Sitting of 10 February 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
  Message of Condolence
  Mr. Speaker: I have to report to the House that I have received a message of sadness and sympathy on the death of Sir Winston Churchill from the Speaker of the Legislative Council of Fiji on behalf of that body.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Third Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Warble Fly
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to assist the warble fly eradication campaign; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): A vigorous advisory and publicity campaign aimed at persuading farmers to adopt methods for the control of the warble fly was started by my Department last autumn, the best time to treat cattle with systemic insecticides. It will be continued in the spring when systemic or derris dressing will be recommended as appropriate, and renewed in time to encourage preventive dressing in the coming autumn.
    A National Warble Fly Campaign Committee, representative of the Farmers'
    352
    Unions, the hide and leather trades, and other interested organisations, has been set up at the instigation of the Ministry, and I hope that this Committee will supplement the Ministry's efforts to arouse an awareness among stock owners that the warble fly pest can and should be eliminated.
    Mr. Kitson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that organophosperous systemic insecticides are subject to a 15 per cent. surcharge? Will he urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove this tax from them?
    Mr. Mackie: I have some knowledge of the amount required to dress one animal, and I do not imagine that, even with the expert statisticians we have in the Ministry, we could calculate the amount which has been put on to the price by the surcharge.

    Exports of Live Animals
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the total exports of live animals other than for breeding or dairy purposes, and excluding exports from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic, in the year 1963.
    Mr. John Mackie: 28,251 cattle. The returns for other animals do not distinguish between breeding and other stock. The figures are 89,254 sheep and goats and 4,245 pigs.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not that mean that we are exporting many thousands of live animals for slaughter each year, and is the hon. Gentleman proposing to do anything to substitute carcase trade for this live trade?
    Mr. Mackie: It is a quite considerable export. The difficulty is that our buyers abroad, as the hon. Gentleman knows, like the meat on the hoof. The Balfour assurances, that is, the assurances given by the importing countries, are such as to protect animals as far as we possibly can from any ill treatment in transit.
    Mr. Soames: On both sides of the House and within the hon. Gentleman's own Department, there is a feeling that the more we can switch from the export of live animals to the export of carcases the better this will be from every point of view. Is the hon. Gentleman thinking in

    353
    these terms and considering taking action likely to lead to an accentuation of the trend?
    Mr. Mackie: We are always prepared to look at improvements, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, if the customer wants it the other way, it takes a while to persuade him. We are looking at the matter, but it is a problem.

    Anti-Dumping
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consult the President of the Board of Trade with a view to revising and improving the anti-dumping machinery.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): Safeguards against injurious dumping are provided by the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. If the hon. Member has any particular difficulties in mind and will let me have the details, I will consult with my right hon. Friend as necessary.
    Mr. Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statement by his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary last week that the import of eggs, for example, from Eastern Europe, is so small as not to make a difference has, by its complacency, caused a good deal of disturbance in the industry? Will he on this issue at least ensure that the Board of Trade has ready details of the internal price of eggs should Poland again try the dumping of eggs in this country this year?
    Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend said, and as I have just said, any case raising the question of dumping would be considered on its merits. If there is a case and representations are made, the question will be looked at, but it is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the co-operation between himself and his right hon. Friend at the Board of Trade on these matters is such that action can be taken quickly enough to be effective?
    Mr. Peart: I am satisfied that the co-operation is much better than it was under my predecessor.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at about this time of year, Ayrshire farmers get excited about the possibility of imports from Cyprus, and will he look at this matter?
    Mr. Peart: I was not aware of that, but I shall certainly look at it.

    Long-term Guarantees
    Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to amend the Agriculture Act, 1957, with a view to providing longer-term guarantees for British agriculture.
    Mr. Hazellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to provide price guarantees over a longer period of time.
    Mr. Peart: I am satisfied that the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957 provide adequate guarantees for the stability of the industry, and I see no need for amending legislation.
    Mr. Walker: Would the right 8hon. Gentleman at least consider looking at the individual commodities to see whether further stability cannot be given to British agriculture by extending some of the three-year guarantees to perhaps five years?
    Mr. Peart: I am always prepared to look at legislation to see whether we can make improvements. As I have said, we are a new Administration; we have a much more progressive outlook and will look forward.
    Mr. Hazell: Does my right hon. Friend intend to introduce any long-term planning for agriculture?
    Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. The Government are considering forward planning for the country as a whole and agriculture will, naturally, play its part in this planning.
    Mr. Soames: Is it not within the right hon. Gentleman's memory that during the General Election he made much of the fact that he intended to introduce five-year plans for agriculture? How

    355
    would these fit in with the 1947 and 1957 Acts, which laid down that there shall be an Annual Review?
    Mr. Peart: The principle of long-term planning seeking to put agriculture into the broad expansion of the economy, to give it security and to have this forward look would in no way conflict with the Price Review negotiations or the fundamental concepts of not only the 1957 Act but also the 1947 Act.

    Brucellosis
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to eradicate brucellosis in this country.
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will implement the suggestions of the Report on Brucellosis; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made with the problem of eradicating brucellosis in cattle; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) on 3rd February.
    Mr. Gilmour: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the proposals of the British Veterinary Association for the stamping out of the disease? Would he not agree that unless he acts soon we are likely shortly to run into difficulties with the export of livestock?
    Mr. Peart: No, Sir. I read the article in question, having had a long interest in the matter. Apart from that, I am discussing the matter and am awaiting a further detailed report by my own departmental officials. It is a very difficult problem—there are questions of expense and resources—but I recognise that there is a problem, and as soon as I have anything to announce I will make a statement.
    Mr. Kitson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report was published before Christmas? Further, is he aware of the remarks which he made in the debate as far back as June last year,
    356
    when he said that the Ministry must get on with this? That was probably one of the most sensible things he has said. Is he aware that we are the only country in Western Europe which has no eradication scheme? Will he say that he will get on with it much quicker than by looking at it again?
    Mr. Peart: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to say that I shall get on with it much quicker than my predecessors did.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when his departmental organisation was instructed to look at the matter? Is he not aware that a very full, thorough and authoritative report has been in his hands for a considerable time, and that other countries which are more progressive in this way are seriously considering curtailing our exports and, therefore, our trade, if nothing is done?
    Mr. Peart: From a departmental point of view, I am still awaiting a report on further studies. When I have read and studied it, I will make a decision.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This will not do. The right hon. Gentleman has had the report a considerable time. Does he remember saying in June last year that it was only the administrative will which was stopping the scheme being brought into being? If he is to bring in a scheme, will it be the scheme that he was so anxious in June should be brought in?
    Mr. Peart: I am considering it and shall act with greater speed than my predecessors did.
    Mr. Kitson: Owing to the extremely unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Potato Marketing Board
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will in future years arrange with the Potato Marketing Board to give a support price earlier in the year.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his plans regarding future financial aid for the Potato Marketing Board.
    Mr. Peart: The market support arrangements which are operated by the Potato Marketing Board are now being reviewed by the Agricultural Departments, the National Farmers' Unions and the Board. I cannot at this stage anticipate any conclusions that may emerge from this review.
    Mr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision announced to the Press yesterday rejecting the advice offered him by the Potato Marketing Board is a grave one? Is he aware that I have in my hand a telegram from the Chairman of the Dorset National Farmers' Union asking me to protest in the strongest terms to the Minister and the House? Is he further aware that if he compels potato growers to sell their produce at a price below what it cost them to grow, and contrary to the advice offered to him, he incurs a very heavy responsibility?
    Mr. Peart: When I met the Board and representatives of the unions concerned, I carefully considered their case and came to the conclusion that there was no need to panic at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors?"] I am taking my own decision in the light of my responsibilities. I believe that the matter affects not only the producer but also prices to the consumer.
    Mr. James Johnson: Despite the vociferous lobby opposite, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the needs of the consumers are important? Will he guarantee that there will be adequate, reasonable supplies at fair prices, not forgetting all the time that fish, particularly Hull fish, and chips constitute a basic item in the diet of all classes?
    Mr. Peart: Obviously, we must balance the needs of the consumer and the producer, and that is what we are doing. As I said, we are also reviewing the market support arrangements, and discussions will go on.
    Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that there is no need to panic at this stage. Is he implying thereby that the request put to him by the Potato Marketing Board to intervene in the market was a panic measure? Of course it was not. Will he tell us the reasons which led him to refuse this perfectly reasonable request so that the Gov-
    358
    ernment could fulfil their obligations to the potato industry and keep potatoes at a reasonable price?
    Mr. Peart: I said that I would not panic, and I do not propose to do so despite the promptings from the other side of the House. I believe that the decision that I took was the right one, and I am standing by it. Obviously, I shall look at events. In view of the price situation, I felt that there was no need for action of the kind which I am being asked to take by hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Baxter: Will my right hon. Friena use his good offices to try to get a re-organisation of the Potato Marketing Board, which is very much required from many points of view, not least because of the amount of "bumph" sent out to growers which they are unable to understand because of the phraseology used in the circulars? Cannot the matter be looked at with a view to simplifying the whole set-up and bringing benefits not only to the consumer but to the grower?
    Mr. Peart: As I said, I am looking into the market support arrangements. On the wider question of changes in the Potato Marketing Board, that would be a matter of altering part of the Agriculture Act, 1958, and its implications. I am concentrating now on the support arrangements.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety that has been expressed as a result of his very recent decision by people who are far away from the markets? I am thinking particularly of people in the north of England. So far as the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities go, I realise that I cannot step into Scotland. Is he aware that when he quotes average prices, such people are in a very much more difficult position than others? Will he bear this situation in mind?
    Mr. Peart: I will certainly bear it in mind. I am watching the situation very carefully.
    Mr. King: I desire to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to confer wider powers on the Potato Marketing Board.
    Mr. Peart: No, Sir. Wider powers could not be conferred on the Board except by an amendment to the Potato Marketing Scheme, and under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, Ministers are not normally empowered to initiate amendments, as this is a function of the Board itself. No draft amendments have been submitted by the Board since those approved in May, 1962.
    Mr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the advice of the Potato Marketing Board, as now constituted, is to be perpetually rejected, this will be harmful to the potato trade and not helpful? Will he bear in mind, in considering the matter, that the retail price of potatoes in shops bears practically no relation to the price paid to the farmer and that a rise in the price to the farmer does not have a corresponding retail effect, as it does in the case of other products?
    Mr. Peart: I do not perpetually reject the Board's advice. I have rejected it on one occasion. It is my job to do so if necessary.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the powers of the Board are sufficient to ensure that the taxpayer's position is not prejudiced? As the price of potatoes is now below the guaranteed price, the taxpayer will suffer unless the right hon. Gentleman takes the advice of the Board.
    Mr. Peart: This is one of the matters I have said we will look at. I am having discussions about the future of support arrangements.
    Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to a reply he gave to me last week, there is continuing public disquiet about the fraudulent marketing of second-rate potatoes at first-rate prices?
    Mr. Peart: That is another matter, but if my hon. Friend has an example about which he could send me information I will consider it.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present situation in the north of Scotland illustrates the need for wider powers? Potatoes for seed are being sold there at £3 to £4 below the guaranteed price. The situation calls for wider powers and, indeed, immediate action by the Board.
    Mr. Peart: We are discussing that, as I have said. We will certainly look into whether there is need for wider action by the Board in the case the hon. Member has mentioned.
    Mr. King: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Once more, in view of the equally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise this matter also on the Adjournment and at the earliest opportunity.

    Horticultural Industry (Flowers and Bulbs)
    Sir H. Butcherasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist the section of the horticultural industry engaged in the production of flowers and bulbs.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Grants and Government-guaranteed credit are available to growers under the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, to help them re-equip their businesses, and they have also available to them the advice of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the results of the experiments carried out by the N.A.A.S. at our Experimental Horticulture Stations. I am confident that, if they take full advantage of these varied facilities, they will be able to strengthen their competitive position.
    Sir H. Butcher: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is it not the case that the matters to which he has referred were instituted by his predecessors and that, since this Government have been in office, the lot of the flower and bulb growers has been considerably worsened by import duties and other actions?
    Mr. Hoy: Where measures taken by the previous Government were good and we can subscribe to them, we are delighted to do so. It is true that we have had to put up with certain things, but they were the result of the legacy left to us by the last Government.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these extra costs being borne by the horticultural industry will not be recouped by the Annual Price Review? What are the Government doing

    361
    to help the industry bear these extremely heavy costs, which are the direct result of Government action?
    Mr. Hoy: I have said that some costs have risen, but I would also point out the increasing efficiency of the horticultural industry. It has been estimated that it has added about 2 per cent. to its gross income. I know the difficulties of the industry, but I am certain that it will be able to overcome them. I have great confidence in the industry's ability to do so.

    Agricultural Production
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is towards the easing of quantity restrictions for domestic agricultural production in view of the foreseeable increase in world population and food consumption.
    Mr. Peart: The standard quantities will be determined at each Annual Review taking account of the growth of demand and of any changes necessary as a result of reviewing the balance between home production and imports.
    Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had hoped that there might be some reference to the requirements of the increasing world population? Are his views in that context in accord with those of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation?
    Mr. Peart: Certainly. This Government, like the last Government, have always been anxious to help F.A.O. and its World Food Programme.
    Sir D. Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that his Answer means that British agriculture will have continuous expansion?
    Mr. Peart: Certainly. British agriculture will be able to play its part in an expanding economy. I have repeatedly said that.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of the Government towards the potential growth in productivity of the agricultural industry in view of their balance of payment problems and other financial difficulties.
    Mr. Peart: I welcome the industry's excellent record in improving the ratio of output to resources used and I intend to see that the industry has the necessary help and incentives to continue this valuable improvement in its productivity. As regards agriculture's contribution to import saving, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave to the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) and Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) on 3rd February.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the record of agricultural productivity in the past has been exceedingly good, production could rise still further? In view of the great saving in imports and the improvement in the balance of payments situation which that would produce, will he ensure that every encouragement is given to farmers to increase production as much as possible?
    Mr. Peart: Certainly. As I have said, the industry has an excellent record in productivity and we are all naturally anxious that production should rise.
    Mr. Soames: In view of the action taken last year under the 1964 Act and through the negotiations and agreements made with overseas countries, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the industry is now very firmly based to be able to expand to a satisfactory extent without imposing an undue burden on the taxpayer?
    Mr. Peart: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I agree with the main principles of the 1964 Act. I welcomed the desire to phase imports with home production.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister aware that only yesterday the Prime Minister talked about the desirability of increasing imports from the Commonwealth? Can he assure the House that any increase in temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth will not be at the expense of the domestic agricultural producer?
    Mr. Peart: Hon. Members must expect a responsible Minister to seek a proper balance.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers are discouraged from increasing production

    363
    because of increased rents? Why do we get no objection to that from the benches opposite?
    Mr. Peart: I accept what my hon. Friend has said, because on a previous occasion we believe that instructions to the arbitrator under Conservative legislation led to increases in rents.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that there is some anxiety that the total acreage under potato cultivation is too near the theoretical acreage needed for total consumption; and what his policy is likely to be.
    Mr. Peart: The potato acreage is one of the factors to be taken into account at the Annual Review, and I cannot anticipate its outcome.
    Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend happy about the predictability of the potato crop in this country? Is he aware that there is some anxiety that the difference between the permissive acreage and the actual crop is somewhat marginal?
    Mr. Peart: I am aware of this, but, as I have said, we shall be discussing this matter very soon.
    Mr. Soames: If the right hon. Gentleman goes on treating potato growers as he has done in the last week or so, whatever he says about acreage or prices he will not get enough potatoes grown next year.
    Mr. Peart: Since the right hon. Gentleman became a "shadow" he is always speaking nonsense.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In fixing the acreage for the coming season, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a variation of even a ton an acre can have a catastrophic effect on the supply of potatoes coming forward? Will he also bear in mind that last season's conditions have resulted in rather more machinery damage than usual and that fewer potatoes of high quality are coming on to the market? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear all this in mind and listen for once to what the Potato Marketing Board has to say?
    Mr. Peart: Certainly I will listen, but that does not mean to say that I have to take everyone's advice.

    Deficiency Grants
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make the payment of deficiency grants to farmers less dependent upon the strict observance of such procedures as that whereby a farmer is prejudiced in receiving his deficiency payments for cereals if his claim does not reach the Ministry before the appropriate closing date.
    Mr. Hoy: As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) on 11th December, he is reviewing the conditions governing acceptance of late claims, to satisfy himself that they are just and reasonable taking account of both the number of applicants whose claims are late and the overwhelming number of applicants who succeed in getting their claims in on time.
    Mr. Gilmour: When the right hon. Gentleman is doing so, will he bear in mind that some farmers have borne grave and unnecessary hardship? Will he also bear in mind that it is unreasonable to expect farmers to have Civil Service minds and see to it that in future these regulations are carried out with greater flexibility and far less bureaucratic pedantry?
    Mr. Hoy: We do our best to meet cases where people quite legitimately make mistakes. I have made a number of them myself. Notices are sent to the farmers, and if they do not return their claims they get another notice before the closing date reminding them that they have not submitted applications. After all, it is the farmers who want to collect the money and we think it reasonable that they might send in applications for it.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: When will the Minister make the deficiency payment to potato growers of the 1960 crop in Ulster?
    Mr. Hoy: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about that, he had better put down a Question.

    Tractors (Accidents)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fatal tractor accidents there were in the South-West in the last year; and how many of the people concerned were under the age of 15 years.
    Mr. Hoy: There were nine fatal tractor accidents in the South-Western Region in 1964. One was to a boy of 12 who was driving a tractor in breach of the Agriculture (Avoidance of Accidents to Children) Regulations, 1958.
    Mr. Mills: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that this figure is far too high? Will he consider introducing legislation to prevent these tragic accidents? Is he aware that in my constituency there have been two fatal accidents to young boys since October? Will he consider increasing to 15 the age at which a boy can drive these very modern and powerful tractors?
    Mr. Hoy: These cases concern all of us. I remind the House that we employ 400 safety officers to try to prevent this sort of accident and that we have carried out considerable safety programmes by television, leaflets, demonstrations and so on. Of course, we regret these accidents. They are frequently the result of a member of the family being allowed to drive a tractor, and then it is sufficient punishment when anything like this happens.
    Mr. Manuel: Can my hon. Friend say whether there was a prosecution in the case of a boy of 12 driving a tractor?
    Mr. Hoy: This was a tragedy and the people involved have already been sufficiently punished without my making the matter more public. However, if my hon. Friend, or anybody else, is interested£and I can understand the reasons for asking the question£I shall be willing to give him the facts.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the publicity campaign to reduce accidents on farms, in particular to reduce tractor accidents; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hoy: No, Sir, I shall not be satisfied until accidents on farms are sub
    366
    stantially reduced. A great deal of publicity is aimed at reducing tractor accidents and we shall continue to use all resources available: press, sound broadcasting, television, leaflets, posters, lectures, films, demonstrations and safety exhibits at agricultural shows. We are making strong efforts to increase the effectiveness of the campaign. I shall be pleased to consider any suggestions the hon. Member may care to make.
    Mr. Mills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he not agree that only legislation will prevent these deaths? Will he not agree to look into the matter again to see whether he should not introduce legislation?
    Mr. Hoy: It is not only a matter of legislation, for the human factor is involved; but we are certainly considering whether we can make other safety regulations to improve the situation.
    Mr. Hazell: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the 400 safety inspectors who operate throughout the country have to take this work in their stride with many other duties and that, as a consequence, many thousands of farms have not yet been visited by these safety inspectors?
    Mr. Hoy: The inspectors do a first-class job. We have recently added to their number. They try to get round as many farms as possible, but they are human beings and they can do only as much as the human frame will permit.

    Horses and Ponies (Exports)
    Mr. Kimballasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he is aware of the large number of unbroken ponies and foals now exported under special licence of the Exportation of Horses Order, 1910; and if he will accordingly withdraw the Order;
    (2) if he will take steps to ensure that all ponies and foals exported from this country are protected by the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, and are exported only from registered ports after individual veterinary examination.
    Mr. John Mackie: I am aware that in recent years an increasing number of licences have been granted under the Exportation of Horses Order of 1910.

    367
    We have the working of this Order under consideration. We are grateful to the hon. Member for his letters and are looking into the figures which he has been good enough to bring to our notice.
    Mr. Kimball: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, while nobody wants to do anything to impede the genuine export of horses and ponies for breeding, people are genuinely worried about disreputable dealers climbing on to this bandwagon and selling horses and ponies abroad for slaughter? Is he aware that the figures which I have already sent to him and which have been compiled by the Horses and Ponies Protection Association show that the f.o.b. price for an unregistered horse is now equal to the killing price for meat on the Continent, which is the factor where the concern lies?
    Mr. Mackie: I appreciate the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given to me, but at the same time, apart from our powers to require inspection in the 1950 Act, we have no powers to prevent the slaughter of these animals once exported. It is only this Order which allows the animals to escape inspection when they are destined for slaughter. We are considering the position.

    Agricultural Credits
    Mr. Hawkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to set up an agricultural credit organisation which will have special responsibilities for providing farmers with medium-term credit at reasonable rates of interest.
    Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 3rd February to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie).
    Mr. Hawkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement in my Question was part of a speech given by the then Deputy Leader of the Labour Party at Swaffham, Norfolk, in July 1963, and later reprinted in a booklet called "British Farms—New Security"—and that many small farmers are anxiously awaiting the introduction of this credit organisation so that they can take up grants under the horticulture and other schemes?
    Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has carefully read our statements. As I said to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I am carefully looking into this question and, when we come to a decision, we shall announce it.
    Mr. Soames: Was this not looked into very carefully when the right hon. Gentleman made the pledge? What does he mean by "reasonable rates of interest"?
    Mr. Peart: I made the pledge in principle. It was inevitable that when we assumed power the legislation required to carry out some of these principles would have to be carefully looked into. Apart from that, we have to consult the interests concerned.
    Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a tendency to believe that he should do more and review less?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman will accept the principle that before we make final decisions on very important matters we should consult the farming interests.

    Small Farmers
    Mr. Hawkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's estimate of the number of small farmers who earn less than an agricultural worker's wage.
    Mr. Peart: There is no official estimate as regards full-time small farmers. As regards other small farmers, about 175,000 agricultural holdings in England and Wales, or one-half of the total, are estimated to provide only part-time employment for the occupiers. Most of these occupiers are likely to earn less than a farm worker's wage from their holdings but the majority have other jobs or sources of incomes.
    Mr. Hawkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 16th December, in answer to a Written Question of mine about one of his advisers, Mr. Emrys Jones, he said that in answer to a question at Colchester, Mr. Emrys Jones had said that there were 60,000 small farmers who fell into this category? If he agrees with his official, can he say when he will raise the standard of the incomes of small farmers to farm workers' wages, plus the interest on the capital invested in their farms?
    Mr. Peart: The position of the small farmer will also be carefully considered at the Annual Price Review.
    Mr. Rankin: If a large landowner developed only a small corner of his estate for farming, would he be regarded as a small farmer?
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will institute a comprehensive survey of the position of small farmers to find out, having regard to local physical conditions, what correlation there may be between size of business and the age of the occupier, length of occupation, agricultural training and experience, amount of capital available, off-farm earnings, use of advisory and other official facilities and grants, use of credit and any co-operative services available, and any other relevant factors.
    Mr. John Mackie: Various surveys carried out in the last few years have yielded a good deal of information on the position of the small farmer. I shall keep in mind the desirability of improving our knowledge, but I do not think that the additional information to be gained from a comprehensive survey would justify the very large effort and cost it would entail.
    Mr. Hill: Is it really so involved? It is the hard core of the problem which is really complicated, and that relates to those full-time small farmers whose scale of business is not large enough to give a satisfactory income. Such a survey, I believe, has been carried out in America with very good results.
    Mr. Mackie: Yes, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman but there is a tremendous amount of information already available, if he wants it and will read it carefully. Surveys of that description have to be accurate, and they are obtained at considerable cost. However, as he knows, there are various surveys which have been carried out by some colleges and universities and others, and which are very interesting, such as "The Small Farmers Scheme", in Devon; "The Nuffield Farm Project"; "Farmers who earn less than£10 a week", by Professor Britton and Gwyn E. Jones; "The Economic position and prospects of some small
    370
    farms in Wales". We have all these to go on, and I really think that at the present moment we have sufficient information.
    Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman thinks he has sufficient information, will he make certain he uses that information to good effect?
    Mr. Mackie: Yes.

    Charolais Cattle
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make his decision on the importation of Charolais cattle.
    Mr. Peart: I have called for a further progress report on the cross-breeding trials with Charolais bulls. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are seeking the comments of the industry on the information available with a view to reaching a decision within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that there are numerous views to be taken into consideration before a decision is made, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in particular, that if an affirmative decision is made there will in all probability be a time lag before importation can take place because suitable unvaccinated stock may not be available?
    Mr. Peart: I will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Soames: We are delighted to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he actually intends to take a decision within the next three weeks.
    Mr. Bossom: If these cattle are imported into this country, will the Minister bear in mind what happened the last time that cattle came here? There was a case of leptospirosis while they were in quarantine. Surely this sort of thing has a very bad effect on our export market. Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the trials? Are they complete? We have not yet seen the report on the second part of the trials.
    Mr. Peart: I understand that the trials have been completed. I am waiting for an examination of the reports on the trials.
    Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend distinguishing between importations from France and importations from, say, Canada?
    Mr. Peart: That is a matter which will be looked into.

    Beef
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reduction he expects there will be in the scarcity of beef.
    Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 3rd February to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. WolrigeGordon).
    Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman expecting an increase in the price of milk? Secondly, will he do his utmost to ensure that his advisory officers use every means available to advise farmers on the best ways to cut down on the very considerable proportion of calves which die before they are reared or which are unsuitable cross-breeds for beef rearing?
    Mr. Peart: The whole question of increased home supplies is very important. We are—[Interruption.] As hon. Members know, the Annual Review starts today. They would not like me to go beyond that.
    Mr. Manuel: Could my right hon. Friend say how many matters in his Department need decision and the introduction of legislation? Would he say whether he considers this a direct reflection on the sloth and laxity of the previous Administration?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a little wide of the Question, which is about the scarcity of beef.
    Mr. Deedes:In the course of the Review, will the Minister reconsider his refusal to consider carrying out trials in respect of the Sussex cattle?
    Mr. Peart: That does not arise from the Question.

    Channel Islands Milk
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce his decision about the price of Channel Islands milk.
    Mr. Hoy: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and others on 3rd February last.
    Mr. Marten: Can the hon. Gentleman say why his right hon. Friend turned down the recommendations of the Thorold Committee? Unless the House is told the real reasons, it will have to draw the conclusion that this was done purely for party doctrinaire reasons.
    Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman can draw what conclusions he likes, but if he draws that one he will be quite wrong. My right hon. Friend had to weigh up the circumstances. He had been asked to make a considerable increase in the price of this particular milk. Having looked at the figures, he decided to make an increase which he thought would be fair to the producer and, at the same time, fair to the consumer, who is not unimportant.
    Mr. Soames: Would the hon. Gentleman say what were the factors which led his right hon. Friend to decide against freeing the price of quality milk?
    Mr. Hoy: I think that I have answered that. Channel Islands milk represents about 7 or 8 per cent. of the total sales of liquid milk. It is not unimportant.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that any premium earned by Channel Islands milk comes from the market demand for it? Is it fair to the consumer to restrict the price and, hence, the production of a luxury article for which there is an increasing demand?
    Mr. Hoy: It is not a question of seeking to restrict it, because it does even better—[Interruption.] I have already told the right hon. Gentleman Channel Islands milk is not an unimportant part of the liquid milk available to consumers in this country. I am bound to point out once more that it is already enjoying l½d. a pint more than ordinary milk. Because of the quantity available, and by making an increase in price which was not insubstantial, we thought that we were being fair to the consumer and to the producer.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what results have been achieved by his discussions over rising food prices.
    Mr. Peart: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 20th January, I described the general nature of these discussions, saying that I had expressed the Government's point of view and had received assurances from the various trade associations that they would recommend their members to hold down prices and absorb cost increases to the greatest possible extent. I trust and have every confidence that these assurances will be honoured.
    Mr. Prior: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his economic overlord the First Secretary that a large part of the increases in food prices has been brought about by his Government's own policy? Will he make it plain that the agricultural industry and the food processing industry have put up prices only because they were forced to do so as a result of the economic measures imposed by the Government?
    Mr. Peart: The discussions which I have had with the trade interests confirm that the Government's actions, which we had to take, have in no way affected prices in the way suggested.
    Mr. Park: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Conservative Party was in power food prices rose by over 50 per cent. without any effective action being taken? Is he further aware that any action which he takes along the lines he is suggesting will be received with great satisfaction by the people of this country?
    Mr. Peart: Certainly. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary is anxious to set up machinery to deal with specific cases.

    Arsanilic Acid
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to include arsanilic acid in the Veterinary Safety Precautions Scheme; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Mackie: The question of clearance of this substance under the Veterinary Products Safety Precautions Scheme is still under consideration.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon.
    374
    Friend that this matter is of sufficient importance to be taken out of the unfortunate position of being enclosed with so many other hundreds of measures being looked at or which are under consideration? Those concerned with this important matter would feel happier if we were told that it was put under the blotting paper or was at least in such a position that it might be acted on more quickly?
    Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, poisons and additives in food are a very important matter which cannot hastily be judged. The Advisory Committee which deals with this matter takes very great care to ensure that the matter is dealt with properly. Any hasty action would be to the detriment of the consumer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, accidents with drugs have happened.

    Flood Defences, Market Harborough
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the improvement of flood defences in Market Harborough.
    Mr. Hoy: The Welland River Board has put forward proposals for the protection of Market Harborough from flooding. These present certain problems which require further consideration by engineers.
    Mr. Farr: During the Minister's four months or so in office, has his attention been drawn to the fact that Market Harborough has been flooded more frequently in recent years than any other town in the country? Will he try to put a bit of urgency into these plans, and particularly the overflow plan which is now in preparation?
    Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for absolving me from the blame for the years that have gone. I realise the seriousness of the matter and I know that there are certain engineering difficulties which it will take some little time to overcome. I certainly assure the hon. Member, however, that we will do all that is humanly possible to expedite a decision in the matter.

    Meat Supplies
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what long-term steps he is taking to ensure adequate supplies of beef at reasonable prices in the shops.
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to increase the supply of meat from home sources.
    Mr. Peart: Future policy on home production, which provides over 70 per cent. of our total consumption, is a matter for the Annual Review which I cannot anticipate. As regards imports, there is a current shortage on the world market due to a reduction in available supplies and the increase in demand.
    Mr. Farr: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Argentine now supplies most of its meat to Common Market countries and, furthermore, that the chairman of the veal producers in this country has forecast that for the next five years there will be a shortage of beef? In view of these two facts, may I ask the Minister whether, in the forthcoming Price Review, he will give a real incentive to traditional British beef producers to make good the threatened shortage?
    Mr. Peart: I recognise the facts that have been mentioned but, obviously, I cannot comment now on Annual Review matters.
    Mr. Bence: In considering what encouragement to give to British farmers, and particularly Scottish farmers, to produce more meat, will my right hon. Friend at the same time encourage his right hon. Friends to discourage the practice which was encouraged under the previous Administration of exporting some of the best of our beef to the Continent of Europe?
    Mr. Peart: One has to keep this matter in the right perspective. If exports got out of hand, they might well then be a matter for decision and action.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that there is one way in which he can quite quickly improve the supply of home-produced beef, and that is by
    376
    extending the calf subsidy to Friesian heifer calves, and that it is time that this long out-of-date anomaly was ended?
    Mr. Peart: As the hon. Member knows, this is a matter which will be considered.

    Increased Petrol Duty (Costs)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has now made of the increased annual costs to the farming industry in England and Wales, respectively, due to the increase of 6d. per gallon on petrol and diesel oil.
    Mr. John Mackie: Separate figures for England and Wales are not available, but the estimated increase in cost in England and Wales together is about £2 million in a full year.
    Mr. Gower: Does the Minister agree that this might be described as one of several elements which have led to increased costs in food production?
    Mr. Mackie: Yes, it is a certain element, but not a very large one.
    Mr. Ridley: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the First Secretary wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer complaining about the price increase?
    Mr. Mackie: No.

    Agricultural Holdings, Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings there were in Wales at the latest convenient date; and how this compares with the number five years earlier.
    Mr. John Mackie: In June, 1964, there were 49,444 holdings in Wales with more than an acre of land used for agriculture; in June, 1959 the comparable figure was 52,970. Two-thirds of the decrease of 3,526 occurred in holdings of under 20 acres, including part-time and spare-time holdings.
    Mr. Gower: In how many cases have the reductions in the number of holdings resulted from amalgamation?
    Mr. Mackie: We cannot give the actual figure, but a considerable number were due to amalgamation.

    Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1964
    Mr. W. Baxterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give favourable consideration to extending the period of one week for the rubber-ringed castration of lambs under the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1964.
    Mr. John Mackie: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 3rd February.
    Mr. Baxter: I am aware of the reply that was given to the hon. Member for South Angus, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend will further consider this matter. I am not a member of an official organistion to make representations to him, but on behalf of my constituents and as a reasonable Member of Parliament I am now making representations that this question be gone into. I do so for the simple reason that many sheep farmers in Scotland are greatly concerned at this one-week period of lamb castration and they find that when they are bringing in their lambs for the purpose of castration, it does much more harm to the unborn lambs in the sheep that are being brought in than the saving of pain to the lambs which are castrated throughout the week. I would wish my hon. Friend to give further consideration to this matter at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Mackie: My hon. Friend can take it that the Government always considers the opinions of minorities, however small they may be. He must, however, appreciate that we have to look into this matter through the representations given to the British Veterinary Association, whose advice we must take and with whom, I know, there has been consultation by representative bodies in Scotland. I do not know whether the representations have been strong enough when the advice reaches the Association's headquarters, which is the source from which we get it before acting upon it.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware of the report in one of the farming newspapers at the weekend of the views expressed by Dr. John Watt, secretary of the Scottish branch of the British Veterinary Association and also lecturer in veterinary science at the East of Scotland School of Agriculture, which appeared to lean rather heavily towards the views expressed by the farming community in this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman consider this?
    Mr. Mackie: It will certainly be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Baxter: May I remind my hon. Friend that there is a great deal to be said from the point of view of a practical man, especially a practical farmer?
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Will the Minister bear in mind the urgency of this matter, because in three months' time this process will be due to be carried out again? The matter is important not only for this reason, but also because people who have tended sheep all their lives are convinced that this is by far the best method to use?
    Mr. Mackie: I note what the hon. Member has said.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOST PROPERTY (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to extend the application of section 412 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892 to landward areas of counties in Scotland and to provide for the sale or disposal of lost and unclaimed perishable articles, presented by Mr. Archie Manuel; supported by Mr. Thomas Steele, Mr. Arthur Woodburn, Sir John Gilmour, Miss Harvie Anderson, Mr. James Hill, Mr. Peter Doig, Mr. John Brewis, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Forbes Hendry, and Mr. Emrys Hughes; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 5th March and to be printed.

  PROTECTION OF DEER
  3.32 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the hunting with hounds of deer and the killing or capturing of deer with snares; to provide for the control of deer by approved methods; and for purposes connected therewith.
  Widespread and growing public opinion is coming to the conclusion that stag hunting with hounds is an abomination. It is not without significance that during the last 60 years the number of deer hunting packs has fallen from 19 to five at the present time. If my Bill were brought in and passed then the last five remaining packs would have to pack up. More modern methods of deer control are now being operated. In this respect, the Government are setting a very good example, and have done so for some years past. During the last three years, for instance, on estates owned by the Forestry Commission, about 21,000 deer were shot. In these circumstances I refuse to believe that the remaining five packs of staghounds make a worth-while contribution to the problem of deer control.
  I said a moment ago that public opinion, in growing measure, was opposed to stag hunting. A recent opinion poll, conducted under independent auspices at the request of the League Against Cruel Sports, showed that 77 per cent. of the population were opposed to stag hunting. I am happy to say that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is prepared to support the Bill I am now seeking leave to bring in. According to a recent Press report, the joint master of the Devon and Somerset Hounds has said that deer have to be controlled. There I agree with him, but when he goes on to say
  "hunting is the most humane way of doing it"
  I most emphatically disagree. If hunting is the most humane way of doing it, why do not these staghunt masters conduct a raging propaganda campaign against the Forestry Commission in this connection?
  It is true that the Deer Act, 1963, contains some useful features, but there are still too many loopholes. It is still legal to chase a deer for hours till it collapses
  380
  through sheer exhaustion, or is driven into the sea to drown. It is still legal to drag the cornered deer into the open and slaughter it even in the middle of the street, with young children standing around. It is still legal to observe the bestial ritual of cutting out the deer's heart, liver and kidneys and to give the pieces to the nearest stander-by, to hack off the hooves and to present them to the hunters as charming souvenirs of what stag hunters would no doubt describe as "a bloody good day".
  It is still part of the rules of this filthy game to "blood" newcomers, smearing the blood of the dead animal on the cheeks of young children. England is now one of the few countries in Europe yet to tolerate stag hunting in its present form.
  I have had some letters of encouragement too numerous to acknowledge and from farmers and other residents in areas where staghunts still function. Most of the writers ask that their names should not be published for fear of reprisals and victimisation. Let me quote from one of these letters which I received only this morning. It is from a vicarage in Somerset. The vicar writes as follows:
  "May I, from the heart of the hunt country, say how fervently my wife and I wish good success to the Bill you are about to present? I am not able to press my views as militantly as I long to do. Even so, I am certain that the vast majority of the people regard this so-called sport with utter loathing. Indeed, although this particular parish is almost given over to hunting I have been told that if a secret vote were taken in a parish not far from here 90 per cent. of the people would be found to be against it."
  That is only one of many letters I have received.
  In my submission, the time has come to end stag hunting once and for all. This country prides itself on its reputation for sportsmanship and fair play, and yet this reputation can continue to be besmirched by this barbarous survival. I ask the House to accept the Motion.
  3.37 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I rise to oppose the Motion—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] If the same freedom which the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) wishes to accord to the stag is accorded to those who differ from his point of view, no doubt I shall be able to make known my reasons for opposing the Motion.

  381
  In the first place, I do not hunt, and I never have; nor, I suspect, does the hon. Member. In the second place, I share with him the wish that the most humane methods shall at all times be used and that cruelty should be minimised. Unlike him, having no personal knowledge of this hunting, I must turn to the most objective and most well-informed and the most experienced information which one can find, and that, I would suggest, is from the Royal Commission which reported to the then Labour Government in 1949, the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Scott Henderson.
  It may be thought that, because of his discoveries in another connection, some doubt may be cast upon his views, [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] All I can say is that if that was the view of hon. Members opposite it was not shared by Lord Chuter-Ede, the Home Secretary of the day. But I am not here to paper over the cracks in the party opposite.
  I think that it is generally agreed that the number of stags—and I think that the hon. Member conceded it—has to be kept down, because if they proliferate damage is done to crops, particularly root crops and corn. Also, considerable damage is done to trees, especially young trees, by stags which rub off on them the fur, the velvet, of their antlers.
  The Scott Henderson Report concluded that the range of a rifle was anything up to 3,000 yards, and that at that range there was a great danger that even if a shot were to succeed in hitting the stag it would wound and not kill, and that the only guarantee of painlessly killing stags with a rifle shot was to get within a range of 15 to 20 yards. Anybody who knows the speed with which stags can move, the woodland conditions in which they are found, and, speaking about Exmoor, the misty conditions which obtain, realises that it is virtually impossible to achieve that with any measure of certainty.
  If any more humane method than hunting could be found, I would support it without any shadow of doubt at all. Snaring is a far more cruel method of
  382
  destruction—and this is now illegal under the 1963 Act—but the alternative method, that of shooting, carries with it a far greater risk of inflicting calculated cruelty and injury to an animal which is maimed and not killed. This, I believe, is something which nobody in this House would wish to see as an effect of the Bill.
  I merely refer to two short quotations from the Scott Henderson Report. Paragraph 207 says:
  "We have made careful inquiries about some deer drives and are satisfied that there has been much indiscriminate shooting by those taking part in them. The evidence we have had makes us question the belief of some of the animal welfare organisations that deer are likely to be controlled without undue suffering if they are driven and shot. Our view is that the shooting of deer with shotguns must inevitably be accompanied by a great deal of suffering."
  In paragraph 230 the conclusion is drawn that although hunting does involve an element of suffering, it is the least cruel way of keeping the numbers down.
  It may be that hon. Members who, like myself, have no practical experience of hunting would prefer to remain seated upon their prejudices. Speaking for myself, I would prefer to rely on the Report to which I have just referred. I believe that the effect of the Bill would not only not reduce cruelty to stags, but would go a long way towards increasing it.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mr. Boston, Mr. Craddock, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Foot, Mr. Monslow, Mr. Newens, Mrs. Short, Mr. Solomons, Mr. Spriggs, Dr. Summer-skill, and Mr. Victor Yates.

