is what we want to discover about the aspirant to a university place.
This means that on any showing the problem of selection cannot be solved by seeing school and university as separate worlds. In a good many ways the university problems partly begin in the sixth form, and indeed in the fifth form, at school. I believe that this consideration is one reason for the plea made by my old friend, Mr. Shearman, in his dissentient note in the Report, that it would be a pity to have two Ministries dealing with education rather than one. I think that his plea has great force.
My Lords, it has been said that the Robbins Report forecasts a revolution in our national life. So it does, and I believe it is a revolution that is overdue. I have put to your Lordships some considerations about the question "Will standards be maintained?", and my plea that the quality of these standards is hound up not just with certain factors being numerically maintained but with the holding of these factors together in intellectual communities with a certain kind of ideal at work in them. If

1253
standards are to be maintained and to grow, there must be no diminution for reasons of economy or for any reason of the caveats which the Robbins Report makes, and we need to look at the secret of quality more closely even than the Robbins Report does.
Within this coming era of expansion, the Church in which I hold office and, I am sure, all the Churches will give to the schools and universities the utmost service which they can. Left to itself expansion can extend the weaknesses as well as the virtues of our present university life. We do not as a country want sophisticated men and women. We want men and women whose acquisition of knowledge has come together with growth in character, with humility before life's mysteries, and reverence—reverence for persons and reverence for the things of the mind.
5.10 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, having recently delivered to Parliament no fewer than four heavy volumes on the subject which we are debating, I feel that some apology is necessary for inflicting upon your Lordships' House any further observations. But since our Report was published there have arisen so many misconceptions, both of our assumptions and our objectives, that I cannot help thinking that some intervention at this stage may help to clarify further discussion. I should like to begin with a few words on the case for expansion. On this, although our main recommendations have been accepted by the Government, they have been the subject of bitter attack in several exalted quarters—conspicuously, the columns of The Times where we have been accorded the unusual distinction of serialised leaders. The general tenor of these attacks is that our projections involve the dilution of standards and the degradation of the atmosphere of universities. "More means worse", is the slogan. It was coined, I believe, by Mr. Kingsley Antis, the author of the well-known university novel Lucky Jim; and, to be truthful, it is just about the attitude which I should have expected from his hero.
The first thing that needs to be said about these criticisms is that our projections involve no lowering of entry
1254
standards. For good or for bad—and many people, I agree, will think that we were too severe—we based our recommendations on figures which assumed no reduction of present entry requirements. The suggestion, therefore, that we were deliberately planning the intake of a less well-qualified population can be based only on a failure to read what was said. It can be argued, I recognise, that the numbers will not be forthcoming. Of course nobody can be at all sure of what is going to happen 20 years hence, and we were careful to say where our predictions had an element of uncertainty. But the idea that there is not sufficient talent in the country is not one that stands up well to detailed examination.
I defy any unprejudiced person to examine the tables in the Report, or in Appendix I, without reaching the opposite conclusion—namely, that the reserves of untapped ability are extensive. The present proportion, for instance, of young people entering higher education from the higher professional families is 45 per cent.; the proportion from skilled manual families is 4 per cent. Even in families of the same occupational level, the proportion reaching higher education is four times as high from families with one or two children as from those with five or more. It is possible, of course, as regards income differences, that there may be some biological foundations, but we do not know what they are; and to stress such factors and to ignore the obvious differences, the obvious influences of differences of wealth and environment, is to imitate the man in the American fable who could see the fly on the barn door but could not see the barn door itself.
I see no reasonable ground for doubting that the ability is there if we are willing to use it; and, what is more, I see no reasonable ground for doubting that it will come forward if we are willing to help it. All the indications of trend since 1944 point in the same direction. But, my Lords, if this is true, if there is a likelihood of numbers of the order we envisaged actually capable and willing to benefit from higher education, it follows that, if the editor of The Times and those who think with him have their way, henceforward we shall be progressively turning away ever

1255
larger numbers of young people who on present entry standards would have got in. That may or may not be a tenable position designed to safeguard certain excellences not believed to be otherwise capable of preservation, but it certainly needs to be explicitly formulated that way. I personally, my Lords, think that it is cruel, unjust and unwise; and nowhere does this come out more starkly than in the attitude adopted by the advocates of such views to the problem of the "bulge"—the prospective advent at the gates of higher education of the abnormally large number of young people born just after the war.
Here The Times leader writer, in his first attack on the morrow of the publication of our Report, actually went out of his way to reproach the Committee for highlighting this problem while minimising (which was grossly untrue) the problems of defective accommodation, deficient staffing, which have occurred in the past. It was Tom Paine, I think, who said of Burke on the French Revolution, that he pitied the plumage and forgot the dying bird. I am sure that university teachers are grateful to The Times for emphasising the considerable difficulties to which they, in common with many other people, are often exposed. But what shall we say of the attitude of those who, confronted by some 25,000 young people for whom places may not be available, can think only of the increased inconvenience and heavier burdens? They may think it better that the young people in question had not been born; but here they are, my Lords, and the question is: what is to be done about them? I do not think that they or their parents—or, I hope, the country at large—will be content with a demonstration that they may be something of a nuisance.
In the most recent attacks on expansion I have detected a change of emphasis. I suspect that The Times leader writer has been following Sir Eric Ashby's recommendation to read the Appendices. He has even a note of gratification that we have revealed some reserves of talent. The line now is rather that there is to be too much expansion; that, instead of planning for this, we should have devised an extensive substructure of lesser institutions, transmogrified technical colleges, junior colleges and so on; that
1256
in this way the present atmosphere of universities could have been preserved intact, yet a larger percentage of the relevant age group could have had the kind of education which is really appropriate to it.
My Lords, these views are not new. If we rejected them it was certainly not because they had not occurred to us. We did, indeed, think long and earnestly about the possibility of the introduction of junior institutions, and of the reservation of the universities for young people with much higher initial qualifications. We inspected such institutions elsewhere. We listened respectfully to witnesses who recommended them. But, in the end, we rejected them decisively. We rejected them on the grounds that we knew no tests which, at present levels of entry, would enable us to say with justice to one person, "You may go on to a university", and to another, "You must go to a junior college". We rejected them because we did not think that it would be a good thing for the universities themselves, at the undergraduate stage, to be composed exclusively of specially selected "eggheads".
When I was a young don at Oxford, though there were heavyweight "eggheads" about, such as my noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, there was quite an appreciable proportion of students taking groups who would never have got in nowadays. Yet I do not think that the atmosphere of Oxford was appreciably degraded thereby, even from the point of view of The Times leader writer. Indeed, I personally think it a good thing that, at that stage, the prospective "eggheads" should mix with all sorts and types of character and talent, and realise that pure intellect is not the only admirable thing in life. We rejected these proposals, finally, because we thought that the creation of such institutions—the junior colleges and the like—would tend to the perpetuation of artificial hierarchies, and we conceived it as one of our duties to eliminate such distinctions, not create new ones.
But, my Lords, we did not recommend no change in university courses. On the contrary, we went out of our way to emphasise certain changes which the increased scale of operation would render desirable. In the sphere of severer studies, we underlined the need

1257
for more and better-organised graduate schools; and, what is more germane to the present controversy, at the undergraduate level we emphasised the need for more courses with a broad, rather than a deep, coverage. We said nothing to disparage existing honour specialisms for those whose bent made them fitted for such courses, but we urged that already there is a substantial proportion of students who would be better served, both in regard to aptitude and preparation for life, by courses of a broader nature. We said—and I think some of the commentators have missed this one:
"We should not recommend so large an expansion of universities as we do unless we were confident that it would be accompanied by a big increase in the number of students taking broader first degrees."
To come back now to the critics of expansion. If the arguments regarding the reserves of ability which I have been developing are followed, it follows that the case against expansion must rest on the view that expansion as such must lead to a deterioration of standards of teaching and research. Not the quality or the deserts of the students, but rather the performance of the teachers and the general ethos of the universities is said to be at stake. My Lords, I do not deny that there are great dangers. I think, indeed, that we are asking of our universities and institutions of higher education effort even greater in some ways than they have had to undertake in the past. I do not close my eyes to the possibility that sometimes, somewhere, some damage may occur. No one who knows anything of the organisation of such institutions—and I think I may claim that the members of our Committee knew at least as much as most of their critics—no one who has had such experience, can deny that that is possible. But, my Lords, I do deny that it is inevitable. I do deny that it is even to be regarded as probable.
In the last sixty years the university population has risen from 20,000 to 118,000. Doubtless some good things have been lost in the process, but others have been gained. I do not think it can seriously be entertained that standards have suffered, that the quality of teaching has deteriorated, and that there has been a falling away in performance, in scholarship or in scientific discovery. The Times leader writer may
1258
detect some subtle deterioration in the quality of talk over nuts and wine, but it is not obvious in the learned journals and the output of scientific works.
One of the main fears clearly relates to size as such, and I would be the last to deny that there are real dangers here. Institutions which do not change their structure as they grow run obvious risks of loss of personal contacts and mass mediocrity. But, again, the dancers are not inevitable. Those who think that a university can never grow to accommodate more than 1,000 or so students should reflect that, London apart, which is sui generis, the largest universities in the country are Oxford and Cambridge; and that, although even their growth has brought its problems, it can hardly be said of them that the right university atmosphere is entirely absent. I am no advocate, my Lords, of monster organisations on the trans-Atlantic model, though even these have more to be said for them than is sometimes admitted. But I cannot believe that our talent for academic organisation in this country is so barren that we cannot raise the average population of universities to something nearer the Oxford and Cambridge size without losing all that universities stand for—and I am happy to see that the authorities of some of the new universities, not to mention conspicuous leadership elsewhere, are of the same opinion.
The greatest difficulty, of course, is in recruitment of staff. Can we get the manpower to carry this thing through? Now I think it can be shown, and can be done mathematically, that once an expansion of this kind is well under way it will feed itself, provided that the rate of growth is not actually accelerating. This was not shown by me personally, as one commentator has assumed: it was the discovery of a very brilliant young man of the name of Layard, who is shortly to join the staff of the London School of Economics—so it is Layard's Law, not Robbins's, that we are talking about. But Layard's Law operates only in the long run. In the short run there must be some strain; and if, in a position of this sort, there is super-added the additional strain due to the abnormal numbers of the bulge period, then I think it must be admitted that the difficulties may be very considerable.

1259
But what is the moral?—that we sit on the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings while the admitting deans keep the super-abundant "bulge" candidates at bay? Surely that would be the very bankruptcy of academic resources and invention, to say nothing of the injustice to the young people and to their parents whose absence on military service was responsible for the abnormality of the subsequent discontinuity in marriage and birth rates. In fact, I am convinced that with a little ingenuity and contriving the thing can be done. There may be some temporary worsening of staff-student ratios, some crowding of lecture rooms and libraries. But with the help from the Government which, in such circumstances, they are entitled to expect I have no doubt that the universities can win through. There is quite a lot that can be done even by way of reorganisation of existing methods. But the proviso is all-important: the help must be forthcoming.
This leads me to a slight digression of a very urgent nature. One of the most urgent needs in preparing for the impact of the "bulge" in 1965–66 is the training of as many as possible graduates to be teachers in the intervening period, and for that purpose the universities need some assurance now concerning the availability of grants in 1964–65. My noble friend Lord Eccles put this point very forcibly when speaking on the Address in reply to the gracious Speech, and he asked for an immediate assurance from the Government. I am sorry to say that the answer he extracted was the reverse of satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, replying from the Front Bench said that such grants:
"… are the subject of consideration by a a standing committee appointed jointly by the Minister of Education, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Science. The grants were last reviewed by the committee in March, 1962, and they will be reviewing them again in the spring."
My Lords, this just will not do. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, it is almost a parody of Government procrastination. Here we are confronting a situation which will present vastly increased difficulties if we have not trained substantially more university teachers by the summer of 1965, and the Government calmly announced,
1260
as if all were perfectly well, that the situation will be reviewed in the spring. I can only assume that the Government and their advisers are totally unaware of what happens nowadays in the markets of good academic talent. They assume that if only they could make some announcement by May or June the young men and women with Firsts and Seconds will be only too willing to take up whatever volume of increased studentships and fellowships are made available.
This notion goes back to the interwar period of 10 per cent. unemployment. Nowadays brilliant young men and women make their arrangements at Christmas or before for what they are going to do after graduation, given ordinary luck. If the Government really mean business in meeting the "bulge" they must not wait for the spring; they must take some very quick decisions here and now before we adjourn for Christmas. I am not at all unaware that this may involve some very untidy administrative loose ends. But the need is very urgent, and unless something is done, opinion in the universities will conclude that the Government do not really care about the concrete problems of the "bulge" but only about fine phrases and nebulous rhetoric about expansion.
Let me return once more to the wider problems. I do not believe it to be true that the best spirits in the universities are afraid of expansion. They are afraid of expansion only when it is attempted with inadequate means; but, given the means, they are only too willing to respond to the needs of the future age as they have so often responded in the past. "Give us the tools," they say, "and we will do this job." I come now to a much more controversial question: the question of the appropriate machinery of Government. It is, I believe, a question of much greater intrinsic difficulty than the questions I have just been discussing. It is a question which divides both Parties and a question on which men of undoubted good-will and experience can take opposite views.
With your Lordships' permission I want to say a few words about the solution that was put forward by the majority of our Committee So far. I believe, the

1261
case for that solution has not had the attention it deserves. This is a matter about which tempers can easily be aroused; but I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that the case I have to argue rests on reason and not on emotion. I take it that I do not need to linger on the general case for control via what I call the "buffer committee" principle. This is exemplified up to date by the University Grants Committee, and in our scheme under which that Committee is enlarged and re-christened the University Grants Commission. It is possible to disagree on the matters of detail and constitution of such a Commission; but I hope that on the broad principle most of us are united. Speaking personally, I am quite sure that in this principle we in this country have hit on an administrative device of immense value. It is certainly the subject of great admiration and envy abroad; and it must be a matter of intense gratification that this principle has been accepted by the Government. I hope that it is accepted generally.
I see that it has been denounced with bell, book and candle by the redoubtable Dr. Balogh, in last week's New Statesman. I must confess that does not worry me very much: Dr. Balogh is so frequently wrong. But since he is sometimes depicted, perhaps wrongly, as one of the most influential of the Labour Party advisers, it would certainly allay anxiety in the universities and help to keep this thing out of politics—which I hope can be done—if it could be assumed that his is not the official Labour Party line.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I interrupt on this point? The noble Lord is absolutely right in his assumption. We are for the "buffer" principle.
LORD ROBBINS: I thank the noble Lord very much. The division of opinion, therefore, relates rather to the question: to which Ministry should the Grants Commission be responsible? It was made very clear to us in evidence that the Treasury were not willing to take on the responsibility for the Grants Commission with the enlarged area which we proposed for it; and I think it is true that the position of the Treasury, as the guardian of the public purse, has been becoming, year by year, more and more incompatible with the position
1262
of the Department responsible for the universities. The obvious alternatives, therefore, were to transfer responsibility to an enlarged Ministry of Education, or to a new Ministry which combined responsibility for the universities, via the Grants Commission, with responsibility for the Research Councils and, possibly, for museums and galleries and the subsidies to learned societies. After much discussion, the majority of our Committee chose the latter, and we are pleased to find that our opinions in this respect were supported by the Trend Committee, which had been working on a parallel problem.
Before I state the positive case for this particular solution, may I dispose of one or two arguments against it? First, may I repudiate with all the emphasise I can command the accusation that what we were seeking to do was to create a new elite, an artificial separation between the population of higher and lower education. Throughout our Report we were seeking to dissolve artificial hierarchy. The whole tenor of our recommendations was to abolish unnecessary obstacles and false distinctions. Where we recognised distinctions, where we recommended differences of administrative structure, our recommendations were based not on differences of status artificially created but on real differences of functions. You cannot think such differences out of the world just because, from time to time, they give rise to false valuations and ill-based snobbery. If I may say so in all friendliness to my opponents in this debate, I find something extremely factitious in egalitarian objections to the recognition of the appropriateness of an administrative division which has commended itself even in Soviet Russia.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is the noble Lord arguing that we have got to follow the Communist country of Soviet Russia?
LORD ROBBINS: No, my Lords, I was not arguing that, but we have to learn wherever we can, and we had no complaints in that country of the existence of one Ministry for higher and technological education and other ministries for the schools.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, in Russia the whole of medical education, for example, is not under the Ministry of

1263
Higher and Technological Education but under the Ministry of Health. I think that arugments drawn by analogy from Russia and attributed vicariously to us are a little unfair of the noble Lord, with much of whose remarks we are in agreement.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I was not seeking to draw wholesale conclusions from the administrative organisations of that great Republic, but simply to draw attention to the fact that, on our brief visit, at any rate, we found no complaints on egalitarian grounds that this difference of function that I am talking about had been recognised in departmental structure.
But, in saying this, I would not have your Lordships think that we were at any time unaware of the imperative need of proper co-ordination between the autonomous institutions and the schools. I am perfectly prepared to admit—indeed, it is no admission; it was a positive submission on our part—that arrangements in this respect have been far from adequate in the past and are still inadequate. But this is a desideratum which it should be possible to meet without the existence of ministerial arrangements which, in other respects, may be undesirable. My noble friend Lord Eccles, in his impassioned utterance on the gracious Speech, conjured us to remember the need for such continuity in arrangements as would permit appropriate elasticity in dealing with late developers. I perfectly agree. But is it not invoking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, to argue that only the gleichgeschalting of university arrangements under a Ministry, which necessarily operates with a different style, is capable of procuring such continuity? Mr. Harold Wilson, speaking in another place, seemed to suggest that, without a common Ministry, we should say goodbye to any hope of a proper solution of the curriculum problem and of the problems of university entrance. Again, I agree that these are most urgent problems, and if I did not believe that these problems could be solved within the framework we proposed, I should not have signed the Report. But I see no reason to suppose that our solution requires a common Ministry. We devoted considerable time to the consideration of just these pro-
1264
blems, and I am sure that the machinery we proposed would be capable of meeting all such requirements.
Now, my Lords, let me come to the more positive arguments for our solution. I said earlier that we recommended differences in institutions or differences of machinery only where we recognised differences of function. The great difference which we recognised between the universities and the schools was that, whereas the schools were simply and solely concerned with education, the universities, while indeed deeply committed to education, were also equally committed to the function which, for want of a better phrase, can be described as the advancement of learning.
I think that it is a truly disquieting thing that, in the public discussion which has taken place up to date, this difference has not been more frequently recognised. It is certainly a circumstance that goes far to explain the intense apprehensions which exist within the universities at any move to bring them within the administrative ambit of a Ministry chiefly concerned with the administration of schools. For it is a fact, which must never be lost sight of, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has argued, that whereas without the performance of educational functions, the universities would fail of their mission, yet without the pursuance of research and the advancement of learning generally, the educational function must languish and, indeed, ossify. There has been in Russia (noble Lords opposite will recognise that on this occasion I am adopting a critical attitude) some tendency to divorce the two functions, but I am fairly confident that at the present time there are many indications in that country of an awareness that this divorce has gone too far and that spiritual health demands that these tendencies should be arrested. But once this distinction has been recognised, in my submission, we are compelled to recognise also the necessity for a different style of administration and for a separate representation in the Councils of State. At any rate, that was the conclusion to which we were forced and it is the conclusion which, with your Lordships' patience, I should like to elucidate a little further.

1265
Take, first, the question of administrative style. That there should be some difference is surely admitted by the common recognition of the necessity of controlling the universities and autonomous institutions via a Grants Commission. I need not go into that again. But the necessity for difference goes well beyond that. It was never our belief—this is a matter on which there has been much friendly misunderstanding—that, even given a Grants Commission and the traditions associated therewith, the Minister in charge should be wholly a passive agent. It is not desirable that he should be so, and indeed, in the present circumstances, with so much to be done, it is most necessary that he should be active. But the activity of such a Minister should, at least in my judgment, differ greatly from the activity proper to that of the Minister of Education as we have known it. As Mr. Crossman put it in a very eloquent letter to The Times—the sentiments of which I hope he is not in process of repudiating—whereas the appropriate activity of the Minister of Education is in direct administrative intervention with the schools and the local government authorities, the appropriate activity of the Minister responsible for the universities is in exhortation, in inquiry, in the issue of broad instructions concerning the nature of national needs.
My Lords, I have the greatest admiration for the traditions of the Ministry of Education—the tribute thereto which the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, read from our Report happens to come unaltered from my own pen—but I find it hard to believe that these traditions can be so easily adapted to the requirements of responsibility for the Grants Commission as we conceive it. May I give a specific example? I find it extraordinarily hard to conceive that the arrangements regarding accountability for capital expenditure on the part of the universities which was so laboriously negotiated for us by the Treasury and which mean so much to the freedom of the universities, could so easily have been worked out under the ægis of the Ministry of Education had Dr. Dalton not succeeded in preventing that Ministry from taking over the U.G.C. immediately after the war; and I wonder very much what would happen
1266
to these much prized arrangements if that Ministry were to take over in future.
I wonder, too, whether it would be easy for that Ministry, accustomed as it is to the administration of institutions where teaching is the main requirement and research a minor or non-existent activity, to adapt its outlook to the financial and disciplinary requirements of institutions whose raison d'être demands that the claims of teaching and research are more evenly balanced. Speaking as a university teacher not employed in a faculty with very ready access to the research councils, I must say that it is hard enough to obtain such recognition even under present arrangements. I cannot but fear that it would be even harder if the body which controls us were itself under the control of a purely educational Ministry.
But now, my Lords, the question will be put—indeed, it has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in his letter to The Times: why should these needs not be equally well met under some super Ministry of Education, with a special Minister of State for the Universities? In his letter to The Times the noble Lord went out of his way to recognise that in the next few years the business of the universities would require the attention of a Minister. But he suggested that this Minister could best be a Minister operating under the authority of a Secretary of State for Education in general. At first sight, the suggestion is very attractive. But it has been my experience that the more you look into it, the more unsatisfactory it becomes. I pass over, for lack of time, the fantastic difficulties which would be created by any attempt to put the Scottish universities under a Secretary of State responsible for English education. But there are difficulties of principle—perhaps less emotional difficulties—which go even deeper.
Let me return to the subject of research. The arrangement proposed by the noble Lord would, I think, leave the research councils under another Minister. At least, I have yet to hear any serious proposals that they, too, should be brought in under the Secretaryship of State proposed: and, indeed, I cannot help thinking that the responsibilities involved by so wide an

1267
administrative area would be too much for any man, however good his intentions. But if that is so, then one of the essentials of a good solution from the point of view of our Committee is lacking. For it was our profound conviction that it was a prime condition for the efficiency of research in the future—which means so much to our position in the world—that the administrative arrangements linking the universities and the research councils should be closer. That is why we suggested putting it under one Minister.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, with all respect, I may say that that is exactly the view I do not hold and I think the noble Lord is absolutely mistaken on this point. The value of keeping research councils under a Minister separate from the Minister responsible for universities is that you then have another chance to get the money. Anybody who has worked in universities and tried to get grants, and perhaps failed to get them from the U.G.C. but managed to get them from a research council, knows the value of having a second channel, and of not having it all under one overlord for the benefit of research.
LORD ROBBINS: I do not think it is necessary to have two Ministers to undertake such successful manœuvres. But my objections go even deeper than that. I do not believe that the set-up proposed would, in fact, be an effective safeguard of the special functions of the universities as we conceive them. I yield to no one in my admiration for the devoted labours of junior Ministers and Ministers of State. But unless things have changed very much indeed since I was a public servant, influence in matters of major policy is not one of their prime functions. That is the province of the supreme Minister and his Permanent Secretary. But it is just here that the exigencies of the university function most need separate articulation.
Consider, my Lords, the situation which would arise if there should occur some dispute of a major order between the autonomous institutions and the others, which is quite possible. Under the arrangements proposed—that is, under the super Ministry—the dispute would be settled within the Department of State, in the last analysis by the
1268
Secretary of State himself. But that, in our submission, is exactly m hat should not happen. In our submission, if there is a clash between the functions of the research councils and the universities, on the one hand, and the schools, on the other, that is a matter which should be settled at Cabinet level and not within any one Department. And it is not because, as has sometimes been suggested, they wish to contract out of their national responsibilities that the universities wish for separate representation for their functions: it is rather because they take those responsibilities so seriously that they claim that they need special articulation. Only under a Minister with access to the Cabinet in his own right would they feel that this articulation was guaranteed.
My Lords, I would not have you think that our proposal for a Ministry of Arts and Science was conceived in a purely defensive spirit. That was not so at all. On the contrary, we conceived it as giving the possibility for a strengthening of the forces making for the advancement of learning in its widest sense on a scale and in a manner hitherto unachieved, either here or anywhere else. Hitherto, there has been no Minister especially charged with the fostering of these activities. A very healthy instinct has led us to distrust the idea of a Minister responsible for learning and culture with direct powers of patronage and control on the Continental model. I should be the first to agree that such arrangements are pregnant with danger to just those manifestations they are intended to preserve.
Instead, at first, perhaps almost unconsciously, we have evolved the splendid technique to which I have already alluded, the technique of the buffer committee exemplified by the U.G.C., the Research Councils, the various boards of trustees of museums and galleries, the Royal Society and the British Academy as administrative agents. In this way we have been able to provide State assistance to learning and to the arts without hampering and stultifying controls. But so far, at least, these various intermediaries have not been the special concern of any one Minister. There has been no one Minister concerned to voice their claims in the Cabinet. Much as the universities owe to the Treasury, I very much doubt