  PROTECTION OF DEER
  Bill to prohibit the hunting with hounds of deer and the killing or capturing of deer with snares; to provide for the control of deer by approved methods; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 19th February and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES AND MEMBERS' PENSIONS BILL
  As amended, considered.
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES AND MEMBERS' PENSIONS BILL

    Clause 1.—(REVISED RATES OF SALARIES FOR MINISTERS.)
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out subsection (2).
    Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it might be convenient to consider, at the same time, the following Amendments: In Schedule 1, page 15, line 26, after "State", insert "when in the Cabinet".
    In Schedule 1, page 15, line 31, at the end insert:
    Minister of State not in the Cabinet … 5,625
    Mr. Wise: The Chief Secretary rebuked me heavily once for trying to hint that the main purport of a large number of the Clauses of the Bill was to reduce the House roughly to the position of the Reichstag, but I am unrepentant. I think that we are witnessing a tendency for so increasing the power of the Prime Minister, and, therefore, the power of the Executive, that we go back to Fox's famous Motion, carried in this House by acclamation:
    "The Power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished".
    We should take a serious look at the Clauses of the Bill, even at this rather late stage.
    What we are proposing is to empower the Prime Minister to vary, up or down, with a limit on the top, because he can vary down and then up again if he wishes, the salary of a Minister of State. Hitherto, it has been possible for a Prime Minister who falls out with one of his Ministers of State to request his resignation. Indeed, there was an occasion during the life of the last Parliament when this was done on a fairly extensive scale. It gave satisfaction all round, particularly to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    What we are doing here is giving a power which did not exist then, and it will be particularly difficult for the party opposite to use this disciplinary power of requesting resignations because they now have so many people in office that
    384
    they cannot dismiss anybody because they cannot replace him. We are, therefore, removing this wholesome form of discipline which the Executive had before.
    The Government can now introduce a system of punishment by purse. I do not think that this would be desirable. I do not think that if the Prime Minister wakes up one day with a slight "touch of liver", he should be able to look at the first Minister of State who comes in to see him, and say, "You are not worth £8,000 a year. From now on it will be £6,000 for you, and if I 'have a liver' again next week it will probably be down to £5,000". This is an extra-ordinary power to give to any one man over persons who, in theory at least, are his equals.
    Let us not lose sight of that fact. A back bencher is the equal of the Prime Minister in this House. He has the same rights as the Prime Minister. A back bencher yields priority to right hon. Members in the right to be heard slightly more often, a priority which I would not suggest they abuse, but this goes to a further and deeper interference with the traditions and customs of the House, because included in the subsection which we are proposing to delete there are a large number of offices, such as the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Paymaster-General. These offices are a great deal older than the office of Prime Minister. They are based on tradition, and, in my view, they should not be subject to the whim of whoever is leading a majority in the House of Commons.
    Once upon a time they were officers of the Crown. In theory, of course, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster still is one. He draws his salary for his valuable administrative services in running the Duchy of Lancaster. It should not be for the Prime Minister, at any moment, to say that the Duchy of Lancaster has so diminished in value, or has been so badly run, that the person holding the office ought to have a reduction in salary.
    This is a form of minor punishment which I regard as wholly undesirable, and I trust that we shall be able to persuade the Government to think again on this point. It will not affect the Government very much in their effort to

    385
    increase the proper remuneration of Ministers of the Crown. Indeed, I do not doubt that we shall be assured that the Prime Minister will never do such a thing as arbitrarily to reduce the salary of a Minister of State, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the Paymaster-General—and especially not the Paymaster-General.
    But if he does not intend to do this, why bother to give him the power? Let these unfortunate men at least know that so long as they hold their offices they can reckon on the same cheque being paid to them, month by month, as the life of Parliament goes on. They will not enjoy it for long; we might as well let them have the best of it while the going is good.
    I am reminded that I should have inquired what salaries the present Ministers of State are getting in the Lords and Commons. It is suggested that this is pure class legislation—one law for the nobility and another for the squires and knights. I believe that the squires and knights are rather better off on the deal. I shall be interested to hear the hon. Member refresh our memories as to the salaries that are paid.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: The genial if not facetious way in which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) introduced the Amendment made it clear that we are not intended to take it seriously. I will deal with it seriously for two minutes, however, in case any hon. Member is misguided or foolish enough to believe that the hon. Member was serious. The simple answer to the hon. Member's argument, as he well knows, is that this subsection retains the right of the Prime Minister to exercise some flexibility in the use of various Ministries and in the duties put upon various Ministers.
    Subsection (2,b) speaks not merely about the great offices of the Crown, as such; it speaks of the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and so on, when they are not members of the Cabinet. In that sense it reserves the right of the Prime Minister to pick special duties for them if he so wishes, thereby affording him some flexibility if he wishes to use those offices for
    386
    people outside the Cabinet. The remuneration fixed by the Prime Minister in those circumstances would vary according to the duties he attached to the offices, especially as the holders of those offices were outside the Cabinet.
    Subsection (2,a) reserves flexibility to the Prime Minister in the case of Ministers of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We know that the office of Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a fairly new creation in governmental jobs, and that the future salary will surely depend from time to time upon the duties attached to that new job, which is now only in a period of development, and in a future Government might not need to be as powerful as it is now. That is why the Prime Minister should reserve to himself the right to some flexibility in attaching less important duties and less power to the job, and to pay a correspondingly lower salary.
    The hon. Member is dressing up with heavy words what is meant to be merely a leg-pull against the present Administration. It will not wash. His argument carries no conviction, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will resist the Amendment and expose it for the piece of nonsense that it is.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) put his finger on the heart of the matter when he referred to the flexibility which is rightly provided here to fit the salary to the responsibility rather than to fit it to the title irrespective of the responsibility carried by the holder of the office for the time being.
    The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) was a little inflexible in his approach. His arguments were not wholly dissimilar to those that I have heard on a previous occasion. He asked me to regard the Amendment with sympathy. I shall regard part of it with considerable sympathy. One of the things that he proposes is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should receive an increase in salary. I propose to give very careful and sympathetic thought to that point.
    Apart from that, and being quite serious about the matter, I hope that I can satisfy the House that on the

    387
    material point no new pattern of flexibility is being introduced. Broadly, we are carrying on in exactly the same way as hitherto. Perhaps the simplest way of demonstrating this is to give an account of the offices and the salaries attached to them.
    The real complaint of the hon. Member for Rugby is that there is unnecessary flexibility in the arrangements proposed, which the Amendment seeks to remove. On the contrary, in terms of maximum salary it is we who are introducing inflexibility by imposing a maximum salary in respect of Ministers of State. In the previous Administration there was no maximum. It was open to the then Prime Minister to appoint Ministers of State at salaries that he regarded as appropriate. Apparently there was no ceiling; the Prime Minister could have appointed them at any salary. In fact, he appointed them at salaries related to the responsibilities attached to their offices.
    Some were appointed at the equivalent of £5,000 a year, some at £4,500 and some at £3,750. I hope that the hon. Member does not want me to give the exact titles. Broadly, there were three grades.
    Sir Martin Redmayne: Will the hon. Member give the numbers and the distribution?
    Mr. Diamond: Ministers without Portfolio rank as Ministers of State. Two Ministers without Portfolio were appointed by the previous Administration. Ministers without Portfolio carried salaries of full departmental Ministers, namely, £5,000. There were two such Ministers appointed at salaries of £5,000 a year each. There were five Ministers of State—two in the Department of Education and Science, one for the Royal Navy, one for the Army and one for the Royal Air Force—at salaries of £4,500 a year, which is intermediate between the salary of a full departmental Minister and that of a Parliamentary Secretary.
    Then there were nine at a salary of £3,750 which is the salary of other Ministers of State—two at the Board of Trade, two Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, two for foreign affairs, one
    388
    Home Office, one Scottish Office and one Welsh Affairs. I think that I made a case that there were 16 Ministers of State appointed by the immediately preceding Administration. They were appointed at salaries relevant to their responsibilities. The flexibility then was greater than it is now. There was no ceiling. They could have been appointed at £10,000 or £20,000. This did not happen because it is not the practice of Prime Ministers, I must tell the hon. Member for Rugby, to behave with the kind of senseless irresponsibility which he described in his speech. They do not behave in that way, and they are not likely to behave in that way, so long as we have a democratic Parliament to assist them in their considerations.
    4.0 p.m.
    The other point which I should like to make, because I do not know whether the House is fully aware of it, is that the office of Minister of State and the flexibility attaching to his salary is not an invention of ours. When the Conservatives came into office, there were two Ministers of State, and when the Conservatives left office there were 16. They increased the number from two to 16. In the Administration immediately preceding the present one, the present Leader of the Opposition, as Prime Minister, increased the number from eight to 16. He doubled it. We are increasing it, effectively, from 16 to 18.
    I say "effectively" because I do not want to mislead the House. There are in fact 19, but the 19th is the Economic Secretary, who, in effect, came into this category before. He is still carrying on the work of Economic Secretary, but is now known as Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs. The proper and honest comparison is that, in the previous Administration, the number rose from two to 16, in our Administration from 16 to 18; in the previous Administration there was no responsible upper limit for salary, in our Administration there is a responsible upper limit; in the previous Administration there were three bands of salary, in our Administration there are the same three bands. Broadly, it is the same pattern.
    I am, therefore, bound to say that the Bill which provides for this, and which the hon. Member for Rugby seeks to

    389
    amend, should stand. I cannot see my way to advise the House to accept the Amendment.
    Sir David Renton: Would the hon. Gentleman now kindly answer my hon. Friend's question and give the salaries which Ministers of State in the present Government are receiving, or will receive, as a result of the Bill?
    Mr. Diamond: I hope that the House does not think that I am delaying it unduly. I shall be delighted to give any information asked for. Under the present Administration there are two Ministers without Portfolio, as there were in the last Administration, who receive the £5,000 rate.
    Perhaps it would be simplest if I quote the current rates, making it perfectly clear that the £5,000 goes up to £8,500 under the proposal which is being accepted by the House. For £5,000 read £8,500. For £4,500 read £7,625 as from 1st April next and for £3,750 read £5,625 as from 1st April next. However, I should be right, and I hope quite clear, if I continue to quote current rates.
    The current rates are two Ministers without Portfolio at £5,000 and one, the Deputy Secretary of State for Defence and Minister of Defence for the Army, at £5,000. This, I think, is wholly proper, because, as a result of the amalgamation of the three services, overriding responsibility has been given to the Secretary of State for Defence and his number two, to put it shortly, has much the same responsibility as a full departmental Minister. Therefore, it is right that he should receive an appropriate salary.
    There are three Ministers of State receiving a salary of £4,500 a year, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force and the Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs, and the Chief Secretary makes four. But if one excludes the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, because he is paralleled by the Economic Secretary, who was not previously classified as a Minister of State, one gets the exact comparison. There are 12 Ministers of State receiving £3,750, which is the other level of salary for Ministers of State—one at the Department of Education and Science, two for foreign affairs, plus two at the Foreign Office, one Commonwealth Relations, one
    390
    Home Office, one Scottish Office, three at the Board of Trade and one at the Welsh Office.
    Sir D. Renton: I am very much obliged to the Chief Secretary for giving this information without notice. We greatly appreciate that. I cannot accept, however, the argument which he has put forward. I can see that the Bill gives less flexibility than has existed over Ministers of State in the past, but we are now reaching conclusions upon this matter and a settlement which, we hope, will last for a good many years. It is the first time since 1830 that Parliament has attempted to do this in a comprehensive way. I suggest that we should do it thoroughly and properly in the way best suited to modern circumstances and taking advantage of the lessons of the past.
    There was a time prior to 1780 when, although we had great Prime Ministers, they governed and they mastered Parliament and their own parties with the aid of political patronage. Although great things were achieved in those times, we have passed a long way from those times and we do not want to see any vestige of them return. Granted that, in respect of Ministers of State but not otherwise—as I understand the position—there has been tremendous flexibility over the last 30 years, we should make sure that there is not unnecessary flexibility, to use the Chief Secretary's own words, when arriving at a settlement which will last for many years to come.
    What has happened during the last 30 years? After all, when two Ministers without Portfolio were introduced before the war on an experimental basis, this matter did not loom so large. Then, during the war, Sir Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister, found it convenient to have a number of Ministers of State, some of them to fulfil duties which could only arise in time of war and, obviously, great flexibility was needed then for that purpose. I think that it is wrong to quote the circumstances which arose then and which have been built upon since as a justification for what we find in Clause 1 of the Bill.
    As I understand, what my hon. Friends are aiming at in putting down this Amendment is to ensure that, so far as Ministers of State and the Chief Secretary and the great officers of State are concerned, there shall be no unnecessary

    391
    flexibility. There will still be some flexibility. The Prime Minister will still be able to pay the full £8,500 a year to a Minister of State who is in the Cabinet, but if a Minister of State is not in the Cabinet he should receive the lesser sum referred to in the latter Amendment, which is £5,250. Surely that is the right way to do this.
    I wish to ask a question which, I think, is most material to our discussion. I have no doubt that the Chief Secretary will be given leave to speak again. We are entitled to know whether there was any power in the past to vary salaries downwards while a particular Member of this House, or of another place, still held the appointment. As I understand, that could be done under the Bill and I do not think that it is a desirable situation.
    Mr. Chapman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that if, for example, one of the sinecure offices is used for quite a different purpose with a great diminution in the power of the office the holder should, nevertheless, be paid the same high salary all the time?
    Sir D. Renton: I should have thought that there would be a better way of meeting such a situation—perhaps by asking the Minister concerned to resign altogether or to take part in a general reshuffle of the Government—than for him to be faced with a power held in the hands of the Prime Minister, granted by Parliament and contained in an Act of Parliament, for his salary to be reduced.
    Mr. Chapman: With respect, I am not talking of individuals having their salaries reduced. I am talking of an office which loses some power in a new formation of Government. If the Lord Privy Seal's Office is to be used for great Cabinet work in one Government and for something different in another there is no reason why the office should carry the same salary.
    Sir D. Renton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are in dispute, though we may be at cross purposes. I am saying that it has been considered broadly right for Parliament to know what powers a Prime Minister is to use when choosing his Government and filling the various posts in it, and, also, that Parliament should have the right to say
    392
    what salaries should be paid; fixed salaries, not maximum salaries reduceable at will. As I understand, apart from the flexibility with regard to Ministers of State in the past, Ministers have—at any rate, since 1830, if not before—been paid a fixed salary which Parliament has approved.
    To the extent that that principle is departed from in Clause 1 and particularly in subsection (2) of that Clause, I say that it is wrong; that it restores to an extent—not to the alarming extent that some hon. Members may think but it could be the thin edge of the wedge—the power of patronage to the Prime Minister. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), whose interventions we always enjoy in any debate, will not get a wrong impression about my hon. Friends and myself, or, indeed, any hon. Member on this side of the House and accuse us of "leg-pulling". We are not "leg-pulling." This is an important constitutional matter on which Parliament should have its say.
    Hon. Members opposite do not quite see themselves as others see them. We do see them, we realise the extremely discordant elements that any Labour Prime Minister has to support him in trying to govern. I think it very important that when a Labour Government are introducing a Bill of this kind the powers in the Bill should not appear to be capable of use merely for the purpose of making it easier for a Labour Prime Minister to govern by making deals of one kind or another with those various discordant elements.
    After all, we have had three members of the Cabinet who, whether they have rescinded from their principles or not, were keen members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament before being invited to join the Government. I do not think it right for the hon. Member for Northfield to accuse us of "leg-pulling" when we are faced with a situation of that kind.
    4.15 p.m.
    Sir Robert Cary: I wish to support what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Our resentment springs from the growth of patronage in the hands of

    393
    the Prime Minister. The Chief Secretary said that this may well fix things for all time. We hope that it will remain so. The hon. Gentleman said that one would not anticipate that a Prime Minister would act with gross irresponsibility. We are not suggesting that the present Prime Minister would act in any such way, but our legislation should be tied up in such a way that no one would have the opportunity to act with gross irresponsibility.
    A few days ago you, Mr. Speaker, on another occasion, warned the House to be mindful of its reputation outside. That was in respect of a particular aspect of the debate. I think that there is a collective responsibility on the House of Commons to be mindful of its reputation in all forms. I cannot see that the patronage now going into the hands of the Prime Minister can be for the best interests of Parliament.
    An appointment to office is not a trading operation invested in one man as might have been the case in the days of Sir Robert Walpole. We have long since left those days. I hope that there will be some acknowledgment by the Chief Secretary that there is substance in what we have said about this subsection. When one considers the whole string of Ministers to be seen and dealt with, and appointed to office, it is apparent that this is not a matter of the personal relationship between the Prime Minister and individuals. It is not a trading operation in the terms of the salaries paid.
    I should prefer to see salaries paid to the office and never to the individual. My right hon. and learned Friend said that variations cannot occur if responsibility in a Department lessens. That is not the reason for the Prime Minister to be provided with an excuse to reduce the salaries of individual Ministers. Even at this late hour I think that the Chief Secretary ought to acknowledge that there is substance in what we are saying.
    There are elements growing up in the country which resent Parliament as such. There is trash called "Corridors of Power" lying about on the bookstalls. Some individuals would like to divorce themselves entirely from the franchise which we observe in this House and, by patronage and other means, avoid their direct responsibility. Some architects of this new thinking would welcome
    394
    it if those at the centre did, after all, know best. I think that that should be modified and I regret that some of them have found their way into the ranks of this Government.
    Sir M. Redmayne: I join with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in his reproof to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who thought that this Amendment represented a "leg-pull". I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would agree that this is a serious point—I beg the Chief Secretary's pardon, he is not a right hon. Gentleman. He ought to be by virtue of his office. He cannot exercise the power for which the office was originally set up unless he has that rank.
    The idea that it may be a "leg-pull" possibly derives from the fact that the previous stages of the Bill were taken on Fridays. The Second Reading, a perfectly good one, was on a Friday and the Committee stage was on another Friday, but a most significant one, for it followed the severe defeat of the Government in two by-elections. Possibly, therefore, some points were not pressed as heavily as they should have been.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) put the case in a cogent way and I find it strange how much more sweetly his voice struck my ears today than it has done on some occasions in the past. To summarise the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends, we object to the complete discretion—and it is complete, and no one can deny that; up or down within a certain maximum—which is given to the Prime Minister in fixing the salaries of Ministers of State, of the Chief Secretary and even more to this flexibility in respect of four famous old sinecure offices if the holders are not in the Cabinet.
    There is here a deliberate attempt to downgrade these sinecures, each of which has a great part in history and has been held by a number of famous men. The hon. Member for Northfield spoke about an office losing power. In so far as these great offices of State have power—and we admit that they are sinecures—their power cannot be

    395
    varied. If, therefore, one is to give them to men who exercise less power, one is certainly downgrading them in an historical sense.
    Mr. Chapman: With respect, considering the office of the Duchy of Lancaster, I would say that when it was held in the last Administration—by the Chairman of the Conservative Party—it had a lot less governmental power and duty than it has under the present Administration.
    Sir M. Redmayne: The hon. Gentleman underrates the power of the Chairman of the Conservative Party. The fact remains that these sinecure offices have always had their place in the Cabinet and have served to provide for a Prime Minister in his Cabinet a number of those all-rounders who are essential to good government.
    Without wishing to make a political point, it is only fair to say that in the present Government the only people who had any knowledge of Cabinet before they took office were the Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales, who, though I respect him, cannot be regarded as being a cogent force at this time. Now that the Government are robbed of the services of their first Foreign Secretary, it is true to say that the Prime Minister is very short of men with experience of how the Cabinet machine works.
    By putting in the Bill a Clause by which, at some future time, all these useful offices of State could be downgraded, the Prime Minister does no service to the general interests of good government in this country. In the present Government there remain in the Cabinet the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal, as well as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Paymaster-General is out. He is not in the Cabinet and it is proper that we should ask—I do not believe that this question has been asked so far—what salary is being paid to the Paymaster-General and for what services to the Government. We are not clear what rdôle he plays today, although some of us have been clear of the rôle, in another capacity, he played in the past.
    Much more important is that if, in fact, there is power in the Bill to downgrade
    396
    the Lord President of the Council, that is a blow to the constitutional structure. The Lord President of the Council is an office of no small importance. It is an office which, by the nature of it, is in close contact with the monarchy, and must remain so. Admittedly, it is slightly formalised in its duties, but, as I see it, it is part of the structure of constitutional government which we value and which, I believe, no action of any Government should be allowed to undermine by quietly putting through, in a Bill of this sort, a power by which, at some future date, that office may be lowered in status. Although this point has not been taken to that extent during the passage of the Bill, it is one which should be taken closely into account by the Government.
    It is clear that the Bill gives complete freedom to the Prime Minister to pay Ministers of State at whatever rate he pleases. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire said that he could decrease the salary of these Ministers. Equally, up to the limit of £8,500, he can increase it. I am not saying—because one does not wish to say this kind of thing—that there would be the kind of jobbery in which salaries were used as an inducement for loyalty or support of the Government. None the less, in the Bill that power is being injected and at some future date, if not in the term of this Government, that power might be used.
    The Chief Secretary pleads that this flexibility is desirable and that there is a precedent for it. In saying that, he is rather stretching the truth. In the Bill there is complete flexibility within the maximum limit. I agree that there was not a maximum limit before, but, equally, the limit was accepted and would never have been exceeded. He went on to say that there were three levels of payment: first, that a Minister of State in the Cabinet received the salary which was due to a Cabinet Minister, and then, at the lower end of the three, there was the salary paid to a Minister of State who was not in the Cabinet, while between there was an intermediate rate of £4,500, and he said that five Ministers of State received that. I question that. I think that the number should have been four.
    Following the reorganisation of the Defence Department the three heads of

    397
    the Services received that rate and the other one, the Minister of Education, who was in the Cabinet, made up the fourth. I do not think that there was a fifth. I see that the Chief Secretary, in that friendly way of his, is telling me that there were two, but the senior Minister of Education received a full Cabinet Minister's salary. I am almost certain that that was the case, but it is not a great point.
    I believe that, on the whole, this third rate was a mistake, but I remind the House of the circumstances in which it arose. When the Bill for reorganising the Defence Departments was introduced there was in it the suggestion that because there would be a Defence Minister in complete control of defence, and since there had to be under him three heads of the Services, there should be a differentiation in their salaries. I thought then, as I think now, that it was a mistake.
    This comes back to the point of the hon. Member for Northfield—who, I gather from his absence, has become bored with my argument. The responsibilities of the heads of those Services remained the same, although there was a Minister put above them. It would have been a very much better policy had they received the same salary as any head of a Department, whether or not he is in the Cabinet. That disposes of that variation.
    4.30 p.m.
    There was the other variation by which the salary paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), when he was
    a joint Minister of Education, in the Cabinet, was reduced. I do not think that these distinctions are necessary, and I am sure that if one is considering the salaries of Ministers in and out of the Cabinet it is much better that there should be clearly distinct rates for them.
    Even admitting, as I have admitted, my view that in these particular respects mistakes were made, I believe that this Government, whose members are so much students of modernisation and method in industry, commerce and government, and who brought in the Machinery of Government Bill, with which we are all too familiar—and then had to admit that it was not quite a Machinery of Government Bill, but might be called something else—would have been wiser if they had not sought to give the Prime Minister these wide powers, but had come down firmly in favour of paying Ministers a salary related precisely to their jobs; those in the Cabinet, or heads of Departments, getting one rate, then what one might call the second tier of Ministers—although I do not altogether agree with the theory of tiers—getting another rate, and those in the third tier getting a third rate.
    This subsection, which increases the flexibility, is wholly subject to our disapproval, and I would ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Lobby.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 200.

    Division No. 57.]

    AYES

    [4.32 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Boston, T. G.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Alldritt, W. H.

    Boyden, James

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Dalyell, Tam

    Atkinson, Norman

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Barnett, Joel

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Baxter, William

    Buchanan, Richard

    Delargy, Hugh

    Beaney, Alan

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Dell, Edmund

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Diamond, John

    Bence, Cyril

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Dodds, Norman

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Doig, Peter

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Chapman, Donald

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Bessell, Peter

    Coleman, Donald

    Driberg, Tom

    Blackburn, F.

    Conlan, Bernard

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Dunn, James A.

    Boardman, H.

    Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

    Dunnett, Jack

    Edelman, Maurice

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

    Probert, Arthur

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Randall, Harry

    English, Michael

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Rankin, John

    Ensor, David

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Redhead, Edward

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McBride, Neil

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St.Pancras, N.)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McCann, J.

    Rose, Paul B.

    Floud, Bernard

    MacColl, James

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Foley, Maurice

    MacDermot, Niall

    Rowland, Christopher

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    McGuire, Michael

    Sheldon, Robert

    Ford Ben

    Mclnnes, James

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Freeson, Reginald

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)

    Garrow, A.

    Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W-hampton, N. E.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Small, William

    Hale, Leslie

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

    Snow, Julian

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Manuel, Archie

    Solomons, Henry

    Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

    Mapp, Charles

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Hannan, William

    Mason, Roy

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Harper, Joseph

    Maxwell, Robert

    Steele, Thomas

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Mellish, Robert

    Stonehouse, John

    Hattersley, Roy

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Stones, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Millan, Bruce

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Hazell, Bert

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Swain, Thomas

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Molloy, William

    Taverne, Dick

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Monslow, Walter

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Holman, Percy

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Horner, John

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Murray, Albert

    Tinn, James

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    Neal, Harold

    Tuck, Raphael

    Howie, W.

    Newens, Stan

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hoy, James

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

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

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ogden, Eric

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Wallace, George

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)

    Warbey, William

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Watkins, Tudor

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Orme, Stanley

    Whitlock, William

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Owen, Will

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Padley, Walter

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Paget, R. T.

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Woof, Robert

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pentland, Norman

    Zilliacus, K.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Kelley, Richard

    Popplewell, Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Mr.Lawson and Mr Grey.

    NOES

    Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

    Braine, Bernard

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Cooper, A. E.

    Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Corfield, F. V.

    Astor, John

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Costain, A. P.

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Batsford, Brian

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Bell, Ronald

    Buck, Antony

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Curran, Charles

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Buxton, R. C.

    Dance, James

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Campbell, Gordon

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Biffen, John

    Carlisle, Mark

    Dean, Paul

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Dodds-Parker Douglas

    Blaker, Peter

    Chataway, Christopher

    Eden, Sir John

    Bossom, Hn. Clive

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Box, Donald

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

    400

    401

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kitson, Timothy

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Farr, John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fell, Anthony

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Sharples, Richard

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

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

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Llyod, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Speir, Sir Rupert

    Gammans, Lady

    Longbottom, Charles

    Stanley, Hn. Richard

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stodart, J. A.

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    MacArthur, Ian

    Talbot, John E.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Gower, Raymond

    McMaster, Stanley

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

    Grant, Anthony

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Teeling, Sir William

    Grieve, Percy

    Mathew, Robert

    Temple, John M.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

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

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Gurden, Harold

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Mitchell, David

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Monro, Hector

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    More, Jasper

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

    Morgan, W. G.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Murton, Oscar

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Hawkins, Paul

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

    Wall, Patrick

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Walters, Dennis

    Hiley, Joseph

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Ward, Dame Irene

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

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Webster, David

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Whitelaw, William

    Hordern, Peter

    Peel, John

    Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

    Hornby, Richard

    Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pounder, Rafton

    Wise, A. R.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Jennings, J. C.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

    Wylie, N. R.

    Johnson Smith, G.

    Renton, Ht. Hn. Sir David

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Younger, Hn. George

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Roofs, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Kimball, Marcus

    Royle, Anthony

    Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Clause 7.—(PENSIONS OF MEMBERS.)
    4.45 p.m.
    Sir D. Renton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, to leave out subsection (4).
    I must "come clean" straight away and tell the House that this is a drafting point, but it is a very important drafting point. Potentially, it affects every one of us and governs the amount of pension that we would receive on reaching 65, provided that we had retired from Parliament.
    I find subsection (4), in relation to the Clause as a whole, a bit of a brain teaser. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) drew attention to what appeared to be a difficulty in the drafting when the Chief Secretary moved an Amendment to the earlier part of the Clause in Committee. Since then the Chief Secretary has writ-
    to my right hon. and learned Friend and kindly sent me a copy of the letter. The hon. Gentleman says in his letter that, having taken advice, he is satisfied that the words have the effect intended, namely, that payment of the pension should be suspended for a period which is to include both periods of membership of the House of Commons and periods of candidature.
    I wish I thought that that were really so. Having studied the matter very carefully, I find great difficulties about it. The best way of getting the mind of the Chief Secretary on to the point will be for me to ask him some specific questions about the effect of the subsection. As he might find it very valuable to have to assist him the fresh mind of the Minister of Technology, who is sitting beside him, may I say how very kind we think it is of the Minister of Technology to pay such close

    403
    attention to our proceedings, when we realise how very heavily pressed he is with the affairs of his Department, which are so vital to the future of the country.
    The first point I want to get clear is this. Am I right in thinking that, for the purpose of calculating reckonable service, the period when any of us are candidates for election between Parliaments and the time between the dissolution of a Parliament and adoption as a candidate or nomination as a candidate is reckonable service, provided that we are re-elected but not otherwise? The subsection seems to read like that, but I should like an assurance, especially in view of what the hon. Gentleman says in his letter.
    The example of an hon. Friend of mine might well illustrate the difficulty I have in mind over the calculation of a period of service before 16th April, 1964. My hon. Friend first became a Member in 1950. He resigned his seat in 1957. He was out of Parliament from 1957 to 1963, when he was reelected at a by-election. What he would like to know—I think that we would all like to know—is whether the time that he spent as a candidate at that by-election is to be counted as reckonable service. The matter is obscure at the moment.
    Then there is the position of those who are over 65 and who decide, having given up parliamentary life, that they cannot live without it and seek re-election once more. They may well have drawn a pension during the time they were out of Parliament. I concede that it is clear from the Clause that, when they return to Parliament, the time that they spend as Members of Parliament and as candidates, presumably after having been re-elected, is reckonable service for the purpose of getting an even larger pension if they ever retire again. What we need to know is whether their candidature, on the occasion when they first sought re-election after retirement after 65, is also reckonable service.
    On a matter purely of wording, I should have thought that many difficulties could be overcome if a drafting suggestion which I am about to make were accepted. I am sorry that I have not tabled a specific Amendment to cover the point, because I must confess that it occurred to me only last night when
    404
    I was thinking about this matter all over again. It was then too late to table even a starred Amendment, because the House had risen.
    I ask hon. Members to turn to page 5, lines 36 and 37. I suggest that a great deal of difficulty would be overcome if the words towards the end of line 36
    "not be payable in respect of"
    were replaced by the words
    "be suspended during".
    That is my suggestion. Although this is a money Bill and there are limits to what can be done to it in another place, this is the sort of drafting Amendment which is allowed there provided that the question of privilege is properly attended to.
    Even if the Chief Secretary cannot say now that the Amendment I propose would be a solution to some of the difficulties which I have mentioned, perhaps a less equivocal wording than that which appears in lines 35 to 37 would be possible, and he might be able to have the matter adjusted in another place.
    Mr. Wise: At the risk of being described, once again, as frivolous, I wish to draw attention to a point in this rather involved subsection which, I think, constitutes a serious injustice. The subsection provides that a pensioned ex-Member who becomes a Member of the House again loses his pension. I agree that this circumstance is most unlikely to arise. After a man has reached the age of 65, it would, unquestionably, be a rare occasion for him to offer himself once more for election, and get in. But it has happened on a fair number of occasions.
    The provision to which I have referred seems unjust. A pension is something given as a result of past service. A Service pension is the same. A soldier coming into the House after retirement does not lose his pension. A civil servant coming into the House after retirement does not lose his Civil Service pension. I cannot see why a Member of Parliament should be subjected to this treatment. Why should he not keep his pension, which has come to him as a result of long service and which, I trust, he will have fully earned?
    I hope that the Chief Secretary will realise that this provision may well perpetrate an injustice against Members of

    405
    the House of Commons as compared with other pensioned persons who draw their pensions from the Exchequer.
    Mr. Diamond: To answer first the point raised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), it is against normal practice and wholly against the recommendations of the Lawrence Committee, on which we are basing all our provisions, that one should both receive a salary for doing a job and receive a pension for having retired from that job. The comparison which the hon. Gentleman introduced is not valid. It is not a question of a civil servant losing his Civil Service pension when he comes into the House. The true comparison is with a civil servant not receiving his Civil Service pension when he resumes work as a civil servant, which is quite a different matter and a fairly regular occurrence.
    I think that I take the House with me when I say that it is against normal practice and wholly against the recommendation, which we have largely accepted, that someone should both receive his pension for having retired from a job and receive his salary for not having retired from it. It would be too incongruous for words. So we rest on the normal basis that an hon. Member, having retired, is entitled to his pension.
    I take next the substance of the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton). I shall deal with the draftsmanship point last. I submit that we are making a sensible provision here. This is not a situation in which we can talk about retirement in the ordinary way, as one can in an ordinary job. If a person employed in an office leaves that office on reaching retirement age, it is perfectly clear that he has retired and does not seek to go back. The House of Commons, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman made clear, is a very attractive place. Even with the hon. Member for Rugby here, it is still a very attractive place, and one misses it a great deal, as I know from first-hand experience, when one is temporarily, shall I say, resting.
    Sir Douglas Glover: We shall do our best to give the Chief Secretary some more experience of that.
    Mr. Diamond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not thinking of referring to the little exchange we had on an earlier occasion about the comfort or lack of comfort when sitting on the benches opposite. I gather that he is much more relaxed now and more comfortable. As the years pass, he will find it even more comfortable.
    Dealing with the substance of the Amendment, it must be right to take only one real criterion of what retirement means in the case of a Member of Parliament, and this is why the word "retirement" is not used in the Bill. The only criterion is when a Member himself says, "I have retired. I have had enough", for one reason or another.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised the unlikely possibility that someone being entitled to pension, that is, being over 65 years of age and having done 10 years of hard work—we know what hard work it is in this place—having definitely said that he has had enough, he is retiring and will not seek re-election, thereafter, at the age of 70, perhaps, changes his mind. He seeks re-election and gets nominated. This is not an everyday event, to put it mildly.
    Sir R. Cary: It happened during the war, by nomination.
    Mr. Diamond: I repeat that it is not, perhaps, an everyday event.
    As I was saying, the man gets nominated. There follows then the period between nomination and the election—I am postulating now that he fails to be re-elected—when he has shown, by accepting nomination and doing all the hard work involved in his campaign for re-election, that he has ceased to be retired, or ceased to be of a mind to retire. For those two or three weeks, he will not draw the pension which he might otherwise have drawn because he has sought re-election. I do not think that it can be said that this constitutes a real hardship, or that it represents such a likely event that one should make special provision for it.
    The other circumstance is much more usual. We have a Dissolution. Hon. Members go off, seek re-election, and the vast majority are re-elected. It would be absurd, in those circumstances, if the pension should begin to be paid to everyone entitled to it because the majority

    407
    will be re-elected in the normal, or fairly normal, course of events. I put it to the House that we are right as we stand.
    As regards the draftsmanship, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire will appreciate that all of us, apart from the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, are in a difficulty. One takes the best possible legal advice available. One does not attempt to act on one's own advice in these matters. I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has doubts about the draftsmanship of the subsection and about whether it fulfils its purpose. I am grateful to him. On a previous occasion, he expressed doubts about another Clause. We accept that those doubts were wisely expressed and, later, we shall propose an Amendment to meet them, This is a most valuable exchange of views, and we are very grateful to any right hon. and learned Gentleman who is able to help us by expressing doubts about the draftsmanship.
    This question was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), in Committee, and we had the opportunity to consider it, with all the advice available to us. I have written to both right hon. and learned Gentlemen explaining what the situation is and the test by which lawyers normally see whether the draftsmanship is capable of standing up. We are advised that it is absolutely right as it is.
    None the less, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me to look at the matter again and consider an alternative form of words. There would be an opportunity, even at a later stage, if that form of words were thought to be more clear, to suggest an Amendment in another place. Of course I will look at it, but I have gone to considerable trouble about it and have written to the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen to explain it, and I hope that, in the circumstances, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment unduly.
    Sir D. Renton: In view of the undertaking given by the Chief Secretary, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8.—(PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS.)
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, to leave out from "remarriage" to the end of line 36.
    This is an Amendment to one of the other Clauses dealing with the pension scheme. I want to make clear in moving it that I remain a strong supporter of the idea of a pension scheme. I urged it upon the Lawrence Committee, subject to the proviso that it should be of modest proportions, and I think that the scheme in the Bill is of modest proportions. Also, the increments diminish as the years go on; after 15 years, they become £24 a year, which I do not think can be considered a very large sum. In view of the frugal and respectable proportions of the scheme, I do not want the fact of my moving the Amendment to be taken as meaning that I am in any way seeking to withdraw my support for it.
    We all know the reasons for the scheme. We have had colleagues who have stayed here longer than they wanted to because the alternative was the Members' Fund. Incidentally, I still think that there is an important rôle for the Members' Fund for those who have not done the qualifying period of service for the pension scheme and those who have but have not reached the age to benefit from it. I hope that the Fund will be able to deal with these cases on much more generous lines than has been possible so far.
    It is very important that in accepting a pension scheme of this sort we should not seek to make precedents for ourselves or follow other precedents which are not generally applied. Clause 8(3) says:
    "in the case of remarriage the Trustees may, if they think fit, at any time direct that the pension be restored if satisfied that the subsequent marriage has been terminated or that there are exceptional reasons for the payment of the pension notwithstanding the subsistence of that marriage."
    I do not know any precedents for a provision of that sort, but there may be some. However, I have had my attention drawn to the Army Pensions Warrant, which states in paragraph 222 that the widow's pension shall cease on her remarriage but if she again becomes a widow her pension may be restored in whole or in part provided her pecuniary circumstances are in the opinion of the

    409
    Army Council sufficient to justify the restoration. I find nothing there to suggest that a pension should be payable during the continuance of a subsequent marriage.
    We must be careful about this. This is not something which my ingenuity has detected. It is a matter upon which representations had been made. It has been noticed outside the House that we are in our own pension scheme setting up more generous terms than those which exist in other pension schemes. That is undesirable
    Attention has also been drawn to the fact that in this Clause we are giving half the husband's pension to the widow compared with the one-third which is the Service rate. Also, we are providng for the fact that even if a Member marries after he has ceased to be a Member, the widow can benefit. I am told that this is contrary to the position in the case of the Armed Forces, where, in the case of marriage after retirement, there is no question of the widow benefiting.
    I trust that the Chief Secretary will look at these points. I do not mention them in the spirit of wishing to detract from what I think are the proper benefits of a pension scheme, but we of all people have to be scrupulously fair to ensure that we are not setting up for ourselves a pension scheme which is more generous than schemes for other departments of the public service.
    We ought to do one of two things—either fashion ours in accordance with other schemes, or, if we are to give ourselves more generous terms, we should say at once that we will apply the same terms as quickly as we can to other people in the public service in similar pension schemes.
    Sir D. Renton: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). We must be very careful what we do. I think particularly of the analogy of police officers. I remember moving an Amendment some years ago when we had the Police Pensions Bill before the House. The then Home Secretary was Mr. Chuter Ede, now Lord Chuter-Ede. The effect of my Amendment would have been that if a police officer married after his retirement his widow would get the pension. That seemed to me at the time to be perfectly reasonable and sensible.
    410
    However, the Amendment was resisted by the Home Secretary, and my recollection is that he said in a somewhat jocular way that that would make retired policemen very attractive as potential husbands. I do not think that this concession has ever been made since. I am sure that we would not wish to make ourselves, whether we happened to be bachelors or widowers, unusually attractive, more so than others in the public service, as potential husbands.
    Mr. Diamond: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me for saying that in the circumstances of the case, were he a bachelor, he could not fail to make a most attractive husband.
    Sir D. Renton: I think we could also gain some guidance in this matter by looking outside the sphere of the statute law to what among those who are fortunate enough to have property to dispose of in even a modest marriage settlement has been the practice for centuries and still is.
    When a marriage settlement is made there is a widow's portion provided for in one of the Clauses, but my recollection is that that Clause always contains what is known among lawyers as the dum sola provision. In other words, the widow gets the widow's portion only so long as she remains single. Once she ceases to remain single she is cut off from it for ever, for if she becomes a widow again she does not return to the benefit of the widow's portion in her original marriage settlement.
    That is a practice which has been approved by custom over many years. In this Clause we are enacting something which is at variance with that practice. So we find that the behaviour of successive Governments and the behaviour of the property-owning classes, who are not altogether to be despised in their habits, argues against what is in the Clause and in favour of my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. So, especially as most hon. Members potentially, though it would be in somewhat sad circumstances, have an interest in the Clause, for the reasons given at the outset I hope that we shall be very careful about what we are doing.
    Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I am in some sympathy with the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr.