1269
whether any Chancellor has had the time to devote even a few days per annum to thinking about their problems, still less the problems of the other such activities for which he is responsible.
Is it conceivable that if there had been such a Minister as that we propose, that provision for, let us say, the British Museum, one of the chief cultural glories of our society, should have been so scandalously neglected as it has during the last half century? I must not expatiate on these matters in detail; it would occupy too many hours. But I must say, taking my experience from those branches of humane learning which I know most intimately, that I find it difficult to believe that our history in the last fifty years could easily have been worse. It was with this sort of consideration in mind that we felt that the idea of a Ministry of Arts and Science, working through a properly co-ordinated range of buffer committees, could give the advancement of art and learning an opportunity as it has never had before in this country or anywhere else, and bequeath to a future age almost limitless prospects of improvement.
My Lords, I have finished. I have tried to give my arguments the force I think they deserve. But I should like to say in conclusion that I am well aware that in a matter so difficult as this I may not have got things wrong. I can quite conceive that in twenty years' time the exigencies of Cabinet reorganisation may have made it convenient to have all the Departments connected with education and the advancement of knowledge grouped in some super Ministry under one Secretary of State. But I would plead that if that is so, then nothing for which I have asked to-day would prejudice such a reorganisation. It would be easy enough, as a matter of accommodation and administrative charts, to integrate a Ministry of Arts and Science into such a larger organisation. Meanwhile, however, if we started as we proposed its staff would have acquired the habits and traditions appropriate to their functions in a milieu free from distracting pressures, and universities would have been able to undertake the gigantic tasks that we require of them under auspices which they trust rather than fear. I do not think I can over-stress this last advantage. We are asking the universities
1270
to assume wider functions and heavier burdens than ever before in history. It is my final plea to you, my Lords, that they should not be asked to do this in a setting in which, rightly or wrongly, a large number of their members have little confidence.
6.6 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, it is in no spirit of mock humility that I inform your Lordships that I feel very much like a new boy appearing before a somewhat terrifying and learned group of high academics in order to plead for some small case in which I am interested. Perhaps, therefore, your Lordships will forgive me if I do not even approach the high standards to which we have listened this afternoon. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said, that my own interest is confined to the somewhat narrow field of adult education, upon which I hope to say a word or so. But with your Lordships' permission, I should like to refer to one or two thoughts that have passed through my mind as I have listened to the speeches this afternoon. If it be true that the occupational disease of academics is argument, we have had a very good example of that kind of spirit this afternoon, and we may be sure that this is not the end of the argument by a long way. A great deal of good will come out of it.
There is a further thing that one may say, and it is this. This is not the only occasion in which there has been a widespread interest throughout the country in educational matters. In the course of my desultory reading, I have looked up one or two books and papers and I find that there have been educational advances suggested over the years which have shown a certain pattern of progress, but have never reached the high standards that were hoped for during the time that these appeals were being made. If I may say so, I think it is not to the advantage of the one thing we are seeking today if we are to treat this very important subject as one of mere Party political controversy, when the subject matter affects the future of our whole country. There is this to be said for our country. When we feel ourselves in a particular state of crisis there is no question as to what political Party one belongs: we all unite for the one purpose of overcoming the difficulty

1271
with which we are faced. And I suggest that we are faced with a very great difficulty to-day. That difficulty is not limited to this country alone. Some of your Lordships will have seen in the German View that is circulated to us—a very reasonable paper—that in a recent issue of November 20 there was an article on the problems of the crowded universities. They give numbers; they ask whose task it is to deal with it, what the danger is, and so on.
This is not merely a one-country problem. In the current number of the Labour News, issued by the United States Information Service and circulated from the American Embassy, there is, under the significant heading "Social Problems" an article headed "Education, Challenge and Change". It is an article (reprinted from the American Federationist) by Francis Keppel, United States Commission for Education, who was previously Dean of the Graduate School of Education of Harvard University. In the article, so typical of American productions, facts and figures are given of the position of employment and unemployment in America. Two tables are given, one headed "Unemployment is much higher among those with the least education", and showing a chart illustrating this fact. There is another chart with the heading: "The Biggest Increases will occur in occupations requiring the most education and training". The obvious inference is that, if you want your country to be prosperous economically, financially and industrially, that is the kind of examination to make in order to show that in this matter of trying to spread education among the people as a whole, your greatness as a country depends on the numbers to whom you can give education.
Therefore, my Lords, my own feeling is this: whatever may be the attitude of the Government towards the proposals contained in the Robbins Report (and no one can speak too highly of that Report, by virtue of its contents and tables, whatever differences of opinion there may be otherwise), one hopes that there will be a more material result from this amazing collection of facts than there has been in the past. And, to explain why I say "than there
1272
has been in the past", I should like, if your Lordships will permit, to read just a short extract from a lecture. The lecturer said:
"… it may be worth noting that a social force has come into being, new in magnitude if not in kind, which must favourably modify such boundaries … as I have outlined. This force is the modern alliance between pure science and industry. That on this we must mainly rely for the improvement of the material conditions under which societies live is, in my opinion, obvious, although no one would conjecture it from a historic survey of political controversy. Its direct moral effects are less obvious; indeed, there are many most excellent people who would altogether deny their existence."
I would explain to your Lordships that this is an extract from the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture delivered in January, 1908, by a man whose name is printed in the flyleaf as the Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour, M.P. He was obviously speaking as a philosopher—certainly not as a politician; but he was then seeing for himself the trend of thought towards the growth of science in the communities with which he was dealing so many years ago.
Last Wednesday there was celebrated in Glasgow a dinner of the Chemical Society of Great Britain, to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of the isotopes by, as noble Lords will know, Frederick Soddy. I am very vague about what isotopes do and are: all I know is that knowledge in isotopes must be growing because even the Penguin people have published a volume dealing with isotopes alone. But the important part of what I have just said rests on this, that although Professor Soddy was a Nobel Prizewinner, dealing with chemical and other physical questions, he wrote a book in 1926 called Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt—a subject very different from the one for which he received the Nobel Prize. The book opens with this sentence:
"Technocrary claims that by the use of the inanimate energy of nature and by means of machines and mass production, man has become independent of his own physical exertions for his maintenance, the so-called 'iron law of scarcity', upon which the older economics was founded, has been abolished, that poverty and unemployment at one and the same time is now a horrible anachronism, that the average income and expenditure of the whole American nation could easily be multiplied many times with less hours of labour and more of leisure, and that the banker is out of date as the ruler of a scientific and technological civilisation."

1273
That, I repeat, was written in 1926. He also wrote another book in 1923.
In 1943 the first part of a book, entitled Red Brick University, was written (again it was published by Pelican in 1951) under the pseudonym of Bruce Truscott. The second part was written in 1945. I strongly recommend the reading of this book by those interested in the debates of to-day and to-morrow, because, whatever differences there may be about the opinions expressed, there is a great deal of factual material in this book, some of which shows that while the University Grants Committee have been compelled to say at one period that they could not afford certain outlays of money, at another period, not long after, they were able to say that they could give sums of money. There is sufficient to convince the reader that the University Grants Committee were not in as strong a position as they should be, considering the vital functions they were supposed to undertake—functions which we are saying to-day are inadequate for the enormous task that now lies in front of them.
I prefer not to enlarge upon these introductory remarks, but I would acid that I was deeply impressed by the publication of the Labour Party's Study Group on Higher Education, particularly in the paragraphs dealing with adult education. And although much of it is perhaps of greater reference to Scotland, it applies to a large extent to the country as a whole. At the time when I first became interested in this adult education movement the object was to give adults who, through different circumstances, had been unable to acquire the education for which they were longing an opportunity to attend classes and to follow the particular subjects in which they were interested to a level very much higher than that they could have hoped to reach in the schools which they left at the age of fourteen, or even fifteen. I can tell noble Lords of the transformations I have seen in individuals who, at first glance, would appear to possess neither the intelligence nor the capacity for intellectual work, but who have shown by the progress they have made and by the results they have achieved after ordinary examinations that they were capable of benefiting very considerably.
1274
I give as an example one man who was unemployed at the time but who was able to persuade the local authority to give him a bursary for two consecutive years. He was, as I saw him, just a professional unemployed man, if you like, very poor in speech; he appeared to have no high intelligence and was the sort of man you would pass without a second glance. After two years he entered Glasgow university and came out with, I think, an honours arts degree in philosophy and economics. He had occasion to come to me to apply for a post as secretary of the district W.E.A., and I saw in that man, whom I had known as a student, a different man entirely. He could speak, he could argue, he could explain; he was a man alive, compared to what he had been when I first knew him. And that is not an isolated example. I could give other examples which have made a deep impression on me, some rather recent.
There is in Scotland, as some of your Lordships will know, just one residential college for adults, the house in an Abbey which was given to the country by the late Marquess of Lothian. We had, employed by us, a tutor in philosophy. His father and his brother were Clyde shipyard workers. He went to Oxford with a scholarship and came away with a qualification in philosophy. For nine years he acted as tutor at this residential college. The university of Strathclyde, probably appreciating his value, took him away from us, and we had to find a substitute for him. We cut down what is called in Scotland the short leet to two, one a woman and the other a man. The woman looked like, spoke like, a typical Lancashire mill girl; she had actually worked as a mill girl, and having attended tutorial classes in her particular town she then wrote her essay in the hope of entering Manchester University, which she did. She spent, I think, three years there, and left Manchester University with an M.A. honours degree. But, feeling that possibly this business of getting academic degrees was not a difficult thing to do, she thought she would enter for a doctorate in philosophy, and after the short period of two years came away with a Ph.D. in addition to her M.A. We were willing to engage her as our tutor in philosophy, but because she had applied elsewhere for another post at the same