    411
    Selwyn Lloyd), particularly in his illustration of the Royal Warrant for Service pensioners. But the remedy for that anomaly surely is not to deprive the widows of former M.P.s, as apparently the Amendment would do, but to improve the pension rights under the Royal Warrant. I am a trustee of the Members' Fund and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House want to be as generous as we possibly can.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Perhaps it will save argument if I say at once that if I receive an undertaking from the Government that they will deal with the anomaly in the way suggested by the right hon. Member I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Bellenger: We will soon hear what my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has to say. The trustees of the Members' Fund endeavour to be as generous as they possibly can to the applicants who come before us and the right under this provision to restore a pension is to be subject to the discretion of the trustees, whoever they may be.
    Since the trustees will come to know all the circumstances, it would be far better to leave it to their discretion, rather than withdraw that discretion, which is what the Amendment would do. Of course, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we must be very careful not to give the public the impression that we are making things very easy for ourselves and our widows, but the test is what we should do in relation to the circumstances of a former Member or his widow.
    The circumstances of an M.P.'s life are not comparable to those of Service pensioners, who enter into fixed contracts and can reasonably look forward to an income for life and to pensions for their widows. An M.P., on the contrary, is at the mercy of the wind, whether it blows left or right. He can be deprived of his employment by the electorate. If he is to be entitled to a pension by virtue of his service in Parliament, we ought to provide as generously as we possibly can for the widow, who might be well advanced in years.
    I suggest, therefore, that we leave the discretion to the trustees of the Fund
    412
    who, probably—I hope that this is the case—will be the same right hon. and hon. Members who are the trustees of the present Members' Fund. As Members of Parliament themselves, I think that they would be the best judges of the circumstances in deciding whether or not to restore a widow's pension.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) for the constructive way in which he moved the Amendment. I recognise that this matter requires explanation, justification and relating to the context of the rest of the Bill. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) put his finger on the key point in saying that this is really a question of discretion of the trustees—whether they should have that discretion or whether it should be withdrawn from them.
    Of course, the Government recognise that, in so far as the service of an M.P. is comparable with any other kind of professional service, he should not—and this provision does not make him—receive a pension better than he would receive in a similar walk of life. There is a difficulty about that interpretation, of course, because no other person has a kind of job in exactly the same circumstances as an M.P. In no other job can one, as it were, be thrown out at less than a moment's notice. An election can take place and one can lose one's job overnight. No other job is subject to so many variables which are quite unforeseeable.
    In addition, the period of service as an M.P. usually comes at a time of life between certain ages and is usually limited. The average length of service is only 15 years and that is why the Bill provides under the pension scheme heavy additions to the pension for each of the first 15 years' service. There is really no comparable job. It is as lawyers, I understand, would put it, sui generis—it is an exclusive kind of job not readily comparable with any other.
    In trying to relate it to similar occupations, the main thing we have to guide us in that respect is the Lawrence Report. I believe that the Government are right in sticking as far as possible to that Report, which takes the matter out of our hands so that no one can say that we, as

    413
    Members of Parliament, are making specially generous provison for ourselves.
    The Lawrence Committee did not dot every "i" and cross every "t". It laid down in general terms, and recommended, what the pension scheme should provide. As one would expect, however, it did not fill in all the details. It is, after all, not for such a body to fill in details. One gets proper actuarial advice and on it bases the scheme in detail. The scheme stands as a whole and the actuarial calculations are based as a whole on everything that is included in the Bill.
    This provision is not to be found only in our proposed pension scheme. It is found throughout the Civil Service. It is a standard provision in the public service that what one seeks to do is to provide for the widow of the employee—in this case, the widow of the M.P. Those of us who have served as trustees to the Members' Fund or, as I have, as trustees of the Labour Members' Fund, will appreciate that all sorts of unexpected things happen to the circumstances of former Members and that one must provide for need. That is what we are seeking to do We want to provide for the widow for the whole time she needs that help. That, surely, is what we want to do.
    In certain circumstances, of course, the widow will not need help. If she remarries, and her new husband is able to look after her, she does not need help then. But if her second husband is not able to keep her, or dies—there she is, the Member's widow in need. Surely we must look at the individual circumstances. It is not right necessarily to try and lay down the law now and say precisely what is to happen.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman said that in the Civil Service there are precisely similar provisions. In such cases, with whom does the discretion lie?
    Mr. Diamond: My immediate answer to that is that I shall have to think about it and, in the course of thinking about it, no doubt I shall recollect.
    Sir D. Renton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it lies within the discretion of anybody within the Civil Service, for example? He spoke of the whole range of the public service. Is it
    414
    provided as a right, or is there a discretion? Can he go so far as to say that?
    Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly for his intervention. It was obvious that discretion would have to lie in somebody's hands. I am sorry that I had forgotten it for the moment. It lies in the hands of the Treasury.
    The point is that there have to be trustees. What one seeks to do is to provide for one's widow in fair weather and foul. Then, if there are circumstances which are unexpected or unanticipated and even borderline, it is right to leave the trustees to look at the facts and to make a decision having regard to need. This is the way in which these pensions schemes are carried on and I am sure that what my right hon. Friend for Bassetlaw has said is the way the Members' Fund trustees look at the matter. The Government see no earthly reason why the same body of Members' Fund trustees should not be appointed, and this is a matter which will no doubt receive consideration. This is certainly the way in which the trustees of the Labour Fund look at the matter.
    However, this provision does not rest on its own. There is the same kind of discretion in a number of other ways in other provisions in the Bill. For example, Clause 8(4) deals with the subject of cohabitation, a difficult subject to deal with. It may be cohabitation of a kind which one wants to take fully into account, and it may not be. One may want to provide a pension in these circumstances and one may not. The cohabitation may cease and one may want to resume the pension. There is a whole host of borderline cases of that kind.
    Similarly, in Clause 9(4) there arises the question of the restoration of the widower's pension if his subsequent marriage comes to an end, or if exceptional reasons justify it. There is a similar provision in Clause 10(5) where the payment of a children's pension on remarriage of the surviving parent may come into question if exceptional reasons justify it.
    In short, there are four or five similar provisions in the Bill all resting supremely on the hypothesis that what we are seeking to do is to provide for the dependent person, be he widow,

    415
    widower, or child, and that circumstances may arise which cannot be fully foretold, so that the sensible thing to do is to leave it to the trustees and to give them discretion to act reasonably at the time to see that there is adequate protection.
    Mr. Wise: Do the trustees have discretion to vary the amount of the pension? If they restore the pension, do they have discretion to restore the whole of it, or only part of it?
    Mr. Diamond: The trustees have power to pay a given pension or not. This is not a hardship fund but a pension scheme, and in a pension scheme the trustees are given discretion as to whether the circumstances justify the payment of the pension.
    I can alleviate the conscience of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral and quote further precedents, for he is particularly concerned, as I am, that this should not be thought to be a particularly generous scheme for Members of Parliament—as it is not. I am told that a Service widow who remarries may be granted a pension at the discretion of the Defence Council if her second husband dies and she is in need. I am told that the judges have a scheme, not exactly the same, but broadly similar to what is here proposed. The precedents are well established and this follows the practice which we ourselves follow in the House in terms of the Members' Fund and the Labour Members' Fund. The discretion is sensible and I hope that the House will allow the Bill to go through in its present form.
    Mr. Wise: The difference is that in this case a pension can be paid to a widow while her second husband is still alive. That does not happen in the other circumstances.
    Mr. Diamond: Yes, it is exactly comparable. The thing to cotton on to is not the marital status, but the question of need. It is possible for a Member's widow to have remarried and to be in need while her second husband is alive. That second husband may suffer a dreadful illness, for example. The lady may no longer be in her first flush of youth and her husband may have a severe illness and be completely unable to earn a
    416
    living. If there are no other resources, she may be in need. I would have said that it would be our wish that such a widow should be taken care of so far as we can reasonably provide, within the actuarial facts of the scheme. I hope that that will satisfy the House.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has told us about the Civil Service generally is a fact, and that removes one of my doubts, although whether the Treasury will always be as soft-hearted in carrying out its trusteeship as the hon. Gentleman himself I am not so certain.
    However, what of the Armed Forces? I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment unless I am satisfied that it is the case that the Armed Forces have the same sort of benefit. I have the Army Pensions Warrant before me and I see no trace in that of the possible concession to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Does the Army Council have discretion or under the new régime has the Defence Council? And what happens in the Navy and the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Diamond: The best answer I can give is that the Services' provision is not yet published in its final form. It will probably be Article 222 and when it is published in its final form the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there is reasonable precedent and a reasonable similarity to what we are doing here. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious that we should not appear to be exceptionally generous to ourselves, and I can assure him that that is the case.
    Sir D. Renton: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again; I am very unhappy about this position. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has raised the question of the Armed Forces and the hon. Gentleman has replied, but we have not had a reply about the police. The Chief Secretary said that what is in the Clause applies throughout the whole range of the public service, but I would wish to be assured that the police now have a provision—they did not have it before—on the lines of the Clause. I would feel very unhappy about seeking a privilege for a widow of mine which the widow of a policeman did not have.

    417
    The hon. Gentleman has said that we must be treated as something quite different from all other people. His words were that we were not comparable with those in any other job. Surely that makes it all the more important that we should not for ourselves and our families seek any kind of privilege which others may not have. It was not consistent for the hon. Gentleman to say that, on the one hand, we were not like anybody else and, on the other, that what we were giving to ourselves was standard practice throughout the publc service. We must be careful to ensure that what we provide for ourselves is completely proper and not contrary to what has been done in, at any rate, some sectors.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bellenger: Surely the right hon. and learned Member's argument deals, not with denying this right to widows of ex-M.P.s, but to improving the situation, if it needs improving, of police pensioners. Under the Members' scheme, we have the power to do more or less what we like concerning the widows of ex-M.P.s. The only proviso is that they must show need. I presume—and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. This is becoming a Committee debate.
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not want to turn it into a Committee debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked leave to address the House again. I do not propose to speak as long as he did, otherwise I should have to ask for leave, too.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman rose simply to intervene on a point of clarification.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am coming to the end of my intervention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that under the Members' scheme we have the right to do more or less what we like? Does not subsection (3) make the same sort of provision?
    Sir D. Renton: I do not know whether I am allowed to answer the right hon. Gentleman, but I should hate to base any future action on the present Mem-
    418
    bers' scheme, which most of us have regarded as very unsatisfactory for many years.
    Mr. Diamond: I gather that it is the wish of the Opposition that I should intervene once more. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I should like to make one or two more remarks.
    The policemen's scheme is not comparable. That provides that if a policeman remarries after he has retired the second wife is not eligible for a pension in the event of widowhood. I hope that what I said did not seem to indicate that every scheme in the public service was of an identical kind. I could not possibly allege that. There is a vast number of schemes, each of which has its own detailed regulations. All that I am saying about this discretion in relation to widows is that it is repeated in the Civil Service scheme and other schemes. Broadly, this is a similar scheme to that of the judges' scheme.
    However, one can pick out a number of other schemes which provide for different benefits and in which one pays for what one gets. Hon. and right hon. Members must not forget that this is a question of marrying benefits to payments. The payments are laid down, and, by and large, they should produce the benefits which we have in mind. Of course, it is possible to devise a scheme which pays benefits of much less value and, therefore, which may cost less in contributions by both employee and employer, or, in our case, by the Exchequer and the Members. Broadly, we must take account of both benefits and costs.
    There are plenty of precedents for treating the matter in this way. I repeat that a Member of Parliament is not easily comparable with people in any other walk of life. But this is not a new invention. It follows solid and widespread precedent, and I should have thought that the discretion laid down in the Bill was wise.
    Sir M. Redmayne: The Chief Secretary has dealt with this point with great sympathy and patience. It seems to me that the weakness of what he says lies in his statement that what we are considering is similar to precedent. But the precedents are not precise. That is the great difficulty.

    419
    I do not share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) about the Members' Fund. I think that the trustees of that Fund have done a very good job with great sympathy and have paid great care to every case.
    Sir D. Renton indicated assent.
    Sir M. Redmayne: I see that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees.
    Sir D. Renton: Yes. I was not criticising the trustees.
    Sir M. Redmayne: I must have misunderstood my right hon. and learned Friend.
    The Chief Secretary says with absolute justice that in the Civil Service the same conditions apply because the Treasury acts as trustee and in the Armed Forces the same conditions apply because the Defence Council acts as trustee. However, we all know and must admit that the care, sympathy and personal knowledge which would be applied by the trustees of our own fund must be better than that applied by the Treasury and Defence Council. That is no disrespect to those bodies. All hon. Members will have had experience of cases which they have taken up on behalf of constituents and will know how infernally difficult it is to get a satisfactory answer.
    Therefore, although the Chief Secretary has done his best to make out his case, I think that we must be particularly careful to ensure that there is precise justice between the way in which we treat ourselves or our widows and the way in which the widows of men in other services are treated. To mark the point, and while accepting fully that the Chief Secretary has made the best case
    he can, I think that we should divide on the Amendment.
    Sir R. Cary: Arising from what was said by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), may I, as a trustee of the Members' Fund for some years, say that we cannot do more or less what we like. The Members' Fund is a benevolent fund. We have a discretionary power in operating it. We can deal with cases of hardship. But in framing the Fund the House put leading strings on us.
    It is a little misleading of the right hon. Gentleman to say that we can do more or less what we like for the widow of a Member. We have some flexibility, but we are limited to that. We can deal with certain cases of express hardship, but no more.
    Mr. Bellenger: I used, perhaps, a rather indiscreet expression, but, nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will know that under the Act under which we operate we can use considerable discretion. That is all I am asking right hon. and hon. Members opposite to allow the trustees of this fund to do.
    Mr. Wise: We are grateful to the Chief Secretary for his very careful and courteous answers, but I think that we are entitled to a little more clarification because in some respects they were slightly contradictory.
    We should get it on record that what is in subsection (3) is not standard practice throughout the public service but is of our own invention. May we agree on that?
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 201.

    Division No. 58.]

    AYES

    [5.39 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Bessell, Peter

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bishop, E.S.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Alldritt, W. H.

    Blackburn, F.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Chapman, Donald

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Boardman, H.

    Coleman, Donald

    Atkinson, Norman

    Boston, T.G.

    Conlan, Bernard

    Bacon, Miss Alice

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Boyden, James

    Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

    Barnett, Joel

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Baxter, William

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Beaney, Alan

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Bence, Cyril

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Bennett. J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Buchanan, Richard

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Davies, Ifor (Cower)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Delargy, Hugh

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Dell, Edmund

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Probert, Arthur

    Diamond, John

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Dodds, Norman

    Kelley, Richard

    Randall, Harry

    Doig, Peter

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Rankin, John

    Driberg, Tom

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'Worth, Central)

    Redhead, Edward

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lawson, George

    Rees, Merlyn

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Richard, Ivor

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    English, Michael

    Lipton, Marcus

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Ennals, David

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Ensor, David

    Loughlin, Charles

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St.Pancras, N.)

    Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Rose, Paul B.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McBride, Neil

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

    McCann, J.

    Rowland, Christopher

    Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Sheldon, Robert

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McGuire, Michael

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

    Mclnnes, James

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Floud, Bernard

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

    Foley, Maurice

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)

    Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Ford, Ben

    Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Freeson, Reginald

    MacMillan, Malcolm

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Garrett, W. E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Small, William

    Garrow, A.

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Snow, Julian

    Grey, Charles

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Solomons, Henry

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Manuel, Archie

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)

    Mapp, Charles

    Steele, Thomas

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Mason, Roy

    Stonehouse, John

    Hale, Leslie

    Maxwell, Robert

    Stones, William

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mellish, Robert

    Summerskill, Dr. Shirley

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Swain, Thomas

    Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Symonds, J. B.

    Hannan, William

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Taverne, Dick

    Harper, Joseph

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Molloy, William

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Monslow, Walter

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Hazell, Bert

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Tinn, James

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Murray, Albert

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Neal, Harold

    Varley, Eric G.

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Newens, Stan

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Holman, Percy

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Walden, Brian(All Saints)

    Horner, John

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

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Norwood, Christopher

    Wallace, George

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Ogden, Eric

    Warbey, William

    Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Watkins, Tudor

    Howie, W.

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

    Whitlock, William

    Hoy, James

    Orbach, Maurice

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Orme, Stanley

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley(Hitchin)

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Owen, Will

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Padley, Walter

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Paget, R. T.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Woof, Robert

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Zilliacus, K.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Pentland, Norman

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mrs. Slater and Mr. Fitch.

    NOES

    Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Biffen, John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Astor, John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Buck, Antony

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Blaker, Peter

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Bossom, Hn. Clive

    Buxton, R. C.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Box, Donald

    Campbell, Gordon

    Batsford, Brian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Carlisle, Mark

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Bell, Ronald

    Braine, Bernard

    Chataway, Christopher

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    422

    423

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hordern, Peter

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hornby, Richard

    Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

    Cordle, John

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Corfield, F. V.

    Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Costain, A. P.

    Hunt, John (Bromley)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Roots, William

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Royle, Anthony

    Curran, Charles

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Dance, James

    Johnson Smith, G.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

    Sharples, Richard

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Shepherd, William

    Dean, Paul

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kimball, Marcus

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

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kitson, Timothy

    Stanley, Hn. Richard

    Eden, Sir John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stodart, J. A.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Emery, Peter

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Farr, John

    Longbottom, Charles

    Talbot, John E.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Loveys, walter H.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

    Gammans, Lady

    MacArthur, Ian

    Teeling, Sir William

    Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

    McLaren, Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    McMaster, Stanley

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maginnis, John E.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

    Gower, Raymond

    Mathew, Robert

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Grant, Anthony

    Maude, Angus

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Grieve, Percy

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Walder, David (High Peak)

    Gurden, Harold

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mitchell, David

    Wall, Patrick

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Monro, Hector

    Walters, Dennis

    Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

    More, Jasper

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Morgan, W. G.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Webster, David

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Murton, Oscar

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd,)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Whitelaw, William

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

    Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Onslow, Cranley

    wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    wise, A. R.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Higgins, Terence L.

    page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wylie, N. R.

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

    peel, John

    Younger, Hn. George

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Pounder, Rafton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hopkins, Alan

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W Elliott.

    Clause 16.—(PENSION OF PRIME MINISTER.)
    Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, in page 13, line 1, to leave out from "who" to the end of line 2 and to insert:
    "at any time after the commencement of this Act holds or has held office as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury".
    This Amendment is moved purely for the sake of clarity. Clause 16(2) provides for the pension of the widow or widower and children of a Prime Minister. The wording here is a little awkward. It is intended to cover both the person who ceased to be Prime Minister before his death and the person who dies while he is Prime Minister. The Clause, as originally drafted, perhaps did not make this absolutely clear, and therefore I move this Amendment to remove any possibility
    424
    of doubt. The Amendment makes it clear that both those contingencies are provided for.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, in page 13, line 3, to leave out from "as" to "but" in line 5 and to insert:
    "if the deceased had been entitled at the time of his death to a pension under section 7 of this Act of an annual amount equal to two-thirds of the pension to which he was entitled or prospectively entitled under the said section 4(2)".
    It would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we could deal with this Amendment and the following one at the same time, since they are related to each other. In moving the Amendment the first thing I must do is to repeat my

    425
    gratitude to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) who raised in Committee a question about the clarity of this subsection.
    To refer quite shortly to the background, Clause 16(2) provides that a Prime Minister's widow, or widower, and children shall be eligible for pension under Clauses 8 to 10 of the Bill. This is subject to two modifications of which the second is that the Prime Minister's own pension shall be treated as reduced by one-third for the purposes of calculating the widow's pension. Clauses 8 to 10 provide that a widow's or widower's pensions are fixed at one-half of the spouse's rate, and the intention of Clause 16(2) is that the dependants of a Prime Minister shall be pensionable in the same way as dependants of Members, but that the amount of the dependants' pensions shall be related to the original pension in a different way. By the original pension I refer to the Prime Minister's ex-officio pension of £4,000. Half the rate of pension for the widows of Members was specifically recommended by the Lawrence Committee, but it made no recommendation on a rate for a Prime Minister's widow. As the normal widow's pension in the public service is one-third of the husband's rate, and as Mr. Speaker Morrison's widow was also granted a pension of one-third of the rate, one is proposing in the Bill that that shall also apply to the Prime Minister's widow's pension.
    The wording previously did achieve this but achieved it by a method which was not, perhaps, as clear as it might have been and to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention. Therefore, these two Amendments clarify this by leaving out Clause 16(2,b) and writing the reduction, that is to say, the reduction of from one-half to one-third, into the main part of Clause 16(2). The widow's pension now made payable is to be as if the husband had been entitled under Clause 7 to a pension two-thirds of his actual ex-officio pension.
    It will be appreciated, of course, that if we reduce the Prime Minister's pension to two-thirds and then provide a widow's pension of one-half of two-thirds, we are getting back to the original one-third which we sought to provide in the first place. What one seeks to provide is one
    426
    third to the widow, and the way it is now being done is to say, take the Prime Minister's pension, and reduce it by one-third; we get two-thirds; and divide it by two, getting the one-third which we are seeking to get.
    I hope that makes it clear. It is very difficult to get one's arithmetic right when one is on one's feet, as you are well aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from having heard some hon. Members make some extraordinary calculations from this Box and opposite. I hope I have got the arithmetic right and that I have made the matter clear to hon. Members, and I hope that the wording of the Amendment will be thought clear by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, and particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire who raised the matter in the first place. This Amendment clarifies the original provision in making it clear that what we are doing is what is normal in a case of this kind. It is distinct from the Member's widow's pension, because the Member's widow's pension was laid down by Lawrence, and we have accepted Lawrence, and the Prime Minister's pension is a separate matter.
    Sir D. Renton: I should like to thank the hon. Member for dealing with this point in the way he has done. There was never any dispute between us as to the substance of the matter. It was merely a question whether the drafting was correct. Speaking for myself, I must say that I think he has now got it right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Diamond.]

    Clause 20.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS.)
    6 p.m.
    Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, in page 14, line 20, after "1869" to insert:
    "and the Department of Technical Co-operation Act 1961".
    I hope it will be in order if at the same time we discuss my Amendment to the First Schedule, in page 15, to leave out line 34; and my Amendment to the Fifth Schedule, in page 22, line 15. They all relate to the same point.
    These three Amendments taken together provide for the dissolution of

    427
    the Department of Technical Co-operation. The functions of that Department have been transferred to the Minister of Overseas Development under an Order in Council which was Statutory Instrument 2050 of 1964. It now remains to provide for the dissolution of the Department. This is done in the Amendment and in the Clause. The Amendments to the Schedules I have referred to are consequential upon this Amendment. I think the matter is perfectly straightforward and I shall not delay the House unduly upon it.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 1.—(MINISTERIAL SALARIES.)
  Amendment made: In page 15, leave out line 34.—[Mr. Diamond.]
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 16, column 2, to leave out lines 3 to 18 and to insert:

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250

  4,250.

  The Amendment deals with the salaries of junior Ministers. I have already praised the work of the Lawrence Committee. I think that the whole House feels that it did a very valuable job and examined the whole of our problems with great care. I also made it clear that I thought it was the Government's responsibility to accept or to reject the Committee's recommendations. The Government accepted the Committee's recommendations on Members' pay. I think that the figure was a little higher than I would have put forward, but I did not feel that the difference was sufficient to justify the controversy about that.
  The Government have not accepted the Lawrence Committee's recommendations on Ministers' salaries, and have halved the suggested increases. I do not think
  428
  that senior Ministers, or those of intermediate status, deserve too much sympathy. I have never been a junior Minister, but I say that they do deserve some sympathy. The Lawrence Committee recommended that their salaries should be £5,000 a year, compared with £2,500. Because of the maze of figures, it is rather difficult to be quite certain that one is right about them, but I think that in days gone by Parliamentary Secretaries and Under-Secretaries were paid £2,500, and the Lawrence proposal was that they should be paid £5,000.
  The Government have halved the increase, and have suggested £3,750. The Amendment does not go so far as to restore the Lawrence figure, but it proposes to give them £500 a year more than the Government have proposed. It might be asked why we should plead this cause so strongly. This is not the first time that I have done so. I mentioned it during the Second Reading of the Bill when I said that the Government were wrong to scale down the Lawrence Committee's recommendations with regard to junior Ministers.
  I put forward this alteration because the future of all Administrations depends very much on getting the right type of people to accept Ministerial careers. It is most necessary that the money going with the job should be an attraction, rather than a deterrent. In our experience in this House we all know of many people who would have made good Ministers, but who could not afford to take on Ministerial rank because of their commitments of one sort or another.
  That is wrong, because appointment has certain hazards. The Minister concerned may prove not to be the success which was expected, and he may have a short Ministerial career. Equally, because of the fortunes of political warfare, the Government which he adorns may not survive for very long. It is quite a big decision to make, because he may have to sever his business connections, stop practising a profession, or abandon his business contacts, in the hope that some day he may be able to resume them. There is no certainty about his appointment, and to a cormparatively young man with family commitments, or perhaps relatives dependent on him, it can be an important decision for him to make. In those circumstances,

  429
  we should make certain that no one is deterred from accepting these responsibilities by the size of the financial remuneration.
  This is a case in which we should accept the figure which the Lawrence Committee put forward after careful consideration. It is not for me to say how the Committee arrived at these figures, but I think I can say without breach of confidence that the hope which I expressed was that the Committee would look at his from the point of view of the junior Minister before paying too much attention to senior Ministers. I thought that it would be better to get the junior Ministers' position right before considering that of Members of the Cabinet. I hope that the Committee approached it in that way, and in a sense worked up from the figure of £5,000 for junior Ministers to the figure which was put forward for senior Ministers. I do not know whether the Committee did that, but I hope that it did.
  I ask the Government to think again about this matter. I have always thought that some increase was needed in Members' pay. I have always thought it intolerable that people should be Members of this House and be financially embarrassed through no fault of their own. I felt strongly about this, and I hope that my strong feelings did a little to lead to what eventually happened, because I know that I was representing the views of many Members who spoke to me when I was Leader of the House.
  I feel equally strongly about the junior Ministers. It is wrong to halve the Lawrence Committee's recommendation. I hope that the Government will think again, because I believe that this will affect the quality and character of those who become Ministers.
  Mr. Neil Marten: I support the Amendment, partly because I was one of the Parliamentary Secretaries to whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) referred, and also because Parliamentary Secretaries in the Government now cannot speak on this subject; and I there fore feel that I ought to act as their shop steward in this case. I doubt whether I have a vested interest in this, because on the imminent return of a Conservative Government I doubt whether I would be asked to be Parliamentary Secretary
  430
  again. Anyhow, that is a matter of opinion.
  Before becoming a Member of Parliament I had a job at which I earned as much as I could. I set, according to my own lights, a standard of living for my family, and I think I am right in saying that during that short period I tried to live within my income. I was very pleased at being elected, and I sat on the back benches with a great sense of humility, initially anyhow. When I saw my right hon. Friends answering Questions and making speeches from the Dispatch Box, I said to myself, "I shall never get there", so I settled down to a life and job outside, and to doing my duty in Parliament.
  Suddenly, much to my surprise, I received a message to go and see the Prime Minister. I wondered at the time what it was all about. I wondered what I had done wrong, but I went along to see Mr. Macmillan. He told me that he would like me to join his son-in-law at the Ministry of Aviation. I was extremely surprised at this and said to him, "Well, Prime Minister, I must, in all honesty, make it quite clear that I know nothing at all about aviation". He did not exactly say, "Just the chap for the job", but he implied that when one joined a Ministry it was better to go there with an open mind than with pre-judged views on it.
  That was settled, and I did not at the time think of the financial consequences of my acceptance of the appointment, because I felt that if it was the Prime Minister's view that I could be of service to the Government, I would do the job. I was one of those who at that time thought that my job would not last for very long either because I would be found out as not being efficient and dropped, or there would be a General Election pretty soon. But neither of those things happened.
  I obtained the Prime Minister's permission to ring my wife because the appointment was not going to be announced for two days. She thought I was joking when I told her what had happened, but she accepted it in the end. Half an hour later she rang back and, being a wife, and having a family, she asked, "How does this affect us financially?" I told her that I thought that it could not last for too long, and I said that meanwhile we would have to accept a drop in our income. The next

  431
  day I went to see my bank manager, who was very kind. He said, "Yes, carry on, and in the fullness of time we shall adjust the matter". On 17th October, 1964, I received a letter about an overdraft. That is the background to one Parliamentary Secretary's accepting a job in the Government. I accepted it with great pride, and tried to do the job to the best of my ability.
  I welcome the increases provided in this Bill for a Parliamentary Secretary, but I take the view that he should receive at least half of what his Minister gets, because a Parliamentary Secretary has a considerable responsibility. His Minister is often away. In my case my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery), who did his job extremely well, went straight off in every Recess on a tour, to America to study American aviation, or to Australia, to see Blue Streak in operation and so on. During practically every Recess I was left in charge of the Ministry of Aviation, and I accepted the responsibility and was thoroughly happy to do so.
  As for the work actually done by a Parliamentary Secretary, I found myself working extremely hard in terms of hours. With great respect to my colleagues and senior Ministers, I must point out that a Parliamentary Secretary tends to have to deal with quite a lot of chores, which are very time-consuming. It is necessary for him to do a lot of background reading, and also to take responsibility for answering his share of Questions at the Box. In terms of hours alone a Parliamentary Secretary works almost as hard as his Minister, although he does not have the great ultimate responsibility of his Minister. I hope that the Government will agree to the Amendment, because the Bill is the last occasion for some years when we shall have the opportunity to adjust Ministers' salaries.
  I repeat what I said when I started: speaking as one who may be entitled to act as a shop steward for junior Ministers, I hope that the Government will agree to the Amendment.
  Mr. Chapman: I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). If the Bill had dealt mainly with the salaries of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries
  432
  I would have had even more sympathy with it. But it deals not only with Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers but also with the intermediate stage of Ministers of State. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment were accepted we would be paying Parliamentary Secretaries at £4,250 and Ministers of State not exactly as is laid down in the Schedule but, as is now the custom, £4,500.
  In my view, we could not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment unless he was prepared to link it with an Amendment in connection with Ministers of State. A differential of £250 between the two jobs seems quite ridiculous and out of keeping with what we are intending. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer to that point. If he wishes to stick to his Amendment he should have referred in his remarks to the level of salary at which he thought Ministers of State should start to be paid.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I thought that one of the benefits of the flexibility which the Government had sought was that they could put up the salary of any Minister of State to £8,500. They already have authority to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Chapman: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am only saying that in his remarks he should have made it clear that besides his proposal that we should pay Parliamentary Secretaries £4,250 he was also putting forward. as a linked part of his proposal, the suggestion that the present level of £4,500 in respect of Ministers of State should be increased, within the discretion provided in the Schedule. If not, there would not be a real differential between Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers of State.
  We are very sensibly moving into a situation where we have three distinct grades of Ministers—Departmental Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. I hope that we shall make increasing use of Ministers of State in the future, and maintain a proper differential between their salaries and those of Parliamentary Secretaries. If all that we can afford—or if all that the Government think is wise—is to pay Ministers of State about £4,500, or even £5,000, at

  433
  the moment, we should not so alter the differential as to involve paying Parliamentary Secretaries more than £3,750. The fault of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that he is thinking of Parliamentary Secretaries in isolation, whereas he should think of them in conjunction with Ministers of State.
  Sir D. Renton: Does the hon. Member realise that his point would have been met if the Government had accepted my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, in page 15, line 31, at end insert:
  Miinster of State not in the Cabinet £5,625
  Then the differentials would be quite right as between full Ministers, Ministers of State not in the Cabinet, and junior Ministers.
  Mr. Chapman: I am sorry that that Amendment was not called. I would willingly have spoken to it. But I think that the arrangement is about right, with Ministers receiving £8,500, Ministers of State £4,500—although I would have liked to see them given a salary nearer £5,000-and then, at another significant differential below this, Parliamentary Secretaries receiving £3,750. In my view the arrangement is about right as the Government have it, and I do not think that we should accept the Amendment.
  Sir R. Cary: As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. N. Marten) has set the pattern for recounting reminiscences, I should like to tell the House that I remember a telephone message being made to my constituency in 1944 indicating to me that there was a possible vacancy for me in the Government, and asking whether it would be the sort of thing that might interest me. I volunteered the information that I could possibly catch the midnight train to London, and I duly presented myself at Downing Street. Unfortunately, the appointment that I was offered had the unfortunate word "unpaid" attached to it. I began my Ministerial duties with a very distinguished companion, but we suffered from being included in the bracket "unpaid". Subsequently, when I attended the customary eve of Session dinner at 10 Downing Street, from the welcome that I was given one would have thought that I had been made Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  434
  The Chief Secretary knows my views about Ministers of State. I take the point put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), but as an act of fairness I would say that the figure indicated in the Amendment is justifiable, and I hope that the Chief Secretary will treat it sympathetically. I say that because it does not cause any distortion in what is placed before the House. The modest enhancement that it represents should provide that degree of flexibility that is sought. If the hon. Gentleman accepts it he will meet the generally fair-minded wishes of the House.
  Sir D. Renton: The Chief Secretary showed in Committee that his heart was in the right place in this matter. This is a very important question. We must ensure that the arrangements that we make now will stand the test of time. We are making these alterations for the first time since 1830, and it is sad to reflect that the £3,750 which is proposed in the Bill for junior Ministers provides a smaller purchasing power than the £1,500 which was put forward for them in 1831, and which remained their salary until, partly due to the influence of Mr. Harold Macmillan, it was raised to £2,500 in 1957.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) made some very good points. I wonder if the House bore in mind, as he was speaking so modestly, the fact that when he took over the Department in the absence of his Minister he had half his Minister's salary, which Parliamentary Secretaries will not get unless we amend the Bill. Nevertheless, at £2,500 a year he was getting less than a good many of the civil servants in that Department. Yet he was in charge in the Minister's absence. This is a point which the Lawrence Committee did not even consider in relation to junior Ministers. It was considered in relation to Ministers. The Committee said that a Minister must have a bigger salary than the Permanent Secretary of the Department, but this point about Parliamentary Secretaries was completely overlooked by the Committee. The Committee did very well in other respects—I am not criticising it—but this point was completely overlooked.
  Hon. Gentlemen on the other side with connections with trades unions have spent

  435
  some of the best years of their lives fighting for differentials. Surely, when they come to this important question of the relationship between Ministers and junior Ministers, they should not ignore the differentials. Surely it is right that a junior Minister, with all the work which he has to do and with all the responsibility which he has to undertake, should have at least half of what the Minister has. The House and the country have suffered in the past, in the fairly recent past especially, because very able people—certainly on this side of the House and, I dare say, there may even have been cases on the other side—have had to turn down the chance of getting their first foothold on the ladder towards the Cabinet, simply because, owing to their family responsibilities and the financial sacrifices which they would have had to make, they could not afford to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was very lucky to have been given two days to think the matter over. Some of us had to make up our minds—
  Mr. Marten: For the record, I should say that it was two days before my appointment was announced. I accepted on the spot.
  Sir D. Renton: I thought that my hon. Friend had two days to think about it. But not all people asked to accept junior Ministerial office at fairly low salaries were given that opportunity.
  Also, I think, it should be borne in mind that, especially when the Minister himself is in the Cabinet, the junior Minister has to take charge of Bills in Standing Committee in this House. That involves a good deal of responsibility, as well as a good deal of work. The same thing arises—I believe that it occurs in this Parliament in several cases—when the Minister himself is in the Lords and the junior Minister has to fight his master's battles in this House. It is absurd and, I think, rather scandalous that he should not have half the salary which his Minister has.
  I say to the Chief Secretary, who naturally has the cost in mind—and rightly so—that it would be a false economy if we did not get this matter right. Indeed, the Treasury does not want to be faced with the necessity of having another Bill to retrieve the situ-
  436
  tion, in what could be embarrassing circumstances, in a few years' time. We want to get it right now. It would be a false economy not to accept my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If I may intervene in this debate which seems to be between Ministers and ex-Ministers, I should like to say that I have never had a call on the telephone, but I feel in a happier frame of mind this evening than I have for a very long time because my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has given me, for the first time, an indication why this was—obviously, because it was not thought that the salary was high enough. At any rate, when I look at this Bill, I am not quite so pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. I am sure that he has no cause to be pessimistic. I am sure that he has hopes for the future and perhaps I have hopes for the future, too. Therefore, this is the last chance which I shall have to make any impact on, and any contribution to, the salary which I may have if I were ever to be appointed a Minister.
  I think that my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment should be accepted by the Government, because, as has been said, many junior Ministers have to give up outside employment where they could earn much more than they can as junior Ministers, even with this increase in salary. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) made some reference to Ministers of State, the intermediate Ministers between Parliamentary Secretaries and full Ministers. I think that the point has been made—and I want to emphasise it—that in our view there are too many Ministers of State in the present Government, and if there were to be fewer in any future Government, Parliamentary Secretaries would be in an even worse position.
  Secondly, I do not think that Parliamentary Secretaries at £3,750 a year, to say nothing of the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard, the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, whatever they may do or whatever they may be—I think that they are generally the Whips—have salaries, as now fixed, which are good enough or high enough in relation to

  437
  Members of Parliament, even allowing for the fact that Ministers get part of their pay as a Member of Parliament. In that regard, the differential from the lower level to the second level is not sufficient. Junior Ministers have a tremendous amount of work to do, both in this House and in their Departments, as well as carrying on their normal work as Members of Parliament.
  We want the best people, whichever Government happens to be in office. I think that the present Government have made a mistake of judgment in fixing these salaries at —3,750 and —3,300. I hope that they will accept the reasonable Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Diamond: I think that I had better bring this debate swiftly to an end, because, if we have a Division, I can see all the Parliamentary Secretaries and all the Whips voting against the Government if we go on much longer. That is a situation which one cannot face with equanimity.
  I want to be as helpful and as sympathetic as I can on this occasion and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for what he said. He said that my heart is in the right place. I hope that he will not misunderstand me if I say that I hope my heart is in the right place, that is to say not in my head. I hope that one can look at this matter objectively and sensibly. I agree that this is not a matter of saving money on the part of a Treasury Minister. One has to look at this objectively and carefully. One should not upset lightly the pattern of salaries which has been laid down in a report which we all regard as authoritative, independent and the only safe thing to rely on. If one does not rely on some outside report, one is subject to so many pressures at so many times that there is no way of determining the issues without great difficulty.
  6.30 p.m.
  I was most taken by the unusually modest and charming remarks of the very charming and modest Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I thought that he was over modest. The hon. Gentleman explained to us that when offered the job by the Prime Minister of the day he said, "But, Prime Minister, why should I have
  438
  this job? I know nothing about it.". Surely the hon. Gentleman is overmodest. He has as great a justification for accepting the job as any other of his right hon. and hon. Friends and it was wrong for him to put the case in that way. He made the point, which we well understand, that the present absolute figure proposed for Parliamentary Secretaries is low. Admittedly it is low. The present figure proposed for Whips is low, and one understands this, but what is one to do if one departs from the proposals laid down for the pattern of salaries by the Lawrence Report?
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd rose—
  Mr. Diamond: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to let me explain the case. I am only starting by saying that I do understand the figure is low. If anyone wishes to say that in comparison with salaries available outside, the proposed salaries for a Member of Parliament and a Minister—particularly a Minister—are low, I should agree immediately. Everyone who has had experience of the commercial world and the professional world—particularly the commercial world—knows that salaries of this kind for the ability involved are very low.
  Two or three hon. Members have mentioned that what one should do is increase the salary of the lower-paid and not of the higher-paid Ministers. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said this was the evidence that he put before the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I never suggested that there should be no increase for the higher paid Ministers.
  Mr. Diamond: I am sorry, a proportionately greater increase for the lower paid Ministers, I did not mean to misrepresent the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  The same point was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire. What did the Committee recommend? The Committee looked at this very carefully and recommended a broad increase in a variety of salaries. For £2,000 it recommended £4,000—double. For —2,500 it recommended £5,000—double. For £3,750 it

  439
  recommended £7,500—double. In respect of all these salaries which, broadly, are for Parliamentary Secretaries, Whips and so on—junior Ministers, let us put it in that general category—it recommended doubling the salary. What did the Committee do in respect of Ministerial salaries? The point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that there should be a disproportionately high increase in the lower salaries. What did the Committee do? It recommended an increase in the salaries of Departmental Ministers and Cabinet Ministers; not from £5,000 to £10,000 which would be double, or from £5,000 to £7,500, less than double, and so accede to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It recommended increases from £5,000 to £12,000. The Committee said, "We have listened to all the evidence and considered all the relevant circumstances and the responsibility of Ministers and the need to get people to serve in these extremely responsible jobs from outside. We say that the Ministers, the higher-paid Ministers, require more than double their present salary". The Committee said the differential should be increased at the top. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been putting to me that the differential should be increased at the bottom.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that had the Lawrence Committee known that its recommendations for increases were to be halved, it would have retained these figures?
  Mr. Diamond: I realise that we have not adopted the precise figures of the Lawrence Committee. We have taken one half of the increase. What I am making clear, first, in reply to one hon. Gentleman, I think the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), who referred to distortion—and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire talked about differentials—is that the only way to keep to the differentials proposed by the Lawrence Committee, and avoid distortion, was to keep to proportionate figures. For a Cabinet Minister getting £5,000 we get an increase even higher than for a Parliamentary Secretary getting £2,500. We have kept this pro-
  440
  portion in the Bill. My first point is that if we acceded to the suggestion which has been made to us—however one understands, as one does, that in absolute terms these figures are low and not high—we should be destroying the pattern put to us by the Lawrence Committee and we cannot do that, however sympathetically and carefully we look at it.
  It will be said to me, "You have not accepted the Lawrence Committee's proposals". No, we have not. We have gone as far as we could in accepting them. The needs of Ministers and the needs of the State have to be taken into account and we have said that it is not appropriate, and not needed, that there should be the full increase proposed by the Lawrence Committee. We therefore took one half of the proposed increase. In this we have kept the proportion right, and to the pattern recommended. I do not think, therefore, that one can reasonably be asked at this stage to take any particular band or grade out of that proportion and say, "We will now deliberately distort the recommendation and put in a different figure".
  Sir D. Renton: The Chief Secretary is saying that the proportions fixed by the Lawrence Committee are sacrosanct. Surely he must know that in fixing those proportions the Committee had in mind the gross amount for each salary it recommended. If it had recommended other amounts, it might well have decided on different proportions. The Government have reduced the total amounts, so surely the argument based on proportion is no longer a valid one.
  Mr. Diamond: If the Opposition feel that this salary of £3,750 should be £4,250, they should put down the proportionate increases in all the other salaries that would arise. That is their responsibility, if they want to depart from the pattern of the arbitration award. I admit that we have not accepted the arbitration award in full. We have accepted the differential laid down. Any of my hon. and right hon. Friends who has experience of wage or trade union negotiations knows that to keep the differentials right is a very important part of the total. Moreover, why refer only to Parliamentary Secretaries? There is a real case in respect of the Whips who are paid less.