1275
time and subsequently got it we took the second choice on our short leet.
He was a boy who had left a junior secondary school and then became a sort of errand boy and worked in a garage. He then decided that he would like to come to New Battle Abbey College in order to work, if possible, for a degree in Edinburgh University. To cut the story short, he got his degree at Edinburgh University, and from there obtained a job at the London School of Economics, from which he applied to New Battle for the post of tutor in economics. He is there to-day. But for the fact that there was this facility in adult education to enable him to become what he felt he most wished to be, there is a risk that he would have continued as an errand boy. Instead he is now, I believe, the tutor in economics at the New Battle College. That is an account of what can happen at a residential college.
There is another aspect of this matter which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice. When the Glasgow University Extra-Mural Committee (which, in parenthesis, I may say was really the foundation of the late Lord Lindsay of Birker, who later became Master of Balliol and afterwards Principal of what is now called Keele University) was first begun, the adult students who came there were men and women for whom adult education was originally intended—that is to say, men and women whose early education was inadequate for their needs and who wanted to improve their education as they were anxious and willing to act as local members of municipalities, as Members of Parliament, with some knowledge of what is meant by politics, by history, by philosophy, by psychology and so on. For years that was the type of man and woman we catered for and they derived immense benefit from these classes.
Last year, however, I was moved to notice a distinct change in the type of student for whom we are now catering. They were no longer people whose early education had been inadequate. Some of them were graduates, some of them were professional people, some of them were people in rather good business positions. As an example of the kind of thing I was faced with, I will repeat
1276
a true incident which I told to a noble Lord opposite to-day, and it is this. The Extra-Mural Committee has formed the practice of calling together representatives of each of the classes it runs in order to ascertain from them their criticisms and their views on the improvements, the changes, the modifications they would like in the classes they attend. We asked them to give us this information. A woman student representing a particular class, got up and said that she thought that a class in first aid would be most helpful because of its social value; that she had spoken to the local Red Cross superintendent who was interested, and who said that he would get some of his own men to attend the class and that a class could easily be formed.
Then there rose another student. He was a young man, slim, with rather long hair, I thought, who said that he was a member of the jazz class, the kind of class which does not impress me favourably, but it fills a demand, and presumably it was high level jazz, if there is such a thing. He said, "My purpose is not to speak of the jazz club. What I have risen to say is that, as a lecturer in pathology, and for the reasons given by the lady who has just spoken, I should like a class in pathology in order that the general public may understand what the nature of illness is, how they can treat it, what are its social consequences, and so on". I looked at this man, wondering whether I was now in a different kind of world. Then a man, who did not even bother to rise from his seat, said, "Following on what this young man has said, I should like to add, as a pharmacologist, that I think we might have a class in pharmacology, particularly in view of the indulgence in drugs nowadays by the general public, who really ought to know something of value about drugs, the disadvantages and advantages, and so on. I think a class on that subject would be of great help socially".
My reason for telling your Lordships this is to impress upon you that, instead of dealing with what at one time was regarded as a mere pose, if you like, towards a condition which needed improving, we are now dealing, thanks largely to higher standards of education,

1277
a longer period at school, and so on, with a greater interest in the great advances being made. There is growing up an increasing number of already well-informed people who wish to pursue still further the educational facilities they have already enjoyed. Finding fields as yet unconquered, this is a growing tendency on the part of the extramural committees, certainly throughout Scotland. I do not know whether the same applies to England, too.
Here, we in Scotland—I am not particularly pressing Scotland at the moment—are in the unhappy position of not having what in England is called "a responsible body". We are a voluntary body, with no providing powers, but one in which an education authority being autonomous can do what it thinks best. Fortunately, it is helping considerably, and we see and know that there is an increasing demand and interest in the kind of education that we are providing. What we should like in the pursuit of higher education, which the Robbins' Report also deals with to some extent, and in regard to the need for adult education too, is to have funds made available, from the Treasury ultimately, for the erection of residential buildings for adult education. There are some 20-odd in England and Wales. So far we have only one in Scotland, although it is true that the Scottish Education Department is sympathetically interesting itself in a demand that we are making for an extension of the Edúcational College which is already being used for this purpose.
We still feel that we are not getting sufficient official support in matters of this kind, and for one, would like to stress the points raised in The Years of Crisis, particularly the demand made in the paragraph on adult education, and where extra-mural departments, W.E.A. districts, particularly fit the mature student for higher responsibility and for entry to a university institution. These and the other demands which we are making in this document would, I have not the slightest doubt, benefit to an enormous extent the higher standard of education which exists even now in Scotland. I hope that, if we can do this without raising undue controversy,
1278
we shall be performing a valuable social function in Scotland.
Perhaps, therefore, I may end with this appeal. Just as in 1919 the Ministry of Reconstruction set up a high-powered Commission under the chairmanship of the late Mr. A. L. Smith, who was then Master of Balliol, to go fully into the whole problem of adult education, so it seems to me that the time has arrived when a similar kind of inquiry should be made in order to bring up to date the demands and the possibilities inherent in adult education. I was greatly interested in the reference by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury to the name of Mr. Harold Shear-man. He will know about adult education, and he will also know that there was a report by the British Institute of Adult Education, whose President at that time was the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey. The policy there laid down is not fully implemented even today, although it does not ask for anything that people in the present day who are interested in education generally, and particularly in adult education, would find any hesitation in supporting. I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind what I have said and support the plea that I have put forward.
6.38 p.m.
LORD TODD: My Lords, the Report which we are discussing to-day is not only, perhaps, one of the most important documents in post-secondary education that we in this country have ever had, but it is also one of the largest. I am sure we are all deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and his colleagues for the immense amount of work they have put into its preparation. The general thesis of the Report, that we need a great expansion in higher education, is one with which I am in full sympathy—indeed, if anything, I incline to the view that the need is perhaps a little underestimated rather than overestimated in the Report. But I believe that that thesis has met with general agreement and has found ready acceptance in the country. At the same time, I think its extremely ready acceptance by the Government, and indeed by all political Parties, coupled perhaps with the fact that this is a long Report and therefore tends to daunt any but the avid reader, has produced an effect which is rather peculiar. It seems to me to have been compounded of about

1279
equal quantities of euphoria and anæsthesia; and this has resulted, at least until recently, in arguments being centred more on such matters as ministerial responsibility and not so much on the possible effect of the proposals themselves, not merely on the universities, the colleges of advanced technology and other organs of higher education, but also on the young people who are being educated. On ministerial responsibility I am not going to touch this evening. For one thing, I am a signatory of the Trend Report, and I should not wish at this stage to embark on a discussion of the merits or the demerits of alternative proposals.
I should like to offer one or two comments on some other features of the Report which is now before the House. I have for long held the view that there is an urgent need for an expansion in tertiary education in Britain: and I do not mean by that mainly an expansion of university education, in the sense that university education has hitherto been understood in this country. Our educational system has been built up in such a way that to-day our universities are highly selective instruments, aiming to extend the frontiers of knowledge by research and to impart knowledge at the highest level to what, I suppose, could be called an intellectual élite. I think it is true to say that our methods of selection have not been infallible, and it is also true that there is a substantial pool of ability in the country which, for various reasons, has gone untapped. But I believe that it is equally true to say that at this level our universities can bear comparison, except possibly in the field of technology, with any in the world, and are, indeed, the envy of a good many foreign countries.
The main weight of the expansion envisaged in the Robbins Report for the period up to 1980 is, however, being placed on the shoulders of the institutions described as universities whose student numbers are to rise from round about 130,000 at present to 350,000. In the same period the number of places in all forms of higher education is estimated to rise from 216,000 to 558,000. It is pertinent to ask for what purposes we are proposing to educate all these young people. That more and better education is always desirable is, of
1280
course, self-evident; but, speaking from the standpoint of science and technology, I confess that there are certain aspects of the figures and forecasts in the Report which disturb me.
Earlier this year I spoke in this House on the subject of technicians, and I stressed our desperate need for them. We depend for industrial progress as much on technicians as on scientists and technologists, and we need more of them, probably in about a ratio of 2 to 1. That need is not likely to diminish at present. We look to our colleges of advanced technology and technical colleges to provide them. Yet in Table 46 of the Report we find a forecast of only 36,000 students in "further education" pursuing science and technology in 1980, as compared with a total of 15,000 at present. Meanwhile, the numbers pursuing the same subjects of study in "universities" will have risen from 59,000 to 195,000. I have a long record as an exponent of the need for more scientists and technologists, but I feel that these two sets of figures look a little out of proportion. It seems to me, to put it frankly, that a very substantial proportion of the 195,000 mentioned will in due course be employed as high-grade technicians, and a question I ask myself is whether they are going to be properly trained for their future career.
Admittedly in the Report the word "universities" includes nine of the present ten colleges of advanced technology which are given the right to describe themselves as technological universities and to give degrees. The tenth is to be one of the special institutions to which I shall refer in a moment. Now, one could expect that a substantial contribution to our supply of highly qualified technicians might come from these in the shape of holders of ordinary degrees. If so, things might be all right; but I confess that I have an uneasy fear that the intellectual snobbery which makes people in this country so respect university qualifications in science as against technology might be reflected in a reorientation of the courses in these new technological universities to something more closely akin to the traditional university courses. If past university experience is anything to go by, it is likely that there will also he a strong tendency towards the virtual elimination of ordinary in favour of

1281
honours degrees, and perhaps also to-words a cessation of the "sandwich" courses.
Were these things to happen, my Lords, it seems to me that we should be producing not only people who would not have been properly trained for the vocation of technician but people who would regard it as something inferior to the qualifications which they had acquired. I have watched with very great interest the growth of the colleges of advanced technology, and I have great faith in them if they will hold to the new patterns of technological education which they have been developing so successfully. To discard these patterns now would be absolutely disastrous.
This brings me to a related point. We are told that there is an urgent need for five Special Institutions for Scientific and Technological Education and Research—the so-called SISTER. These are to be analogous to institutions like the Massachusetts institute of Technology or the Technical High Schools at Zurich or Delft. To this end three institutions at present supported through the University Grants Committee are singled out for massive advancement: Imperial College, London; the Manchester College of Science and Technology; and the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow, which is shortly to become an independent university and with which, incidentally, I have the honour to be associated. I say here, in passing, to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that if he would like to see how to go ahead with creating a great university in a large industrial city he might do worse than pay a visit to the University at Strathclyde.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, as a matter of fact I did so when I was writing my Report.
LORD TODD: Of the other two SISTER, one is to be formed from an existing college of advanced technology and the other is to be an entirely new institution. Surely these five SISTER will be our technological universities; and are they not enough? It is difficult enough to envisage all five ever becoming comparable in scope and size to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology without having all the other colleges of advanced technology added
1282
to them. Or are we to accept two different levels of university in this field?
Why cannot we have simply the five SISTER as our main technological universities and let the colleges of advanced technology continue to develop as such, making their own distinctive contribution to technological education and research in close co-operation with industry; and letting them give, if desired, their own degrees or diplomas—subject possibly to some kind of general oversight by an intercollegiate council? But why, so to speak, upgrade them to technological universities when they are going to be different from another type of technological university? This is what seems to me bound to be the effect of singling out the SISTER for special treatment such as the Report puts forward.
It may well be that we should be ready to accept—and we may have to accept—different types of levels in the universities at large. I certainly find it very hard to believe that we shall be able to operate all the university institutions proposed in the Report exactly as we now operate our present universities. I do not think Lord Robbins expected that we should: he, too, accepts variety. Certainly if we try to operate them all exactly like the present universities, then I am quite sure we shall run into serious dilution; and after all in education, just as in my own subject of chemistry, dilution is a process that is easier to bring about than concentration, but it is also a great deal more difficult to reverse. The alternative course is to change our pattern of universities to something more like the pattern in America, where marked differences and different types of university are openly recognised and there is a range of universities from institutions not far removed from the liberal arts colleges up to universities such as Harvard and Yale. This would seem to me a more reasonable line to follow in order to preserve the virtue of the British system, while removing some of its shortcomings.
But sometimes when I am looking at the Report I wonder whether this is really intended. There are occasional criticisms in the Report of the position hitherto occupied by Oxford and Cambridge in the university hierarchy. There is even a suggestion that steps might

1283
be taken to diminish their attractiveness. Put in that form, this smacks a little of the wrong kind of egalitarianism, in which the process of levelling down rather than levelling up is favoured.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I intervene? With great respect to the noble Lord, we emphasised that we wished to do nothing to diminish the absolute attractiveness of Oxford and Cambridge, but in course of time to see other institutions arise presenting something of the same order of excellence.
LORD TODD: I thank the noble Lord and apologise if I misinterpreted him. I am very glad to be assured that such is indeed the case. Indeed, I would say this. In paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Report, on pages 8 and 9, views very much like the ones which I hold are very clearly expressed. I have rather regretted the fact that I have not seen them quoted more often in discusssions of the Report. I believe in equal opportunity for individuals, but like the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I do not believe in uniformity of educational institutions. I believe that each should make its own distinctive contribution, and that numbers alone are no substitute for quality and for the development of an intellectual élite, which we shall get only if we accept variation in the multiplicity of institutions which are being created.
The final brief point which I should like to make concerns the size of institutions of higher education, and particularly of the universities. I believe that large universities are better than small ones. Not only are they more economical in staff and facilities such as libraries, laboratories and equipment; they are also disproportionately more powerful in research, at least on the scientific and technological side. From the figures given in the Report I should have thought that, provided that the existing universities together with the proposed SISTER were each prepared to go to the size of 10,000, one could accommodate the numbers which are forecast; and I think that if each of the CATS went up to the same size of 10,000—and I think they ought to if we are going to get the supply of the technicians we want—the pressure on the universities would be lessened by a considerable amount. I myself cannot see why it should be necessary to begin
1284
forthwith—although it may be necessary later—the creation of a further six new universities, instead of allowing the half-dozen or so recently created universities to expand from about 5,000 to 10,000 each. It surely cannot be easier and more economical of money and staff to build six new universities, than to double the size of those already in existence.
My Lords, I may have appeared to be rather critical of some aspects of the Report under discussion, but I do not think these criticisms should be recorded without my adding once again that I am in full agreement with the general theme of the Report. I should like to add that I particularly welcome the endorsement in it of the vital importance of research in the universities, and the need for more and better post-graduate training than we have had, or at least than has been usual up to the present time. For this and very much else in the Report I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. But I think that points such as some of those I have mentioned ought to be at any rate considered rather carefully, before we undertake definite commitments in a general plan of implementing it.
6.56 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, in a debate of this kind, on a definite and fairly technical subject, it is clearly almost impossible for any speaker to say anything very original. I know only too well that most of what I shall say has been said, or will be said, probably a great deal better; and, in particular, the first half of what I want to say has been said with the incomparable authority and eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, himself. The justification I have for saying it again, and indeed for saying it at all, is that I can at any rate give your Lordships the reactions of a working Vice-Chancellor, even if a comparatively new one.
What I want to do as briefly as I can, is to pick out the points from this Report which seem to me of most urgent importance, on which we in the universities need decisions and guidance if our immediate planning is not to be frustrated. First, however, I should like to pay a tribute of the utmost warmth and sincerity to the Report as a whole. No disagreement, no controversy over particular elements in it, should blind us to

1285
the fact that here is a Report which at once takes its place among the major documents of educational history, the lessons of which we shall neglect at the peril of the development of the community and of the individual. No one can speak for the universities, least of all a new Vice-Chancellor, but I believe that this kind of welcome, this determination to co-operate to the limit in the Report's fulfilment, represents a very general view in the universities, and certainly among the Vice-Chancellors. Given the means, this is a job that we are eager to do; and that cannot be said too often.
As we give the Report this kind of welcome, I hope we shall remember that among its most effective origins was a debate in your Lordships' House about three and a half years ago. Many of us remember the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe—that devoted fighter for the universities—calling for the setting up of a Committee with very much these terms of reference; and at a time when a great deal of opinion, inside the universities and outside, too, was not only sceptical about its value but even hostile. No one would have welcomed the Report as it stands more wholeheartedly than he.
Its first and most obvious achievement is that it has taken the intuitions, the hunches and the guesswork of those of us who believed in the possibility of a massive expansion of higher education, and has given them strength and validity by a most careful and detailed statistical examination. In fact, of course, some of the evidence—for example, the rise of population—was clear enough before. The Ministry of Education tried to bring it home to the universities, but were not altogether successful in doing so. But here in this Report the situation is set out in terms that one would have thought were comprehensible to all. But the Report has gone further, and has shown that in fact most of our estimates have been too low, both in the emergency that faces us in the crisis years of 1965 to 1967 and in the conditions of the 1970s.
One would have imagined—and here I am simply echoing the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, but apparently it cannot be said too often—that the old nonsense of "more means worse" had been dealt with once and for all in the pages
1286
of this Report, and that further reiteration of the possibility for expansion was unnecessary. But the pages, not only of The Times but of some other papers, show us that still there is this strong body of opinion that needs conversion to the central thesis of the Report—not to the details, on which we can disagree, but to the central thesis—that it is possible to expand higher education without a lowering of the standards of student entry. In so far as the critics of Robbins are saying anything except a reiteration of "more means worse", they are simply reminding us that problems of accommodation and, above all, of staffing will make that expansion difficult. Of course they will. But are they prepared to say, in the light of Robbins, that the boys and girls from the swollen age groups of 1966, who will be excluded if we give in to these difficulties, are less worthy than their successful elder brothers and sisters whom we are accepting now? That is the point, and it is only obscured by a great deal of this special pleading about standards.
It is unfortunate that the noble idea of high standards is always used as a brake and a discouragement to expanding opportunity. Behind it there is often a sort of unspoken definition of what a university ought to be which introduces a circularity into much of the argument. One defines university education—and you can see this done by many of the correspondents in The Times and elsewhere—as something suitable for 4 per cent. of the population, and then announces that an increase to 6 per cent. will erode the whole idea of a university. Of course it will, if you define a university in that way. Thus one critic of Robbins has defined a university as a place for those capable of original thought. That is a perfectly feasible definition. The only difficulty about it is that, if you accepted it, you would exclude many, many thousands from universities as they are now, and it certainly has no relation whatever to the universities of previous centuries. But, otherwise, it is a splendid definition, so long as we all agree to it.
What one must not do is to build in a definition like that and then show that expansion is not possible because one cannot satisfy it. One may regret, of course, that the Report has not devoted

1287
more space to this crucial question of what universities are for, but it has, probably much more wisely, been more practical. It has based its calculations on the present standard of entry, contenting itself with pointing out that this itself is undeniably higher than that of previous generations; and it then goes on to show that the expansion it recommends can be accomplished while maintaining that standard. Those who reject the Robbins proposals on grounds of the maintenance of student standards should, if they are consistent, propose frankly the diminution, not the expansion, of present universities.
Now I turn from underlining what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has himself said, and from what the Report tells us we should do, to the question of how we are to do it. Both the targets set by the Report, especially the short-term objective for 1965–67, let us face it, are going to be very difficult indeed to attain. They will demand great efforts and no little sacrifice from all those people in universities, and they must be prepared to face them. If these targets are to be contemplated at all, certain initial conditions have to be met. The first is clearly an adequate supply of money.
Incidentally, one of the greatest strengths of the Report is that the possibility of its financial consequences are underwritten by the authority of one of the greatest living economists. That, to some of us, is a great comfort. There is every excuse for certain misgivings on the part of the universities that some of those who so wholeheartedly welcome the Robbins Report are really willing the ends without the means. It is, after all, less than two years since we debated in this House cuts in U.G.C. grants—if "debate" is the right word for what went on that evening. Those cuts were trivial in amount, if you like, but they had very serious effects on university programmes, and still more serious effects on university morale. That kind of thing must not happen again. If we are to have any hope of reaching. Robbins's targets, if the universities are to make the determined and sustained efforts that we are going to ask them to make, they must be given reasonable assurance of reasonable means.
1288
Nor is money the only factor, of course. If we are to build at the speed required by the long-term programme, certainly if we are to get within striking distance of the emergency programme, some traditional procedures and attitudes have to be drastically modified. The use of negotiated contracts, streamlining of planning procedures and some, perhaps, of the building techniques that were pioneered in the Ministry of Education after the war—these and other technical matters have to be decided now. Let us, in fairness, add that it is not only the Government who will have to improve their procedures: the universities themselves will have to cut though some of the jungle of committee work by which new projects of any kind tend to be surrounded.
There is a recurrent danger, of course, that academic autonomy can be used to produce machinery of almost incomparable effectiveness to prevent, not only rapid change but any change at all. The universities themselves must put their administrative house in order. But, of course, the primary responsibility is the Government's. If we are to make the best of the impetus of the Report, inquiries to the universities—urgent inquiries—asking what they propose to do must be matched by statements from the Government of what they propose to do—unambiguous and, above all, prompt.
Thirdly, one has to say a word about staff. Here, of course, one is up against the most intractable difficulties which face the kind of expansion which the Report envisages. To it there is, obviously, no sovereign answer: rather there are some partial solutions, some of the best of which the Report itself outlines. It is always constructive: it is very constructive over that. The use of graduate students for some teaching; a resolute examination of our whole teaching methods to see whether some of our students are not over-taught or, at any rate, over-lectured; the greater use of young university teachers from overseas, which one can quite often get—all these, and other approaches, must be tried.
One step must be taken at once, and this has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. A very considerable increase in the grants available for post-graduate work, not least in the arts

1289
and the social sciences, will enable us to keep and train and educate precisely those people from whom university teachers come. For a comparatively tiny outlay, something very important could be done here. If I may be frank, my Lords, the thing which is worrying people in the universities is that a scheme costing hundreds of millions is accepted in principle, but when it comes to £400,000 or so to finance a few scholarships, there seems to be a hold-up somewhere. That sort of unnecessary blockage is the kind of thing which does more to harm morale than any much more fundamental change of policy. What we have to do is to convince the universities that at any rate one of their problems is understood and that a first aid measure is being taken to help them over what is going to be an extraordinarily difficult time.
The last major point in the Report on which I want to say a word or two is the most difficult and controversial one; and it concerns the machinery of government. It is gratifying that over one aspect there is virtually no disagreement. Nearly all opinion is favour of retaining the University Grants Committee or Commission, if in somewhat modified form; and, as an old boy, or "old lag", of the University Grants Committee of ten years' standing, I am glad of that. Most people have now come to think that the Committee or Commission should no longer be responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to some other Minister; and a large section of university opinion which was in favour of no change at all and which said "Leave us alone" seems now to accept that new idea. A Minister—but which Minister? Here I have to be quite frank in admitting that I am, I think, alone among Vice-Chancellors and, I imagine, in a small majority of general university opinion in that I quite definitely favour control by one Minister rather than two.
The Report marshalls the evidence, as one would expect, with great fairness and persuasiveness; and I have heard it marshalled again to-night with fairness, persuasiveness and force. But I, myself, remain unconvinced by its conclusion. I should welcome the feeling that I was under the Minister or Secretary of State for Education via my University Grants Committee or Commission. In so many of the attacks on the
1290
Ministry of Education, the University Grants Committee buffer is assumed to be the Minister of Arts and Science, but in some way he drops out when we are thinking about the Ministry of Education. Possibly because I have worked for most of my life in schools, it weakens my position in one way, because I am thinking of the interests of schools with half my mind. On the other hand, it strengthens my position because I know something about the Ministry of Education; and some of the critics of that Ministry do not. Sometimes when one hears their criticisms of what control by the Minister would be like, one imagines they do not know the difference between the Ministry of Education and a backward local authority; because, indeed, most of the schools they have known in the State system are not controlled by the Ministry at all.
But I come back to my devotion to the schools. I fear greatly the effect on them of creating a hard, administrative division between the schools and the universities. We know the bad effects of the division that already exists. A glance at the volume of diverse requirements, not only for different universities but for every faculty within every university, those entrance requirements that make nonsense of so many of our plans for creating a rational sixth form education, makes one realise what can happen when autonomy becomes anarchy and when decisions taken at one stage of the educational process are taken with sublime disregard of what effect they will have on the previous stage. I know how anxiously the schools, themselves changing and expanding, look to the universities to help them maintain their standards and give them intellectual leadership in the work they are trying to do. Of course, all this can go on if there are two Ministries; but how much more difficult to arrange those joint commitees that some people are so reluctant to undertake!
The fears that the universities have of the Ministry of Education appear to rest, and appear to rest in the Report, on their regard for two invaluable elements in their life: their autonomy and their research activities. Proper academic autonomy is a vital idea for educational institutions, although I often wish we could be a little more precise about what we