  441
  The Whips are full-time paid officials who enable us to carry out our duties with varying success, as we saw last night and have seen today—with a little more success today than last night, but adequately successful.
  Sir R. Cary: Add a manuscript Amendment for the Whips.
  Mr. Diamond: We cannot do it in that way.
  I have considered this sympathetically. It is true that the salaries are low in absolute terms and that the salary differences between back bench Members and the Whips and Parliamentary Secretaries is low because we have accepted the recommendations 100 per cent. for Members of Parliament and only a 50 per cent. increase for Ministers. It is inevitable that there is that difference. We feel that this salary is not high, but that it is not impossibly low. The Parliamentary allowance has been increased. It is £1,250, which should, on average, fully re-imburse a junior Minister for his constituency duties in respect of which he is paid £1,250. In short, he receives a total of £5,000 out of which he has to make a variety of disbursements as a Member of Parliament. No one says that this is a lavish salary. We are not trying to create lavish salaries, quite the reverse, I am bound to say that it is a satisfactory minimum level.
  There has been a substantial increase and, compared with pre-war, it is indeed substantial. It was £1,250 to £1,500 prewar and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will feel that I have been as sympathetic as I could be.
  By and large, one must proceed on some criterion and it would have been an impossibly difficult position had we been fixing our own salaries right, left and centre. There would have been pressure for all sorts of other increases, as indeed there have been. I have had to turn down much of this pressure. The Amendment is reasonable, but I think that the arguments I have put forward are also powerful.
  Mr. Marten: The hon. Gentleman said that a Minister had no disbursements to make out of his Ministerial salary. He does, but he cannot charge them. In addition, he loses any taxation benefit on the amount he must pay for, say, an
  442
  apartment which he might have in London, and this is a serious blow to some Ministers. Ministers in this position do have some suffering.
  Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member is well informed, probably from experience. I suppose that one might call it suffering. He is absolutely right and I deliberately referred to the amount of £1,250, which is a figure reimbursing his Parliamentary back-bench expenditure. It was not available as a reimbursement for the expenditure of a Minister. The world should indeed know that amounts of money do come out of the pockets—their own pockets—of Ministers and that it is part of taxed income. If a Minister lives in the Provinces and finds it necessary to have a flat in London he must pay for it out of his own pocket.
  Sir M. Redmayne: Is not the Chief Secretary aware that a Minister is treated differently from private Members in this respect, for he is technically assumed to be domiciled in London? There has always been thought to be a great injustice between the two and it might be put right. It is a matter of the Income Tax ruling.
  Amendment negatived.

  Schedule 5.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
  Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, in page 21, line 43, column 3, to leave out "The whole Act" and insert:
  "Section 1, and in section 2 the words from 'and shall be of an amount' to the end of the section".
  I can explain this Amendment briefly. It limits the extent of the repeal of the Ministerial Salaries Act, 1946, so as to leave unchanged that part of the Act which prescribes that salaries may be paid to such numbers of Lords in Waiting, not exceeding three, as the Treasury may determine.
  I took it to be the wish of hon. Members throughout our discussions—not only on this Bill, but on previous ones—that there should not be additional flexibility or as hon. Members opposite have said, additional patronage given to the Prime Minister in any unnecessary way. Indeed, that is a principle we all support. All good democrats and parliamentarians support it. It is because by an oversight a provision had been omitted which had this effect that I am

  443
  bringing this Amendment forward. The patronage to which I am referring is the Prime Minister's patronage in respect of Lords in Waiting.
  As the Bill stands that patronage is unlimited. It was not intended that this should be so and as I say an oversight crept in. I am moving the Amendment deliberately because the Government, on their own initiative, wish to restrict and remove that patronage which was not intended, but which crept in.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 45, leave out lines 45 to 47.
  In page 22, line 15, at end add:

  9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. 30

  The Department of Technical Co-operation Act 1961.

  The whole Act.

  1964 c. 98.

  The Ministers of the Crown Act 1964.

  In Schedule 2, part II (in Schedule 2 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 as amended) the entry "Secretary for Technical Co-operation".

  —[Mr. Diamond.]

  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I do not think that it is the wish of the House that there should be a long debate on this Motion. We have discussed the Bill fully on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.46 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Miss Jennie Lee): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to extend for a further three years powers which exist under the 1949 Act, as extended in 1953 and 1958, for the Treasury to raise money by loan for expenditure on housing for the Services in the United Kingdom and to increase by £45 million the total which may be raised and issued under these Acts. A new Act is needed as otherwise the powers under the 1958 Act would lapse on 31st March of the present year.
  The purpose of the original 1949 Act was to ensure that provision of homes for married Service men in the United Kingdom would not be subjected to financial pressures because the capital expenditure involved had to be met out of current revenue. The Government at that time were determined that the Service man should have as good a deal as a civilian who, for instance, was seeking to rent a new council house.
  As hon. Members who are expert in these matters know, the provisions of the 1949 and subsequent Acts apply only to married quarters built in areas where they could be taken over for civilian purposes if no longer required by the Services. Married quarters in Northern Ireland, abroad, and in isolated parts of this country were excluded from the terms of the Act.
  I have read with interest the Report of the Advisory Committee on Recruiting under the chairmanship of Sir James Grigg and the comments of hon. Members from both sides of the House in previous debates, particularly some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I am bound to say that the Report and their comments proved that more could have been done with the money and materials available for building for the Services, in particular for building quarters for married families, than was

  445
  done. I do not want to pursue that point too far at present, because we are concerned about what is happening now and our future—
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Would the hon. Lady elaborate on that statement? How does she think the money was spent? She has made quite a serious allegation, and I think that she should substantiate it.
  Miss Lee: I shall be very glad to do so.
  As I said, I do not want to pursue the point too far, but if the hon. Member reads the 1958 debate, and the Report of Sir James Grigg, he will see that some of the money available for building was not used. The argument was that it could not be used because of the movement of troops—that it was of no purpose to use it in town A because of troop movements to town B—but that was only partially true. There were other fixtures, such as the great barracks in London that were already slums. I only make the point in passing, because I am not convinced by arguments that we could not have made further progress by now in the provision of civilised accommodation for Service men than has been made.
  I want, however, to turn my attention to what is happening now and to what we want to see happening in the near future. The level of annual expenditure in the past was around £10 million, but this year, on these homes for married Service men, we expect to spend £12½ million; next year, £16 million, and in the year after that, £18 million. At the same time, we are concerned about the standard of the design of the homes, and have set up a specialist housing directorate of professional staff to design houses for all three Services. A special study is also being made of industrialised and prefabricated methods of building houses, and we hope that those, too, will, in due course, add to the numbers built.
  Sir Eric Errington: Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to state the number of houses that will be built during the next three years for this increased expenditure?
  Miss Lee: Yes, certainly—in due course. In fact, I shall have great pleasure in giving the House the figures of houses to be built in the next three years, and those built in the last three years and the last 13 years—
  Sir E. Errington: Do not give too much.
  Miss Lee: The important point is that the Bill proposes a three-year extension of the Act, but hon. Members will be interested to know that there is a rolling three-year programme of expenditure. The total for the current year and the next two succeeding years is £47 million. This expenditure includes the amount needed for some houses being built on the general Vote, as well as the £45 million set aside in the Bill. The fact that this is a rolling programme of expenditure is very important. It would be all wrong to say that we were embarking on a three-year building programme for the Services that was to run down at the end of the three years.
  From the sums I have quoted, it will be seen that the plan is not to reduce the number of houses built, but to phase it so that we are increasing the number. Even now, discussions are going on with the Treasury in order to decide what it would be reasonable to spend in a fourth year. That means that at any given time the Ministry, which is now responsible for building homes for our Service men, will be able to plan fully three years ahead and will see how much money will be available. I know that it has been argued that it would be better to have a longer period, but such an argument does not have a great deal of substance provided that, at any given time, we are able to plan fully three years ahead.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) asked for figures, and here they are. We hope to build, in the next three years over 12,000 houses with this loan money, as well as another 3,000 financed under the normal Ministry Vote. The programme is still building up, and we expect that from next year onwards we shall obtain a completion rate of about 5,000 homes a year. We cannot be exact—
  Dame Joan Vickers: Can the hon. Lady break down that figure into how many homes are to be provided for Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force personnel?
  Miss Lee: I have the figures relating to the three Services for the past 16 years, but I shall have to ask my right hon. Friend to give the hon. Lady the information she seeks when he winds up the debate.
  The immediate and important point is that we are hoping to build 5,000 houses a year, and we will certainly not fall far short of that figure. This will still not satisfy the demand. It is not possible to get a precise figure, but it is probable that, on the basis of the present entitlement, 40,000 new homes are required.
  We shall, however, be making more progress than was made in the previous three years—or for that matter, in any like period in the post-war years. Hon. Members might be interested in the following break-down. Between 1962 and 1965—the last three years of the previous Administration—under 10,000 houses were built—the exact figure is 9,092. It will, therefore, be seen that our proposal for the present year and the two following years is a considerable increase on that figure.
  There are a few minor changes in the Bill, but they do not, of course, affect the principle. The loan money will be issued direct to the Ministry of Public Building and Works—this is simply to tidy up the present arrangement by which the money has to go through Ministry of Defence Votes—but repayment and interest will continue to be made from the Ministry of Defence Votes, since once the homes have been built, they are handed over to the Ministry of Defence and remain on its charge.
  Although the purpose of the Bill is to provide finance for only a very small part of the Government's housing programme, it is, nevertheless, an assurance that the Government are determined to better the lot of the Service man. It will be an encouragement to those Service families which have either no quarters at all or live in sub-standard quarters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attaches considerable importance to that.
  I think that in my first few weeks in the Ministry of Public Building and Works I saw both the best and the worst that has been done in the country for our Service personnel. For instance, I was present at the opening of the Queen
  448
  Elizabeth Barracks for the Women's Royal Army Corps at Guildford. For both officers and other ranks, this accommodation is superb. It is comfortable, it is delightful, it is contemporary—it is the kind of accommodation that any educated young woman of today could feel pretty well content with. I was very much impressed with it.
  I was not only very much impressed by it, but comforted, because my other early experience in this Ministry was to visit Knightsbridge Barracks. Although that is a barracks, it has accommodation for some married families. I can tell the House that I was angry, I was embarrassed, I was ashamed when I saw the conditions in which married families were living right in the heart of London.
  That is why, although I do not want to labour the point, I must repeat that I was not convinced by the arguments advanced in those earlier debates, and subsequently, that the money allocated and the materials then available for this purpose had not been fully used because of the uncertainty involved in the movement of troops. Knightsbridge Barracks are not moved every other day. They are there. We knew that these were permanent quarters. I went into rooms where the walls were running with water and where the children had all to be cooped up together in one small space.
  I have a great deal of material here. I do not want to use it. I want merely to say that nothing could be worse for the Armed Forces than a discontented and worried mother without proper accommodation for herself and for her children. I hope that some of the quarters I have seen were the exceptionally bad ones, and that I can take it for granted from reports that reach me that, although roughly 40,000 homes have been provided since the end of the war—33,000 under the Acts we are now discussing—the other 20,000 which make up our rough total of 60,000 contain quite a number that have been reconditioned and, therefore, provide fairly normal accommodation.
  However, I do not think that we should blind ourselves to the fact that among those 20,000 there are far too many which are pre-war slums. In addition to the 60,000 homes we now have, which comprise 14,000 officers' quarters and 46,000 other ranks' quarters, we

  449
  require at least another 40,000 before we can feel that we have got the number necessary to meet the needs in this island.
  I hope that the Bill will encourage Service men to feel that they are getting a better deal than ever before and that the rate of building has been stepped up. I do not think that they would want me to go into any elaborate argument about costs and income rates, whether we pay by loan or whether we pay by capital charges. I think that their attitude will be—"Cut the cackle and come to the kisses. How many houses are in this?" Under the Bill we propose to build roughly 5,000 houses in each of the next three years. It will be the Government's pleasure, if they can, to build even more than that.
  I commend the Bill to the House, because it shows that the Service man is being given a higher priority where he has a wife and children in his care than ever he has been given before.
  Sir E. Errington: Can the hon. Lady tell the House what proportion of the married quarters are built under the loan scheme and what proportion is built from other sources?
  Miss Lee: Thirty-three thousand have been built under the loan scheme since the end of the war. The figure of 40,000 I gave as the number built since the end of the war included other houses not built under the loan scheme, but by direct capital grant.
  Captain Walter ElliotThe Bill is to provide
  "housing accommodation … for married persons serving in, or employed in connection with, the armed forces".
  A vast number of men are employed in connection with the Armed Forces The hon. Lady referred only to Service men. Can she tell us the proportion of houses which will go to Service men and the proportion which will go to those employed in connection with the Services?
  Miss Lee: No, but I am sure that, if the figures have been broken down in the Ministry in greater detail than those I have already given, my right hon. Friend the Minister, when he winds up, will be very pleased to tell the House those figures. Those figures are not in my immediate possession.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. James Ramsden: As the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Bill brings under review the whole problem of providing enough married quarters for Service families, in particular, in the United Kingdom. As she told us, it is proposed to add £45 million to the total funds available on loan and to extend the term for which those loans are available by a further three years up to the end of 1968.
  I intend to discuss a little later how far what is proposed in the Bill makes an adequate contribution to the problem of housing Service families. What is quite clear is that, had they been left to themselves and by themselves, hon. Members opposite would not have introduced the Bill. It would not have occurred to them to bring it forward. There was nothing about it in the Gracious Speech.
  The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): This is minor legislation.
  Mr. Ramsden: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is only minor legislation. I do not think that any Service family without a house could possibly agree with him about that. This is legislation to provide a very substantial sum of money to meet a very substantial need. Because there was no mention of it in the Gracious Speech, my right hon. and hon. Friends noticed the omission and at the earliest opportunity we had of asking the right hon. Gentleman about his Department's policy we asked him what his intentions were about the renewal of the Bill.
  It appeared from what the right hon. Gentleman then said—
  Mr. C. Pannell: When did I say it?
  Mr. Ramsden: —that he had not made up his mind about whether any renewal of this legislation was necessary.
  Mr. Pannell: When did I say it?
  Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman was unable to say whether or not—
  Mr. Pannell: When did I say anything like that in the House?
  Mr. Ramsden: The right hon. Gentleman need not get too impatient.
  Mr. Pannell: I am not.
  Mr. Ramsden: We put the question to him.
  Mr. Pannell: When?
  Mr. Ramsden: On the first Monday that Questions were taken in the Session. We had a temporising reply. I will say no more than that.
  Miss Jennie Lee: Perhaps I could clear up the point that the right hon. Gentleman is now making.
  Mr. Ramsden: No. We did not interrupt the hon. Lady, except at the end.
  Miss Lee: This is on a point of clarification.
  Mr. Ramsden: I want to develop my case. Pressure was exerted by my hon. Friends, and their vigilance for the interest of Service men and their families had a good deal to do with the Bill being brought forward. We now have the Bill. If I may hazard a guess at the reason for the initial delay, it was that possibly it was expected that the Government's legislative programme would be unduly crowded with some of the more controversial elements of Socialist legislation which we have been promised but which have not yet been forthcoming.
  Because of unforeseen delays in bringing forward those Bills, which were promised in the Gracious Speech, there is now more time and it has—I am glad that it has—commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government to bring forward the Bill. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is a sensible Bill. It is one that I certainly would not advise my hon. Friends to oppose. However, I think that it is right, as the House has time, that we should spend an hour or two in discussing what is for the Services, as the hon. Lady has said, a most important and vital problem.
  The Under-Secretary of State fox Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): Is not the right hon. Gentleman fully aware that one of the reasons why it could not be said for certain what the exact position about the Bill would be is that he himself, in the office he held in the last Parliament, failed to convince his Ministerial colleagues that such legislation was necessary? We had to
  452
  start from scratch. My right hon. Friends holding other Government posts are more amenable to this type of legislation than his right hon. Friends were when they were in office.
  Mr. Ramsden: In view of the very minor points on which the Bill differs from any previous legislation, I cannot believe that it has taken the Labour Party from last November to now to get the Bill ready. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point carries much substance.
  This is a question which is absolutely fundamental to the well-being of our Armed Services in several ways. It is fundamental, in the first place, to recruiting. More than once, standing at that Box, I have said that there is no single factor more important to the success of recruiting in any of the three Services than a satisfactory state of married accommodation for the families. I have been very glad to see recently that the picture of recruiting as it is going now is satisfactory. We are all pleased about that, but it is clear that two things are happening.
  First, the Services are tending to take on fewer married recruits, that is, fewer men actually married at present. Secondly, they are taking in—and to this is attributable in large measure the recent improvement in the figures—a larger number than heretofore of 17-yearolds, the younger men. Those two things are happening now, and equally, I believe, two things will happen in the future.
  The present bulge in the age-groups coming forward into eligibility for recruiting will die away and the Services may have to reconsider their policy about recruitment of married men. Secondly, the 17-year-olds who have recently been taken in in fairly large numbers will face the decision whether to re-engage in three or four years, at about the same time as they will, in the normal course of events, be facing the equally important decision on whether or not to get married. Whether they do decide to re-engage, and whether the rate of re-engagement is satisfactory for the Services to keep up their numbers will depend in large measure on the Government's success in providing a sufficient number of married quarters.

  453
  There is another point here which is not often made and which, though true, may be surprising at first sight. A satisfactory state of Service housing is a big factor in assuring full, flexible and effective use of Service units in their deployment around the world on operational commitments. One cannot, in conscience, take a unit from an unsatisfactory family station and, in the normal course of its rotation round the world, move it to another bad one. If this has to happen, the consequences for morale will be bad.
  The posting of our units round the world is not an easy business. It has been discharged with notable skill and efficacy by the staff responsible during the past year in very difficult conditions, and I really need say no more about it than that the more bad family stations there are, whether in this country or overseas, the more difficult will it be for the staffs concerned to rotate units to the best advantage and secure the best operational use of the manpower and units which we have available. There is no doubt or disagreement between us and the party opposite, therefore, about the key importance of this problem of service housing.
  The hon. Lady twitted my hon. Friends and myself about Knightsbridge Barracks. I say only this in reply, that the planning of the whole concept of Knightsbridge, to which she rightly attached importance, was a long, complex and difficult business, as she knows. As the Minister himself will agree, an outstandingly good design was produced. I was more than relieved when I learned that the right hon. Gentleman had resisted the suggestion from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the project should be reviewed and that it had been decided not to abandon it. It would have been a very grave blow to the Services had that decision been taken.
  I wish now to remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House of a little of the background to the present position out of which has arisen the responsibility of his Ministry for the housing of Service families. In the old days, until April, 1963, tie Services had their own works departments, and very efficient they were. The right hon. Gentleman has in a leading and responsible position in his
  454
  Ministry Sir Donald Gibson, who was a leading light in the Army Works Department in the old days and to whom is due a great deal of the imaginative innovations in the design of married quarters and other Service buildings of which the benefits are being felt today.
  When the change was made, and responsibility was placed on the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, it was done for good reasons connected with the policy of giving to his Ministry an element of domestic construction for which it would be directly responsible, in other words, some building to do on its own for itself, so that it would be enabled to be in some sense a pioneer for the rest of the construction industry, pointing the way and setting a good example.
  I think that the change was, therefore, one which could be justified, but, inevitably, there was some concern among the Services that, when responsibility for their own building was taken away and put under a different roof, their interests might not be as efficiently served as when they had sole responsibility in their own hands.
  My right hon. Friends did a great deal and worked very hard to ensure that those apprehensions were groundless, and I think that they succeeded in demonstrating that they were. They had, perhaps, two advantages over right hon. and hon. Members opposite, one that the Minister occupying the right hon. Gentleman's position, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, was in the Cabinet at the time, the other that the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies), had a wide background of Service knowledge himself and could talk to members of the Services in their own language.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that they will not understand us?
  Mr. Ramsden: They were both at great pains not only to take a great interest, but to make perfectly clear to members of the Services that they were taking great trouble and interest, and in this they were very well supported by their officials.
  I do not make too much of this, or of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not in the Cabinet. He made a very good joke when the point was raised with

  455
  him at Question Time, saying that he would not have time, among his many duties, had he even been invited. But the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are absolutely right to take every opportunity to get about among the Services, to visit Service stations, to talk to people and to hear what they have to say. I hope that they are doing so.
  The hon. Lady said that she went to the opening of the W.R.A.C. barracks at Guildford. I am very glad that she did. I hope that she and the right hon. Gentleman will, not just on official occasions of this kind, but, so to speak, on undress occasions, talk to commanding officers and to everyone concerned. Talking to commanding officers, one will find that at the root of almost every problem concerning discipline or welfare is the question of the separation of a husband from his wife and family. So I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give great attention to this matter.
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions about the Bill. I should like him to explain—his hon. Friend has already said a little—the need and justification for the Bill. I put the question seriously because, frankly, I am puzzled about it. Certainly, we want the Bill, but I should like to be enlightened about this. It has been said, and it is accepted, that if we do not have the Bill it would still be possible to find the money for a programme of married quarters building from the Votes, and the Bill says that what is spent out of the loan shall not exceed the yearly provision made by Parliament in the Vote.
  It would be interesting to know the real value of this method of financing by loan. I suspect that the answer is that when funds of this kind have the approval of the House and have been given effect to by Statute, it cannot then be said in any yearly review of future expenditure that the money is not available for the purpose for which the Ministry might want it. I take it that to the extent that we have passed an Act making these funds available the hand of the right hon. Gentleman is strengthened under each yearly review of the defence budget and that it increases the certainty with which he seeks confirmation of his yearly programme. I believe this to be true, and
  456
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will either confirm or deny it.
  Whatever the answer is, this raises another, more fundamental question. Ought this kind of expenditure—on Service housing, or, for that matter, on the education of service families—to be reviewed year by year as part of the defence budget? Does it properly belong in the defence budget? Is it right that the claims of this type of expenditure should have to compete when the Government are making their yearly settlement of the percentage of the national income which they think they ought to devote to defence? Is it right that married quarters should have to compete with tanks, guns, ships and other equipment? After all, these houses are part of the national stock of houses and will be a national asset whatever happens to the size of the Armed Forces. If soldiers and their families do not live in them, they will be lived in by somebody.
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman's view on whether this yearly programme about which the hon. Lady has told us should be seen in relation to the whole building effort, and the need for it weighed against the need for other types of social building—houses, schools and hospitals—and whether that would not be a more logical situation than the claims of these projects having to compete in the annual settlement of the defence budget with ships, guns and other Service equipment of a more martial kind. I should like to know what the Government think about it.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: There is great validity in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I am rather ignorant of what goes on in this matter. Can he tell me how long he has held this view and whether, in the past, he attempted to have it established in his own Government? Instead of waiting for us to do it, why did he not attempt to get it done earlier?
  Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman is right. What I am calling in question is long-established practice. I do not attempt to deny that. However, I think that it is a question which ought to be thought about, particularly at a time when the national resources available for defence are under pressure, as they admittedly are today.

  457
  Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the £45 million over the next three years is enough? On the face of it, it does not appear to be enough. We know that the money remaining from previous Acts is very nearly exhausted. We also know the programme for the next three years, partly because the hon. Lady announced it, but even more so because I announced it last year myself on the first day of the defence debate. I said that for next year Mr. Rippon had agreed a programme of £16 million and the year after £18 million, a total of £34 million. Assuming that for the year after that, which the hon. Lady told us was not yet decided, the Government wish to spend not less than £18 million—I do not think that they would wish to appear to do any worse than Mr. Rippon had planned to do—that comes to £52 million as against the £45 million over the three years proposed in the Bill. So, on the face of it, it does not look as though the Bill goes far enough.
  I also wonder why it is proposed to extend the term of the loan for only three years. Previous Acts have made a five-year extension. I do not suppose that anybody believes that the need for a high rate of married quarters building will have disappeared at the end of three years, and I should have thought that a five-year term would have been much more appropriate. Although we welcome the Bill, it does not seem to represent the kind of bold reaffirmation of the right hon. Gentleman's intention to tackle and master the problem of Service accommodation which I thought he would wish the Bill to be and to which the programme established by Mr. Rippon and announced by the previous Government pointed the way.
  Mr. C. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question and then went on, from a completely false premise, to pose an argument. He asked whether this was enough. The answer is that in the next three years it is double what it was in the last three years. I do not know whether that is boldness or not, but the right hon. Gentleman had better put up an alibi for his own performance before he attacks ours.
  Mr. Ramsden: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. I am judging the amount of money proposed in the Bill
  458
  in relation to the programme announced by the previous Government and confirmed by the hon. Lady. It is in relation to the amount of building to be done over the period that we must judge the amount of money being made available in the Bill. On a simple calculation involving no more than adding together the three yearly figures, it does not look as though the right hon. Gentleman is asking for enough.
  The hon. Lady did not refer to Clause 4, but it changes what has appeared in previous Statutes of this kind. Instead of saying that the rate of interest on the repayment of this loan shall be what is appropriate, it says that it shall be the rate as determined by the Treasury. Why is that altered provision being made? Is there any significance in it?
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be concerned to get value for money out of this building programme. We should like to hear more about his detailed plans. He knows, better than I do, that when building resources in the country generally are at full stretch—and it is a good thing that they should be—there is upward pressure on prices and the only way out of the dilemma is to improve productivity. I know that that is the intention of the Government, as it was the intention of their predecessors. But we should like to hear more details about how the right hon. Gentleman plans to bring it about.
  For example, one element in the building of married quarters must be the overheads of his Ministry. I do not know how they rate in the scale of costs or how they compare with building overheads in construction firms outside. Earlier this Session, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what he was doing to bring about the rationalisation and contraction in the number of staff in the Ministry which was looked to when the reorganisation of the Service Departments was first implemented. He was not able to give me a full answer then but I hope that he has given further study to the problem and will tell us more tonight. It is important to get the overheads as low as possible.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us to what extent in the building for which he is responsible he is employing new and industrialised techniques.
  Miss Jennie Lee: Two thousand houses.
  Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Lady says that 2,000 houses are involved. We shall be obliged for more details. I should like, in passing, to mention two ancillary ways of alleviating the shortage of married quarters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was very anxious to encourage housing associations and it was suggested to the last Government that the Services might have housing associations of their own to help provide accommodation for Service families. It was suggested that the S.S.A.F.A. might help in their organisation. I believe that one has been in existence for the Navy in Portsmouth for some time. Has this additional method of providing married accommodation been examined further? If so, what was the outcome?
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us something about approved hirings. When married quarters are not available, hirings are an excellent means of finding homes for Service families and keeping them together. I have heard, however, that, as a result of the introduction of the Protection from Eviction Act, there is some anxiety in garrison towns as to the position when a house is let by a Service man temporarily for a hiring when he goes with his family on a tour of duty overseas. It would be of help if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some reassurance on that point.
  We welcome the Bill in so far as it measures up to the immense problem that confronts the Government. Thanks to the measures taken by Mr. Rippon and the programme which he inaugurated, the Government are embarking on their responsibilities on a good wicket. They have a programme which gives real possibilities of improving standards and productivity and, providing that they take full advantage of this opportunity, they can be assured of our full support.
  7.35 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I dislike the idea of this being in any sense a party political occasion. [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister will not keep on interrupting from a sedentary position. My reason for hoping that it will not be party political is that everyone is agreed that this is something that wants doing and wants doing well and I am bound
  460
  to say that, as far as my knowledge goes, it is now being done extremely badly.
  The expectations were considerable. Recently, Answers to Questions about the Army stated that, in 1964–65, the building programme was for 1,700 houses; for 1965–66, it was 2,400; and for 1966–67 it was to be 2,100. Until we get the breakdown between the Services it is difficult to know exactly what the position of the Army is, but I presume that these houses are for the most part the subject of loans of the type we are discussing in this Bill.
  How much of the expected building has been achieved? I make no apology in saying that this is largely a constituency speech, though not entirely so. I was very disturbed to find in my constituency that many fewer quarters had been built than expected and for which finance had been provided. In these circumstances, it would appear that a substantial sum of money voted in previous years has been unexpended. We should be told about it. It is no good the House voting large sums of money, by way of loans or otherwise, unless we know what is being done about it. I understand that £45 million is to be spent on 15,000 houses over three years. That means over £3,000 per house.
  No doubt I will be told that ground has to be bought, but any local council, building a much better type of house—I say that quite advisedly, because I shall refer to some of the difficulties—would be shocked to hear of such substantial amounts of money being spent. We should know why it is that it costs £3,000 to build each unit of married quarters. I do not know whether they be flats or houses, but it is a very substantial sum of money and we should have fuller information. There is substantial delay in the building of these houses, with the consequence of increased costs, both of materials and wages.
  If the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary would like to visit Aldershot, we would be delighted to show her the houses about whose conditions I intend to give some details. Knightsbridge Barracks is not the worst place, because it has been in existence for some time while these Aldershot houses are new and were built by the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
  Perhaps I ought strictly not to mention the fact that two of the sergeants'

  461
  messes collapsed during the course of construction. The ugliness of the layout of the buildings is shocking. I thought that when the Ministry of Public Building and Works came along, an artistic sense, instead of that of the brutal and licentious soldiery, might become clearer and more marked, but instead there are sheets of concrete which are now getting to that ugly, wet, stained stage which makes the whole thing unrelievedly gloomy. I hope that something will be done about that, which is why I invite the Minister as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to come and see.
  The occupants of 12 houses had to be removed so that the houses could be partially reconstructed. At one time, the Service tenants had to go into new, hardly finished houses temporarily so that houses which had been supposed to be completed by the builders could be properly repaired. If that had happened to a private builder, or to an architect responsible to a private builder, there would have been a considerable fuss, and rightly so. Apparently, bad building is not the monopoly of a private builder.
  Let us now consider the Talavera Estate, Aldershot, a very worthy name and, one would have thought, a very worthy place. My information is that a wet, grey-green mould which spreads over walls and ceilings, rots fabrics, eats holes in clothes and spoils food is creeping over the interior of the new Army houses and flats on this estate. Wives tired of the ceaseless battle to wipe, scrape and scour it away are nearing the end of their patience. It is said that the experts are baffled. They ought to be debaffled, if there is such a word, as soon as possible, and it is the job of the Ministry to see that they are. One wretched soldier whose responsibility it is to keep his uniform in order has to have a moth-proof bag to keep it wearable and free from mould.
  Do not believe that the matter ends there, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The experts—I do not know whether they were employed by the contractor or the Ministry—treated part of the walls with two chemical substances and redecorated them with anti-mould paint. This was successful within its limits, but, unfortunately, where the paint was not and where the woodwork was there the mould went. That is not a very satisfactory state of
  462
  affairs. Speaking with the studied moderation of the Ministry, which is represented from top to bottom in the Ministry, a representative said that this was "excessive condensation", but nothing was said about how that was being dealt with except the rather mystic words, "We are looking into it". It would have been more accurate to say, "We are looking at it—and doing nothing."
  The next bright idea of the experts, who are still puzzled, was to fit fan ventilators, which were not more effective than the inadequate treatment with chemicals to prevent the mould. This for the people whom the Parliamentary Secretary has described as worthy of the very best we can give. They have gas heating, but only downstairs, and gas heating is the most expensive form of heating. In the cold months it costs £11 or £12 a month, and then only for downstairs.
  These worthy people are doing their best to survive the attacks of the mould and the condensation, but they cannot achieve anything because the mould is upstairs where there is no proper system of heating. Paraffin stoves have to be used because they cannot afford the more expensive gas heating arrangements. These Service wives are very good and try to keep the house hot while opening the windows to get rid of the condensation, but this is obviously beyond their capacity. This is something which should have immediate attention.
  Some of the roofs have been very bad Within the last week a representative of the Ministry said:
  "There have been no roof leaks as such. There was a defect in the gas warm air heating system caused by a faulty connection where the exhaust pipe meets the roof section This was causing vapour to seep through into the roof section. This faulty connection has now been put right by the contractors."
  This is a sorry story for the up-to-date place which we call Aldershot, the home of the British Army. Is this the sort of condition of affairs which we are to allow for people with families entering the Army and looking on it as a career? They must have a chance of satisfactory accommodation.
  The problem is particularly difficult because it is almost impossible to find civilian accommodation. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army is not here, because I have

  463
  had one or two letters already which have shown that people leaving the Army cannot find civilian accommodation. It is only natural that the Army should want, when it is short, the accommodation for personnel coming from abroad or elsewhere, but the ex-Service families who have to leave the accommodation and who are called illegal occupants—which is rather a shame—find it impossible to get alternative accommodation.
  There is even a more important consideration. There is the difficulty of finding accommodation for wives who are left behind when their husbands are posted overseas and the accommodation is wanted for other people posted to the district. I wonder whether the Minister would consider the possibility of pointing out to local authorities the importance of providing accommodation in these cases. if they could help—and they are very helpful in many respects—it would ease some of the pressure caused by the fact that people leave the Army and have nowhere to go. Some years ago the former Administration wrote to local authorities inviting them to help in any way they could.
  I sincerely hope—and I do not say this from a party political angle—that the present Government will improve on the present buildings. There appears a lack of knowledge about elementary things, such as how much buildings cost and how well they are built. I hope that my words tonight will lead to some improvement.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I echo the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) that this matter should be entirely devoid of party politics. That should be underlined three or four times.
  Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), in opening the debate for the Opposition, began on a party political note. He attempted not only to make party political propaganda out of this issue, but was a little mischievous in suggesting that, because my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary reminded him of the contents of the Gracious Speech and drew his atten-
  464
  tion to the fact that the words "minor legislation" were used in it, we considered that the welfare of the Armed Forces was a minor matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman entirely failed in his initial attempt to drape himself with real initiative in prodding this lazy and slothful Administration into doing something along the lines we are suggesting today. Not only was he badly briefed; he did not remember the date on which he put the Question down. He was not even able to say in substantiation of his claim, "On such and such a day I tabled a Question to the Minister and as a consequence the Bill was produced".
  Mr. Ramsden: I said, the first Monday in the Session.
  Mr. Loughlin: If I were making a claim of that kind, I should have given the date so that it could be verified.
  What amazes me is this. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, "We have certain reservations about the Bill. We think that the matter might have been dealt with differently. More money might have been forthcoming. But we welcome the Bill. "If, as I believe, it is important now to do what the Bill proposes, why did not he do it when he had the opportunity? We get a little tired of this mock indignation about the slothfulness of an Administration which has been in office for three months when right hon. Gentlemen opposite had 13 years in which to do all the things, which they say we should do in three months, and failed to do them. It is sheer political hypocrisy for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to talk in these terms; and, frankly, the public know it.
  The provision of houses for Army personnel, whether they be officers or in the ranks, should be a first priority. I do not know whether the cost should come within the defence lump sum. I do not know whether it should be lumped with tanks and guns. But if we want Army personnel to lead a decent, human life, they are entitled to think that accommodation will be made available for them because they are charged with the responsibility of defending this nation. We have a responsibility to ensure that every possible welfare service is provided for them. I do not care how

  465
  the provision is made. I do not care whether it comes within the province of the Armed Forces or of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. I believe that it would be better in the hands of the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
  There has been criticism of the buildings erected in Aldershot. I admire the hon. Member for Aldershot for the trouble to which he has gone to obtain information about the building which he mentioned. When I say "building", I mean the sergeants' mess and the other buildings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am not too sure about this matter and I do not want to appear to have knowledge which obviously I do not have, but the hon. Gentleman referred to private contractors and the Ministry of Public Building and Works. Am I to understand that these buildings were erected by private contractors or by direct building?
  Sir E. Errington: I am not certain of the exact arrangements. However, my point was that the ordinary person who has a house built is entitled to complain, and does complain, if it is not satisfactory. There have been complaints by the tenants of the buildings which I mentioned, but as far as I know no complaint has been made by the Ministry.
  Mr. Loughlin: There is a lot of bad building going on, and all sorts of people suffer from it. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I was the victim of some of this type of building. Fortunately, I knew what to do. I should have thought that if buildings in the state which the hon. Gentleman described were built by private contractors, the Ministry would have some method of dealing with those contractors. If that power has not existed, in any future contracts which are issued for this type of building I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that there is every conceivable opportunity—[interruption.] I will wait for my right hon. Friend to finish his conversation. I appreciate that he has to be given information. I was not being clever.
  I will repeat briefly the request which I was putting to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member has referred to some shocking building at Aldershot. He re-
  466
  ferred to the fact that the sergeants' mess had collapsed twice and that there were considerable defects in certain houses which had been constructed. It is not clear whether they were constructed by a direct building department or by private contractors. I should have thought that if they were built by private contractors, the Ministry would have the opportunity to ensure that the contractors did the right thing in building. If the Ministry does not have that power, my request to the Minister is that in any future contracts that he puts out to private contractors, such conditions will be laid upon the builder that there cannot possibly be a repetition of this kind of thing.
  Mr. C. Pannell: I understand that these buildings were built by private contractors. The defects showed up within the guarantee period and money is being withheld.
  Mr. Loughlin: It is gratifying to know that. I want, however, to develop the point a little further. I know that one cannot absolutely guarantee that any building contractor will produce the best quality work, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend, in view of what he has said, that he should ensure that these private contractors will in no circumstances receive further contracts from his Department.
  I wish to refer to the number of houses which are to be provided for the sum of £45 million. I am not too sure that we are setting our target high enough at 15,000 houses. We should try to stretch it a little more. We should aim at seeing that as many as possible of the Service personnel can have the opportunity of having their wives with them, whether in this country or overseas. The £45 million is not such an exaggerated figure as the hon. Member for Aldershot thought.
  Sir E. Errington: I suppose that the cost of most council houses which are built nowadays is between £2,000 and £2,500. My point was that in this case there seems to be an average of £3,000.
  Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member, but there may well be some flats included in the figure of £45 million.
  Sir E. Errington: They are more expensive.
  Mr. Loughlin: They are substantially more costly to build than orthodox houses. The average council house is of the two-or three-bedroom type with a few refinements. I should, however, qualify that remark, because some really beautiful council houses are being built, although a lot of them are the basic forms of housing with refinements absent rather than present. I should think that the figure of £45 million includes houses for officers as well as for other ranks. I know that one can make a lot of qualifications about this, but I would argue that the officers should be content with the same type of accommodation as the men.
  Sir E. Errington: Nobody is content. That is the point.
  Mr. Loughlin: I agree with the hon. Member. Strangely, we agree on most things. The figure of £45 million will, however, include varying types of houses larger than the normal council house and on balance I should have thought that an average of £3,000 would be a fairly reasonable figure.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take this part of his duties extremely seriously. I know that he takes all his duties seriously, but—and I hope that he will not mind my saying this—within his Department, with the overall responsibility which he has, there might be a slight tendency for this to be almost an adjunct to some of the duties which he has to perform.
  I believe that this responsibility is now in the right quarter, as it has been for about three years, but I urge upon my right hon. Friend the need to accept the full seriousness of this part of his responsibility. We can easily fail in our duty to the Service personnel and it will only be by extra attention and vigilance that we give to our Service personnel the conditions to which they are entitled by virtue of the function which they perform in society.
  8.7 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: I wondered whether I should preface my remarks by saying that I hope they will be non-party or violently party. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is a bit thin-skinned. We all agree that this is a non-party matter, and surely we will not be inhibited
  468
  from trying to get something more or something different. My recollection is that in the last Parliament the hon. Member was never backward in applying that principle when we were sitting on the benches opposite.
  I entirely agree with hon. Members that, basically, this is not a party issue. Certainly, I welcome the Bill. Since 1951 there has been an enormous increase in house building, and it is right that the Services should share in the increase in building capacity. I agree, however, with what has already been said from this side of the House. Why are we looking ahead only three years? The Parliamentary Secretary said that we need 40,000 houses for the Services, yet we are looking only three years ahead. I welcome the increase in numbers, but the last Act, I understand, involved a figure of £95 million and in that instance we looked ahead over a period of 15 years.
  Mr. C. Pannell: It is five years. We might as well get our terms right. The first of these Acts was introduced in 1949 and it has been renewed at five-yearly intervals. In effect the legislation lapses. It will lapse this time, hence the Bill. Each time it has been five years.
  Captain Elliot: I understand that, but it does not invalidate my point about looking further ahead than three years.
  It seems to me perfectly logical that the money should be transferred to the Votes of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and I personally see no objection to that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), speaking from our Front Bench, suggested that it should not be included in the Defence Votes. As I read the White Paper it is not going to be. I see that the Minister agrees with that, and I am very glad, because I think that this is absolutely right.
  I would ask him not to underestimate this problem of the allocation of resources between the Services. I imagine there will be a battle here, not only a battle between the Services but probably between the categories of men and women, both those in uniform and those working for the Services. The hon. Lady referred only to Service men. I asked her about this and she said the Minister would refer

  469
  to it. The Bill does apply to those employed in connection with the Services and there are many hundreds of thousands of them.
  From my experience when I was in uniform for a good many years I could say that it seemed to rankle—I may have got the wrong impression—that men and women not in uniform seemed to live in quite well-constructed, sometimes very big, houses, while the houses which were available for uniformed personnel were very much inferior. I think that times have probably changed since then, but I am sure that there will be problems there and I ask the Minister not to underestimate them.
  Several hon. Members referred to both home and overseas. The White Paper seems to suggest that the building programme covers overseas as well as home. The Bill specifically speaks in Clause 1 of
  "moneys provided by Parliament for those years for the provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for married persons serving in, or employed in connection with, the armed forces".
  I wonder whether the Minister would care to confirm one way or the other which it is, because there are, as we know, a large number of Service men and civilians employed by the Services serving overseas, and it is just as important that they are properly housed as it is for people at home to be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) mentioned—although he may not have used the word—the question of entitlement. I would ask the Minister to look into that very carefully. Problems do arise. I have known, for example, of a family with no means giving up their house in this country and going into a quarter in Malta; the husband was in a ship based there. In these days of mobility of the Armed Forces he is suddenly moved to the other end of the world, and the wife and family are no longer entitled to a quarter on that station and have to come back to this country. That not only thoroughly upsets her, but it thoroughly upsets the morale of the men in the Forces.
  Mr. C. Pannell: I will deal with that straight away. The Bill refers to quarters in this country. The sentiments expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are
  470
  unexceptionable, and we can agree with them, but they really ought not to be directed to me. They really must be directed to the appropriate Minister for the Navy or Army as the case may be.
  Captain Elliot: I am glad the Minister has cleared up that point, but, again, I do not think it destroys the substance of what I have said.
  Mr. Pannell: No.
  Captain Elliot: It seems to me that if this remains under different Ministers that is a complication which might well be looked at and considered.
  Mr. Richard Sharples: I think we want to be quite clear over this question. The Minister has responsibility for the construction of married quarters overseas as well, although not under the terms of this Bill. I think that must be corrected.
  Mr. Pannell: I do not think there is any doubt about it. Of course, in effect, the clients are the Services, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am very much in the position of a building contractor. It does seem to me that the message is for the Armed Forces. I will use all the influence I can to pass it on, but the message is at the moment being put in the wrong letter box.
  Captain Elliot: Perhaps this point has been laboured enough, but I think it has shown that there is something here which might create some difficulties.
  Naturally, we on this side of the House, welcome this increase in the sum of money by £45 million over three years. There is no argument about that, but again I would ask the Minister, as I am sure he will because he is like that, to fight for the necessary resources for the Services to have their houses. We all know that building resources are strained to the limit, and it is going to be a struggle, even if the money is there, to get houses up. He will have all my support, as far as I am concerned, as, I am sure, he will have that of my hon. Friends, to see that the Services get their share.
  My final point arises out of paragraph 4 of the White Paper. I feel that, rather ominously, these houses are only going