1291
mean by it and explain a little more exactly why it is so appropriate for some academic institutions and inappropriate for others. But where is the evidence that the Ministry of Education is indifferent to liberty or autonomy? On this I have some experience. I worked for 16 years in a direct grant school under the control of the Ministry of Education, and I can simply say that no one could have felt more free than I did under a succession of Ministers and officials, to whom I often looked not simply for money but for wise advice.
It is this experience that makes me fail to follow the Report when it talks about the administrative style of the Ministry as unsuited for autonomous institutions. Already the Ministry, like any other large Ministry, has a wide variety of styles to deal with, a range of contacts. At one end of the scale, it deals with 140 autonomous institutions, the local education authorities, and at the other end with the administration of one of the best museums in the world, the Victoria and Albert Museum. There seems to be a certain variety of administrative styles there. I wonder, myself, whether the universities would feel much more free under a small Ministry with, as it were, not much to do, except to administer the universities.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, spoke to-night about the Ministry that he wants, the Ministry of Arts and Science, being concerned not with the day-to-day administration but more concerned to exhort and inspire. I think those were the words he used. That is precisely what the Ministry of Education has always done. It gives advice and exhortation, but no detailed administration. I cannot see—and this may be due to my lack of experience—why the Ministry of Education should be thought more indifferent to the needs of research than the same or similar administrators under a Ministry of Arts and Science. After all, they are the same persons. They might move from one Ministry to another and, in fact, they will have to do so when the new Ministry is started. As Miss Gertrude Stein might say: "A Civil Servant is a Civil Servant is a Civil Servant."
The safeguard for a proper provision for research will surely come, as it does
1292
now, from the existence of a multiplicity of sources and, above all, from the existence of a strong University Grants Commission to fight. But, of course, behind this controversy there lies the deeper question as to the function of the universities. Probably this was not in the minds of those who signed the Report, but it is in the minds of many university people. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley—and I wish he were here to hear what I have to say, because it is rather critical, and I did not let him know beforehand—in the debate on the gracious Speech, said that the universities are basically institutions for original thought and research. Education, he said, is not a fundamental work of the universities at all. If one believes that, then clearly we shall have a strong reason for dissociating ourselves from the Ministry of Education. But is it true? Of course, it is true that research is a vital and important element in the life of the universities. But the strength of our universities surely lies in their combining the work of the teacher and the researcher under one roof, and often in one man.
I believe that the creation of two Ministries would lend colour to a heresy that one not infrequently meets, that teaching is a distraction from the real business of university life. We heard it this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, spoke about the time that would have to be sacrificed to routine matters like teaching. It is a dangerous heresy, particularly dangerous for the very bodies which, under the Robbins Report, will have responsibility for training every teacher in England. The creation of the colleges of education proposed by the Report, in itself one of the most valuable and imaginative proposals of the whole Report, is robbed of its significance if these colleges are to have no contact at all with the Ministry of Education.
But the impoverishment, I believe, would go deeper than that. I am not thinking only of the schools; I am thinking also of the universities. I believe that this division would have an impoverishing effect on the universities themselves, because it would divert them from what is part of their true line. The use of the word "Education" in the title of this Report, the realisation that it is about education as well

1293
as research, reminds us that ultimately this Report is about young men and women. It is easy to think in terms of figures, of demands for manpower, of pools of ability, and to forget that we are dealing with the opportunities for fulfilment of thousands of actual people, anxious for the insights and experiences that higher education can give them and deserving of those opportunities. We in this country have more than most believed in this educative effect of the university. The university, by its creation of communities, by its opportunity for broadening contacts with different kinds of people, by the opportunities it gives for leisure activities, shows that it is a place of education as well as of research.
In our planning, as the Report does, we have to see that the kind of universities we build are universities in the English sense, by which, in a surprisingly short space of time, compared with the longer time the Continental universities may require, many people will be given an insight not only into a subject but also into something much wider and deeper. That, I believe, is clear enough beyond the figures of the Report. That was in the minds, I believe, of the authors of this Report. Burke, in a famous passage, speaks of an age of the "economists and calculators" as inimical to humane feelings. This Report shows how wrong he was. Because the economists and the calculators have given us here a programme not simply for national well-being; they have given us a programme by which fresh opportunities are given for entering into that life of the mind which it is surely the greatest aim of any society to promote. It is in that light that we have to welcome and interpret and implement this Report.
7.25 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, there can be no doubt whatever, as other speakers have said, that the Robbins Report is one of the major political and social documents of our time. In range and in depth it is far-reaching, and I am happy to join with other speakers in this debate in expressing the immense debt that we all owe to my noble friend Lord Robbins and his Committee, and my admiration for this outcome of their
1294
very considerable labours, and no less for his own superb exposition this afternoon. In a field so vast and so complex in its ramifications as that covered by this Report, there are, of course, matters for doubt and for disagreement. That there are does not at all affect one's admiration for the Report as a whole, nor one's acceptance of the essential wisdom of the broad policy that it embodies.
I do not intend to speak to your Lordships about the fears that are widely felt, that, with the unavoidable emphasis on sheer numbers, the vast and rapid increase envisaged in the output of graduates must result, at least temporarily, in some lowering of standards, in some degradation of the graduate status. It seems to me that that must in some degree be so, and one of the vital considerations in the application of this policy must surely be the mitigation by every conceivable means of any lowering of standards. Nor do I wish to develop my own views on the question of whether there should be two Ministers or one, although I personally feel some sympathy with the opinions expressed by Mr. Shearman, in his Note of Reservation, and just now by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rushholme. These, and nearly all the rest, are matters of educational policy, in which I am but an ignorant layman. But there is one matter embodied in the Report which has nothing to do with educational policy and to which I think I am bound to direct your Lordships' attention for a very few moments.
In paragraph 784, in which the Committee propose the creation of a new Ministry, responsible for a limited range of institutions of higher education—in the main autonomous institutions—it is suggested that this new Ministry should be responsible also for the Research Councils and (going in this perhaps a little wider than their terms of reference) for the Arts Council and for other bodies "designed to forward the Arts". It is on this proposal that, as Chairman of the Arts Council and also of some other State-supported bodies concerned with the Arts, I feel that I must tell your Lordships that, in my view, the Committee are misguided. It is a proposal for which the Committee do not attempt to develop any logical case. They say merely:

1295
"We suggest that it would be a most felicitous conjunction".
As I read those words, I think I can hear the voice of my noble friend Lord Robbins speaking.
So far as the Research Councils are concerned, there can be no doubt that the Committee's comment is true. The new Ministry, however much it may be sought to disguise the fact by calling it something else—the Ministry of Arts and Science or whatever it may be—must be primarily a Ministry for Higher Education. There is no getting away from that. And research is, of course, necessarily closely linked with higher education, and especially with postgraduate education. The closer that tie-up can be the better. But when it comes to the Arts, the considerations are quite different. The Committee, indeed, recognise that ministerial responsibility for the Arts Council and the other State-supported bodies concerned with the Arts raises important questions which they have not attempted to consider. One may feel that it might have been better if they had considered them, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has done before putting forward this proposal.
If my understanding is correct, the intention is that the new Ministry—a Ministry for Higher Education, or whatever it may be called—should administer the universities and Research Councils, the Arts Council and other bodies concerned with the Arts, through a Grants Commission which would take over the functions of the University Grants Committee. The object of this set-up is wholly laudable: it is to secure the autonomy of the institutions served by the new Ministry. Whether, in the long run, it would be successful in doing so is a matter on which I must confess I have some doubt. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is confident that it would. I am afraid that I am more sceptical; I hope that I am not more cynical. It seems to me that a Minister responsible for serving the universities and other autonomous bodies through the medium of the Grants Commission and responsible for very little else must inevitably find, sooner or later—and I think probably sooner—that he must start controlling those institutions in a way that is prejudicial to their
1296
autonomy. He cannot be content to act as a rubber stamp for the Grants Commission. Ministerial interest in the work of the bodies for which he is responsible will soon be followed by ministerial interference, and
"the special degree of detachment and respect for their autonomy"
which the Committee recognise to be
"so necessary if the connection of the State with creative activities is to be a quickening rather than a deadening influence …"
—words that are as wise as any in the Report—will then be gone.
So much, my Lords, for the general case. But the case of the Arts Council is worse. Even supposing the detachment, the freedom from political interference, to remain intact, the Grants Commission's preoccupations are with higher education and research, with knowledge and learning; the Arts Council's prime preoccupation is with the creative Arts, the living Arts. Although there is, of course, a sense in which all education is a creative activity, the two things are really quite different. The connection between them is, in truth, too slender to justify that seductive phrase about "felicitous conjunction"; the Arts would be, unhappily, overshadowed by their dominant big brother and elbowed into the background.
When the Arts Council considered this proposal their reaction against it was strong and spontaneous; and I was interested to observe that it was strongest in those very members of the Council who are most actively concerned with university teaching and administration. The present arrangement, by which the Council is administered direct by the Treasury, has indeed its disadvantages; but they are nothing beside the freedom from political interference that is secured by coming under a financial Minister and not a functional one. Wild horses would not induce the Treasury to interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Arts Council; and when Questions are asked in Parliament, the Minister always washes his hands of us and replies: "That is a matter for the Arts Council". A functional Minister would not be in so happy a position. We do not, indeed, ever get all the money we should like to have; and it is even possible that we might get more through a Minister of Arts and Science. But it would not

1297
begin to be worth it if that endangered, as inevitably it must in the long run endanger, the independence of the Council's work. For some other bodies with which I happen to be concerned the case for a change is no stronger, if, indeed the Committee had them in mind at all in their recommendation.
The fact is, my Lords—and I think we must face it—that the Committee's proposal, not in its intentions but in its consequences, is really a proposal for a Minister of Culture, on the Continental model—or, rather, for half a Minister of Culture. That is something that nearly all of us who are concerned with the Arts are particularly anxious to avoid; and I know that it is something which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, also is as anxious as anybody to avoid. At the Arts Council we are often visited by people who administer public and private subsidies for the Arts in foreign countries. Without exception, they admire and envy the British system—and, incidentally, it appears most probable that the first steps towards organised Federal support for the Arts in the United States of America will follow the British rather than the Continental pattern. It would surely be folly to abandon a system that is envied by other countries and to adopt instead what will, in my view, with the best intentions in the world, soon become something equivalent to their own system, merely for the sake of "a felicitous conjunction", a phrase rather than a fact, and a phrase that is not even applicable in this context. I hope profoundly that the responsibility for the Arts Council and for other bodies designed to forward the Arts will remain with the Treasury and will not be transferred to a new Ministry of Arts and Science.
7.37 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, as a university teacher, I rise to take part in this debate with mixed feelings. First, there is the feeling of relief that must be shared by all in university life now that the period of waiting for Robbins is over. The Report is out, and the Government have now a more realistic appreciation of the scale of financial assistance required by the universities if their proposals for higher education are to be carried out. Secondly, though, there is regret, in spite of what the noble Earl,
1298
Lord Bessborough, has said, that this realisation has come so late. My mind goes back to that critical date of March 14 last year when Mr. Brooke made his statement in another place on Government assistance to the universities to which the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, referred. Then, even the relatively modest increases requested by the University Grants Committee were turned down on the grounds that the country could not afford them. So the hardships from which universities were suffering, and the drift of scientists abroad—all of which were emphasised in the debate in your Lordships' House in May last year—were allowed to continue and the situation has been only partially rectified by the review of university grants in the past few months.
Certainly the universities have been in no position to take steps to provide for the great increase in teachers that is required in the immediate future. Now, eighteen months later, a vastly greater expenditure on education, as well as in many other fields, is envisaged, made possible, we are told, by the great improvements in the economic situation—even though, incidentally, we have not joined the Common Market. It seems incredible that the basic economic position of the country can have changed so radically in such a short time. If all this is considered possible now, more should have been done then. One must sincerely hope that there will be no repetition of the "Go—Stop—Go" tactics that have marked our progress in recent years, because, once having embarked on this expansion programme, it would be disastrous if the costs were not met in full, and these may still have been underestimated. The last state might well be worse than the first, with inevitable cuts and lowering of standards all round.
There seems a very real danger that in spreading the resources available for education as widely as is planned, some important fields of higher education will not receive the support they should, unless priorities are constantly kept in mind. While not wishing for one moment to detract from the need to expand facilities for a higher general education as far as practicable, it is the subject of priorities in higher education that I should like to develop this evening, emphasising one or two that