  471
  to be provided if they are approved by the Treasury. Paragraph 4 says:
  "Further, the sum which may be appropriated in aid of the new Vote must not, without further Parliamentary authority, in the course of any financial year, exceed the sum shown in the Estimate …'.
  I must confess that I am not particularly expert in this machinery, but can we take it that if we are not going to get a longer term than three years building will not be held up—as it often is in the Services working on an annual budget—because the Estimates for that year are running out? Or, if they can go faster, that we can then get more money? I think that is an important point, because everyone concerned with the Services and the annual budget is driven mad repeatedly by the delays caused by those annual budgets.
  With those remarks I welcome this Bill, and I wish it all speed, and I hope, too, for more money over a longer period of time.
  8.18 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I am very glad to be able to take part in this debate, and I am going to concentrate most of my remarks on the application of the Bill to the naval services. First, I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he is doing a great service by bringing forward this Bill tonight. The way in which this Bill is carded out will make the difference between heartbreak and happiness. It will bring a great deal of happiness to many people.
  I was worried about the change-over of this matter of housing to the Ministry of Public Building and Works from the Services themselves. I think that it is, perhaps, a little too early to judge the results of the transfer, but it does seem to me that the transfer to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, which has so many ramifications, was bound to cause some disquiet.
  Only the other day I happened to be in the Royal Marine Barracks, Stone-house, Devonport, and I really could not find out who was responsible for this or that. I have since put down a Question to him and I got some answer about the date of completion of the reconstruction. There were eight people in a room discussing plans. One seemed to come from Bristol, one from Plymouth, and so
  472
  on. I should like to be assured that there is proper co-operation in the question of dealing with this building.
  How is the programming done? Who decides whether so many houses will be built for the Navy, so many for the Army, and so many for the Royal Air Force? Do the Services state what they want done, and the numbers they require? Suppose, for example, there was an easy site for the Royal Air Force, and a more difficult one for the Navy, and it was possible to get on more quickly with the development of the R.A.F. site? Would it be possible to progress more quickly with the R.A.F. site so as to avoid having to stop building? As all three Services now come under the Ministry of Defence, there should be co-operation between the Services in programming.
  Is any consideration given to the type of house being built? Will the same type of house be built for the personnel of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Air Force in the United Kingdom? If so, will there be a possibility of interchange of houses between the Services? Sometimes an Army unit is moved overseas and the houses remain vacant for a considerable time, but they could be used to house naval personnel. Will the Services co-operate in the allocation of houses? Can the Minister say how many houses will be built in the next three years, for the Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force? I ask that because I presume that the number has been settled for the coming three years.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he will break down the cost of building a house and building a flat. In previous debates on the subject I discovered that the Plymouth local authority could build a house for at least £100 less than the Admiralty Works Department was doing it. If the Minister can break down the cost of a house and a flat, we can get some idea of which is the most economic unit to build—a house or a flat and if it costs less than under Admiralty works.
  I am delighted to see the hon. Lady in the Chamber. I am not a feminist, but in what I regard as a rather domestic subject it is an advantage to have a woman dealing with housing. I hope that as a result of her appointment we shall get better designs than we have had in

  473
  the past, particularly in regard to kitchens and other domestic accommodation. Many things could be improved by a slightly feminine touch, and these improvements would be of great advantage.
  I know that barracks do not really come into this discussion, but the hon. Lady said that she had visited women's Army barracks. I hope that if she has time to do so she will visit H.M.S. "Dauntlesss", the home of the W.R.N.S., because this could do with considerable modernising.
  I suggest that the Navy housing should be dealt with on a different basis from that of the Army and the Air Force. The provision of houses for naval personnel is fairly new in the history of the Navy. Paragraph 72 of the Grigg Report said:
  "To the married man serving in the ranks, it is of the utmost importance that he should be provided with a quarter or hiring when he is posted to a new station. If this is lacking, the probability is that he will have to be separated from his family, with disastrous effects on his willingness to re-engage."
  The question of re-engagement is particularly important for the Navy, because recruitment is lagging behind that in the other two Services, and we are coming up to an important year when many people will be considering re-engagement. At the moment there are not enough Navy houses to go round, and I am sure that there will not be enough in the next three years and it is very important that men should be encouraged to re-engage for the Navy.
  Paragraph 74 of the Grigg Report referred to a lot of old and damp buildings with a "D" for demolition. How is this demolition getting on? Does the Minister think that any of these houses can be repaired sufficiently to be useful for the present time until we get more accommodation? Can the Minister also tell us what is the anticipated life of the houses now under the control of his Ministry? He has told us the number he will be building in future, but I should like to know what replacements will be needed for those that are getting old and perhaps not worth repairing. This information is necessary in calculating future housing needs. We must know how many will go out of action each year, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this.
  474
  Is it possible under the provisions of the Bill for an individual to obtain a loan to build a house?
  Mr. C. Pannell: No.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Perhaps the money can be obtained under the Act which set up the housing corporations? Many Service personnel want to build their own homes.
  There is a great difference between naval housing and Army and Air Force housing. It is possible to put the Army and the Air Force on one estate, because usually the families move together. The Navy, however, is in a different position. In many cases naval husbands are away from some time and have to leave their wives and families behind.
  The plea I am making is not a new one. I have made this point before, and I should like it to be reconsidered.
  I dislike what I call cantonments of housing, particularly for the Navy, because on a Navy estate one cannot get any form of neighbourhood community. People move in and go out at different times. Mrs. Smith may in one house, and Mrs. Harris in the other. One comes in one month, and the other goes out. Wives need to live in a neighbourly community while their husbands are away. In other words, they need a neighbour whom they can contact and sometimes get to sit in with the children. As the wives are often separated from their husbands for long periods, they need this kind of neighbourly help.
  I have said before—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this—that we should provide certain local authorities, such as those of Plymouth and Portsmouth, with a certain sum of money and ask them to build houses for the Navy. They could do it more cheaply than is done by the Ministry, and naval personnel could be integrated in the existing housing estates. This would be of great advantage to the Navy.
  If the Parliamentary Secretary could come to my constituency I should be very pleased to show her the housing estate at St. Budeaux. As it is at the moment with people coming in and going fairly regularly there is no chance of creating tidy gardens, and one often sees the grass growing two or three feet high and it is most unsightly. There are no flowers, and very few trees. There is nobody to do the gardening. I hope that it will

  475
  be possible, therefore, for naval houses to have a type of small, perhaps paved, garden which does not need a lot of upkeep. There are plenty of such types. This would save a good deal of ground and it would be very advantageous to the appearance of the whole estate.
  Further, in order not only to save money but also to help individuals to feel more at home, I want to make a plea for the provision of unfurnished accommodation. Many of the young couples have their own furniture, and when they go into naval houses they have to have their furniture stored. When I raised this matter before I was told that this could not be done because a set pattern of furniture is provided and when it is moved marks are left on the wall. I suggest that since most families occupy these houses for approximately three years, when they leave the houses are due for some decoration—a brush of paint or some distemper. Therefore, it ought not to make any difference if they had different patterns of furniture. It would be more economical to these couples if they could use their own furniture, and it would make them feel more at home. I make this further plea for the provision of some unfurnished accommodation.
  I would also make one point about people who are employed in connection with the Services. This is a particularly difficult point in regard to the dockyard towns. The "Dockyard Mateys", as they are often called, are provided with accommodation, for example, in Singapore, or Gibraltar or wherever they may be overseas, but when they return to this country there is no accommodation for them and they are very seldom on any housing list. Just outside Plymouth there used to be an estate called Lee Mill Estate, but it has recently been taken over by the Plympton authorities. At the moment, people who come back from abroad, having had accommodation provided there, and then go to work in the dockyards in Plymouth, Chatham or Portsmouth, have no accommodation whatsoever. Many of them have young children, and this presents a tremendous problem for them.
  The main difficulty with the naval housing nowadays arises from the system of centralised drafting. Before this system was introduced the drafting
  476
  was done from Plymouth, Portsmouth, Chatham or Rosyth, but now it is all done centrally from Whitehall and the personnel are "nobody's children" on the housing lists. This means that the difficulties in the Navy are even greater than they are in the Army or the Royal Air Force.
  Consideration should be given by the right hon. Gentleman to speeding up the building of houses for naval personnel, for this reason alone. Will he consider giving priority to this question, as it is one of the great worries in the Navy? When we think of a large ship like H.M.S. "Eagle" we find that a great deal of time is spent by officers in dealing with family affairs. It must be remembered that these ships carry nearly 3,000 people: they are like small villages or even towns. One of the main worries of the sailors is about their families and about their housing conditions, and if something could be done for them it would be a great advantage.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department deals with hirings. Is his Department responsible for repairing hirings or seeing that they are in order?
  Mr. C. Pannell: Not under this Bill.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Hirings do not come under the Bill. I shall have to find out about them in some other way.
  Mr. Pannell: My Department is concerned, but not under the Bill. If the hon. Lady writes to me about it she will get an answer, but I have to bear in mind many points which have been raised during this debate and which I shall have to answer at the end. That is why I make the point that this matter does not come under the Bill.
  Dame Joan Vickers: This is an important point, and I shall certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope to receive a reply which will enlighten me about the position.
  I hope that I have said enough to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman will consider my points, and I particularly hope that I have been able to persuade him to appreciate the fact that there ought to be a different type of layout of buildings for the Royal Navy. I would once more remind him

  477
  that recruiting for the Royal Navy is worse than it is for the other Services, and I hope that he will see that the Royal Navy receives an adequate share of the allocations that are to be made in the future.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Perry: I welcome the Bill because I think that it will be a contribution to the housing situation for all in this country. While it only deals with Service men, for every Service man for whom accommodation is provided or is improved the civilian problem is helped considerably.
  When I see that the Bill will introduce these proposals, I consider it to be a contribution which we have all been waiting for, particularly when considering that the human problems of Service men are far worse than those of civilians. If the civilian and his family live in poor conditions, they can sometimes stomach it for quite a long time, but when the Service man, separated from his family, knows that his family is living in poor conditions, it does not help his discipline, good conduct and all the other things which make up an efficient Service man.
  I welcome the Bill because I think that it is a good contribution, both from the point of view of the Service men and from that of civilians. I thought that it was ungracious of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) to suggest that we had only introduced the Bill as a delaying tactic, while we were framing other legislation. I am quite sure that the Government Front Bench have had this idea in their minds ever since they have been in office. I am convinced that they have the interests of the Service men and the civilians at heart when it comes to housing problems. I am quite sure that everyone in this House wants to treat this as a non-party matter, because it is important that our Service men should have security of housing in their minds. The more we can do in this respect, the better it will be for the Services and the country.
  The right hon. Member for Harrogate suggested that the Bill does not go far enough, and I am inclined to agree with him. However, let us be quite
  478
  clear about the fact that in the next three years twice as much accommodation will be provided as was provided in the last three years. I think that that is a considerable advance upon what has already been done. I am glad that there is a departure from the established procedure of this matter being treated on the Defence Estimates. The question of housing for Service men should be apart from Defence Estimates. As has been said, it should not be taken in competition with tanks or ships. Service men have a right to housing apart from the Defence Estimates. I welcome this change of procedure. In providing this for Service men, we are also doing civil life a good turn, because we are providing them with housing.
  Mr. Sharples: I think it should be pointed out that this is not a change in procedure. This is an extension of legislation which has gone on for many years.
  Mr. Perry: I thank the hon. Member, and I stand corrected. If it is not a change in procedure and has been going on for so many years, I am glad to hear it. I am glad that it is a procedure which will be continued.
  In the London area there are many flats which are let out to Service personnel on a hiring basis at considerable rents of four, five, six, seven or eight guineas a week. If we can continue building more flats and houses for Servicemen, by an extension of the Bill, we shall be able, in the long run, to see that more flats and houses are allocated to civilians from that source of supply, instead of going to Service personnel. I am very glad to welcome the introduction of industrialised building, because I think that with that kind of production we can have a much more speedy process of erection of flats and houses, as has been proved in many localities in London.
  I am not trying to introduce a political note on this, but the right hon. Member for Harrogate said that we came in on a very easy wicket. I consider that when we came into Government the wicket was not very easy. It was a bit sticky. We are having to play some very funny balls because of the state of the wicket. I suggest that the Bill will go a long way towards solving the

  479
  housing problems for Service men and civilians.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I wish to welcome the Bill. Anyone who has had experience of the working of this housing legislation will agree that the success of the 1949 Act was perhaps among the greatest of the Measures introduced by an earlier Labour Government. Hon. Members on this side of the House were somewhat mystified when, on 9th November, the Minister—he is not present in the Chamber at the moment—said that this legislation might not be renewed. We were alarmed by that statement.
  The Minister said that the provision of housing would go on by a different method and those who are aware of the problems could not understand what method would be proposed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will provide an explanation when he winds up the debate.
  The principle of loans for the Services is not new. It was in use a long time before 1949. The dockyard at Gibraltar—a place very much in the news at present—was built under a loan, something which may not he generally remembered by hon. Members. I think it a good thing that a project which competes with the day-to-day needs of the Services should be put on a loan basis. There is a case for extending loans in certain circumstances and certainly, when applied to housing, I think it a very useful idea.
  I wish to know why the Measure is up to be renewed only for three years. Reference has been made to the fact that it is sometimes difficult to fit a Measure of this kind into the Government's legislative programme. That has happened in the past. When we are going to all the trouble of providing a new Act it seems a pity that it should not extend for more than three years. Surely it would be the intention of this or any other Government to continue with this procedure for a good deal longer than three years, but at the end of that time another Measure will be competing for a place in the Government's legislative programme and difficulty may arise.
  We come to the question why a figure of £45 million has been fixed. From a
  480
  recent Parliamentary Answer we know that no less than £90 million has been spent under this legislation, and almost exactly the same figure is outstanding as a debt from the various Service Departments to the Treasury on account of it. According to the figure I was given the other day, 31,750 quarters have been built. I was a little surprised when the Parliamentary Secretary used a different figure of 33,000, which did not seem to correspond with the figure given in that Answer. No doubt there is a technical reason for that.
  The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the theory that when married quarters are no longer required by the Services they will be taken over by local authorities. By now I suppose that a number of such cases have occurred. I can recall that in earlier cases it was sometimes difficult to persuade a local authority to take over the quarters when they were no longer required by the Services. I hope that we shall be given an assurance about this procedure. I imagine that it is a voluntary act on the part of the local authority concerned.
  We are also aware from Parliamentary Answers that by 31st March only £2·8 million of the money previously voted under the legislation would be left. There is no doubt that there was urgent need to provide more money, either by loan or in some other way. When one realises that there are no fewer than 40,000 hirings in force in this country today one sees that there is a case for us to increase the number of houses to 40,000 more, at a cost of £135 million. Thus, it is a pity that the amount has been fixed at £45 million over three years, for we could have looked much further ahead. I may be wrong about this and perhaps there is a technical reason why that could not be done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) made a number of good points in an extremely interesting speech. She pointed to the difficulty of siting because, even when one finds an adequate site, it is not always desirable to build a block of, say, 1,000 married quarters all in the one place. This form of building is not always best liked by the Service people themselves. In fact, some of them do not like living in married quarters at all. This particularly applies to officers,

  481
  many of whom would rather find their own accommodation. The siting of married quarters is a different problem to the siting of council houses and I hope that the Ministry will continue to give careful thought to this problem.
  I turn to the question of the amount of work which remains to be done for the Royal Navy, which is very much behind the other Services in the number of married quarters at its disposal. I understard that there are 8,500 married quarters for the Royal Navy in this country within the terms of this Measure and that there are 4,500 hirings still kept. This shows that there is room for a great many more married quarters to be built for the Royal Navy.
  The Parliamentary Secretary made great play of the fact that 5,000 quarters would be built each year; 5,000 next year, and more after that. If I have done my arithmetic correctly, I gather from the 1964 Statement on Defence that building is already running at the rate of about 4,300 so that there would appear to be an increase of 700, which is not as startling an increase as one might at first imagine.
  I come to the whole question of the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Building and Works for the various works projects of the Services. I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that there is nothing personal meant in what I am about to say. When the Conservative Government had this idea of putting the works of the Services under the Ministry of Public Building and Works I was opposed to it. I still am, although if the Ministry does well enough in its tasks it may be able to convert me. I see the advantages of having a common design for building for the Services, but much of the day to day work of the Ministry is different from that of the Services.
  Under the old scheme each of the Services' Works Departments had separate requirements. Just one example is that the Navy Works Department insisted that men had to be able to dive; to go down beneath the water to examine jetties, and so on. A great deal of the work of the R.A.F. and the Navy is in the constructing of airfields. I do not know whether the Ministry of Public Building and Works builds airfields for the Ministry of Aviation and whether the former
  482
  has any experience of doing this work. The construction of runways for modern aircraft is a very specialist business.
  It is difficult to provide adequate and suitable married quarters and other personnel accommodation for the Services unless one lives in close proximity with Service people. I suppose that that could be overcome to a certain extent by insisting that officers of the Ministry live close to Service people, meeting Service men and members of their families each day so that they know more about their problems.
  I see in this arrangement a very great difficulty. If my memory serves me aright, this arrangement was entered into before we had the new co-ordinated plan for the Ministry of Defence. Now that we have that plan, I think that the Works Department belongs there. The Services Lands Branch, which used to go in with the Works Department, has been kept by the Services—I believe that it is now under the War Office—but I have the greatest doubts whether this is the right course.
  I believe that the Works Department should go back to the new co-ordinated Ministry of Defence, but, in saying that, I do not wish in any way to detract from the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that they will put a lot of enthusiasm into this tremendous task of finding married quarters for the Services, putting them in the right place, building them to the right design, and remembering the difference in taste there is between one Service family and another.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Anyone looking at the Title of this Bill for the first time might think that its purpose was to lend money to the Armed Forces to enable them to build their own houses, but we know that that is not so. We only wish that the Services had a greater opportunity so to do.
  This Measure, which follows the pattern of what has happened in the past, gives the Minister of Public Building and Works an excellent opportunity to plan ahead, and to use the resources of his Ministry to the best of his ability. In this connection he has described himself, quite rightly, as a builder. He should not be ashamed to describe himself in

  483
  that way—I am sure that he is not—because it gives the Department the opportunity to carry out new and interesting experiments in building since, although the Department is the builder, it is virtually the builder-owner-client.
  The Ministry has to satisfy the needs of the Services. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has drawn attention to the different requirements of the three Services, and I will not go into details on the various occupations under this heading, because to do so would bore the House and would also be outside the scope of the Bill. It would, however, be most helpful to us if the Minister would indicate how the new ideas of his Department were operating.
  The hon. Lady mentioned that there are 2,000 industrially-built houses for the Armed Services in the programme, but I recall that that was announced last May—over nine months ago. The gestation period is well past. Has any progress been made?
  I should like some detailed information about interest rates. I am always suspicious of anything in a Bill that refers to a special rate of interest, particularly when the Bill is brought in by the present Government, which have confused us immensely over interest rates. What does subsection (4) of Clause 2 mean? Is it tied to the Public Works Loan Board, and why is there this special reference to the rate of interest? Does this Clause apply when the extended period mentioned in the Bill expires?
  I have two points to make in relation to occupation and maintenance. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) spoke at some length about construction problems at Aldershot. I know that the Minister has adequate answers in this connection. I will not trespass on his prerogative of giving them. I am sure that he is sufficiently au fait with the situation to know that the buildings which collapsed were in an experimental stage and that the contractor on his own initiative undertook to pull them down entirely at his own cost. It would be wrong for any reflection to be made on the contractor concerned. In case anybody should think that I had an interest, I will say that it is not my own
  484
  company which did it, so I am free from either praise or blame on this score.
  It is important that this money should be used by the Ministry to experiment on new forms of construction, because the Ministry has these opportunities to do so. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that the siting of the accommodation is important. There are many examples of Army units which have been moved. It is vital that local authorities can take these houses over for their own use. I have in my own constituency of Folkestone and Hythe a great interest in Army buildings—Shorncliffe Camp, the School of Infantry and Lydd Camp. We are concerned about three things with regard to Army housing. One is that the War Office has large areas which are in normal housing developments. I should like to feel that this land could be guaranteed for local planning authorities so that it is used to the best advantage.
  We have a second problem in relation to the number of soldiers who are stationed there with their wives and then reach retirement age. It is always a problem for the local authority housing committee to know what priority to give to these men. I should have liked the Bill to provide opportunities for the soldiers, or indeed for members of any of the Services, to have some right to purchase the houses—their homes. It would be much more satisfactory if they could take them over. I know that it is not directly the responsibility of the Minister of Public Building and Works, but I am sure that forward planning here would be of great value.
  There is no reference in the Bill to other services. Could we have some clarification as to whether under this loan the Minister is allowed to build amenities for the stations? Houses are no good without the other necessary amenities.
  Mr. C. Pannell: What amenities?
  Mr. Costain: I am thinking of swimming pools and schools, for example.
  Mr. Pannell: No.
  Mr. Costain: I thank the Minister for his prompt reply, although it was a negative one. Perhaps he would tell us how those are dealt with, because they are essential amenities.

  485
  This is a Bill which we should welcime. We should realise that it is an extension of what has already been done. I cannot accept the statement made by the hon. Member who came in, made his speech and went out again, that this shows a big increase on the production—
  Mr. C. Pannell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite on the wicket when he reproves my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) for coming in, making a speech and going out. My hon. Friend is not the only one, is he?
  Mr. Costain: I do not wish to make a political point. Unfortunately, I do not know the hon. Member's constituency. I could snot point to him: he was not there. That was the only way in which I could refer to him. I was not making any reference to the fact that he was not in the House. The Minister must not be so touchy. How else could I refer to a new hon. Member whom I did not know? He sat in the corner and went out. How could I refer to him otherwise? We all have to leave for many reasons.
  I say no more about that, but I did wish to refer to the hon. Gentleman on one point. I am sorry that he is not here now because I do not like criticising someone when he is not present, but where does the hon. Gentleman get the story that there will be a big increase of Service housing under the Bill? I hope the Minister will explain how we shall get the increased number of houses which his hon. Friend has been led to believe there will be.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: My curiosity was aroused at the beginning of the debate about why we should have this Bill now, and, although he seemed to react rather sharply to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), the right hon. Gentleman did not adequately clear the matter up. On 9th November, one of my hon. Friends asked when we were to have an Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman answered that the matter was being considered and he was not yet ready to make a statement. So far so good. But, obviously, he was not seized with enthusiasm by the thought of being able to introduce a Bill. He was taking a long cool look at it.
  486
  Then I read that in another place my noble Friend, Earl Jellicoe, asked the Minister there what he proposed to do about it, and Lord Mitchison replied that he did not know either and that he was by no means convinced that a housing loans Bill was the best way to deal with the matter. Is it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government that this is not the best way of doing it? Is that why it has taken so long, and, if it is not the best way of doing it, what is? Everyone knows from a long and happy acquaintance with the noble Lord that Lord Mitchison knows what he is talking about on housing matters and he is a very hard working gentleman. If he says that this Bill is not the best way of doing it, this is something of which the Government should take notice and about which we should inquire. Why is the noble Lord so bothered that this is not a good Bill? I suppose that he will be responsible for introducing it in the other House. If the right hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity of meeting Lord Mitchison recently—I do not blame him if he has not because there are so many Members of the Government that, obviously, he cannot keep up with them all—the noble Lord will have to explain how it comes about that the Bill is a bad Bill, but, nevertheless, he must introduce it.
  What is wrong with the Bill? Is it too expensive for the country to afford? Will it provide houses too slowly or, perhaps, too quickly? In what form would the right hon. Gentleman have preferred to bring it to the House on this first occasion when he proposes to deal with how the Forces should be housed in the future? Perhaps the reason for the delay is simply that the right hon. Gentleman needed time to acquaint himself with the details of the matter. No one will blame him for that. His very great knowledge of building has so far been exhibited in his great knowledge, much to the profit of this House, of the building in which we are now. He knows everything about the Palace of Westminster. For anyone wanting to know about the drains or the superstructure here, the right hon. Gentleman is the acknowledged expert, and we always ask him. It must have been quite a chore to work out exactly what to do for Forces housing.

  487
  The right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying—he was quite pleased himself to disclaim any right to it—that he has not a seat in the Cabinet, as his predecessor had.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. I hope that he will come to the Bill.
  Mr. Kershaw: If I may say so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I believe that this is relevant because we must assess the importance of the Bill and the timing of its arrival in the House, since the need is so great, and we must inquire about the delay. In all these matters, a Minister has the opportunity, in the Cabinet or outside, to press for what he wants. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not in the Cabinet militates against his being able to produce a Bill quickly, and it may have contributed—I ask whether this is so—to the delay over this Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman reads Hook in the Daily Mail; he may have seen it this morning. I think that up to now the right hon. Gentleman has known more about the corridors of this House than power.
  The hon. Lady has told us the total number of houses that we hope to get by the Bill. I wonder what the annual rate is likely to be. I may have missed this, and I apologise if I did. It is of importance. We know there is a Backlog—
  Miss Jennie Lee: The annual rate will be as close to 5,000 as possible.
  Mr. Kershaw: I am much obliged. If it had been possible to increase the rate to start with and tail off towards the end, it would have been very acceptable. I realise that there could have been administrative difficulties about that. Nevertheless, the need is now, and the sooner we could increase the pace, if increasing the pace is the question, the better it would have been.
  This also raises a question which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will consider—that if there is any substantial redeployment of the Forcees back to this country during this period, we have no flexibility provided by the Bill. I do not make any complaint against the right hon. Gentleman for that, for, obviously, it will not be his decision that troops
  488
  should pour back to this country. The rate of house-building obviously cannot keep pace with a large number of troops suddenly coming back. That is why I say that it would have been a great advantage if it had been possible to increase the rate now and tail off towards the end, although the total would have been the same at the end. After all, there are proposals that very large forces should be brought back to this country, and I hope that when the proposal is made the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell his colleagues that, apart from any military, strategic or political considerations, the problem of housing the families would be insuperable and would be a very large bar to the return of large numbers of troops now stationed on the Continent, such as his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) is constantly advocating.
  I should also like to know what is meant by "appropriate rate" in Clause 1(4), which states:
  "The rate of interest required to be paid under the said section 1(3) shall be such as the Treasury may determine instead of the appropriate rate as therein defined."
  That seems to argue that the Treasury will propose an inappropriate rate. In view of who is in charge of the Treasury today, that does not seem at all surprising. Perhaps Mr. Three Per Cent. will have some propositions to make about the rate.
  Mr. C. Pannell: The phraseology in this Bill with regard to the rate of interest is just the same as the phraseology in all the Measures of the previous Administration. Therefore, this imputation merely betokens a degree of ignorance on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and hardly deserves an answer.
  Mr. Kershaw: I merely wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman himself understood this. Perhaps he will be good enough to give an explanation when he speaks. We have had a certain amount of argy-bargy about rates of interest. The question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) about the longterm effect after three years of the rate, whatever it might be, which had been charged from time to time was one of technical importance and certainly ought to be answered in the House.

  489
  I should also like to know whether in considering housing for the Forces the right hon. Gentleman takes into consideration the terms of the Protection from Eviction Act. There are many occasions when units go abroad, and then those concerned let their houses furnished for a year or so, knowing that they will shortly return. It would, of course, be very unfair and quite an impost upon the families concerned if they were not able to rent their houses without knowing whether they could get back into them if they were posted home.
  As I understand the Protection from Eviction Act, it may well be that a court order would be necessary. It would take about three months if such unpleasantness had to be undergone and, therefore, families posted home suddenly might well find that they could not get back into their own homes. For that reason, they will be reluctant to let them and anything that the right hon. Gentleman can say to clarify the situation will be welcome.
  A factory in my constituency made prefabricated housing. I am sorry to say that, three or four years ago, it closed down because it could not get the big cities of the West, with the exception of Swansea, to interest themselves in industrial housing and the firm decided that it could do all its work from a factory in the Home Counties. However, it now smells more success on the horizon and is to reopen Reema Factory at Tetbury in my constituency, which will be within the reach of many military establishments in the West. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to improve upon the figure of 2,000 industrialised houses, which are admittedly not very appropriate for the Cotswolds but are very appropriate elsewhere.
  It has been said that housing is more necessary for the Forces than ever before. We welcome the fact that recruiting is going well. We must deal with the possibility that more of the Forces overseas will come home and that there may be a larger home strategic reserve than before. Thus, the provision of housing is absolutely essential if recruiting is to continue at a high level.
  I am not trying to "knock" the Bill, but I feel, with the best will in the world, that it does not see far enough
  490
  into the future. It is to run for only three years. It will actually reduce the amount of money we thought was to be made available for housing. On the face of it, it is an interim Measure which will not alleviate the housing problems of the Forces.
  I do not suppose that any Bill that the right hon. Gentleman could bring in could immediately alleviate those problems, but this Bill does not look beyond three years and at the end of that time I think that we shall find the housing situation of the Forces much the same as it is today. Any further prospects for the future about which he can tell us will be very welcome.
  9.13 p.m.
  Sir Richard Glyn: I am a little concerned, as are most hon. Members, to see that the Bill—and I should welcome a correction—appears to be reducing the amount of money available for the very important purpose of helping to provide married accommodation for the Services. I am sure that the Government would not wish to give the impression that they are effecting economies, however necessary, at the expense of the married Service men.
  It would appear, however, that this is the interpretation to be derived from the Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has pointed out, is an interim Bill, to run for three years. It gives the unfortunate impression of being designed to effect economies at the expense of a class or group of our fellow citizens who are least well placed to bear them.
  Miss Jennie Lee: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was present when I gave the figures. They showed that the highest expenditure in any one previous year was about £10 million, while it was £12,500,000 for the current year and was to rise to £16 million and £18 million. I not only gave the actual amount of money being provided but the number of houses to be built. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, far from economising, while we may not talk about never having had it so good, or opulence, even with the financial period which we have inherited, very much better financial provision will have been made.
  Sir Richard Glyn: If more money is to be available, I am very surprised that the hon. Lady did not feel it right to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who was obviously under the same apprehension, misapprehension or not, as I am. On the face of it, the Bill seems to be making things less good rather than better. If more money is actually to be spent—the words are "made available" and they could mean anything—on Service housing, I shall be the first to rejoice in this knowledge. We shall have to wait and see what happens.
  Those hon. Members with practical knowledge of the position have in mind that if the policies so often advocated by Labour Members are implemented and large numbers of troops from any of the three Services are brought back to this country, there will be nowhere where they and their families can be accommodated. This is a serious problem which must be faced by the Government whose supporters are constantly advocating such a course of action. It is an attractive proposition in many ways, but we are sadly deficient in married quarters and other accommodation for married Service men in this country, and we are not over well equipped in any other part of the world.
  I hope that the Minister will make clear what target of Service married quarters and other married accommodation he is aiming at within these three years. I am delighted to be told if more money is to be made available, but we ought to know what figure the Government think appropriate for the Services which total about 400,000 men of whom an ever-increasing proportion will be married. The married element of the three Services is as entitled to proper accommodation and other facilities for its families as any other section of the public.
  What is being done? The Ministry of Public Building and Works now has this responsibility and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed great hopes about what the Ministry will be able to achieve at home and abroad. Nobody wishes to suggest that the Ministry will fail in the great task before it, but we want to know how the Ministry proposes to set about discharging the obligation which now lies upon it. There is no doubt that more than one-third
  492
  of all Service men are married and I greatly question whether the total of available married accommodation, married quarters and hirings, at home and abroad reaches 130,000. There can be no doubt that even if the total is 130,000, that figure will be inappropriate in a year or two. The House is entitled to know what the Ministry proposes to do to help in this regard.
  The Bill is, I suppose, a step in the right direction, but it seems to many of us that it is an ineffectual and insufficient step. There will be some dissatisfaction and, not alarm and despondency, but regret about the wording of subsection (4) of Clause 1, in particular, which says:
  "The rate of interest required to be paid under the said section 1(3) shall be such as the Treasury may determine instead of the appropriate rate as therein defined."
  This wording may be perfectly proper, appropriate and suitable. The Minister said that it had been used in previous Acts by previous Administrations. But they were not Administrations which had gone some way towards forfeiting public confidence concerning low rates of mortgage interest which practical considerations have shown to be unfounded and unjustified.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Wait and see.
  Sir Richard Glyn: The hon. Member, speaking from a sitting position, says, "Wait and see". I will give way to him immediately if he wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a short-term policy of the Government. What I am saying to him is that he should wait for the development of the full policy and then make his criticisms.
  Sir Richard Glyn: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Nothing would give me personally or my hon. Friends greater pleasure than to see more favourable conditions arise for members of the Services. Speaking personally—and I think that I am not without support—as far as the public and myself are able to judge, the situation is tending to get worse rather than better. If there comes a time when the Government are able to astonish us by the beneficence of their administration of the Bill, it will

  493
  be greatly welcomed by my hon. Friends and myself, and, indeed, by everyone concerned with Service matters.
  Sir E. Errington: Does my hon. Friend understand subsection (4) to permit a subsidised rate of interest? It is important that we should know whether the Government have in mind subsidising the rate of interest.
  Sir Richard Glyn: I am much obliged. I take the view that, unless the Government subsidise the rate of interest very substantially, it will be altogether beyond the means of the average Service family. The question whether the Minister is able to help us on this point or whether he has been able to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to get permission to subsidise the rate of interest to a marked extent is important. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will let us know the answer. However, if he cannot do that, it seems to me that the current commercial rate of interest, which has been raised to such an alarming height by the Government, is likely to put the benefits which may stem from the Bill outside the means of the average Service family. This is most unfortunate.
  I wish to sound a most definite note of dissatisfaction with the way in which the Bill has been presented, and I very much hope that the doubts which I have expressed will be allayed by the Minister. I hope that he will make it perfectly clear that the Government will do what I think everyone concerned thinks is right and proper and will ensure that, in spite of the wide power which they have reserved in subsection (4), the rate of interest to be paid is within the means of the Service personnel or that a substantial subsidy is made available so that the married quarter accommodation which is needed for all the Services is provided.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Sharples: I should like, first, to congratulate the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary on the clarity with which she moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I can only say, as one who held the position which the hon. Lady now holds until I was overtaken by events in October, that I hope she will
  494
  find her time at the Ministry as enjoyable and as interesting as I did.
  We on this side welcome the Bill as far as it goes. We have a number of questions to ask about it, and they have been put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but, in general, we welcome the fact that the Bill has been introduced by the Government. My first question to the Minister, which has been put to him by hon. Members on both sides, is why is the Bill intended to last for only three years whereas previous Acts have continued for a minimum of five years?
  The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, whom we are glad to see in his place, said in answer to a Question on 8th February that there was need for 40,000 additional married quarters and this figure was confirmed this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy went rather further and in his reply to the Question said that an additional 4,500 quarters in the United Kingdom were substandard. In the period covered by the Bill, the hon. Lady has told us that a total of only 15,000 married quarters are to be provided, leaving a gap of 25,000.
  In criticism, perhaps, of the hon. Lady, I would say that she was somewhat ungenerous in her opening remarks about the work which was done by her right hon. Friend's predecessor, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, when he held the post of Minister of Public Building and Works, to bring about a solution of the married quarters programme. The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy was much more realistic than the hon. Lady, because he said in the debate on 14th December:
  "One of the follies of being polemical in these matters is that inevitably we have to take into account the ideas and started projects of our predecessors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 154.]
  Miss Jennie Lee: Did the hon. Gentleman consider it ungenerous or inaccurate of me to have pointed out that in the last three years of his Administration fewer than 10,000 houses were built and that in the three years on which we are now embarking the programme is for 15,000?
  Mr. Sharpies: Since the time when responsibility was transferred to the Minister of Public Building and Works, I am sure that the hon. Lady will have noted the steadily increasing programme of married quarters that were being built. It is true to say that every married quarter in the programme announced by the hon. Lady this afternoon up to at least 1966–67 was already in the pipeline when the present Administration took office.
  Taking the figures which were given by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a Question, the programme of the previous Government provided for the completion of 3,750 houses in the present financial year; next year the completions, again under the programme provided by the previous Government, were to be 4,500; and the year after that 5,400. Yet in 1967–68, that is, the final year of the period covered by the Bill, and the first year when the present Government can have any influence upon the number of completions, there is to be a drop of 300 in those numbers.
  I want to turn for a moment to the question of cost. I again refer to a reply which was given by the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, who told us that the total cost of providing the number of married quarters required is in the region of £135 million at current prices. Yet this Bill provides over a three-year period for only £45 million, and, even allowing for the £28 million remaining under previous Acts, this will leave a gap of about £87 million at current prices before the married quarters programme can be completed.
  The House would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman this evening how it is intended that the remainder of this programme is to be financed. The Bill only finances about one year's building over and above what has already been agreed in principle. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of a rolling programme three years ahead. It is difficult for the House to see how the Bill, which comes into operation on 31st March this year, is to provide for a rolling programme three years ahead at any time after 31st March.
  One effect of the Bill is to transfer responsibility for the administration of the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts to
  496
  the Minister of Public Building and Works. One reason, of course, for the transfer of responsibility for Service building to this Ministry was that responsibility for the co-ordination of research and development into modem methods of building should be concentrated in one Ministry. To do this, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was essential that the Ministry of Public Building and Works should have a sufficiently large building programme to be able to place development contracts, particularly for housing through the Services married quarters programme. I think that the hon. Lady, once again, was a little ungenerous in referring to the special arrangements which were being made inside the Ministry for the organisation of research and development in housing. The whole of that organisation was set up, as I understand, under the previous Administration. If there have been any changes or any improvements or any developments since the right hon. Gentleman took office, then the House, I am sure, would like to hear about them.
  I think that the Minister, too, should use this opportunity of telling the House what progress has been made in the placing of development contracts for Service housing since he came into office. The hon. Lady spoke of 2,000 houses being built by industrialised methods. This fact was announced in a Press notice on 19th May, 1964, by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
  Since the right hon. Gentleman came into office, has there been any addition to the number of houses being built under development contracts? I think that I am right in saying that the figure given by the hon. Lady was a slight underestimate, because in addition to the 2,000 houses being built under the programme to which she referred, 370 houses are being built under the 5M scheme at Catterick. The House would like to know whether any further development contracts have been placed, because the hon. Lady appeared to take some credit for the placing of these contracts which were in fact placed before she assumed responsibility for this matter.
  The House would like to know, too, what progress has been made—these are the houses being built under the terms of previous Acts of this kind—with the scheme for 1,000 married quarters to be

  497
  built by factory methods for the Royal Navy at Gosport. Is that scheme going ahead? Has work actually started on the ground?
  What thought is better given to the construction of isolated married quarters by methods of prefabrication? I was interested in this matter when I was at the Ministry, and I found some reluctance in the Service Departments to accept prefabricated houses, particularly where senior officers were concerned. What consideration is the Minister giving to this aspect of the matter?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and others referred to the effect of the Protection from Eviction Act on the demand for married quarters. I am certain that one effect of this Act will be to reduce the number of hirings. I am sure that it will reduce the number of people offering their houses as furnished accommodation for Service families.
  Another effect will almost certainly be that those Service personnel who own houses arid who normally let them while they are serving abroad will find it more difficult to regain possession, and as a result of this Act there will be an onus on the Government to increase the married quarters programme.
  En an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the Minister said that the provision of interest rates was the same as in previous Acts. The previous Acts refer to the "appropriate rate". I think that the right hon. Gentleman will probably wish to check on that.
  Mr. C. Pannell: I have done so.
  Mr. Sharples: As I said at the beginning of my speech, we welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward this Bill at all, but we wish that it went a great deal further than it does. We believe that it provides for too short a period—three years—to enable a continuing programme to be developed. We believe that it is too limited in scope to provide an adequate development programme on which the success of the nation's housing programme must depend to a large extent. We believe that it fails to lake into account the changed situation resulting from the introduction of the Protection from Eviction Act.
  498
  We welcome the Bill, but there are a great many questions to which we shall require answers either tonight or during the Committee stage.
  9.40 p.m.
  The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): Just to deal with the last point, I would like to point out that although those may be the side effects, the mere fact that in respect of Service tenancies the Crown is no longer relying upon its own position in evicting people will surely give large numbers of Service men a protection that they have never had before.
  Listening to the debate tonight one would never have thought that this Government took office only on 15th October last. Every complaint that has been put tonight arises from an inquest on the administration of our predecessors. All the things that we are now examining arose from what happened under the previous Administration.
  Sir Richard Glynv rose—
  Mr. Pannell: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member came in late and made a speech in which he went over many points which had already been made by other Members. I do not intend to give way to him. I thought that his speech was peculiarly inept and that he could not have listened to the speech made by my hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate.
  Sir E. Errington rose—
  Mr. Pannell: I cannot give way.
  Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Must this debate come to an end at ten o'clock, or can we go on all night?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I understand that it was arranged that the debate should end at ten o'clock.
  Mr. Ramsden: I understood that since the Bill originated in Committee of Ways and Means it was exempted business. We do not want to extend the proceedings, but it should be made clear that the right hon. Gentleman has ample time in which to reply.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is so. It is exempted business, and it can continue beyond ten o'clock.
  Mr. Pannell: I was not disputing that. I was referring to the fact that there were the usual gentlemanly exchanges between the Front Benches, in which the hon. Member gave me the time at which he intended to rise and the time at which he intended to sit down. I know that it is exempted business.
  Sir E. Errington rose—
  Mr. Pannell: No. I think that since I have sat here all the time I am entitled not to be interrupted so early in my speech. Many things have been said, almost reaching contempt for the Chair, in connection with "phoney" points of order.
  Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister who blusters at the Box to say that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have been dealing with a "phoney" point of order? You gave a Ruling in a perfectly proper way.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. I was not in the Chair at the time, and did not hear it. I cannot give any Ruling on it.
  Mr. Pannell: I am referring to the advice given not under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but in a previous debate, when Mr. Deputy-Speaker on four occasions had to rebuke hon. Members opposite for interrupting speeches by putting points of order which he suggested were not points of order. I was saying that I am entitled to be allowed to get on with my speech.
  Behind the Bill lies the question of the way in which we treat our Service men. Are we going to treat them as citizens? One thing that I have always admired about the United States is the terrific status enjoyed by the veterans. Generally speaking, any man who has put his body between his country and the enemy is entitled to rather better treatment than others, and not to worse treatment.
  If we consider the conditions in some of the barracks that our Service men have had to live in—whether they he the naval barracks referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) or the Knightsbridge Barracks—we realise that they are a reproach to this country. As regards the last 13 years at least, it can be said
  500
  in simple justice that this Government had nothing to do with the situation. So we are to a degree having an inquest on what has happened before.
  At least, let us all agree upon this, that on both sides of the House we should try to do better in the future than has been done in the past. I went the other week to see the Invicta Barracks, at Maidstone, and I thought that they were probably among the best barracks in the world. I probably live nearer to Woolwich than any other Member of the House who is here tonight and I know the position there.
  On the question of the Bill coming in earlier, it should have been noticed that there was plenty of time for me to make up my mind, because the operative date is 31st March, and, therefore, it was a matter of bringing in the Bill in good time. I answered a Question on the first day on which I ever answered Questions at all and the Answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was:
  "I am considering whether the Act should be renewed."
  I should have thought it reasonable that when any Minister came into a Department he should see whether the thing had to be financed this way or in another way. No Minister, especially in the present parliamentary situation, would lightly embark on legislation. I proceeded with a reasonable caution. It was not a matter of great urgency. There were other more urgent things on my plate when I arrived at the Ministry.
  When I was asked again to give an assurance that the present considerable rate of building of married quarters would not be reduced, I said:
  "That does not enter into the matter at all."
  I was considering whether there were other methods of financing this if we had wanted to use them. I explained this myself when I said:
  "No, what we are considering here, as the hon. Member for Beckenham knows, is whether we shall proceed under legislation or by a different method. But, whatever happens I can give the hon. Member the full assurance that there will be no diminution, whichever way we run it, in the building of married quarters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 648–9.]
  That was the pledge at the beginning and I think that it is achieved as much under one system as the other. This is largely

  501
  a matter for the accountants. This Bill concerns three Ministries. Though I bring the Bill forward, I am the contractor. The client is the Ministry of Defence and the financing Ministry is the Treasury. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), with his experience of the War Office, would know full well that these are matters which have to be gone into by a new Administration.
  I want to define the terms of the Bill. There was a great deal of misunderstanding in the debate about its scope and about what it does. It provides quarters—
  Sir E. Errington: Married quarters.
  Mr. Pannell: —almost entirely for Service personnel. The exceptions are such people as Army Department constabulary, who are civilians. In the main, it is Service personnel whom we are talking about.
  Sir E. Errington rose—
  Mr. Pannell: I think that, when there has been so much misunderstanding on this business, I must proceed in my own way. We had a long series of speeches, many of them from the other side of the House, so I shall be—
  Sir E. Errington: There is only the hon. Member on the Government side of the House.
  Mr. Pannell: That may well be so, but the hon. Gentleman made a speech and retired for a long time. I do not blame him, in the circumstances. Why should he listen to his colleagues? But he might listen to me while I attempt to give him the answer.
  In reply to the question raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), the Vote by means of which these quarters will be financed will be one of the Votes of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, but it will be part of the Defence budget. I have never thought that one can ensure no reduction by this sort of accounting method, though the Ministry of Defence think that it is possible. I am not speaking now about whether this Government or another Government are in power. I have had experience of financial administration as chairman of finance committees of local authorities, and I know full well that in
  502
  any question of public expenditure this kind of thing is not decisive when it comes to a cut. I know that this is one of the sort of things in which the Ministry of Defence believes and it has been done in the way the Ministry want it. But I think that any Minister has the right at the beginning of his term of office to consider which way a project should be financed.
  There has, of course, been a great deal said by hon. Members opposite. They have not been united on the question of the merger of the three former Service Departments' building organisations and the former Ministry. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) had something to say about this. I have seen letters from him in the files in my Department and I know of his doubts and misgivings on this matter. He will have to reconcile these with his own Front Bench.
  I had previously been puzzled why this charge had been made in the way in which it has been made. I think it is understood better now that the thing has been in operation for some years and personnel are settling down. There has been an attempt to give the people in the Services the best things available in the civilian world. I do not think that it would be difficult to give them better barracks than under the old system. I know that there is discontent from time to time—
  Sir E. Errington: We are talking about married quarters, not barracks.
  Mr. Pannell: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is quite right.
  Sir E. Errington: Of course I am right, and the Minister is wrong.
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman draws his inspiration—as Disraeli once said—from sources denied to Her Majesty's Government. Where has he been? He is very noisy.
  I am sorry if I used the word "barracks" in this connection. I am speaking of married quarters. I was speaking about the organisation in the Ministry of Works by which we cater for the three Services. People are settling down. At first there was a great deal of unhappiness, which was inescapable because of the resentment of people and the loyalty of individuals to different Services. But anyone who thinks that we intend to unscramble the scrambled eggs

  503
  should think again. It will not happen. I do not wish to refer to the fact again—although the hon. Member said it as some sort of rebuke—that I am not in the Cabinet. The previous Minister was not always in the Cabinet, nor was the former Secretary of State for War. All sorts of people may consider themselves to have been demoted. I am sufficiently busy not to be in the Cabinet. This is a technocratic job.
  Mr. Kershaw: I would not touch it with a barge pole.
  Mr. Pannell: Does the hon. Gentleman mean this job, or the Cabinet? He will not have the chance. The previous Minister lost his seat and we are here to stay.
  I ought to say why we are extending the legislation only for three years, because that is a cardinal point. If I cannot deal with all the points which have been raised I will see that those with which I do not deal are picked up within the Department.
  This method of financing the programme has come to be well understood by the forces. To adopt a different method might cause disquiet. The alternative method of financing out of Votes is equally acceptable now that we have established a procedure whereby the Ministry of Defence, my Department and the Treasury work jointly on a programme in which we always look three years ahead.
  There is no reason why capital expenditure by the Government should be met by loan rather than out of revenue. The Government normally finance their capital expenditure out of revenue. Whichever method of financing is adopted the sums in question have to be voted year after year in the Estimates. They are included in the total allotted for the Defence budget and have to be approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each year in the usual way.
  These are largely questions of accounting. What is important is that a firm decision should be taken to build more married quarters and that the forward programme should look beyond the next financial year. I can assure hon. Members that we will take this matter up within the three years, in plenty of time. In this and the next two years £47 million
  504
  will be spent on building married quarters in the United Kingdom, nearly double the amount spent in the preceding three years. These are the only figures that matter in this argument.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port asked about expected completions. Expected completions for the three Service are: for the Navy, 4,400, of which 4,000 come under the Bill; for the Army, 6,400, of which 6,000 come under the Bill and for the R.A.F., 4,200, of which 2,000 come under the Bill. I can assure the right hon. Member for Harrogate that married quarters for the Services will not be built unless the Services want them, for recruitment reasons and so on. They are, therefore, rightly, and have always been considered to be, a charge on the Defence Budget.
  There is another misunderstanding here. I was asked whether this Bill would apply to the building of married quarters abroad. The Bill applies in Great Britain in areas where there is likely to be a long-term requirement of housing for the civilian population. If, as a result of Service redeployment, quarters become surplus, it would be possible to dispose of them, either to local authorities, which would be likely to be the main takers of whole estates, or to private individuals. In outlying and scarcely-populated areas and abroad the building of married quarters for the Services continues to be financed on the ordinary Votes.
  Mr. Kershaw: Has there been any difficulty in the past with the disposal of married quarters to local authorities or other purchasers?
  Mr. Pannell: These quarters and estates are, in the main, built in agreement with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. There is, therefore, a tie-up or liaison between the two Ministries. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman offhand or give him any specific examples of failure, but I will look into the matter and let him know the answer.
  Several hon. Members expressed interest in the cost of building Service married quarters and how they compared with local authority housing. Other ranks' houses are similar in size, design and layout to local authority houses. The cost of construction of a soldier's three-bedroomed house is about £3,000, including roads, although the price also includes

  505
  certain other items, such as linoleum and standard lamps, which are not normally provided by local authorities. Officers' houses for the Services are built to a somewhat higher standard. All except senior officers' houses are semi-detached, with three or four bedrooms and a garage. The average cost for a four-bedroomed house for a commander in the Royal Navy, a major or a squadron leader is £5,200.
  I think that I have answered most of the questions asked, except those put by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who made out a considerable case for matters arising in his constituency at the Talavera Estate. Although this is not a complete answer, may I say that there has long been a serious scarcity of labour in the Aldershot area and that is why we have used, and still are using, industrialised systems to a great extent as against traditional building methods.
  The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) referred to the failure of these houses, but I am sure that he will agree that what he said cannot be taken as an indictment of the present Government, for those houses were built at the time of the previous Administration.
  Sir E. Errington: What I said was not an indictment of any Government. It is the responsibility of every Government to enable these people to live in decent comfort in these new houses. It has been said in the past that the best is hardly good enough for these people. I want that implemented, and I do not care which Government do it.
  Mr. Pannell: That is quite all right. I hope that if the election had gone the other way the hon. Gentleman would have said the same—
  Sir E. Errington: I did, and it can be read.
  Mr. Pannell: I accept the hon. Gentleman's case, and I did not take what he said as an indictment of myself. What was done happened under the previous Government, and I was mystified when I read of it in the Press. I will make the fullest inquiries—I know that the hon. Member is a good constituency Member. He will understand that one cannot go into these matters of detail in winding up a debate.
  506
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) expressed the hope that I would take my duties seriously. In the division of duties in my Department, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has a great deal to do with culture and the arts and things of that nature, and I have assumed prime responsibility for building. I take these things very seriously, indeed—
  Mr. Loughlin: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the previous point to which he referred, will he deal with the faulty house construction mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), in connection with which I asked him to ensure that these contractors were not given future contracts by his Department?
  Mr. Pannell: The answer is that I cannot necessarily condemn a contractor because something has gone wrong with a building. I have been long enough in the Ministry and in local government to know that all sorts of things can go wrong from time to time. We do, of course, insist that contractors are kept up to standard. It is in their own interests to see that they do, and I have explained the steps that have been taken.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Devonport raised a lot of questions about the Navy. I can only say that I went to the department dealing with Navy works not very long ago, where we spoke about these sort of things in her constituency. We are trying to do rather better for the Navy. The hon. Lady knows full well that Navy building is almost an innovation. It has come up only very recently. I hope in due time myself to pay a visit when I go down there.
  One of the things we are careful about on new estates is to lay out the gardens. We employ a landscape architect for that purpose. We are considering amenity as far as possible. I am quite certain that we build as cheaply as local authorities—
  Dame Joan Vickers: Can the Minister tell us how the cost of flats compares with that of houses? We want that information in order to see how many units we can get.
  Mr. Pannell: I cannot give that figure off the cuff, but the figure of £3,000 a bedroom for other ranks is averaged

  507
  out to cover both houses and flats. And, of course, the cost of the new quarters will be spread over a life of 60 years. If that is not specific enough, I will take it up in the Department tomorrow—
  Mr. Costain: The figure is surely not £3,000 a bedroom?
  Mr. Pannell: If I said that, I am sorry. I have spoken of £3,000 for a three-bedroomed dwelling for other ranks.
  I do not know that I have got very much left to reply to in this debate. Everybody here is concerned to ensure that the Services are better looked after—I am not making a political point here—in the future than they have been in the past. We must ensure that as we develop industrialised systems, and productivity rises, they get their fair share. They are people that deserve of us and of this Parliament the very best we can give them. To that end my Ministry will do its best.
  Mr. Sharples: Will the Minister deal with two points? The first is the question of interest rates, on which he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). The second is the question of development contracts under the terms of the Statute. This is a most important matter, but he has not touched on it.
  Mr. Pannell: I do not think there is much in the last point. The hon. Gentleman is probably on a better point about interest rates. We borrow money from the Treasury at the same rate as that at which it gets it. That is what we mean by the most favourable rates within the Act.
  Mr. Sharples: The right hon. Gentleman said that the wording of the Bill was the same as that of the previous Acts. Will he correct that? I have the previous Acts before me.
  Mr. Pannell: Of course, there is a technical difference. I will give the hon. Gentleman that point.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. lfor Davies.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  TRANSPORT, STROUD
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I welcome this opportunity to raise the question of transport in the Stroud area. The Stroud, Tetbury and Berkeley area is characterised by a plateau which crumbles down into the Severn by a number of steeply wooded valleys scored by streams which run into the big river. In the valleys there is considerable industry, much of it of great antiquity. The traffic, therefore, is heavy. The terrain is steep and the roads are winding. Therefore, transport presents a particular problem, and the gradual but increasing reduction of the public facilities available to my constituents is causing them vexation and anxiety. I am afraid that I must raise a number of detailed points with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Each of them is perhaps a minor point, but cumulatively they amount to something very important to those living in the Stroud area.
  I start with Tetbury. It is now some time since the Tetbury-Kemble railway line was closed. When it was first proposed that it should be closed, I was able to raise the matter on the Adjournment and, whether for that reason or another, it was a source of great satisfaction to me and to others that the railway was not closed but a diesel car was put on instead. Unfortunately, this has now been removed. The result, I admit, does not affect a great many people, but those whom it affects have been dealt a heavy blow.
  For example, I have here a letter from an old lady who has recently come to live in Tetbury. The closure of the railway line has virtually deprived her of the possibility of leaving Tetbury at all, except by private transport, which she is not wealthy enough to afford. The bus services which connect Tetbury to the junction at Kemble are not good, and in particular they deprive people who have to make use of them of the opportunity which many had before of going to London and back in one day. It is technically possible, but one can spend only an hour or so in London and this is no use to shoppers.

  509
  The railway line between Tetbury and Kemble is in process of being demolished. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to what use the line of the track is to be put. It would make an ideal footpath or bridle path, but unfortunately the bridges are being demolished. I should also like to ask what is to happen to Tetbury Railway Station, which occupies a substantial and important area in Tetbury itself.
  I turn next to the area of Dursley and Berkeley. The passenger train services in this part of the world have been entirely discontinued. A fairly large number of my constituents work in Bristol or in Gloucester. There are now no trains at all for them and they must go by bus or private transport. Can consideration again be given to the possibility of reopening Berkeley Road Station to passengers? It lies more or less half-way between Gloucester and Bristol. I am sure that it would be fairly extensively used. It is still intact and could be utilised again.
  The buses which are supposed to be a substitute for the trains are really no substitute at all. They are much slower and more expensive and the times are not so suitable. I do not blame the Bristol Bus Company for this. The company always does its best, and I have found that correspondence with it is intelligent and illuminating, but the fact is that, for a longish journey of 20 miles or so, a bus, particularly over winding roads, is not so suitable and cannot take the place of a train.
  In general, we wait to hear what may be the outcome of the conversations which, we understand, are taking place about a possible reduction of the fuel duty for the benefit of rural bus services in particular, and perhaps we may be told something about that fairly soon. Nevertheless, even if the price of the fuel were to come down by a marginal amount, none of the long bus services in my constituency except one, the service between Dursley and Stroud, at present pays.
  Has consideration been given to the possibility of combining the post and the bus services, as is done in Continental countries? It seems to me that there could be a saving in public administration in this way which might, in addition, be for the convenience of the public.
  510
  In the circumstances, it is not surprising that those who live in the area of Dursley and Berkeley and work in Bristol or Gloucester have in many cases decided that either they must provide their own transport or they must give up their homes. If they provide their own transport and go by car, they must necessarily use the A38. I shall not weary the Minister or the House yet again by my oft-repeated criticism of this notorious highway save only to say that, over almost its entire length between Gloucester and Bristol, is a three-lane highway. The Ministry of Transport maintains, though I and others, I believe, have great difficulty in believing it, that three lanes are safer than two. However that may be, what is perfectly certain is that three lanes marked out with alternate passing lines is safer than either, and why the Ministry steadily refuses to take this action over the whole stretch of the A38 between Gloucester and Bristol I cannot understand. The expense would be minimal. The local authorities are in favour of it. The Minister has currently before him a letter from the Quedgeley Parish Council asking him to take this action, and I urge him to give a favourable reply.
  I come now to the village of Painswick. Painswick is an ancient and beautiful village which has the misfortune to lie along a trunk road. The crossroads in the middle of the village is confined between buildings only 12 feet apart. As the main road approaches downhill and fairly steeply, drivers who are not familiar with the area tend to approach the crossroads much too fast, and there have been a number of accidents there. The walls of the buildings are scored by passing trucks which have struck them. The danger here is particularly to pedestrians and shop fronts, and I dare say that not a week passes without some damage or danger. For instance, only the other day, the vicar's wife was knocked down in a shop doorway and badly hurt.
  There is now a proposal, shortly to be carried out, to put traffic lights at the crossroads. This will help, but nothing will really save this village both from the danger and from being smothered by motor traffic, especially in the summer, except a by-pass. My question to the Minister, therefore, is: when will the Painswick by-pass be built?

  511
  Next, the problem of public transport in the Stroud valley. Everything I have said about the difficult terrain and narrow roads applies to the Stroud Valley, if I may say so, "with knobs on". The town itself is a serious bottleneck. A by-pass is planned, and I have nothing to say in criticism of that. The plan is proceeding as well as finance and other considerations permit. At the moment, however, nobody denies that Stroud itself is a serious bottleneck and that the road system is inadequate.
  It was, therefore, with great dismay that we learned that the Chalford-Gloucester rail-car service was to be closed. This was in the time of the previous Government. At that time I made most vigorous protests to the Minister, while recognising the overall validity of the Beeching reforms. I received many petitions, including a very large and well done one from the Wycliffe College whose students used the railcar. Many other people have testified to the value of the railcar to them.
  The closure played an important part in the General Election in the Stroud constituency. The Labour Party there neglected no opportunity to blame the Tory Government and me in particular for the railcar closure. It issued a pamphlet which leading members of the party distributed by riding on the railcar in the evening. The pamphlet said:
  "The Labour Party believe that the railcar inquiry was a farce; the case for retention was proved; Marples and the Conservative Government were determined to close it all along. If Beeching's ideas are applied to buses, as they will be if the Tories are returned, the rural bus services will also disappear. Toryism in transport means chaos, closure and paralysis. Labour will carry out a survey of all local transport needs during which all 'major' rail closure will be stopped. Stroud Labour candidate … is convinced that this survey will reveal the need for the railcar and is confident of its re-opening."
  That is one more Labour pledge gone down the wind.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: No.
  Mr. Kershaw: After the General Election I telephoned and wrote to the Minister to inquire whether he would honour this Labour Party pledge. For a fortnight or so there was no reply, and then there was a prevaricating reply, and finally we gathered that nothing would
  512
  be done. The Labour Government have, indeed, in this as in so many other matters, got the worst of both worlds. They have kept Dr. Beeching's closures and have got rid of Dr. Beeching.
  Nevertheless, we hoped that in fulfilment of their election pledges the Labour Government might decide to restore the railcar service. However, that has now become impossible even if they wished to because British Railways, with energy and promptness worthy of a better cause, started on a Sunday in December to demolish the stations and halts. I asked the Minister to halt this destruction, but he refused, and now the work is almost done. Even useful foot and bridge crossings such as those at Stonehouse and Downfield are being blocked or demolished. However, there are two halts which are still open—Cashes Green and Ebley—and the Stroud Urban District Council has suggested that the diesel unit operating between Swindon and Gloucester should stop at those halts. I should like to know whether that is possible.
  The Minister has received from me and others, especially the Stroud Urban District Council, representations about alternative bus services. He has not so far found it possible to vary the present arrangement. I ask him to look at this again.
  Leaving aside that it is difficult for a bus to substitute for a quicker and cheaper train, the services are not adequate at present. For example, there are no through buses from Chalford to Gloucester in the morning. The Minister says—he is right—that there is a connection in Stonehouse with the train, which allows one at some unearthly hour in the morning 12 minutes to catch the train. That sounds good enough in theory, but in practice the congestion in the Stroud area often results in the bus being late.
  The bus station is much too far from the railway station for one to be sure of getting there in 12 minutes, unless one is young and fit. This is, I think, a typical example of the way in which a planner in Whitehall imagines that connections can be made where, in practice, they never can be. I suggest that this train is not an adequate substitute. It is, in any case, very erratic in its timing.
  Despite my undertaking, I have burdened the Joint Parliamentary Secretary

  513
  with a great deal of detail, but I must mention one other thing. Stonehouse is half-way to Gloucester from Stroud and normally anyone who lives there and wants to go to Gloucester has to return to Stroud in order to get the bus. This does not seem convenient.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to review, after a reasonable time, the whole problem of bus timings in this area in substitution for trains and I shall certainly jog his memory in this regard. The closure of the Stonehouse (Bristol Road) Station to passenger services has made it equally difficult to go from Stonehouse to Bristol. The track remains in use, however. It is hard now for those who must go to Bristol to have to go to Gloucester and then on to work from there. If they go the same day this adds over 54 miles to their journey from Stonehouse to Bristol, quite apart from the additional expense.
  Finally, there are rumours that the main-line services on the London-Gloucester line may be curtailed and even abandoned. I ask the hon. Gentleman for a categorical assurance that there is no intention of closing Stroud, Stonehouse and Kemble stations, both for passengers and freight. Nothing less than such an assurance, which I hope that he is in a position to give, will give the necessary confidence for the expansion and prosperity of the Stroud area.
  10.22 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I will answer the points of which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) gave me notice for the purpose of the debate. He has covered a wide range of very detailed points about the locality he represents. First, I want to make it plain that the hon. Gentleman talks a great deal in this House, but that it is apparent that he does not listen too much.
  The present Government have announced, and are in process of setting up, regional councils and planning boards for the purpose, amongst other things, of surveying the country's transport needs, and we have made it plain that if the results of these surveys show that rail services ought to be restored, or other changes made in the priorities for transport, we will exercise powers or, if
  514
  necessary, take powers to bring those changes about.
  In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made it clear, and is carrying out the pledge, that he will halt major rail closures. That he is carrying out that pledge is shown by the fact that out of 13 closure proposals from the Railways Board considered since we took office five have been rejected by my right hon. Friend on the ground that they are major closures that might prejudice the fulfilment of future needs of regional planning.
  Now I come to the closures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I will deal, first, with Tetbury and Kemble. In this case, the consent was given by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) on 13th January, 1964, and all the services on that line were withdrawn more than 10 months ago. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Chalford-Gloucester rail-car service. In this case, the right hon. Member for Wallasey gave his consent on 30th July, 1964, and the trains were taken off on 2nd November. The hon. Member also mentioned the stations at Kemble, Stroud and Stonehouse, but I must point out that the Railways Board has made no proposals to close these stations and that, according to my information, they are in operation.
  Those are the facts about these closures. My right hon. Friend has no power under the present law to revoke closures agreed by the Tory Minister of Transport, but from the time we have taken office we have looked at all proposals according to the criteria set out by my right hon. Friend on 4th November, and we have rejected those which we consider to be major proposals.
  My right hon. Friend made it plain on 4th November that he had agreed with the Railways Board that in all cases where before we took office arrangements had not been made for the disposal of the track, the track would be retained, because the regional councils and boards might report that these services should be restored. Of course, we know that there are difficulties involved for the Railways Board in the maintenance of the track and of the stations, and it may well be that because of these difficulties the Board will feel that it is compelled to demolish some

  515
  of the installations, some of the buildings at the stations and so on. We insist that the track should be retained in these cases, because we regard them as absolutely essential for future planning. In the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the track is being retained.
  I now come to something over which my right hon. Friend has power—the variation of the conditions attached to the consent to the closure proposals by his predecessor the right hon. Member for Wallasey. My right hon. Friend has made it plain that he is wide open to representations from any quarter to vary the conditions of consent where concrete evidence can be produced that the alternative services are not at present meeting essential needs, but I must emphasise that we have to consider the essential needs of the people who are affected by rail closures in these places and that under that heading we cannot consider demands for the improvement of services which have been put forward in the past and which relate to conditions prior to the closure.
  We have received no representations about alternative bus services for the Tetbury-Kemble line. So far as we know, the services are satisfactory and if that is not so, we are open to any representations which may be made. We have received representations about the Chalford-Gloucester line, for example, from the Stroud Urban District Council, the Chalford Parish Council and the Stonehouse Parish Council about the adequacy of the alternative services. As a result, checks on the bus services have recently been made and so far as we have been able to find out, in relation to Stroud, for example, ample capacity on the buses appears to be available.
  The Chalford Parish Council requested a direct service to Gloucester, but no supporting evidence of need was submitted by the council. At the moment, we are considering new proposals received yesterday from the Chalford Parish Council. We have received representations from the Stonehouse Parish Council for improved facilities for buses, but these representations concern a very small number of people. I am informed, for example, that there would be two
  516
  people to travel to Gloucester and three travelling in the direction of Bristol. The proposal is that what would be a very heavily subsidised service should be laid on for these people. We have every sympathy with their position as a result of the rail closures, but it is impossible to consider the provision of special bus services for such very small groups of people.
  In the brief time that remains to me, I turn to the question of the road problems raised by the hon. Member. He raised, for example, the points put forward to us by the Quedgeley Parish Council. We have recently received a letter from the Quedgeley Parish Council concerning safety on the A.38 road between Elmore Lane and Quedgeley Roundabout. We have instructed our divisional road engineer to investigate this matter as speedily a possible. I am, however, informed that he needs to get more detailed information about visibility on this section of the road and he is in touch with the county surveyor to get this information. I do not propose to say more on that subject now, because I do not wish to prejudge these investigations, except to say that we are most concerned with the question of safety on the A.38 and that after there have been consultations between the divisional road engineer and the county surveyor we shall consider these proposals sympathetically and speedily.
  Finally, I come to the position at Painswick. We recognise that there is a traffic problem in the village of Painswick, where the A.46 trunk road is narrow. There is congestion, especially at peak periods. We accept that the widening of the road would be difficult, if not impossible, because we know that buildings of architectural and historic interest stand in the way. Therefore, in principle, we accept that there is a need for a by-pass of the village as a longterm solution. Frankly, however, on present criteria we cannot give this project the priority that, obviously, the local people would desire, simply on account of the fact that there are much more difficult and dangerous areas to be dealt with and our funds for several years ahead are already allocated to schemes which are far more urgent.
  We have, of course, to bear in mind that after a few years, by the end of

  517
  this decade at least, the M.5 motorway between Gloucester and Bristol will remove a lot of the long-distance traffic from this road and will, we trust, relieve the situation and improve traffic conditions through the village.
  At the same time, we are considering what traffic management measures might give some immediate relief. On this, we are in consultation with the parish council and the Gloucestershire County Council and the police. As the hon. Member mentioned, it has now been decided to install a system of traffic lights in New Street. Plans have been prepared by the county council and tenders are shortly to be invited. As the hon. Member will know, there is already a 30 m.p.h. speed limit through the village.
  These are the measures which, we hope, will improve the situation and give some relief in the village whilst we are pushing ahead with the M.5 motorway, which will give greater relief by 1970. At the same time, we look forward to the time when we shall be able to get a proper by-pass for the village of Pains-wick.
  I have endeavoured to deal with the points of which the hon. Member gave me notice. I come back to the point that the kind of problems that the hon. Member has raised tonight spotlight the urgent need, which has existed for many years, for regional surveys and for proper co-ordination of the provision of transport facilities throughout the country.
  It is on this that my right hon. Friend is now placing maximum emphasis. We intend to go forward as rapidly as possible to carry out these regional
  518
  surveys. Where it is shown that new facilities are required, or the restoration of facilities which have been closed under the previous régime, we shall not hesitate to take the necessary powers to carry out those measures.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt more than kindly with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) after the rather aggressive manner in which he put forward his pleas tonight. It would have been interesting to have known what sort of answers he received from his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) if and when he put forward those same proposals to that right hon. Gentleman when he occupied the office of Minister of Transport.
  I rise only to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I have today tabled a Question, to which I hope he will give particular attention, asking how many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have bombarded his Department with requests for the reopening or the keeping open of lines where there were closures or proposed closures during the régime of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary has taken some note in the past of the number of Questions from those benches—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having been continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Agricultural Subsidies
  Boars
  Boars
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Meat
  Meat
  Price Review
  Price Review
  Home Production and Imports
  Home Production and Imports
  Horticultural Industry
  Horticultural Industry
  Small Farmers Scheme
  Small Farmers Scheme
  Agricultural and Horticultural Produce (Exports)
  Agricultural and Horticultural Produce (Exports)
  Silo Subsidies Scheme
  Silo Subsidies Scheme
  Sea Defence Works
  Sea Defence Works
  Bacon
  Bacon
  Anthrax
  Anthrax
  Channel Islands Milk
  Channel Islands Milk
  Livestock (Intensive Husbandry)
  Livestock (Intensive Husbandry)
  Calf Subsidy Scheme
  Calf Subsidy Scheme
  Land (Development)
  Land (Development)
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Farm Costs
  Farm Costs
  Farmers' Incomes
  Farmers' Incomes
  Agricultural Lime Scheme
  Agricultural Lime Scheme
  Cattle (Exports)
  Cattle (Exports)
  Agriculture (Output, Income, Grants and Subsidies)
  Agriculture (Output, Income, Grants and Subsidies)
  Scientific Advisory Panel (Cost)
  Scientific Advisory Panel (Cost)
  Beef and Veal (Imports)
  Beef and Veal (Imports)
  Food (Expenditure)
  Food (Expenditure)
  HOME INFORMATION SERVICES
  HOME INFORMATION SERVICES
SCOTLAND
  Home Safety Propaganda (Grant)
  Home Safety Propaganda (Grant)
  Disabled War Pensioners (Vehicle Allowances)
  Disabled War Pensioners (Vehicle Allowances)
  Food Processing Plant and Piggeries, Glenrothes (Disposal)
  Food Processing Plant and Piggeries, Glenrothes (Disposal)
  General Election (Counting of Votes)
  General Election (Counting of Votes)
  Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889
  Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889
  School Building Plans (Approval)
  School Building Plans (Approval)
  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (Residential Accommodation)
  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (Residential Accommodation)
  Registered Milk Producers (Numbers)
  Registered Milk Producers (Numbers)
  Teachers (Non-Scottish Origin and Training)
  Teachers (Non-Scottish Origin and Training)
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Programmes)
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Programmes)
ROADS
  Coloured Road Surfaces (Safety Purposes)
  Coloured Road Surfaces (Safety Purposes)
  Motorways (Fog Warning Signs)
  Motorways (Fog Warning Signs)
  M.4 (Chiswick-Langley Section)
  M.4 (Chiswick-Langley Section)
RAILWAYS
  Pensions (Cost of Increases)
  Pensions (Cost of Increases)
  Manchester-Bury-Accrington Line (Passenger Services)
  Manchester-Bury-Accrington Line (Passenger Services)
  Railways Board (Chairman)
  Railways Board (Chairman)
  Handborough Station (Proposed Closure)
  Handborough Station (Proposed Closure)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Messrs. Ferranti Limited (Inquiry Report)
  Messrs. Ferranti Limited (Inquiry Report)
  Valiant Aircraft (Metal Fatigue)
  Valiant Aircraft (Metal Fatigue)
  Tyne Aero-Engines (Development)
  Tyne Aero-Engines (Development)
  Variable Geometry Aircraft
  Variable Geometry Aircraft
  United States Aircraft (Spare Parts)
  United States Aircraft (Spare Parts)
  Aircraft Workers (Kingston, Surbiton and Malden)
  Aircraft Workers (Kingston, Surbiton and Malden)
  Passengers' Baggage (Inflammable Substances)
  Passengers' Baggage (Inflammable Substances)
  HS681 Aircraft (Design Teams)
  HS681 Aircraft (Design Teams)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Short Bros. and Harland (Review of Potential)
  Short Bros. and Harland (Review of Potential)
  PERMANENT ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  PERMANENT ADVISORY COMMITTEES
BERMUDA
  Strike
  Strike
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Servants (Leave of Absence)
  Civil Servants (Leave of Absence)
  Board of Inland Revenue Report (Cmnd. 2572)
  Board of Inland Revenue Report (Cmnd. 2572)
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants (Established and Temporary)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants (Established and Temporary)
  Customs Posts, Northern Ireland Border
  Customs Posts, Northern Ireland Border
  Purchase Tax (Teaching Aids)
  Purchase Tax (Teaching Aids)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Third-Party Adoptions
  Third-Party Adoptions
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Old People's Homes (Food)
  Old People's Homes (Food)
  Local Heath Authorities (Chief Welfare Officers)
  Local Heath Authorities (Chief Welfare Officers)
  Electric House-Chairs
  Electric House-Chairs
  New Drugs
  New Drugs
EMPLOYMENT
  Aircraft Industry (Redundant Workers)
  Aircraft Industry (Redundant Workers)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Contributors
  Contributors
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Sussex Association of Building Inspectors and Surveyors (Correspondence)
  Sussex Association of Building Inspectors and Surveyors (Correspondence)
POST OFFICE
  Post Office Projects
  Post Office Projects
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Industry (Consultations)
  Steel Industry (Consultations)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Butter (Import Quotas)
  Butter (Import Quotas)

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

LORD ERROLL OF HALE
The Right Honourable Frederick James Erroll, having been created Baron Erroll of Hale, of Kilmun in the County of Argyll—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD MARGADALE
John Granville Morrison, Esquire, having been created Baron Margadale, of Islay in the County of Argyll—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PROPOSED WATERWELLS FOR CEMENT WORKS
2.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received an application from the cement works at Westbury, Wiltshire, to bore for their own waterwells; and what action Her Majesty's Government propose regarding this proposal.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has received an application from the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers for a licence to sink two boreholes on their land and abstract an average of 170,000 gallons of water daily. This has now been supplemented by an application for his consent to the making of trial boreholes and the carrying out of test pumping to estab-
120
lish experimentally the yield obtainable and the effect on other sources in the neighbourhood. My right honourable friend has received a number of objections to the main scheme, and he proposes to arrange for a public local inquiry to take place as soon as the results of any test pumping to which he may consent are available.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and I am sure that what his right honourable friend said in another place will give great satisfaction to people locally, since they have been suffering a serious shortage of water for some miles around during the past few weeks. I hope that this court of inquiry will sift the whole of the evidence. I thank the noble Lord.

REMOVAL OF ANNE MOWBRAY REMAINS
LORD AMULREE: 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 under what authority the remains of Anne Mowbray, Duchess of York, were removed to the London Museum for examination.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, under Section 25 of the Burial Act, 1857, a licence issued by the Home Secretary is required before human remains may be removed from a place of burial in unconsecrated ground. It is sometimes necessary, when human remains are accidentally disturbed during the course of building operations, to remove them immediately to safe custody before a licence can be issued. In this case, there was a long delay in reporting the circumstances to my right honourable friend. He has, however, now received a full report and is considering the issue of a licence, which will include provisions for the re-interment of the remains.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for his full reply, but I wonder whether I may ask a supplementary question. Can

121
he account for the long delay between finding the remains and the matter being reported to the Home Secretary?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords. Workmen excavating a site in the early afternoon of December 11 broke through an underground vault and discovered a leaden casket, which they brought to the surface. They informed the London Museum and the newspapers of their find. The newspapers informed the police and the police went there immediately, on the same afternoon, and, after consultation with the coroner, removed the casket to the safety of the police station. Later that same afternoon the official representative of the London Museum called and, having again consulted the coroner, was allowed to remove the casket. The London Museum consulted a number of important and responsible bodies with regard to the find, but it was not until January 13, when they had issued a Press statement, that my right honourable friend learned of this occurrence.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, once more I should like to thank the noble Lord for his full reply. May I ask him this further question? When the matter of the reburial of these remains occurs, will steps be taken to find out whether there are any surviving relatives, and will their wishes be consulted as to the procedure?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this little Princess died 483 years ago and the position with regard to relatives is not, therefore, quite the same as if it were a comparatively recent interment. The exact position, as I understand it, is that the line of the first Dukes of Norfolk terminated with Anne Mowbray in 1481. The dukedom was re-created in 1483, and the first Duke of the second line was the son of the daughter of the first Duke of the first line. It would therefore be a little difficult to answer the noble Lord's question precisely. I am able to give an undertaking that my right honourable friend will consider any representations which are put forward in the House affecting the treatment or disposal of the remains.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his further reply.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the licence to which the noble Lord referred, and which the Home Secretary is now considering issuing, is, I gather, only for the removal of the remains from where they were originally found to the London Museum. Can the noble Lord say by what authority this casket was opened? A licence for removal would not warrant that being done. As I understand it, the name of Anne Mowbray, Duchess of York, was on the outside of the casket. What authority was there to open this casket?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think I made it clear that the licence was not granted because my right honourable friend had no opportunity to grant a licence, as he had no knowledge of the occurrence. Secondly, the licence has not been granted; and when it is granted it will be retrospective. There are precedents for this. Certainly the licence will include precise conditions, and one essential condition will relate to the re-interment and the conditions under which examination can be made. As for the opening of the casket, as my right honourable friend had not been consulted, obviously those who opened it did so without his authority.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I, as a non-Catholic, ask whether arrangements will be made for the remains to be re-interred according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, as the little Princess was a member of that Church?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is a matter which will be considered by my right honourable friend if representations are made to that effect.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that at the present time, when a great deal of reconstruction is taking place in towns in this country, there are constantly examples of items of great archaeological, historical and human importance being brought to light during these excavations, which are very often destroyed or lost because there appears to be no proper system of notification and control? Further, are the Government prepared to consider this problem so that we can ensure that anything that is discovered from the process of building construction is preserved for scholarship and historical research here in this country?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. He will appreciate that there are sometimes circumstances similar to these when the actual discovery is made by people who are not informed, and cannot be expected to be informed, of the circumstances or of the value of what they discover. On the other point, about the official side, my right honourable friend is considering means of bringing the actual regulations to the notice of people concerned, such as chief constables and coroners, so that a recurrence of this may be avoided.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to make a statement on the matter at the convenience of his right honourable friend?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is something on which I will consult my right honourable friend.

FOWL PEST
3.5 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: 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:

(a) to state the cost to the Exchequer of the fowl pest slaughter and compensation policy during the last two years in which that policy existed:

(b) to state the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the fowl pest vaccine subsidy for the two years ending March 31, 1965;

(c) whether, in the interests of animal health, Her Majesty's Government will extend the vaccine subsidy after March 31,1965.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, the policy of compulsory slaughter with compensation for fowl pest operated throughout Great Britain until March 31, 1963. In the last two years of the policy the cost of compensation for birds slaughtered, for hatching eggs destroyed, and for the miscellaneous expenses involved in these operations totalled £13,478,000. In the two years ending March 31, 1965, the cost to the Exchequer
124
of fowl pest vaccine, and of its storage and transport, less the sale price, is estimated to be £563,000. When the policy of vaccination with dead vaccine in England and Wales was announced in July, 1962, dead vaccines were not in commercial production, and the Government of the day decided that vaccine would be subsidised for two years, in order to encourage the greatest possible use of vaccine during a period when vaccine production costs could reasonably be expected to be high. The manufacturers of vaccine have recently announced that they are able to offer vaccine at prices very little higher than the subsidised price and that supplies will be readily available from local sources. We do not, therefore, intend to continue the subsidy on the vaccine after March 31, 1965. Although the Government will thus cease to subsidise and distribute vaccine on March 31, there should not, and indeed there must not, be any decrease in the use of vaccine. I appeal to all poultry keepers, in their own and the national interest, to keep on vaccinating and to persuade their neighbours to do so as well.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Would he not agree that the policy of vaccination has been outstandingly successful? Is he quite certain that the removal of the fowl pest vaccine subsidy will not result in the vaccine's being used less widely, thereby possibly encouraging the resurgence of the disease?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we certainly hope that it will not be the case that there will be a less wide use of it. As a result of the fact that it has been found possible to reduce the price of this vaccine commercially we rather think this will not be the case. But we certainly urge everyone to continue this policy which, where used to a reasonable extent, for up to 80 or 85 per cent. of the flock for the area, does provide a first-class measure of control.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that the Government will continue to watch the situation with regard to fowl pest very closely, and not hesitate to jump in again if the situation so requires? Can he also pass on to his right honourable friend the gratitude of many people in the industry for the way in which there has

125
been control of a disease which looked at one time as if it would be uncontrollable, often at great inconvenience and distaste to the staff themselves?
LORD CHAMPION: I am delighted to be able to say, Yes, my Lords.