1299
seem to me particularly important and which may not always receive the attention that they should in the face of more obvious and highly publicised needs.
One may first ask, why do the young want a university education? For some—I hope not for many—it may seem to be of snob value or a status symbol. For many more it may be a desire to enrich their own lives by all the benefits that a university education can bring, to follow a bent or to qualify for a profession or calling. But these reasons alone are not enough to qualify for the highest priority. This, it seems to me, must depend on the extent to which such an education is going to benefit not only the individual himself, but also his or her fellow men.
If one applies this criterion, many of the priorities that have to be safeguarded are obvious. There is, of course, first and foremost the training of teachers, both for school and university, on whom the whole future of education in the country depends. There is the need to train more doctors—an aspect which my noble friend Lord Amulree will be taking up—more mathematicians, scientists and technologists, upon whom the whole future of the country's industry depends, and those entering other professions for whom there is a special demand. I am not going to expand on these, as they are hardly likely to be forgotten.
But we must avoid the tendency to become too inward-looking, too bound up in our own problems. We have not only our own students to think about. There are all the students from overseas, and particularly from the Commonwealth, who depend on us, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has already referred. This is one priority I should like to enlarge upon further, since, although the Robbins Committee considered their position fully, there is a danger that when the pressure is really on their interests may be sacrificed, or at least facilities for their training will not be expanded as fully as they should.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the recent letter in The Times by Mr. Williams of the Overseas Development Institute. In this letter Mr. Williams points out that the emergency period over the next few years is not only an emergency period for Britain. Many
1300
developing countries have expanding needs over the next few years for student places, both at home and abroad. The UNESCO report, The Development of Higher Education in Africa—Africa's Robbins Report—published just after Robbins, illustrates this. It shows that "Middle Africa", where all the Commonwealth developing African countries lie, at present has about 180 million people, of whom under 40,000 are now in higher education. The target is 80,000 by 1970. The estimated need for higher education places outside the region is 13,000 to-day and 24,000 in 1970, an 85 per cent. increase. He points out that Robbins, discussing a country of 52 million people with 238,000 students at present, envisaged a rise of 100,000 or 42 per cent. places by 1970, with an equivalent percentage increase for overseas students. Thus, he says, even the Robbins proposals implied serious problems for overseas countries, and these might be even worse if the reported advice of the University Grants Committee were acted upon.
There seem to me to be few more momentous decisions that have to be made than the amount of our educational facilities—particularly in certain fields—that we can afford to give to training overseas students. The whole future of many of the developing countries of the Commonwealth must depend very largely on the help we are able to give them in the field of education, as well as in economic aid. I should like, if I may, to illustrate what I mean from my own field, and to refer, as I have done once before in your Lordships' House, to the work done at my own medical school, the Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith Hospital. This is an international centre for qualified doctors and has given advanced training to over 14,000 students since it was opened thirty years ago, two-thirds of these coming from overseas. In accepting students, a high priority is given to those intending to become medical teachers, particularly in the case of those coming from developing countries, as it is only in this way that any real impression can be made in helping to raise medical standards in those countries. It is our ambition that in due course a high proportion of the teachers in the medical schools in those countries will have had some training

1301
at our school, and already we have made considerable progress towards this goal.
Help in medical education, though, is but one example. It should be extended to other fields, and to none of greater importance than that of elementary and higher school education, since on the standards of general education everything else depends. Only too often the students who come to this country for higher education have the greatest difficulty in taking advantage of it owing to their low general standards, sometimes even though they may come with high recommendations. Clearly the remedy is to give more help at these stages. In this connection it should be noted that while the overall proportion of full-time students from overseas in higher education was 10 per cent. in 1961–62, in our training colleges and colleges of education it was under 2 per cent. I believe, therefore, that the concept of the Commonwealth Teachers Training College, in which a high proportion of students from developing countries might be enrolled along with our own, would meet a vital need and should be developed to the full. Here the student not only would be trained to teach but might also be given lectures in social and political history in relation to the development of democracy, and also courses in world studies, the need of which in the training of teachers was emphasised by numerous signatories in another recent letter to The Times.
An integral and essential part of such a college would be the hostel or halls of residence—a place where the student would be looked after by understanding wardens and made to feel at home, and might learn something of the art and culture of our country and come to love it. The influence of such an experience on the minds of future teachers in mission schools, high schools and colleges of the developing Commonwealth would be enormous. With such persons in charge of the young, we should have little to fear from Communism in the continuing battle for the minds of the uncommitted.
The need for proper residential accommodation and care is, of course, not confined to the student teacher. For others, for example the law student, it is equally urgent. Many of these return
1302
to take up prominent positions in their Governments or Civil Service. How much greater would be the confidence one would have in the future of some of these countries if their leaders had received such training and enjoyed such experiences as I have described while they were in this country. A start has been made in providing residential accommodation for international students. One example is the Robert Mennell House at Wimbledon. But so far these efforts have barely scratched the surface of the problem.
There can be few more supremely worthwhile objectives for a would-be benefactor and philanthropist to promote, and the Government to support to the full, than in providing proper care for the overseas student. Indeed, there could be no more fitting memorial to the late President Kennedy in this country than that his name should be associated with such an international students' centre, promoting the ideals he had so much at heart and, in particular, helping to meet the needs I have stressed.
But in this matter of assisting these countries in education, the flow, of course, should not be all in one direction. There is a great need for additional posts for university staffs to enable teachers in various disciplines, before becoming fully established on the academic ladder, to go abroad for a year or two to assist in teaching. An essential provision of such appointments, however, would be that they should be for a sufficiently long period and that the holder, on returning home, might rejoin his department for a time so as not to jeopardise his chances of promotion or obtaining a post elsewhere. The recently advertised Special Commonwealth Awards provided by the British Council and the Department of Technical Co-operation, if available for teachers, will, I hope, encourage some to go abroad for a spell. But grants are most likely to do so if they also afford some temporary security to the teachers on returning home. My Lords, I have deliberately concentrated on our world obligations in the sphere of education because, compared with the vast majority of the human race, even as things are we are rich beyond measure; and this disparity is likely to be even greater if the Robbins proposals are implemented.

1303
I would turn now, for just a few moments, to the subject of research in the universities, the importance of which the Robbins Committee fully emphasise. It was, of course, outside their terms of reference to consider research, with few exceptions, other than in general terms; but in pursuing the subject of priorities, I should like to stress some fields of research the importance of which in relation to others is not always sufficiently recognised. Again, considering the question in terms of world needs, rather than purely national needs, the overwhelming problem, assuming that the supreme catastrophe of a nuclear war is avoided, will be, as has been debated several times in your Lordships' House, the feeding of an expanding world population. Every aspect of the biological sciences that can contribute to this end must, therefore, be expanded to the full.
There is, of course, veterinary research designed to promote the health of livestock. Quite apart from the question of the need for more medical schools, will the needs of veterinary medicine, which in some respects has lagged far behind human medicine, receive their proper emphasis? There are agricultural colleges to which the Report refers. Will they be given the necessary support to contribute fully towards finding a solution to the problem of improving agricultural methods in the developing countries, both in the training of students from abroad and in research?
There are the problems of conservation of food supplies, the study and elimination of insect and other pests that ravage staple foods—the type of work, for example, in applied entomology and plant pathology that is being carried out at Silwood Park, the field station of Imperial College. Then there are the biochemical engineering problems involved in attempting to harvest and process the vast resources of protein in the leaf or marine organisms as possible sources of food—a matter which has been referred to in debates in your Lordships' House on the world food problem. There are also the problems of research into methods of population control and their application. My Lords, I believe that the time has come for a planned and concerted attack, on a much greater scale than has been con-
1304
templated hitherto, on all facets of this problem, particularly now that the future of institutes and colleges that might contribute to it is under review.
My Lords, I have not so far referred to the burning question as to whether or not there should be a Minister responsible solely for higher education. My guess would be that priorities in education would be more likely to be adequately safeguarded if this were so. But whoever is responsible, I hope that he will work in the closest co-operation with the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Department of Technical Co-operation to help meet the needs of the Commonwealth countries in ways such as I have described.
In conclusion, I should like to recall a remark made to me by the High Commissioner of one of the developing Commonwealth countries. He was commenting on the feeling he sensed among many people in the country that the days of Britain's greatness had passed. "On the contrary", he said, 'if Britain seizes her opportunities and accepts her responsibilities in the further development of the Commonwealth she has inherited, her greatest days as a power for good have yet to come". My Lords, I believe this to be profoundly true, and it is up to us to see that these responsibilities are kept constantly in mind.
7.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, at this late hour I think noble Lords will be grateful if I abandon my convincing arguments and eloquent periods and, putting my pride in my pocket, give your Lordships just a short summary of the points which I should like considered. I will begin by apologising to your Lordships for the fact that a business engagement will prevent my being present for the earlier part of to-morrow's debate, but I hope very much to be able to hear the Government's final reply.
The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the university as a community. One of the most binding forces in an academic community is sport, and it seems to me desirable that that subject should be mentioned in this debate. If the new universities are indeed to be places in the centre of cities, there will be very little chance of adequate playing fields

1305
for the students to use; and even in more rural universities it is by no means easy (such is the tenacity of farmers for their land) to secure adequate grounds. In the circumstances, I urge strongly upon Her Majesty's Government that high priority should be given to the provision of indoor sports halls in which exercise may be taken expeditiously and in a small space. I would urge further the development of basket ball as a university sport. It is a most useful sport in America and has already been introduced into some of our universities by American exchange students. It will be well worth while for universities to consider bringing over some Canadian coaches.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not want this to be thought frivolous, but would that mean stopping the playing of netball in favour of basket ball, or can they be taken as the same game for this purpose?
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I was coming to the sports for women. Basket ball is a male sport in America and quite unsuited to women students—in fact, it is rather a dangerous sport. As regards women, I was going to mention very briefly the desirability of all-weather hockey fields which afford them a great deal of concentrated exercise. We must not, however, forget the desirability of getting the students out into the fresh air; and, without arguing the matter, I advance very briefly the proposition that it would be of immense benefit to the country, and a scheme well worth subsidising through the existing motor clubs, if all the physically fit students were given an opportunity to pass the examination of an advanced motorist. I urge that possibility, affording both interest and exercise and social profit, for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
Finally, I had intended to say a few words on the subject of religion in the universities. I speak in a completely unrepresentative capacity and for myself only, but for the past 35 years I have been connected with the organisation of the Roman Catholic Chaplaincies at Oxford and Cambridge, and I have more recently acquired some knowledge of religious conditions in other universities. People of university age tend to be religious: and it has sometimes
1306
seemed to me to be anomalous that our conception of education, enshrined in our Education Acts, provides that every school child up to university age should be offered religious instruction, but that the State is completely disinterested in that subject when the young person goes to a university.
There are two exceptions to that rule of disinterest. At Keele the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Free Church Chaplains are part of the staff and are paid as such, and I believe that similar arrangements exist in Belfast at the Queens University. At Keefe, at any rate, there is a chapel which all denominations are permitted to use, and I wish that I could say the same of other modern universities. Alas! I cannot. I will, however, say no more on this subject than that I think it is highly desirable that the leaders of the Christian Churches (and, if it is desired, of other bodies too) should in the ecumenical climate of to-day get together and discuss the matter, first among themselves and then with the university authorities, so that some standard of access for the chaplain to the student may be worked out.
8.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I want to comment on only one aspect of the Robbins Report, and at this hour I shall do so as briefly as I can. As I am going to be critical, I should like, first of all, to add my very humble congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and his colleagues for this really wonderful Report. The aspect to which I want to direct your Lordships' attention for a few moments is the very guiding principle—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, called it an axiom—which is the basis of their proposal for the increase in university places, and that is that all young persons qualified by ability and attainments, and who wish to do so, should have the opportunity of going to a university or an institution of university status. That guiding principle has been accepted by the Government in the White Paper, and their acceptance was reaffirmed by the noble Earl who spoke for the Government this afternoon.
Before accepting an axiom, which I believe is defined as a proposition which is incapable of proof, it is necessary,