FUEL AND POWER POLICY
LORD BLYTON: 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 to make a statement as to when we shall get a co-ordinated fuel and power policy.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as I made clear in answering the Motion on the Electricity, Gas and Atomic Energy Industries on December 8 last year, the Government regard a co-ordinated fuel policy as essential. Such a policy must embrace all sources of fuel and power and must be based on a thorough assessment of all the facts. My right honourable friend the Minister of Power has instituted a review to this end. When it is completed Parliament will of course be informed, and I can only ask my noble friend to wait until it is possible for a comprehensive statement to be made.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are quite pleased about the Energy Advisory Council which the Government have set up? It is only an advisory body and a Minister finally makes the decision in relation to future energy policy. Is he further aware that we pledged, in our own energy policy, that a minimum of 200 million tons of coal would be used in the country? Can we be assured that that policy will still continue?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think my right honourable friend the Minister of Power made the position perfectly clear when he said yesterday in another place that the Government accept for the present the case for trying to maintain the position of coal at around its recent level of 190 million to 200 million tons, and are studying methods of assisting the industry's efforts accordingly.
My I remind my noble friend that in 1963 the output and sales of coal were
126
some 200 million tons, and last year were 193 million tons, when, again broadly speaking, sales matched output? May I also remind him that the size of the market in any one year depends on many factors, including the level of industrial activity, exports, and some unpredictable factors? Also the demand for energy is increasing.
With regard to my noble friend's mention of the Energy Advisory Council, I would remind him that our noble friend Lord Robens of Woldingham, Chairman of the National Coal Board, and the President of the National Union of Mine-workers, are both members of the Council, and can, I think, be relied upon to state the position of coal with energy, precision and full knowledge.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the important matters that deserve attention is the importance for our industry of obtaining energy at a reasonable price?
LORD STONEHAM: My Lords, of course I agree. This is one of the bases of the Government's search for a coordinated fuel policy which, I may say, allowing for economic factors, social factors, defence and security factors, insists that each form of energy should be doing the job it is best fitted to do.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, do I understand from this that we shall be hearing nothing further about the future of Dounreay or of hydro-electricity in Scotland until the promised statement on the whole fuel and power outlook is available?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, I should not think so, and I would suggest that if the noble Duke wants earlier information he might favour me with a Question on the subject.
LORD KAWKE: My Lords, will it be possible to produce any statement about a co-ordinated fuel and power policy until it is discovered what success searches for oil and natural gas have had under the North Sea?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is anxious to produce a co-ordinated fuel policy as soon as he can, having regard to all the factors which must be taken into consideration.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a pledge was given, as was suggested by the noble Lord who asked this Question, by the Party opposite to keep the output at 200 million tons a year?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot recall any pledge having been given in the precise terms as I heard them stated just now. The pledge which was given was one which was again repeated by the Minister of Power in another place yesterday, and his answer indicates that the pledge, like all the pledges given by this Government, is being carried out.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is terrific pressure to try to put this industry back to 160 million or 175 million tons? And is he further aware that this would mean the closure of 100 collieries, and that 100,000 men would be displaced, after the manpower has been reduced by 250,000 in the last five years? Can he say whether the Government are going to subscribe to that policy or to carry out the pledge which was given?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have seen the reports to which my noble friend refers, but I think they were effectively dealt with by my right honourable friend in another place yesterday, when he said, in a Written Answer:
"I hope this statement of the Government's intentions towards the coal industry will dispose of recent alarmist reports in the Press about the prospects of employment in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 706 (No. 53), col. 52, February 9, 1965.]
My right honourable friend was referring to exactly the type of statement to which my noble friend has just referred, and the Government do indeed repudiate them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the large number of speakers for this afternoon's debate, it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform them that supper will be available; and that, for similar reasons, dinners will be available to-morrow. If any Members wish to entertain it would be helpful to the management if they could hand in their names and the numbers concerned.
DURHAM MARKETS COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners
LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I propose to delay the proceedings for only a moment. I was associated with this area, and I have certain misgivings about this Bill. I do not want to oppose the Second Reading to-day, in view of the fact that there are likely to be Petitions which will come before the Committee. I should, however, like an assurance that there will be a further opportunity to express opposition if we feel that to be still necessary.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I also have some misgivings about this Bill. It appears as if the main substance of the Bill is taking a short cut and short-circuiting certain decisions which may have to be taken by the British Waterways Board. For that reason, I also wish to agree with the last speaker that it is very necessary that there should be an opportunity to examine this matter at a later stage.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I think that both noble Lords who have spoken can be assured that there will be a further opportunity to deal with this Bill, namely, on Third Reading, if at no other time. This is an opposed Bill. There is a Petition from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, and a joint Petition by five organisations using the canal for pleasure. Therefore the noble Lord can be quite sure that all issues which have been raised will be dealt with by a Select Committee of your Lordships upstairs. I hope that, with that assurance, he will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading this afternoon,
LORD BROCKWAY: I thank my noble friend very much.
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Examiners.

SAINT LAURENCE, CATFORD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Strang be proposed to the House as a member of the Committee in the place of the late Earl Alexander of Hillsborough.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SECONDARY EDUCATION
3.20 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's policy for secondary education; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for Papers standing in my name, The terms of the Motion are widely drawn, and I hope that this will be for the convenience of subsequent speakers, of whom I am happy to see that there is an appreciable number. For my part, I propose to confine myself to a discussion of the organisation of secondary education. To select or not select? That is the question. But I do not consider it to be the most important or the most urgent aspect of secondary education to-day. Far more important are proper staffing and adequate school buildings with sufficient places in them. But I am not going to talk about those problems this afternoon, because I have nothing new to add to what I have often said about them from the Dispatch Box opposite.
I recognise that one can get rather tired of the big debate, endless and nearly always inconclusive, about selection. I certainly did, during my travels about the country, as Minister of State, to local education authorities and educational conferences and so on, when I wanted to hear about ideas and plans for coping with the "Newsom" children, for instance, when the leaving
130
age is raised, and other essential matters. But it is no good trying to occupy a position of Olympian detachment. In a free democracy, thank Heaven! people discuss what they want to discuss and the powers-that-be, including Parliament, have to take notice.
The big debate about selection has been hotted up recently—and I am not complaining about this—because the Government have decided that the time has come for a declaration of national policy. I hope that we should have made the same decision, although I fancy that the actual terms of the declaration would have been somewhat different. In my experience, however, it is usually to be found that among those who have responsibility of any kind for the administration of our schools considerations of Party politics do not determine the stand which they take in the big debate about selection. After all, Conservative authorities are pressing ahead with experimental schemes of reorganisation, and some Labour authorities are digging in their toes. I am not in the least concerned this afternoon to try to secure any Party points. Indeed, I want to try to be as unprovocative generally as I possibly can.
My Lords, I went to the Department of Education and Science, as one of the Ministers of State with special responsibility for the schools, with a mild bias, other things being equal, in favour of comprehensive organisation. I left the Department with that same mild bias, subject to a considerable number of "ifs" and "buts" which will, I think, become apparent during the course of my speech. If I learnt nothing else during my time in the Department and the experience which that time afforded me, I learned these two things: first, that there is no pattern of secondary school education which is universally right or capable of universal application; and secondly, that the actual pattern of organisation in any area has little relevance to the real educational needs of that particular area.
For example, one of the most baffling problems to be faced is that presented by what perhaps I might call the tough educational areas. These are places where the schools contain a relatively high proportion of children who are allergic to education, probably because

131
of their environment, their parents' attitude to education, their general background, and other social factors like that. I say "probably" because I do not wish to seem to be pre-judging the results of the current research projects which are taking place into these variables, some of which research projects have been set in hand in order to assist the Plowden Committee on Primary Education. But this is a problem which is becoming increasingly urgent.
This financial year, as your Lordships know, will see the end of the last all-age school, and all children are now receiving proper secondary education. They are compulsorily in the schools from 5 to 15, and soon it will be 16. They all have to be taught, and they all require to have their interest held, including those who are allergic to education. This problem worried me so much that I got the Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools to arrange a special conference of head teachers selected because they were making a conspicuous success of coping with this problem. I felt that the Department ought to know—and, indeed, that I myself ought to know—what their methods are. The head teachers came from all over the country, from every kind of secondary school, and it was a most fascinating conference. What was borne in on me, as a result of that conference, was that what really counts is the personality of the head and his or her ability to make that personality penetrate; and it matters not whether the school be grammar, secondary modern, comprehensive, mixed or single sex.
May I now for a moment, in parenthesis so to speak, publicly proclaim my admiration for Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, an ancient corps, an élite; corps of wonderful men and women, whose praises are very seldom sung. They work in and with the Department but they are responsible to Her Majesty the Queen and not to Ministers. They are all former teachers, erudite, experienced, unprejudiced, tactful and immensely wise—and there is no subject upon which one cannot find an expert inspector. I spent one of the most enjoyable weekends ever at one of the teacher-training colleges at one of the periodic conferences of inspectors of primary schools. I think that very few members of the public realise how deeply
132
the nation is indebted to Her Majesty's Inspectors.
My Lords, the burden of my theme this afternoon is that in my experience it is not sensible to be dogmatic in this controversy and to take up prepared positions, on either side, from which it is difficult to retreat without losing face. It would be helpful if we could all use rather less jargon, and I dare say that in the past I have been as guilty in this respect as anybody else. But the use of jargon, especially the emotive use, blurs issues and darkens counsel. May I give one or two instances of what I mean? When people talk about getting rid of or abolishing the 11-plus, one does not always know whether they are referring to an actual examination or to the process of selection by any means. But it is most desirable that we, and they, should be clear, because a great many people approve in principle of selection, so long as it is not done by way of examination.
Again, a new piece of jargon seems to be creeping in, unfortunately, with the use of the word "separatist" to describe somebody who believes in selective schools. In my opinion a prudent person is neither an all-out separatist nor an all-out anti-separatist, but I am a little apprehensive lest this new piece of jargon may come to be used as a term of abuse with which an opponent and his views, however sincerely held, may be dismissed without further ado. I am thinking, for instance, of the way in which one sometimes dismisses somebody else with the words, "Oh, well, he is just a Fascist" or, "He is just a racialist". I am quite sure that in this controversy, this big battle about selection, no good will come if the protagonists descend to calling each other names.
And, yet again, let us be crystal clear exactly what we mean by the words "grammar school education". Some of your Lordships may recall that a few weeks ago, just before Christmas, at Question Time I went for the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, rather intemperately, I am ashamed to say in retrospect. The reason was that such intellectual integrity as I possess had been affronted by the statement in the Labour Party Election Manifesto that, as a result of reorganising secondary education on comprehensive lines, grammar school educa-

133
tion would be extended. I am doing my best not to tread on any corns, or at any rate to do so only lightly, but I cannot refrain from saying that that phrase was naughty. It was naughty because it is capable of suggesting to the ordinary man and woman that within a completely comprehensive system you can still have grammar schools. My Lords, you cannot. Grammar school education is education in one school of able children, who are in it because, and only because, they are demonstrably able.
On the other hand, it may be that in comprehensive schools it is possible for more children to receive more academic education than when only selective schools are available. I do not know any more than anybody else whether that is in fact so, and I would not want to rate the possibility too high, but I hope it is possible and I should like to believe it is possible; and that is one reason why I have the mild bias to which I referred earlier. Please do not let us muddy the waters of controversy by talking about grammar school education when we really mean academic education.
One of the hardest things to do is to disentangle the social case for comprehensive schools from the educational case. I do not believe one can do it completely, because the two are entangled together. But I want to have a shot at doing it for a moment so far as I can. The social case, as I understand it, is based on the desire, which I myself share, to see in this country less snobbery of all kinds, including intellectual snobbery, and greater mutual respect between different members of society. That is a noble goal, a noble ideal, and I would hope most people share it. It is argued by some people that one means towards that goal is to mix all children up in schools which are roughly similar one to the other. But, of course, it is not, and for this simple reason: however much you may compensate children for the inequalities bestowed by background, environment and similar social factors, the intellectual inequalities bestowed by nature will always remain, at least to some extent. That is why in our large orthodox comprehensive schools the children are streamed. And, in any event, in large towns and cities where there are only comprehensive schools children go to the schools which serve their area, and in consequence social
134
classes are not mixed up as they would be if they went to selective schools.
I venture, if I may, to say again to your Lordships something which I said in an Education debate eighteen months ago, and it is this. One cannot for ever opt out of competition. Sooner or later one has to learn that one is stupider than one thought or one's parents thought. So although there are no social arguments against comprehensive schools, there is only one social argument in favour of them, and that is that little Tommy's parents have the satisfaction, perhaps very real to them, of knowing that, so far as the neighbours can tell, he is, at the age of 11 or 12, no better or no worse at his studies than little Willie next door.
I come on to the educational case; in other words, to this question of what is best for the children. I would, if I may, state the pros and cons as I see them, taking the pros first. First, although as I have just said I believe one cannot for ever opt out of competition, I do also believe that it is undesirable for young children to become hurdle-conscious too early in life. I do not say "examination conscious", because selection by examination is becoming increasingly rare and I personally do not see why it should be used at all. Secondly, I believe that when able and ambitious children rub shoulders with the less able and less ambitious they exert a beneficial influence upon them. I must, in honesty, confess that some teachers have told me that sometimes the influence is the other way round—a sort of educational Gresham's Law—but let us forget about that.
Thirdly, it should be easier, at least in theory, for a late developer to transfer from one stream to another in a comprehensive school than to transfer from a secondary modern to a grammar school. I do not know whether that is so in practice. I know that some people dispute it, but at any rate it ought to be so in theory; although there is some force in the argument that parents will press harder for transfer from secondary modern to grammar than from one stream to another in a comprehensive school. Fourthly, the larger a school is, obviously the easier it is to provide a wide range of courses for the sixth form.
Now the cons as I see them. First of all, the sheer size of most of our orthodox comprehensive schools makes it difficult for the headmaster or headmistress to make his or her influence permeate in the way I think everyone knows to be desirable. Secondly, will the ablest children enjoy facilities in every respect as good as those in grammar schools? This seems to me the most important con, and I believe that it is because parents are doubtful about this that there is the opposition which exists to tampering with the grammar schools. I hope I have made it plain that I care about the education of the average and below-average child. Indeed, I am one of those people who believe it is possible to teach intelligence to some point, and I accept the view that our contemporary civilisation in years to come will be judged by the level of attainment of the ordinary boy and girl. But I believe equally firmly that we must advance our gifted children as much as they can be advanced. It is only fair to them to do so, and only fair to the nation to do so. I do not forget the number of times that I have tried to explain in this House why there are shortages of skills which are greatly needed.
Thirdly, precisely because some comprehensive schools are conscious and fearful of this Achilles heel which I have just mentioned, there is the risk that they may concentrate too much upon their gifted children at the expense of the rest. And, fourthly, the chances are that in a comprehensive school the ordinary boy and girl will not achieve positions of responsibility and leadership which they might well have achieved in a secondary modern school.
I have a high regard for the successes which are being marked up to-day in many of our secondary modern schools. Although I am inclined to think that, on the whole, the primary schools are our most successful schools, it may well be that the secondary modern school comes next. When I was Minister of State I visited a large number of schools of all kinds all over the country, and I have a vivid recollection on one tour of being taken, because there was a little time to spare, on an unheralded and completely surprise visit to a secondary modern school for girls. We arrived
136
there when the classes happened to be changing over, and we met the headmistress coming downstairs on her way to take a music class. We accompanied her to a room where quite a small class of girls were preparing to sing and play various musical instruments. The headmistress said to one girl, "Mary, come and sit here beside the Minister and explain what is happening". While the class got on with it that was precisely what that girl (she was about 13 or 14) did—with complete composure, complete lucidity; and, of course, without any preparation for what she was called upon to do. That experience made a deep and lasting impression upon me, and I do not think there can be much wrong with the organisation of a school like that.
As I say, those are the main pros and cons—no doubt there are others which will occur to your Lordships—of the educational case for comprehensive schools. They have to be weighed up, and are being weighed up, by a great many different people in this country—because, of course, the educational system is a partnership between the central Government, local government, the teachers, the religious denominations and a host of other public and voluntary bodies. There are real practical considerations, too. Local education authorities differ widely in size, geography and economic circumstances, and for that reason alone there can be no single formula by which it can be judged whether comprehensive organisation is or is not best fitted to the needs of any particular area.
It seems to me that before any local education authority decides to change its existing pattern of organisation it ought to be absolutely clear and happy about the answers to certain essentially common-sense questions. Will change produce an effective and efficient secondary education for all the children in the area, irrespective of their individual age and ability? Will it make the most efficient use of the teaching resources and the school premises available? Will it involve the loss of existing assets; and, if so, will the gains be at least sufficient to compensate for those losses? Is change supported by local opinion? And will it allow that reasonable measure of parental choice which the Education Act, 1944, says that parents shall have?
Where do the Government, any Government, come into this? I must, I think, in fairness to myself and to those who were Ministers earlier, correct something which the last Secretary of State, Mr. Stewart, said in another place on January 21, in answer to a supplementary question. He said this:
"It has not been the practice under the previous Government to respect the wishes of local authorities as to whether they wished to go comprehensive or not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 705 (No. 43), col. 389, January 21, 1965.]
That was not so in my time, and to the best of my knowledge it was not so in the time of those who went before me. When a local education authority wants to "go comprehensive" (to use Mr. Stewart's words) the Secretary of State comes into the picture only if the proposed scheme of reorganisation involves the closing of a school, the substantial enlargement of a school or the building of a new one. That is the law. In more instances than not, none of those three things is involved.
I recollect one scheme of reorganisation that came to me because a building operation was involved. I was most uneasy about the scheme—in fact, it seemed to me a pretty half-baked scheme. But the actual building project upon which I was called to decide was of itself a good one on its merits, and met the priorities of the school building programme. So I approved it, although with a heavy heart, and therefore, in effect, gave approval to a scheme for reorganisation which I did not think was a good one. How much further than that can one go in respecting the wishes of local authorities?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, who is speaking with great moderation, whether he can give the quotation from Mr. Stewart that he has mentioned. The only Question I can find under that date is where Mr. Stewart said that he certainly could not rule out compulsion altogether
"… any more than the late Government over a period of years were prepared to take the view that they would allow local authorities to do what they liked in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 705 (No. 43), col. 391, January 21, 1965.] Is that the passage?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I quoted, from column 389, the exact words said on January 21, 1965. As I was saying, I do not believe that one can go further than I did, in the instance I mentioned, in respecting the wishes of local authorities as to whether they wish to go comprehensive.
On the other hand, the new Secretary of State, Mr. Crosland, whom I wish well, is reported as having said recently that he is not going to approve any old makeshift scheme. That is good, so far as it goes. But it does not go far, because, as I have just explained, the approval of the Secretary of State to a scheme of reorganisation is required only in quite narrowly defined circumstances, which can usually be got round; and this is a fact of which local education authorities are well aware. What then, I wonder, does Mr. Crosland propose to do? If he is thinking of asking Parliament to give him wider powers to stop ill-conceived schemes of reorganisation or to ensure that full and proper consultation is given to them, then he will have my personal support; for I came to the conclusion some time ago that the Secretary of State ought to have more powers than he does at the moment.
There is one other practical consideration which I must mention. I do not see how any Minister who is responsible for the school building programme, as I was, can fail to take the view that at the present time the chances of any particular project getting into the building programme should not be affected one way or the other by the fact that the school is destined to become a comprehensive school. The priorities, in my view, are—and will have to be for a number of years to come—the meeting of basic needs, the provision of roofs over heads in areas of new housing for expanding populations, and the replacement or substantial improvement of the worst old school buildings, particularly primary school buildings. I had to try to explain that to deputations from local education authorities who came to see me to ask me to include in the programme building projects which they needed because they could not "go comprehensive" without them. I had to say to them that, in my view, that reason was not sufficient.
I was therefore made very uneasy by something else which Mr. Stewart said on January 21 in another place, and I

139
will again quote him. I quote this time from column 388. This is what he said:
"I shall shortly be inviting authorities to reconsider the form of any of their secondary building projects which they wish to bring into line with the policy for reorganisation on comprehensive lines. I shall announce in due course the basis on which future programmes are to be compiled."
That announcement of policy is slightly ambiguous, but if it means what I fear it could mean I hope that Mr. Crosland will have second thoughts, because I defy any unprejudiced person to dispute the Tightness of the priorities so far as the building programme is concerned which I have enumerated. It would be very wrong, and quite contrary, in my judgment, to the real educational needs of this country, if local education authorities were allowed to jump the queue simply to enable them to "go comprehensive".
I should now like to sum up what I have tried to argue this afternoon. There is no social case, and at present no educational case, for being dogmatic either way in this controversy. There is far too little evidence even about the orthodox 11 to 18 comprehensive schools, and still less about the various two-tier arrangements, including the Leicestershire scheme. One may have a bias one way or the other, but bias is not enough. The local education authorities are, without any encouragement, pressing ahead with experiments almost certainly too fast. There is no case, and certainly no need, for the Government to try to force the pace, and it would be wrong to use the mechanism of the school building programme to do so. So I end with this plea: that all the many people in this country who are concerned in any way with the administration of our schools, from the school governors to the Secretary of State himself, should observe the injunction of the poet Horace and keep an equal mind.
3.55 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has attempted to disentangle the social from the educational policies as he sees them. I propose to follow him over exactly the same field which he has chosen, and to try to point out the ways in which we on the Liberal Benches disagree with his diagnosis and his analysis. May I, first
140
of all, take the point which he mentioned quite early on, the question of national policy and central direction from the Government? He says, quite rightly, that the Conservative Party would have liked also to make some sort of central direction; but I feel very much that the sort of central direction which they have given over the past few years has been wrongly conceived, that it has been away from the comprehensive school. I believe that the comprehensive school idea is the right one, and, in spite of what the noble Lord says about the evidence not yet being available, I feel that it is gathering momentum and that for this reason it is high time for the Government to give central direction along these lines.
I feel this for three reasons. First, we are in danger, with so many different reports on education coming out, that all these ideas will be looked at in isolation and in an unco-ordinated way. Secondly, I believe that in the same way that the ideas will have to be co-ordinated by central direction, so the plans must be co-ordinated by central direction. A great many plans have been put into operation by many local authorities which again, as the noble Lord says, have been ill-considered and possibly precipitate. Thirdly, there is a very interesting article in the Guardian to-day on the question of mobility. It seems to me that the only way to achieve a mobility, not only of labour but of technicians and everything else in this country, is by having a scheme of comprehensive education.
Why I feel that the weight of opinion, in spite of what the noble Lord says, is moving towards a comprehensiveness is partly that it seems to be moving towards what has in fact been the system in the private sector for the last 100 years. Organically, this has grown up in a natural way. The private sector is in fact a two-tier system: private preparatory schools and public schools. It is partially selective, at any rate within the framework of the school, just the same as the kind of selection would be in a comprehensive school; and if this organic growth within the private sector has been something which people are prepared to accept, I cannot see why the same idea in a State system should be wrong. I am not saying that the private sector has no faults. Of course it has many

141
and gross faults, but it seems to me that the structural pattern of the private sector scheme is a good one. This same structural pattern is what the comprehensive school is designed to try to reproduce.
The noble Lord said that he was upset that the pejorative word "separatist" was being used about the bipartite or tripartite system of schooling. It seems to me that whereas the private system has grown up organically in quite a good way, the bipartite or separatist—if you want to use that word—system has somehow or other developed along lines which, I feel, are unsound. It was devised—I am not quite sure exactly when it was—just about the beginning of the war and superimposed on what was, after all, basically a comprehensive system before 1944.
Looking back at this decision to superimpose this bipartite arrangement, one wonders how far it was a tidy administrative idea which just went wrong, or, at any rate so far as I can see, which has not gone in the right direction or the direction which was hoped. It has quite definitely produced a system which we all agree is too rigid, and I feel very much that it is producing a system which is in grave danger of making first-class citizens and second-class citizens. This, again, is where I disagree so profoundly with the noble Lord who went before, who spoke about the fact that we must not forget that this is a competitive life, and that there is some element of competition in education.
I quite agree that there is some element of competition in education and that we are all different, but this seems to me to be putting a gloss upon education which, to my mind, is totally wrong. What I mean by that is what I see growing up in the grammar schools. It is true that they are becoming the preserve of the highly intelligent; it is true that they are tending to attract all the abler teachers, and I cannot help feeling that this is not good either for the highly intelligent, or, indeed, for the best teachers, and it is in danger of producing a meritocracy.
I cannot help feeling that a meritocracy is a much more dangerous thing than a plutocracy. A plutocracy has a certain fluidity, where it is possible for people to move from one class to another, which a meritocracy does not have. A
142
meritocracy is a thing which grammar schools are in danger of producing, and it is to be deplored. I am not saying that I want to scrap the grammar schools—I certainly do not—and I disagree with the noble Lord who feels that if you have a comprehensive scheme you cannot have a grammar school. I cannot see this at all, but he did say this categorically. As I understand it, the L.C.C. plan embraces the comprehensive and the grammar school, and I cannot see why it cannot go on doing so under any new comprehensive scheme. I think there is a danger that we might turn the idea of the grammar school into a sacred cow, and say that it must not be touched in any circumstances. Of course, I think this would be nonsense. Grammar schools are like everything else—some are good and some are bad; and if they do not develop along the right lines then, like any other dying institution, they should go.
But there are other failings in the bipartite system, in addition to this one about creating first-class and second-class citizens, and the danger of producing a meritocracy; and one is that the system itself is not working properly. The fluidity between secondary modern schools and grammar schools just is not there. It is very difficult to transfer from one to another. It can be done, but it is not done nearly enough. Again, geographically you get a totally unbalanced state of affairs in which one local authority gives something like a five-to-one better chance than another. It is the same with girls and boys. In some places it is impossibly difficult for a girl to get a place, although it is quite easy for a boy. I think this geographical difference is a great weakness.
Lastly, one of the central weaknesses of the bipartite system is the fact that public opinion is against it and dislikes it very much. There is alarm and despondency at the idea of one's child being relegated, even if fairly, at an early age to being a second-class citizen. This idea may be totally illusory; nevertheless, in so far as people believe an idea to be true, it makes it to some extent true, and I think that this is a great weakness in the scheme. To me the argument is not really that under the present scheme the clever child gets left out; I do not think it does, in spite of the fact that this fluidity is not there,

143
and in spite of geographical and sex differences in getting places.
In spite of those things, this is not, to me, the central argument. The central argument, to me, is the sort of feeling that education under the grammar school system is a device for turning out highly trained top people for a meritocracy. Education is nothing of the sort. Education, I think, apart from those things which make the human soul spring, has to produce a great pool of ordinary middle-ranging people of intelligence from which to draw clever men and ideas. Sir William Alexander, it seems to me, made a good point, which I believe I mentioned in a speech I made on education about a year ago. After a long period of study of all the effects of educational systems he came to the conclusion that there was a very close correlation between the health and wealth of a society and the amount of education given to the ordinary people at the general standards, and very little correlation between the health and wealth of the society and the education that it gave to its top people. To some extent the top people will always take care of themselves, but if the general mass are not kept with as good conditions as possible, we shall end up in trouble.
I cannot believe—and this, again, is where I disagree with so many of the Conservative Party—that comprehensive schools are going to diminish these standards; that they are, in fact, sacrificing standards, as someone in another place said, "on the altar of egalitarian-ism". I think this is nonsense. So far from diminishing the standards, I suspect, in so far as I can read them, that the arguments are all the other way. Not only can the comprehensive school produce better results for the cleverest children, but it also produces by mere weight of numbers—and this is clear even from the small number we have now—a great many more people who obtain their G.C.E. than is the case under the present system. I think that that in itself is a very good point in its favour.
A great many people are coming on to speak in this debate, and I do not want to be too long, but there are one or two other points which the noble Lord raised on which I should just like to touch. First
144
of all, on this question of size I do not see that mere size can have any bad effect. What is the difference between a school with 1,000 boys—the noble Lord and I went to a comprehensive school, as I pointed out before; and although this joke has been made too often it is something which is true—and a school with 2,000? I do not believe it is the size of the school that is important. This is a matter for administration and organisation, and so far as teaching is concerned it is the size of the class that matters.
Again, I do not believe that this question of boys not getting experience as prefects in the very large school, and things of that sort, really matters. There are some advantages in being a large frog in a small pool, and some advantages in being the other way round—a small frog in a large pool. But so far as designing the size of our schools is concerned, I do not think that this really matters very much.
On this question of selectivity and streaming, it is said that the "comprehensive" school is merely another term for the same thing. I do not believe this is true; it is a different kind of streaming. The kind of streaming that we are getting under the present system is the wrong sort of streaming; it is the streaming which is working a sort of backlash down to the children of eight in primary schools, specially designing the clever ones to go on to a separatist grammar school. This is a bad kind of selectivity. The good kind of selectivity is what you will have in any comprehensive school. The right kind of streaming is what you have in the private sector, with the different A, B and C streams in one school, and the system as fluid as possible. It is not selectivity under another name.
There seemed to be some feeling in the noble Lord's mind that the schools in very bad areas might get very low down in the "pecking order". I do not believe this matters. There will be a "pecking order" in comprehensive schools, as there is in public schools. Some will be considered better than others. This is inevitable: we cannot help it. But this does not matter. What does matter is having a whole class of schools, grammar schools, which are regarded as good, and a whole class of schools, secondary moderns, which are regarded as bad.

145
I think the noble Lord said something about what is called overlap—that is to say, that we already have in the present system sufficient overlap, or could devise better, between grammar schools and secondary moderns, so that at the higher levels there could be interchange at those levels between different children. My answer is: that may be so, but it is not working out that way; and, if it is so, then the logical conclusion is undoubtedly a comprehensive school.
Then the noble Lord spoke about buildings. For myself, I cannot see that it is vitally necessary to have a purpose-built building. It seems to me that to talk about makeshift buildings as being unsuitable for this job is not a fair criticism. Again, I can think of large schools of 1,000 boys where the buildings are separated by as much as a mile, and where they have to walk from one end of a small town, as it were, to the other for a different lesson. Does this matter? Leicestershire, it seems to me, is getting over this problem quite well. In fact, I would say that in a way it helps, rather than hinders, the move towards comprehensive schools, at any rate specially with regard to the two-tier aspect of the thing, which I think is very important. Obviously, children from 11 to 19 is too much for one school, and we must have them from 8 to 13 and 13 to 19. If this is to be done, then different buildings are better for it.
The noble Lord also mentioned time. I think this can be left to local authorities. As to direct-grant schools, again I see no reason why this should not be left to local authorities to work out in their own way, in the same way as independent schools can be left to work out their own salvation within the scheme. As I say, the whole weight of educational opinion—again, in so far as I can read it, because it varies a good deal—seems to be tending towards comprehensive schools, and that is why I feel so strongly that the Government should make a statement of central policy in this direction. It seems to me that, even in Conservative circles, it is being accepted to some extent that comprehensive schools have their uses. I think it is official Conservative policy to suggest that they are all right in new housing estates or in rural areas. If they are all right there, it seems to me that they can only be not
146
all right in some other place because of these difficulties of transition, and that the solving of those difficulties of transition—of integrating the old and the new, and of integrating the grant-aided and the independent, into the new scheme—is merely a matter of time. It seems to me that if it is accepted that they are all right in a new housing estate, this is tantamount to accepting that in principle the system is a good one.
So I hope—and I think we on these Liberal Benches all hope—that the Government will declare a central policy which will give at any rate a very strong trend in this direction of allowing local authorities to work the things out themselves. As I said before, I know that some of the local authorities have not been exactly wise in the way they have carried out their schemes; nevertheless, I think they should be left to devise their own schemes according to their own needs and their own problems, which are geographical problems, population problems, problems of their own particular traditions and, indeed, as someone in another place said, problems of their own prejudices, if they will. So, while trying to cover the same area as the noble Lord has covered in this discussion—and I can see that, throughout this debate, discussion is going to be on whether to select or not to select—I would say that, from my point of view, he has got his priorities wrong in this disentanglement of the social side of education from the educational side of policy, and that the right aspect is quite definitely to try to swing over to a comprehensive policy. I urge the Government, who seem to be willing to make some central policy declaration on this matter, to go ahead and do so.
4.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD SNOW): My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for introducing this debate this afternoon, and we are specially grateful for the tone in which he introduced it. Education is a topic which is charged with emotion. When we approach it, each of us is tied to his own past and probably to the future of those who are coming after him. It is a subject full of feeling, and if we are to get any good sense into our deliberations we have to

147
control that feeling. We are, as I say, especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for introducing what we know touches many people deeply, in a manner which makes it possible to have a debate on the plane of reason. This is not always so on educational issues. I had taken the same resolve before I spoke this afternoon, or before I heard the noble Lord on the line he was proposing to take. I had even taken a self-denying ordinance that I would not, in the old Latin statutes of my college, attempt to make honest jokes, because I feel that honest jokes are, on the whole, rather liable to be dangerous if you are dealing with discussions on education.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, if this debate had been mine I should not have concentrated it on this particular, narrow theme of selection. I believe that many other parts of our educational dilemmas are in practice, though perhaps not in theory, more important. I believe the esteem we give our teachers, the way we recruit them and the way we pay them are more important, probably, than any conceivable change we could make in organisation. I further believe that the provision of adequate buildings is more important than anything that we can do in this abstract sense. I also believe that what we actually teach is of some importance. I should have liked to pose such questions as, "Is the English tendency to excessive specialisation a good thing?"—and I am sure it is not; and, "Is our passion for competitive examinations a restrictive influence?"—and I am fairly sure it is. These are in fact the topics which, if the ground of this debate had been mine, I should have chosen as the first priorities. However, the whole national debate has got out of our hands, either on the Opposition Front Bench or on ours, and we must devote ourselves to the problem which is now presented in constant newspaper and Parliamentary debate.
I shall try to be at least as reasonable as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, but I have to begin with one point from which neither I nor my friends on this side of the House can budge. After this, I can promise the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that there will be no stereotypes and no jargons so far as I can keep them out. But we have to say this.
148
We regard it as intolerable to determine a child's future at eleven, and we regard it as intolerable however it is done. The 11-plus is obviously indefensible; experienced persons like the noble Lord would not try to defend it, and it was only defended, as I remember it, once in very full debate in another place.
It is flogging a dead horse to attack this curious instrument, but I will perhaps flog this dead horse for the last time. To select anybody by competitive examination at 11 means a faith in examinational procedures which even the English or the Imperial Chinese would find very hard to accept in their more lucid moments. It was based on a delightful piece of optimism: that a method called the I.Q., or Intelligence Quotient, could be really helpful. This was perfectly sensible; everybody was trying to find some device which would eliminate environment, eliminate what the child was taught, and was trying to get nearer to a representation of the actual mental machinery. It was not a stupid concept; in some ways it is still quite valuable. But it has the faint disadvantage that it does not work.
After the war, in the Civil Service Commission we experimented tentatively, but quite deeply, with I.Qs, directed this time, of course, to candidates of mature years and usually highly intelligent; and we got very curious results. We found that most of us were rather stupid—which was no surprise to anyone. And we found the perfect man, someone whose I.Q. might possibly have been equalled by Maynard Keynes at his best but could not be excelled. He was absolutely perfect. He did everything at a speed greater than anyone had known I.Q. papers could be done. And he did it with complete accuracy. Unfortunately, that was his only gift.
Therefore, my Lords, I really think that this 11-plus examination must be taken off the shoulders of our children. It has created great strain and has produced immense bitterness and a sense of injustice, often where injustice has not in fact happened, but also created a sense of injustice where it has been happening. For any such 11-plus examination probably can be trusted to select the 10 per cent. or so best academic children; that is, it is probably accurate to that extent. I would guess it would

149
eliminate—and it is always easier for these devices to eliminate—the 20 per cent. less fitted for academic training. But between those two there is an enormous area where often you might as well spin a coin. Luck plays an important part in life, as we all know. It is lucky to be born healthy and fairly bright and in a home where there are books—I deliberately do not say "in rich homes"; I say in homes where there are books. I was born poor, but in fact we were a bookish family. We were all playing intellectual games from an early age; so in that respect, though not in others, I never felt any sense of deprivation compared with people with much more money. But many homes are without books. Many people are born without this advantage.
We cannot possibly, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, rightly said, eliminate all these inequalities in the human condition; but it is the task of good government at least not to add to the inequalities of the human condition. In fact, this method of selection undoubtedly has helped to add to these inequalities. I would go further: I would say that any of the methods I have seen devised, not by examination but by taking account of course teaching, of parents' intentions or of interviews, although they detract from the strain either on the parent or the child and are so far good, are in some respects likely to be more socially unjust, rather than less. I suspect that children selected by careful choice with the best of intentions by local authorities, on the basis of anything but an examination, are often those children who have a slight natural advantage in environment. It would seem to be very unlikely if this were not so. This method, again, I personally think would be both unjust, inefficient and socially very dangerous.
It is an extremely difficult thing, in fact, to judge general intellectual ability at the age of 11 or much later. By "general intellectual ability" I mean nothing more exalted than the ability to go through the academic hoop—to pass examinations, in fact. It depends on something obviously much more complex than the intellectual machine. It depends partly on temperament. Almost all successful academics have a streak of what the psychologists call the obsessive. Fortunately for the poor little devils, you cannot detect
150
obsessive tendencies easily in a child of 11. It depends partly on physique, partly on all sorts of things not strictly intellectual, but which anyone who has lived in the academic world knows to be vital for the successful performance of this long-sustained obstacle race. I think a man can have seen very little of the fates and life patterns of his fellow-men, the rate at which they develop, the rate at which they become interesting, if he has the faintest belief, as an honest person, that he could judge one person at 11 and say, "I know he is, or is not, going to make a 'go' of some sort of academic progress." It is a responsibility I should not care to take myself. I doubt whether many noble Lords here, crossing their hearts, would like to do so.
My Lords, if this is so, if we cannot select without inefficiency and injustice at this age, then we are automatically forced into another form of education. There is no possible way of getting out of this new course of action. Once you believe selection is unjust at 11, then you must have a non-selective education, for a time at least. There is no other way. It is as simple as this. Noble Lords opposite, with the best intentions, I think have often tried to introduce here an element of over-complication. There is no complication possible. If you cannot select decently at a very early age, then you are forced, until you can select, to have a different form of education. That form—and here I shall offend the noble Lord, Lord Newton—has this rather absurd portmanteau title of "comprehensive". It is a term I should never have invented myself, but we have to live with it. I am afraid that just as many terms in discussion begin to become terms of abuse, it has become a term at least charged with feeling on both sides: on the one side that this is the answer to all human prayers; on the other side that it is some deep attack on prized traditions.
It is nothing so terrible. I look round this House. I suspect that at least 95 per cent. of us, when being educated, went to what, in the sense I am using it, was a comprehensive school; because comprehensive just means that you are not selecting entirely for intellectual ability at an early age. I see young Lords opposite who are quite young and possibly their fortunes were different; but, in fact, except for the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and fellow-Wykehamists,

151
and except for any noble Lords who were at Manchester Grammar School, before 1939 the concept of selection seriously did not exist. This is a completely postwar invention.
I remember very well the kind of selection process which took place at the grammar school which I attended—quite a good one. At the age of 11-plus—that vital age—I was taken down to see the headmaster. He asked me to write a few lines. I could do that quite well. Then he asked me to do a few simple sums; and I could do that, too, quite well. Then he said, "You will now pay £5 a term and come in in three weeks' time". This is what selection meant in an English grammar school in the period before 1917. This was the process in English grammar schools until 1939, with one or two most distinguished exceptions.
There was none of this element of elaborate academic selection in the experience of almost every noble Lord here. I remember my school fellows, many of whom would not get into a grammar school in modern conditions; yet they became very valuable citizens. I do not necessarily say that our present performance in your Lordships' House makes us models but at least we survived being educated in comprehensive schools. Do noble Lords really think that it is impossible for others to do the same?
While we are about it, I would remind your Lordships that in fact we all went to what we might call comprehensive universities. Cambridge, in the '20s and '30s, was a pretty good university, with some of the best research ever done in England. But there was no selection, in the narrow academic sense. I used to be rather interested in cricket and had a number of cricketing friends. I could not say that they represented the top 5 per cent. of the national ability. It was a bit of a shock, even to me, when I visited one of their rooms and found no book of any kind whatever. Yet they, too, have become good citizens.
I know that there is an argument—and some people feel passionately upon it—that there is a great virtue in selection for its own sake. I am very doubtful about this. It is an argument that I should be prepared to listen to, though I am not prepared to listen to selection at age 11. I should have thought that
152
most of us would benefit by contact with persons of very different brains and ability, of different temperament. In fact, for me this is the real desideratum of a good education.
The concept that extreme selection was necessary came upon us after the 1944 Education Act. That Act was a good and benevolent Act, and we are grateful to the Master of Trinity designate for this great contribution. Naturally, when we had to administer it we took the ordinary English way—it would not have been the Scottish way—of immediately introducing comprehensive examinations. This was the responsibility of the Labour Government at the time. It took us some time to know that we were wrong. We decided that if children were to be going to different schools, we must examine them. All Englishmen would have taken roughly the same line. Nobody else in the world would have thought it so sensible.
It was assumed that in England everybody wanted to go to a grammar school. Here again a gross disparity of result ensued—which still exists; and this is something that no-one can wipe off. Whether a boy could go to a grammar school or not, depended very much on where he was born. Of two boys of exactly the same ability, a boy in a North-Western town of historical repute had exactly one-sixth the chance of getting into a grammar school that he would have had if he had been born in North Wales: his chances there would have literally been six times as great. This same condition exists to the present day.
There is a gross disparity scattered through this island. As a result, in certain unfortunate English towns—they are the great villains of this piece—only 7 per cent. of the children can be accommodated in places where their parents wish them to go, while in Welsh towns—who are the heroes of the piece—40 per cent. are able to be accommodated. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was extremely anxious to avoid controversy and keep us on an even keel, but when he talked of choice, I think he was going too far. Choice means nothing, if this disparity exists. Parents who are largely concentrated over most of England (the situation is a little better in Wales and Scotland) and who wish their children to go to a grammar school, find that they are not able so to do.