1307
I think, to consider very carefully just what lies behind it, and, in particular, in this case, what lies behind the wish to have a university education, whether that wish is expressed by the student himself or by his parents. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who had some comment to make on that, and pointed out that there might well be people who wanted a university education for reasons which on closer examination would not necessarily justify us in thinking that they were really going to get benefit from it. I think that if one were to go to aspirants for a university education, or to their parents, and ask a number of them why they were going to university, many of them would say it was because they hoped to get a better job, and some, I think, if they were very honest, would say it was because a university degree gives a certain status, a certain prestige, to a man in his later life.
It has already been said—and I should like only to reinforce what has been said—that a university education leading to a degree is not, as I do not think it ever has been, a passport for a good job; still less is it a talisman without which success cannot be achieved. We have only to look round the Benches of your Lordships' House to see living examples which prove that is not the case. If it is indiscreet to refer to present company, one might ask: would Ernest Bevin have been a greater man if he had had a university education? Would the late Lord Nuffield, a captain-general of industry, if ever there was one, have been a more successful man if he had had a university degree? I think one can find similar examples everywhere, even in literature and the arts, where one might expect a university degree to have a special advantage.
Then we hear a great deal about the need for more graduates in business. Here perhaps I may speak of my own experience. I have worked in a number of management teams, most of which have been composed partly of graduates and partly of non-graduates, and I simply do not think that one would have discerned any difference between the two streams. In fact, looking back, I would not be sure that in every case I would even have known whether one of my
1308
colleagues had been a university man or not. It certainly was not a question that ever arose when the time came to decide upon promotion or seek new members of the team. It would probably, of course, be referred to as a matter of routine and we would have some back history, but it certainly was not, in my experience, a matter that was greatly taken into account.
Even in the more technical industries, where there is no doubt a demand for graduates in management, I believe that demand is limited. I was most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Todd, speaking with his great authority, said earlier this evening about the overriding need for more technicians as opposed to graduates. That, I feel, is a tremendously important thing which could easily be lost if too much emphasis is placed upon this increase in university education.
There is a rather interesting secondary effect, to which I should like to refer. A number of business and other organisations have been seeking more and more in recent years to engage graduates, and that might be thought to indicate that it was because they wanted graduates as such. My belief is that this arises not because the organisations want graduates as such; they are not seeking the special qualifications which the graduate spends three years in acquiring. What has happened is this. Because so many more boys, and naturally the ablest boys, are going to the universities, an organisation which recruits staff from school finds that unless it also recruits a certain number of university graduates the average ability of its intake goes down. If it had been possible for them to pick up the same boys who had qualified for a university education before they went to the university they would have been just as happy, and indeed in some cases would, I think, have had a little less difficulty with the rest of the staff. But it has been forced upon people because otherwise the average standard of intake will go down.
Of course, it should be true, and I think it is widely true, that graduates who have enjoyed a university education can do almost any job better than someone who has not had that opportunity. I personally have known of a most interesting case where that was

1309
illustrated on the shop floor. But at the same time it is not really satisfactory—I think this was again a point that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, was making—that we should train a large number of people up to the high standard of university graduates only to find that there is no work for them to do in which they can make full use of their qualifications. That, I think, is a situation that has already arrived. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in the Report, brought out the fact that there were already a number of graduates who are employed in jobs where they were not making full use of their qualifications.
I was hoping to have more information about that from Appendix 2A, but so far I have been unable to secure of copy of it. I believe that there there is some analysis of the jobs to which university graduates go. I ask whether it is really satisfactory to train men and women to this high standard of intellectual skill and then to leave them with jobs that do not give them full scope. Is it not possible that we shall gradually get a group of dissatisfied, disspirited, disappointed, intelligent people? That is the sort of group that can easily become a rather dangerous canker in the body politic.
Apart from the question of jobs, I mentioned that another purpose which may drive or persuade people to go in for university education is the prestige that no doubt attaches to a university graduate. On that point I should like to ask how this prestige has arisen. I had a nasty suspicion, listening to this debate in which most of the participants have been distinguished people in university life, that there was a sort of, I would not call it mutual admiration society—that might sound a little imnolite—but a tendency within the universities to think that the universities were really more important and more valuable than they are.
I think the social esteem which the Robbins Report says. "will continue to grow" has arisen—I do not know whether your Lordships will agree with me here—in an ordinary way, because in the early decades of this century it was the social custom of the well-to-do classes to send their sons either into the Armed Forces or to the university, whether they got much out of the university education or not. So this body of
1310
graduates appeared to be a privileged caste. In fact, they probably were not nearly as privileged as the people outside thought they were; but, quite naturally—and we have seen this happen in many different aspects of life—this led the people from less well-to-do homes to get to university and see what was to be found. I think it is true to say that most of the boys from the less well-to-do homes probably made more use of the university than some of their richer friends. But I must say I am left with the impression that the prestige of the universities and the status of the university graduate has been excessively built up—here again, I was glad to find a little support from the noble Lord, Lord Todd.
It might be asked: does it matter if we produce more graduates than we can employ—that is to say, than we can employ, really making use of their services? I think that when the community is asked to pay a substantial sum to educate a graduate—the figure is not easy to arrive at, but I guess it is somewhere between £2,000 and £3,000—there is some obligation for seeing that we do not educate people up to this standard unless they are wanted. Your Lordships will remember that the Robbins Committee said that it was impossible to assess the future requirements of university places by reference to the need in different fields for graduates. I think we can accept that it is obviously not capable of close calculation. It really surprised me that they went on to say, with absolute certainty—this begins in paragraph 184—that no doubt there is need for at least these proportions of highly educated people, and no doubt we should have to go much further before there was any question of an excess of supply; and, finally, they state unequivocally that there is a broad connection between the stock of trained manpower and productivity.
That sounds all right, but what does "trained manpower" mean in this context? Does it really mean university-trained manpower? It seems to me, and with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and his colleagues, that this section of the Report was not quite so closely argued as some of the rest, because, having said that it was impossible to assess the need in this way, it has then come—and no doubt this was

1311
a matter of discussion among the members of the Committee—without any clear explanation of why, quite definitely to the conviction that a greatly increased number of university graduates is needed.
I am conscious that I have ignored a tremendously important factor; that is, the stimulating and energising effect which a university education has on boys and girls who undertake it, and particularly on those who come from rather narrow homes. No son of my father could ever forget that. My earliest recollections of him, and my latest, were all of his undying gratitude to those who endowed scholarships which enabled him to have that wonderful experience. It is quite hateful to have to try to put a cash value on that sort of thing. But is that not really the duty of Parliament? The Robbins Committee have pointed out, quite rightly, that the sum involved is relatively not so much in relation to the wealth of the country; but it is a substantial sum, and I think all of your Lordships could think of other things on which even a small proportion of that could be spent, with tremendous advantage to some section of the community which is now suffering. I think there is a real obligation on those who are responsible not to stretch this enlargement of the university places wider than it ought to be stretched.
It is not for me to suggest where the money could otherwise be spent, but one thought occurred to me. Even a small cut-hack from some of these large sums could perhaps be used for the improvement, the broadening and deepening of the top end of secondary education, so as to give a benefit to a much larger number of students—those who would not in any case be going to university—in order to send them out into the world with some of those qualities which, it seems to me from the discussion this afternoon, it was thought could be secured only by university education. I feel that the broader, deeper education at the top of the secondary ladder would benefit a greater number of people and would mean that boys and girls were sent out into the world better fitted to play their part.
I recognise that it is presumptuous of me, with no qualifications at all, to challenge not only the noble Lord, Lord
1312
Taylor, not only the Robbins Committee, but the Government as well, and practically every other speaker to-day. It seems to me that the conclusion reached (I am sure as the result of careful thought on the part of the Robbins Committee) did not take account of some straws in the wind which I see blowing in another direction and which I have tried to describe. But I found sufficient courage to get up and say these things because from my own university education—which I must say was not a very successful one—I remember one thing: that if one is to find the truth one must be prepared to probe and test the foundations of belief. That is what, in my rather inefficient way, I have tried to do this evening. That is what I hope those responsible for taking decisions will also try to do, so that we do not so far increase the intake of potential graduates that we create a body of people who afterwards feel dissatisfied because they cannot play the full part which they have been trained to play in the country; and so that at the same time we do not spend resources which I feel might be better used to improve the education of the greater number who are not in any case going to find their way into the universities, and help them to lead fuller lives and be of greater use to the country.
8.22 p.m.
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, since I am going to criticise the Report in one respect I should like to begin by saying how much I appreciate it as a whole and give it my wholehearted support for its proposals with regard to ministerial responsibility. There is, however, one aspect of the proposed new Ministry of Arts and Science which does arouse a little misgiving. We have recently had the advantage of a Minister for Science who has been responsible for various scientific Research Councils and other bodies which, however, have preserved a valuable measure of autonomy. The Report of the Trend Committee represents considerable expansion of the functions of the Minister for Science. I will not go into a discussion of those proposals now, but I think one may ask whether the existing functions of the Minister for Science will suffer if his responsibilities are to be so much enlarged by putting under his supervision also the universities and various bodies connected with the arts.

1313
Some advantages there obviously will be. But is there not also a danger that, with so much on his plate the Minister for Arts and Science will be unable to give to the needs of science and scientific research the same detailed personal attention which the present Minister has been able to give? It seems to me vital that in the proposed new Ministry the Research Councils shall remain semi-autonomous, under their independent Chairmen, and that their executive officers shall have direct access to the Minister.
I come now to my criticism. The Report dismisses medical education with a little more than a mention. If my calculation is right, in 300 pages there are six lines of text and 6½ lines in two footnotes devoted to a branch of higher education which is vital to the welfare of this country. In a footnote the Report explains that the number of medical students, according to the University Grants Committee's figures, is expected to increase from 16,500 in 1961–62 to 21,000 in 1980–81; but it says nothing whatever about how this is to be done. And no-one reading this Report would dream that we are facing a crisis in the Health Service because we are not training enough doctors. First, if the general practitioner's list is to be smaller so that he can devote more time to his patients we must have more general practitioners.
The review of hospital staffing which has been carried out as a result of the Platt Committee's Report has shown that we need many more consultants; that is to say, a larger consultant establishment, which will mean an increased supply of doctors in the future to maintain it. These consultants will need more registrars and residents; but already there is a shortage in these grades, to which the Platt Report drew attention in 1961—I quote from their Report:
"Without the 3,628 doctors from overseas there would obviously be a breakdown of staffing below the Senior Registrar grade."
Inevitably the number of these overseas graduates will dwindle as the facilities for training in their own countries increase, and an international crisis, such as a war, might suddenly reduce the supply. Their population is growing, but so also is ours. The population experts say that the population of England and Wales is expected to rise by 2 million
1314
in every five years from 1962 onwards, so that by 1980–81 it will have increased by 8 million.
It takes seven years to turn a medical student into a registered medical practitioner. After that he needs at least two more years further training for general practice, and six or seven years to make a consultant; so that any steps we take now to expand our facilities for medical education can have no effect on the output of our medical schools for from ten to fifteen years. What are we doing now? We are talking about founding two new medical schools which will take years to plan and build, and urging our existing schools to go back to the total number of students as cut down on the recommendation of the Willink Committee—the very schools incidentally whose grants this Government reduced only two years ago.
There are a number of questions which urgently need to be answered before we can plan the future of medical education in this country. First we cannot educate medical students unless we know what we are educating them for; nor can we know how many we need to educate unless we know how many are required for the different kinds of work which need to be done. The pattern of medical care is changing all over the world and some countries ere ahead of our own in realising it. We do not yet know what in future will be the relative importance of the consultant and the general practitioner, nor indeed what the scope of the general practitioner will include. We have not yet inquired whether better organisation both in the hospital and consultant field and in general practice could enable us to make better use of our medical manpower. We are just beginning to realise the importance of continuing medical education after qualification, and its going on for the whole of a doctor's professional life. But we have as yet little idea of what this is going to cost in terms of medical manpower or how it is to be related to the activities of the undergraduate medical schools.
We have also, as we have been told this afternoon, to consider our duties with regard to overseas students. Should we in future accept them as undergraduates, in which case we need more places in our undergraduate schools, or

1315
as post-graduates, or both? We have to take into account, too, their needs of our teachers in their own countries. At home it seems likely that we need more medical schools, but new schools cannot add to the supply of doctors for many years. Meanwhile, what is going to be our policy with regard to our existing schools? How are they to be enlarged in terms of bricks and mortar and staff to meet the need? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in his opening speech, alluded to the importance of providing accommodation for students, and I would stress particularly the need for hostels for medical schools. It is no use to expand existing schools without providing other accommodation where students can live; and in the case of medicine it is particularly important that they should be able to live for part of their training near the hospital, so that they can attend at any time of the day or night.
To these questions, my Lords, there are at present no answers. I do not blame the Robbins Committee for failing to answer them, for it may well have felt quite rightly that it was unable to do so. So far as I know, no body in this country, including the Ministry of Health and the U.G.C., has information which would enable it to do so at present. This is a matter of the greatest urgency, and I am sure there is need for an immediate inquiry to look at the future of medical practice in the health service, and to assess the requirements of doctors of different kinds over the next twenty years, and the educational facilities needed to produce them.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
  BUCHANAN REPORT AND PROPOSED RAILWAY CLOSURES
  BUCHANAN REPORT AND PROPOSED RAILWAY CLOSURES