153
This problem has been complicated by what seems to me to be, a specifically English obsession—the obsession with the academic obstacle race as the one true end of man. For too long we have thought that getting a First-Class Honours Degree at Oxford or Cambridge, or a First in Schools or in Tripos is the only thing that makes a man respectable. Too much of our whole intellectual life has been influenced by the scholarship examinations and by the specialised training which leads to this singular consummation. I am not going to disparage the academic skills. I have a little of them myself, otherwise my life would have been more uncomfortable than it has been. But it has been a serious loss to our country that we have estimated them, all too wildly, above all else. It has had the gravest social results and I suspect that it has had moral results, too.
It is interesting to consider the experience of a country faced with a situation not unlike our own—I refer to Sweden. The Swedes have a more acute sense of social justice, of equality and inequality, than we have. They also have practical problems very like our own—that is, too many children have too long been going into what they call pure or theoretical subjects, meaning the humanities and pure sciences. So, very slowly and tenderly, over the last ten years, and more strongly over the last seven years, they have gone in for elaborate comprehensive education. They started in South Stockholm and compared the results with those in North Stockholm, and then extended comprehensive education to about two-thirds of the country.
I suspect that we all ought to go and have a look at the result. We get many different impressions—some in favour, some against. I have an intimate friend who is a Swede and who has been, like nearly all Swedes in education, an inspector of schools, a schoolmaster and an academic. When I knew that I was going to speak in this debate, I asked him to give me his considered view, and the views of his friends, on how it worked. He has given me a very long letter, of which I propose to make copies for your Lordships. It is wise and instructive.
Broadly, his conclusion is that it would work admirably. It had achieved at least the results it had set out to achieve. Academically, your Lordships will be interested to know, the results
154
were almost the exact opposite to the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. There has been a strong move in the direction of the academic component. These schools stream at 13, rather like the streaming we give to our privileged children. At 13 an abnormal number of the brighter boys and girls—these are, of course, co-educational—elect for the academic stream and then seem to do better than they did in the old gymnasia simply because the pressure is so intense. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his view of what would happen was very close to this particular version of what is happening in Sweden. In fact, I suspect that whatever we do in education the fate of the really bright is not a thing to worry about. I myself should never worry about it. There are other things that I should worry about regarding comprehensive schools more than the noble Lord, Lord Henley, does, but not this one.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, hit one nail right on the head when he talked about the difficulties of headmasters. The Swedes can afford to build really big schools, very well equipped, and pay teachers handsomely. But one result of the comprehensive system is that it does need extraordinarily gifted men to be headmasters; and then you work them to death. That I think one would expect. We have to find our own way, of course. We can look at other experiences and find out what is useful, and then take it or leave it. There is something to be learned from American high schools, although I have not the same admiration for them that I have for American colleges or universities. There is something to be learned from Russian comprehensive education, which is really comprehensive, because there there are no concessions whatever. In a Russian school you remain in the same form with people of ability selected by chance, and there you stay until you leave and go to the university, if you are clever enough.
It is true that the products of both American and Russian high schools seems to me to be at least a year behind ours when they leave for the university. On the other hand, within three or four years they are at least as good as anything we can show. Often I think that our extremely intensive system tires

155
people out a bit by their early twenties, and I think these young Americans and young Russians often have a more intellectual resilience just when they need it, But that is a passing impression.
One curious thing is that you cannot specialise in Russia at all except for a tiny area of ability. I want to bring this in here just to show that I am not doctrinaire about selection; none of us is if you can really select. The things you can select for are mathematics, music, ballet dancing and one or two others of the visual arts. Some of these things you can select quite easily at the age of four. Most really gifted mathematicians are identifiable by that age. The only way to get specialist training in Russia is to be a gifted mathematician or a gifted musician, and then you have a highly intensive education in your own art. Whether this is right or not, I do not know. As your Lordships can guess from the tone of my discourse, I am rather against people being so strictly confined at such an early age, whatever they are like. But if I were going in for early selection in this country, I should go in for early selection for people possessing these easily identifiable gifts and very specific gifts. This seems to me to present no social problems. Everyone will admit that these are exceptional, and the problems of organisation are trivial; the numbers are so small.
But we have to find our own way. We have to do it slowly and carefully. Education is a tender growth. The Leicestershire plan has some advantages. Probably, since we are going to be confined in building space for years and years, something like the Leicestershire plan is likely to be adopted fairly generally. The only criticism of it I have heard that is seriously made is that, since it is left to parental choice, when the child is 14, who goes on to a final grammar school, it is liable to mean that the middle class have rather the better of the draw. That seems to be a just criticism made by a very wise educator, the present chief education officer of the West Riding. But we shall have to experiment with all these matters. In fact, building will make it necessary for us to do so; the state of our buildings makes it necessary for us to try everything which falls within reason. If we are going to do so we must carry with us men of good
156
will. There will be some who are opposed, in any event. A lot of men and women of good will have got to be familiar with the kind of considerations that are guiding us. It will need a good deal of administrative tact. But granted that we cannot select early; granted that it makes no sense and makes no kind of justice to select early, then slowly and carefully, with consideration, we shall have to move upon some such course, trying everything, being experimental, being careful.
My Lords, I have tried to be open. None of my colleagues thinks that this is easy. I have said that I also think that the major dilemmas of our education are not touched by these forms of organisation. But they are important. We believe that it is going to take a long time, and it will be very delicate. I am prepared to say that I believe that in most educational changes there are losses as well as gains—and there I speak personally, not for my colleagues. Nevertheless, there is no choice. This is something which, where you see that you are perpetrating a gross injustice, if you do not begin to change, then you must go forward. We cannot continue with a system of early selection which offends both human sympathy and good sense. And the path of progress is going to be long and arduous.
But within that progress it seems to me that we have to keep hold of the vision of a desirable education, and that desirable education must hold, among other things, a sense of respect for persons of qualities and abilities different from one's own. I am sure this is a major problem of real education. Unless we do that we shall not make our society or our country survive in health. And something even more important: unless we have human respect for people who may not be as good at passing examinations but can do other things in the way we cannot, then we shall have lost the ability to approach our fellow human beings. We must have this respect if we wish either ourselves or our children, in the old Pauline phrase, to be "members one of another".
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Newton puts us in his debt by opening a debate on what I consider the most controversial issue in

157
education to-day, in a non-controversial speech; and the two noble Lords who have followed him have also, if I may say so, kept the temperature as low as they could. I do not propose to follow them in this respect, because we cannot take education out of politics. Education is about people, and politics is about people; and the heart of politics is what kind of people we should like to see come after us to maintain the honour and vigour of our country and to help their neighbours and people in other lands. Therefore, I will say very little about the educational arguments which I think are better left to the teachers.
One hears from teachers, especially head teachers, whose opinion one has learned to respect, that if all our secondary schools become comprehensive, the likelihood is that fewer children will receive an education which really suits them as individuals. They give me (heir opinion that the clever child, at one end, and the backward child at the other, are better taught in selective schools where the teaching can be effectively matched to the needs of the individual boy and girl. If that is true, it is a serious matter. It would be extremely serious if we adopted a new form of secondary organisation which weakened the sixth forms, because it is no good talking about a modern Britain and an efficient scientific and technological society unless we realise that most of our hopes for this kind of economy are channelled through the sixth forms of the schools. If anything should happen to weaken those sixth forms, there would be a great loss to the nation as a whole. I leave this question to my noble friend Lord James of Rusholme, who is a far greater expert upon it than I am.
The noble Lord, Lord Snow, mentioned the comprehensive system in the United States. I had a look at that, and I found that the Americans were becoming more critical of their system and pointing to a number of serious defects, principally the defect in the sixth form, which is the reason, as the noble Lord has just said, that their children emerge, when they go to the university, about a year behind ours. But there was one fact which worried the Americans, of a social rather than an educational nature, and therefore it should appeal to noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
158
The inevitable result of their system has been to create a hierarchy of neighbourhood schools—that is to say, the comprehensive school in the good area has been always a good school, but the school in the poor and unattractive area has remained weak and unsatisfactory. It is precisely the children who live in the depressing areas who are most in need of help, and they have found in America that the system itself ties those children to their unhelpful conditions.
We can see in this country this process in reverse. Often I have heard of a clever boy coming from a bad home or a bad district, who has been fortified by-working alongside children of his own intellectual ability in a grammar school; and I have been told that if that boy had remained in a neighbourhood school it is very doubtful whether his talents would have been developed so easily. These are educational arguments, and it is a valid criticism of a complete comprehensive system of neighbourhood schools that it does not allow sufficient cross fertilisation between areas of different social conditions.
I do not think that educational arguments are really uppermost in the minds of the Labour Party. Their chief concern—and I do not blame them for it—is not for the education of the individual child, but to produce a classless society. I do not like the phrase "classless society", but let us say a society in which there are far fewer social differences, and where people appreciate each other, whether they come from one part of the country or another, rich or poor, and so on—the kind of society which I should like to see myself. Really, the question is: will the comprehensive system do the trick? This is the political question behind the policy that is now put forward by the Party opposite. Of course, an educational system shapes society, and is shaped by society. But at any given moment society, so far as it is the product of the educational system, is the result of what the schools did or failed to do a generation ago. People very often forget that. When they do not like the shape of society to-day, they are inclined to blame the schools as they are to-day. This is extremely unfair. Still less are they willing to think what the schools they have to-day are likely to be after another generation of improvement.

159
In the last thirty years, thanks to work by all Parties (and I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Chuter-Ede, who was one of the architects of the 1944 Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, referred in generous terms), the local authorities and the teachers, big advances have been made towards the provision of a good and suitable education for all children. The whole system is incomparably better and fairer than it was before the war, but we have a long way further to go. One looks round and sees that the teaching is good in some schools and not so good in others. One sees that parents are more aware of these differences in quality between schools, so that the competition is intense to get their children into the best schools. That is in itself a good thing, but it can be politically embarrassing. One sees also that those who get the better education in the better schools, whether they are maintained or whether they are fee paying, have a superior look about them. The Labour Party believe that the selective schools manufacture superior and snobbish children and parents, and therefore they want to get rid of these schools.
The question is: are they wise? Will their policy do the trick? This is the situation which faces us to-day. But it cannot be the situation in twenty or thirty years' time. We are going to spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money on these schools over this period. We are going to have many thousands more three-year trained teachers and, I hope, many thousands more graduate teachers. The vital question is whether we should use all these splendid resources in an attempt to get rid of all the superior children and their superior parents by "going comprehensive", or whether we should use these resources to make the vast majority of parents and children equal in superiority by greatly improving the existing secondary system.
Here we have the old political conflict between levelling down and levelling up; between a policy based on uniformity, and a policy based on variety. I submit to your Lordships that levelling up is not only sounder educationally—more children will receive education that suits their individual needs—but will also meet and strengthen one of the best desires in human nature, the care and love of parents for their own children.
160
We can learn a lot from parents who to-day are able to express their wishes in regard to their children's secondary education. When these parents have enough money to pay the fees, and they cannot find a maintained school that meets their desires, they choose a fee-paying school with the greatest care. Is this freedom of choice something which, in the hope of creating the classless society, we ought to get rid of? Are parents wrong who want the opportunity to send their child to a boarding-school rather than a day school, or their daughter to a girls' school rather than to a mixed school? Are they justified in spending their savings to find a school for a delicate child? Supposing, as must often happen if all secondary schools are organised into efficient and, therefore, rather large comprehensive schools, that there is no school near at hand where the religion in which they believe is taught openly, and with conviction, are we to restrict their freedom of choice?
To my mind this freedom of choice, responsibly exercised for the benefits of one's children, is the mark of an advancing civilisation. If the Labour Party have their way, and all secondary schools become comprehensive, then the freedom of choice in respect of secondary education will be confined to parents rich enough to have their children educated abroad. And I do not think that the policy would work at home. Supposing that all secondary schools have become comprehensive, will the desires of the parents to do the best for their children be suppressed? Not at all. These desires may very well break out in less respectable ways. Let me give your Lordships a possible example. If all the schools are comprehensive, more children will go to a school where there is a tension between the home background and the school; and the doctors tell us that where such a tension exists it can do serious and permanent damage to the child. The child goes out of school with either a grudge against the school or a grudge against his home.
Noble Lords opposite realise this danger very well when they are deciding on the schools for their own children. I think I am right—and anyhow, I applaud him, if I am—in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Snow, is sending his young son to a comprehensive school?

161
No. To a secondary modern? No? To a grammar school (where he went himself)? No? But to Eton. The decision to send the boy to Eton is, in my humble opinion, right, because there the tension between the noble Lord's home background and the school will not exist, and the chance of the boy's emerging with what they call an "integrated personality" is greater.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, may I reply to the noble Viscount's somewhat personal remarks? It is perfectly simple. It seems to me that if you are living in a fairly prosperous home it is a mistake to educate your child differently from most of the people he knows socially. I should not think it right to impose whatever ideologies I have upon someone who may not have those ideologies.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is absolutely right, and I would go on and say to him that this is the reason why it really is not fair to call a selective school like Eton or Winchester comprehensive, because, as a matter of fact, it is selective by home background. I am not a teacher myself, but I think all teachers would say that the home background is at least as important as what happens in the school; and therefore these public schools are selective because the home background is of a similar character for the great majority of their population.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: May I interrupt the noble Viscount, because I know that he has to go before I reply? Certainly one would not argue, and I am sure that the noble Lord would not argue, that public schools are selective by ability. They are selective by purse.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I do not know. The noble Lord perhaps has not had the advantage of being a member of another place. If he had, he would have had a lot of constituents come to him and say: "Can you help me get my boy into a public school? I cannot get him in; the waiting list is so long." I do not know on what basis some public schools select but I am perfectly willing to agree that many of the best grammar schools give a better education than many of the bottom half of the public schools.
But I was talking about parents' choice, and whether it is right or wrong
162
to limit it. Perhaps the reason why noble Lords and I myself exercise the choice for our children is precisely because we have obtained through our education a knowledge of what is best for our child. I want to get that knowledge for all parents. But the Labour Party do not want to see parents' choice enlarged, and I wonder why. I wonder whether, perhaps, it is because, in their heart of hearts, they do not believe that the standards of living now enjoyed by the middle class can ever be enjoyed by everybody. That, in my opinion, is to take a very pessimistic outlook of our affairs.
The question to ask ourselves is, what kind of secondary schools can we have in this country when real income per head is doubled in 25 years, and, we must assume, will be doubled again in another 25 years. What is the country going to look like then? What will housing look like, which is now such a drag on some schools? All the slums will have gone, and millions of houses will have been built, to let and for sale. What about the arts at home and holidays abroad? Can anyone see the limit by which we can raise the cultural standards of the whole British people?
If all this is within our grasp, why do we single out the secondary schools and level down the excellence in the best of them simply in order to hide the growing pains of selection under a blanket of uniformity? I have an uneasy feeling that the thoroughgoing Socialist would reply to me that faith in the ability of parents to choose wisely the school for their children is unjustified. Parents, he would say, are too ignorant and too besotted about their children ever to know what is best for them. Never will they accept anything but a grammar school, and therefore the political trick is to pretend that comprehensive schools are grammar schools.
My noble friend Lord Newton rightly referred to what the Socialist Party said about this question at the time of the Election. I heard them say it. I heard them offering a grammar education for all as part of the comprehensive system; and I thought, when I heard that, that behind it lay a contempt for the intelligence of the British people, because as our standards of living rise—and they will—boys and girls will come out of

163
school knowing more about education, as parents they will make wiser decisions, and as wiser parents will demand, and will get, better secondary schools, The one reacting on the other, the quality of parents' choice will improve and so also will the means of satisfying that choice, if we do the right thing, My Lords, there is no reason whatever, except political prejudice, why by the end of this century we should not have a network of secondary schools which will offer the vast majority of parents as wide a range of choice as is now enjoyed by fee-paying parents.
Just think what we could do in that time. We should have comprehensives where it is sensible to have comprehensives. I have always believed there are certain places where it is sensible to have them. We should have many more direct-grant schools, many more schools to care for children who have some special disability, schools with an agricultural bias or a bias in some other practical direction, and, of course, many more boarding places, which you must have if you are to collect children from a certain distance to the school where the parents really wish the child to go. And this is very much the case with denominational schools. If we put our minds to it we could have as many denominational schools as parents desire.
This, I venture to say to noble Lords sitting on these Benches, is the true Conservative policy. This is levelling up, which is the proper objective of a country which believes in freedom of choice and a variety of schools between which parents can exercise responsible decision on behalf of their children. We can make this choice available for the parent of the future if we put our resources behind variety instead of behind uniformity. On the other hand, the doctrine of uniformity, expressed here in a demand for a complete system of comprehensive schools, affronts our ideals, affronts both Christian and humanist ideals. The individual is sacrificed to society. The parent is silenced by the politician, and the doctrine itself is put forward by men whose educational arguments are unsound and whose private conduct labels them as humbugs. If legislation were proposed to force through Parliament
164
the wholesale comprehensive system, I hope that your Lordships, knowing that the great majority of teachers and parents would be behind you, would throw it out.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am not quite sure who is in charge of the Opposition—I think it must be the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on the other side—but I would ask him to repudiate at once the contemptible slur on my noble friend Lord Snow and no doubt other noble Lords. It is unlike anything I have heard in this House, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to repudiate it.
5.15 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am newly come to your Lordships' House—certainly it is not 100 days since I came here first—but I have had time to see the remarkable courtesy which is always extended to those who make their first contribution to debates, and therefore I crave your indulgence, particularly as I follow some very distinguished speakers. In fact, I am rather reminded of an occasion when I spoke once in Israel, when I followed the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and prefaced my remarks by saying that in Britain we have an expression "After the Lord Mayor's Show comes the dust cart"; and I am bound to say that, when translated into Hebrew, it sounded quite poetic.
I can only say that I can have no feeling other than a passionate one in contributing to this debate. Not only am I currently engaged in adult education, but I was a teacher in a primary school, and I am delighted to hear so many compliments paid to at any rate that section of our education. I have also had the opportunity of serving as a member of a working party of the women's group on public welfare, where we discussed the education of girls, and currently I am indulging in discussions with many young mothers and young wives on evidence for the Plowden Committee concerned with primary education. So I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon.
Who are the villains of the piece in the story of secondary education? I would say, first of all, if I may use a

165
rather ambiguous term, the English people. There is a very cynical little story, attributed to a celebrated politician now dead, in which he said that the Scots have a respect for education, the Welsh have a passion for it and the English have no particular objection to it. The older I grow, the more I have a feeling that if the people of this country really cared about education we should not have to teach in the schools that many of us have had to teach in for the past 30 or 40 years.
The second group, I would say, are the educationists. Why is it that when the ordinary girl and boy leave school they close the door on the school with a sigh of relief and an expression of "I do not want to go near that place again"? We have a great sense of failure, and this is something for which I too must accept responsibility. Thirdly—and here I must say I am rather horrified to see I come into this group also—we have the Government, who play a very serious part in the concern of secondary education. It is a popular ploy, seemingly, of Governments to set up very elaborate Committees under distinguished chairmanship and composed of brilliant and hardworking people. Presumably these Committees are costly, and when the findings are eventually brought before the notice of the other place it is rather sad to find that so few of the suggestions contained in them are acted upon with any speed. I refer, of course, to the Albemarle Committee, the Crowther Committee and the Newsom Committee, and no doubt we shall soon have the Plowden Committee's Report also.
We cannot be complacent about our secondary education. A quarter of the pupils who leave the primary schools go to secondary grammar or secondary technical, and three-quarters go to the secondary modern school. I can remember when the secondary modern was called something a little different, and I recall the excitement when there was a change of title. But, you know, my Lords, a rose by any other name smells as sweet. I remember teaching a dull and backward class in a primary school which enjoyed the name of "the Remove", but the children referred to it as "the daft class". I hope they did not include the teacher in this grouping.
166
It is not my intention to give your Lordships any more figures—figures can in fact reveal or conceal, or be made to make any argument a valid one—but I well remember when I was teaching 52 children in a primary school being rather startled to read in a pamphlet that there was an average of 33-8 children in every class in Great Britain, which set me wondering why I had so many of somebody else's.
I would suggest to your Lordships this evening that Her Majesty's Government are not doing anything which is revolutionary in suggesting that secondary education needs a rapid kind of change. The Butler Education Act of 1944 says precisely this:
"Secondary education is the right of all instead of the privilege of the few. The Act seeks to provide secondary education which corresponds to the age in which we live."
As I see it, Her Majesty's Government are seeking to carry out the terms of that Act. Where do we get the description "secondary"? I took my description from the Newsom Report, which says that it is a rough administrative definition; that below the age of 11 is primary, and that what follows 11 is secondary.
I think this is typical of our obsession in this country for chronological age. We all are asked to retire at 65, or 60 in the case of a woman. This always puzzles me, since women seem to be tougher and live longer. We start school at 5, though some of us may have been ready to start school at 3 or 4. We leave school at a given age, and we enter university, again at a given age. So far, the only thing for which we have not been able to legislate effectively is the age at which you commence being an adult in the sense that you can have children.
First of all, I would say that "11-plus" is a misnomer. The child has to be ready to move on by the time it is 11, and it would be more precise to refer to this as "10-plus". In fact, as any teacher will tell you, to take an arbitrary line of chronological age is not only harsh and unjust, but completely incorrect. We have always had those who are known as late developers. If you think these are a small proportion of the population you are wrong. There will always be those who, because of background, temperament, and certainly not always intelligence, will in fact come to the forefront

167
of their powers much later than others. At present these children do not get the fair opportunity they deserve.
I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Snow, ask us what education is about, because I began to wonder at certain stages in the debate whether we were wholly concerned with educating for earning a living rather than educating for being people. The campaign for education which was initiated in 1963 gave an excellent definition of "education". This I quote:
"Upon education"—
in Britain—
"depends the growth, freedom and happiness of every human being, the quality of our society, and the wealth of the nation. We all want a better chance for our own children; young people want a better chance for themselves. The nation's economic future depends upon education. We are not rich in material resources so we have to cultivate our brains and skill."
Are we doing precisely that in current secondary education?
I have quoted the words:
"Upon education depends … the quality of our society."
We live in a Christian democracy, and I am certainly one of those—I am sure there are many other noble Lords here too—who thank God that we have been born into, and are privileged to take part in the running of the affairs of, this democracy. But history shows us that the survival of a democracy depends upon men and women appreciating their responsibilities to each other. They must respect personalities, and they must recognise that freedom to decide their own destiny carries with it an obligation to play a part in the affairs of the community. If the schools were doing that, I would say that it is strange that to-day so many people opt out and say that they do not wish to be bothered, and that they are quite happy to leave it to the powers that be.
How does secondary education measure up to
"the growth, freedom and happiness of every human being"?
Let us look at the little children of 10-plus and consider their feelings when they are confronted with the movement to the secondary education group. At present in many places there will be the examination, there will be the interview with the
168
headmaster or headmistress. If they are fortunate enough to get through the examination, they will again be interviewed for the grammar school place. If there are not enough places in the county, they will go to another kind of school. This does not reveal their ability in any capacity, but rather the limitation of the particular place in which they are unfortunate enough to live. No teacher will defend the disparity which at the moment exists between one place and another in the country.
With the noble Lord opposite, I should like to see freedom of choice. Can he really tell me that at the moment we have this? I remember teaching a class in London in which there were as many as 20 children moving over to grammar schools, and in another county, which shall be nameless, we had only two children of the same age group doing so. These children were not different in intelligence or even in background; they were only different because of the fact that they lived in a different part of Great Britain. Nobody can defend this as freedom of choice.
We see here, too, that the great joy and privilege of going to the academic school, the grammar school, has become something more than an opportunity to get the kind of education from which the children will benefit. It has become a status symbol, and parents will go to great lengths in order to give this opportunity to their children. A headmaster is reported as saying that there have even been suggestions of bribery—that headmasters were approached in this way. I am happy to say that these offers we not accepted. It is significant that when I have talked to the mothers of young children in the primary schools they nearly all say—and this is borne out by the evidence before the Plowden Committee—that the 10-plus examination lays far too great a strain both on the children and on the parents, and where it has been abolished there is immediately a much better teacher, parent and children relationship. It is significant, too, that the evidence we have had from health visitors indicates that they have noticed how the strain on the whole family is lessened when there is not this terrific emphasis on the need for the child to get through this wretched examination.

169
There has always been this undue emphasis on the formal work, and if you have tried to teach in a primary school you will know what this means: the heavy concentration on a limited number of subjects in order that the children can go through at a given time. I cannot emphasise too strongly that different people cross from childhood into adult life at different ages. I would say that our whole educational system is at present bedevilled by examination. It is rather significant that when defending the comprehensive school, so many people use as a measuring stick the number of "O" level or "A" level passes gained by the top pupils.
What are we educating for? Is it merely to produce the narrow academic, or is it to produce a full person, a real tolerant individual and a member of a great democracy? If there were more university places, more colleges of technology, there would not be this need for the overriding consideration of academic examination. There have been several references to the fact that we are unequal, and we certainly are unequal. The older we grow the more we realise how much cleverer other people are than ourselves, how much more attractive, how much wittier, and so on. But, nevertheless, my teaching of the dull and backward showed me that every human being has a capacity for something, but many people now go right through their life without their own particular talent ever being given the opportunity to be developed.
I have studied the changeover from primary to secondary very carefully. When I tell your Lordships that I am a product of a private school, and a denominational one at that, you will know that my bias is, if anything, towards the retention of that type of school. It is necessary and desirable that some kind of selectivity should be continued, but this must not be something which decides the child's future at such an early age. I am forced to the conclusion that, whichever way one approaches the matter, one comes back to a system of comprehensive education. In such a system the pupils can change from one stream to another with complete ease, and there will be the opportunity to meet people of differing backgrounds and differing kinds of ability. I well remember that in the
170
training college—I was not fortunate enough to go to a university—although one was allocated to a group to study a particular subject, one met other people at different levels who were studying other subjects. While one might be with somebody who was brilliant at English, one would equally meet someone who was brilliant in music or art. There was therefore the give-and-take of the different placing of one's own position within the structure of the college. I can see no great difficulty about this system if it is utilised for our secondary schools now.
No child should ever be considered a failure. The present system gives many children a sense of failure at the age of 11. I cannot feel that it is justified by any kind of argument. The community is composed of people of all kinds, and therefore the school should be a reflection of the community. I would put in a plea for co-education. Since it works so well at an earlier age, there appears to be no real reason why it is necessary to segregate the males from the females when they reach secondary level, since they will, one hopes, revert again to be considered together when they reach university level.
Finally, I would put in a special plea for the consideration of secondary education for girls. Social changes are taking place which, from the female angle, will affect their whole life. Girls are marrying earlier, there is a change, happily, in the balance of the sexes, and it makes me wish I were young now, since we are moving into a stage where there are more men than women. There is a desperate shortage of men and women in both professions and industry, and it will be necessary for the young woman of to-day to return to her chosen career when her children have reached an age when she can reasonably do so. She will still be young enough to take full advantage of many years of service to the community.
When the educational curricula are being considered, I would put in a plea that the secondary education of girls should receive special consideration. Let us have genuine equal opportunities for men and women at university level also. I am intrigued to see that one university college is considering, very magnanimously, the admission of women. I hope

171
this will be both speedy and successful. Teaching both boys and girls has shown me very clearly that there is no difference between the mental capacity of the male and of the female. Happily, there are other differences which your Lordships will know about. At present there is still the unbalance that if a girl is clever at secondary level, she is not given the opportunities to move to the heights to which a boy can move. Why do we not hear of more women engineers? Women have a great skill of this kind. Very frequently they are employed in the lower levels of such professions. Schooling is still designed so that the girl must go to domestic science at the same time as the boy goes to something of a different character.
I would leave this thought with your Lordships. As a nation we need to use to the maximum the brains and talents of all our citizens, the three-quarters as well as the one-quarter. There must be no discrimination of colour, class or sex. I believe that immediate action is necessary in secondary education. Our society at the moment puts great pressures on us all, and if boys or girls are to emerge from school enabled to withstand them and to play their full part, we must see to it that they are given the maximum opportunity to do so. It seems a small thing to ask at this juncture that the school leaving age should be raised immediately to 16. I have great faith that Her Majesty's Government will do this. I wonder how history is going to see us. One remembers T. S. Eliot's words:
"Here were a decent. godless people;
Their only monument the asphalt road;
And a thousand lost golf balls."
If we do not look to our secondary education, our monument to posterity will be broken cars, juke boxes, bingo halls and betting shops.
5.37 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, this debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, takes its place in a series of important debates on education in your Lordships' House, debates marked in every case by wealth of experience that has contributed sound sense. This afternoon we have been conscious of an enrichment of our strength in the noble Lady who has just
172
sat down, for she has brought to our educational discussions a knowledge based upon experience of doing the job, than which there is no better experience. We have appreciated greatly the skill with which she has argued her case and I, for my part, hope that we shall hear her on many further occasions, not least defending and proclaiming the right of women and girls to an equal share in education and in the professions which the men so often deny them.
In this debate, or in a series of debates, there is a danger always that we take one part of education and try to consider it in isolation from another. There are urgent problems indeed in what we call the "secondary stage" of education. But it is unfortunate, for instance, that we should be discussing the organisation of secondary education before we know quite clearly at what age it begins. The noble Lady was quite right in pointing out that we have a passion for carving up the lives of people into neat age groups, sometimes not always easy to understand. I can never understand why for one purpose people are young until the age of 25, and adult thereafter.
The noble Lady, if I may say so, was right in emphasising that it is not only the age, in the sense of the number of years from birth, but also the age in the sense of mental capacity which should determine the movement from one type of education to another; if, indeed, we need do more than divide education—which should be a continuous process—into groups for administrative purposes only. If we are to transfer from one of these stages to another at the age of 10 or 11 or 12 or 13, it makes a considerable difference to the organisation of the secondary stage which follows, and there is a danger that we shall be rushing into an organisation without having decided first at what point it begins.
In this debate we have to deal with the situation as it is now, and may I again echo what has been said by other speakers: that the first consideration—indeed, almost the only consideration—is what is best for the individual child himself. We must always be trying to discover how our schools can best help the millions of individual children, remembering that each of them is a unique personality, and how we can provide for them the most suitable conditions in

173
which they can grow and develop as individuals.
Every schoolmaster (and I speak as one who has been a schoolmaster) is rapidly taught by his pupils—if he did not know it already—that he cannot generalise, even about 30 boys in a class. Each one is a person, and each one requires a personal approach; and woe betide the teacher who thinks that they can be run as if they were a platoon of the Guards! It does not work that way. But it is one of the continuing tragedies of Engilsh education that shortage of teachers and continuing over-large classes make this personal treatment and personal approach far more difficult than it should be for the vast majority of our teachers. It would be an over-simplification, but one which I believe goes to the heart of the problem, to say that if we had all the teachers we wanted of the kind we needed, we should not be bothering very much to talk about the organisation of secondary or primary education, because the teachers themselves would be dealing with a great many of these problems.
As we consider the needs of the children as individuals, we must keep in mind the evidence, so cogently and movingly presented in the Newsom Report, that the difference between the tasks of schools in various social areas is so great
"as to constitute a difference in kind".
In schools in slums, to quote from that Report,
"inevitably their pupils are not as good at school work as those from more fortunately placed homes. Inevitably, too, their general level of manners is lower and the risk of their falling into delinquency is greater than average".
Nor dare we forget the conclusions in the Crowther Report, that the social background of children is an important factor in determining whether they continue in full-time education beyond the minimum age. We can have no doubt from the evidence in the Reports of these two Committees, that there is at the present time an almost incalculable loss to the community of potential ability, and that, as things are, all our children just do not have an equal opportunity of acquiring intelligence and developing their individual capacities.
174
None of us can possibly be satisfied that all is well with the existing situation; and to say that is not to forget the gratitude we owe to the splendid work which is being done by the teachers in so many schools. In grammar schools, secondary modern schools and comprehensive schools there is a professional devotion and skill. No one type of school has a monopoly of that devotion and skill, and in all the types there is a willingness to reach out to new ideas and techniques for which the nation as a whole, and parents in particular, should be very grateful.
But the question which I believe we are asking is not whether what is being done is wrong or bad, so much as whether we could not do it better, in a better way for the children, and a better way for society. Is the principle, which I notice we are beginning to call the "separatist principle", out of keeping with our understanding of the nature of our society? Certainly, it would be difficult to find many people who would argue now that a final selection can be made, or should be made, at the age of eleven which would determine the category of school to which a child must go and in which the child must, except in very exceptional circumstances, remain. Whatever else can be concluded, the 11-plus examination, as we used to know it, is so dead or dying as not really to be worth discussing any more.
Nor are we entirely happy with the various experiments which are being made—in making a selection at about that age by some other means than that of examinations. Even if we do away with the written examination, we have now seen that one cannot be quite certain of the I.Q. of children at the age of eleven or even at much later ages. I found myself very greatly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Snow, on this point. I recollect that on one occasion, when a team of psychologists wished to try out in a school of which I was the head a new system of determining the I.Q., I insisted first that it should be tried on the staff. Most of them had a mental age of ten, but I had not sufficient confidence in the test to sack the lot of them—and I refrained from taking the examination myself.

175
At any age selection is difficult, Whether we do it on interview, which introduces a subjective element, whether we do it in the most objective way we can by written papers, success in which sometimes reflects not so much the ability of the children as the skill of the teacher to cram for that particular kind of paper, we are going to make an enormous number of mistakes; and those mistakes are going to remain with the children for far too long. As I said, that is so much a dead subject as almost not to be worth discussing.
At this point, my Lords, I should make it clear that anything I say in this debate I say in a personal capacity. Although I happen to be Chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, there is no Church policy on the principles which should govern the organisation of secondary education. The educational leaders of the Churches are in close and friendly touch with each other all the time, and I believe that I can speak for them all when I say that our purpose now is what it has been historically; to co-operate with the evolving national pattern of education. We believe that we may have something to contribute to the thinking on which that evolution is based, and we welcome the many opportunities which the Churches have for consultation, both with the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his advisers, and with the local education authorities.
The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have, through their aided-schools, a real partnership which we desire to keep as effective as we can. And here, we have no secrets from our friends in the Free Churches, with whom we are in constant communication. I would repeat: there is no Church or Christian "Party line". Christians may rightly differ in their attitudes to comprehensive education. The Churches as such can take no side in any aspect of educational controversy which is of a political nature. Their desire is to co-operate within what form of organisation is decided by the nation. We are grateful to the right honourable gentleman who has just ceased to be Secretary of State for Education for his clear recognition of this in his speech in another place. If I may quote his words, he said:
176
"… I welcome the fact that the denominations have made it clear that, where there are schemes of reorganisation, they would certainly rather take part in them than be left out in a sort of enclave of their own. I further recognise that if they are to take part in those schemes it will, in a great many cases but not in all, mean that if it is to be done properly there will be special financial problems to be met … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 750 (No. 43), col. 445, January 21, 1965.]
May I emphasise one point? The Churches do not want voluntary schools to be outside the general pattern of secondary education, whatever that ultimately may be; indeed, I view with very grave concern the fact that one local education authority has recently excluded a Church secondary school from a comprehensive scheme of reorganisation. The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have spent, and are still spending, large sums of money on buildings for secondary schools designed to fit into the existing pattern. I opened one such school as recently as last week. It has fine spacious buildings; and I had hardly reached the opening ceremony before I was discussing the extension of the buildings to take double the number of children for whom they are already making provision. If we have to contemplate yet more work to comply with new ideas—and that for children for whom there is no grant entitlement under the existing regulations—perhaps we may have to ask that the grant structure be looked at again. But I will say no more on this point, because I know that the Secretary of State for Education and Science understands it very clearly.
If I may come back, in a personal capacity, to some of the general considerations which are important, if we desire our educational system to contribute to the integration of our society, and if getting rid of the separatist principle contributes to that end, then I myself should have no alternative but to support getting rid of the separatist principle. But I have certain anxieties because to my mind it is not clear which method of reorganisation is the right method.
I thought when I came into your Lordships' House that I knew what a comprehensive school was, but after listening to some of the speeches in this debate I am not quite sure. It seems now to be a term that we are using to refer not solely, as we tended to do until recently,

177
to a very large school to which children were admitted without any selection, and where they remained for all their school life, but to include other forms of reorganisation as well—possibly a two-tier system and the like. But I would reiterate the point which has been made already: that many of the large grammar schools draw their pupils from a wide area and from diverse family backgrounds and that a comprehensive school serving a particular area may well draw its pupils from only one social group. This is a point which must be watched; and, as has already been said, this is partly the experience in the United States of America.
I believe we want to draw the children in our schools from differing backgrounds. I am not quite sure I go all the way with those noble Lords who have suggested that you do better if you draw all your children from one kind of family background, and can therefore teach them better whatever their separate abilities may be. I think I myself would rather tend to go in the opposite direction and say that they do very much better to meet in school some of those with whom, in working life, they will have to be on terms of understanding and real intimacy, rather than to have separation. This is only one of the very many factors which are involved in selection. We obviously want to enable the more able children to realise their full academic possibility. At the same time, we want to give to the less able children a form of education which will help their development and diminish their sense of rejection or inadequacy—a sense of rejection and inadequacy which can be very real, as I imagine most of your Lordships who have ever visited secondary modern schools will know.
Can this be done in one school? The evidence so far seems to be not conclusive, though we do know that a great many heads of comprehensive schools are very alive to the importance of this problem. Streaming within a comprehensive school may produce precisely the same kind of inadequacy and sense of inferiority as do separate schools. This is quite possible. Indeed, I have been in a comprehensive school in which the grammar stream (if one may call it that) was becoming a kind of élite and the rest of the school almost jealous of their privileges. The head and the staff did
178
not want that: it was something which was happening almost automatically.
And what would happen in a comprehensive school of, say, 2,000 pupils if streaming were abolished? Should we have an automatic promotion year by year from grade to grade? Should we have some of the children held back because others could not quite cope with where the science or mathematics syllabus was taking them? We do not know the answers. If we were able, and were quite confident that we were able, within one school to give to each child the type of education suited to his temperament and ability, and at the same time integrate children of different abilities and backgrounds into one real community, and were quite sure that this was really happening, something like a major breakthrough in secondary education would be achieved.
My Lords, I do not think there is any very great difference between any of us who care for the children or for their education, as to the purpose that we are after. We differ about methods; and we differ, perhaps too much now, about methods of selection. Is this not a reason for proceeding cautiously, with still more experiment, before we settle upon a pattern? If we assume that selection at 11, which is to be rather of the nature of the Oxford Final Honours School (which, as Sir Walter Raleigh remarked once to a pupil, is a separate and distinct event from the Day of Judgment, but not very much), is on the way out, or is out, and if we then proceed to find which is the best way to organise, perhaps we shall be more effective than if we were to decide now that there is a single pattern which will work.
After all, my Lords, there are, I believe, only 180 comprehensive schools in the whole of England and Wales. Some of them are very young. We have not very much experience yet of all the problems which have to be tackled, though I have myself the greatest respect and admiration for the way in which the staffs of those schools are approaching their job, and I have found in those that I have visited an atmosphere, educationally and personally, of which any school would be proud. But so I have found it in many of the secondary modern schools, particularly those which have been developing recently with flexibility, with initiative and with far-

179
sightedness until they are doing work which, in some respects, makes them more and more indistinguishable from grammar schools. Their experiences and the experiences of their staffs are all needed still in this asessment of what is the right pattern of secondary education just as the assessment of the contribution of the grammar schools depends on our bringing their staffs most fully into the picture.
There are very strong arguments for proceeding with some caution. On the material side (and reference has been made to this point) the scandalous state of thousands of our school buildings revealed in the Survey of School Buildings, the urgent need to provide new school places, the building schemes already in process for selective grammar and modern schools—all these make it inevitable that for some years to come, whatever type of comprehensive education we experiment with, it will have to be done by using existing buildings. In some areas a fully comprehensive system, it seems to me, cannot be achieved by using the existing buildings in any way that makes sense educationally. To build all the new buildings required for the new comprehensive schools, assuming we are following the pattern of a school of 2,000 every time, is just not possible, I imagine, for reasons both of national finance and of priorities in building. Here we have by the force of circumstances, I believe, a time imposed upon us for more inquiry and research; and I personally hope the local education authorities will still be given freedom to experiment with varying forms of reorganisation so that there will be still more evidence available and, above all, there will be much greater opportunity for full discussion among the local authorities and the teachers (who have not come very much into the discussion in some places) and also the voluntary bodies.
As a nation we rightly expect more and more from our educational system. Our present system, although we look at it very critically, is the envy of other nations, not least because of its flexibility and the freedom which teachers and local authorities have under it and, I might add, the partnership which exists between Church and State within it. As we seek to improve what we have now, so that it may both serve the children better and be
180
a more effective instrument of social change, I hope we shall never sacrifice that flexibility and that freedom.
6.2 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I add my congratulations, and a bouquet, to my noble friend Lady Phillips for her most graceful and accomplished maiden speech? I hope that we shall have many opportunities of hearing her here in this Chamber.
When I come to consider the Government policy for secondary education I should like to start with a short quotation about it. This is it:
"It is in fact a revolutionary situation, the sheer destructive nihilism by which our country is now threatened—let all who care for freedom close ranks or chaos will be upon us."
This is not a quotation from Karl Marx; it is from a letter in The Times. I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was speaking. Coming in at the end of his remarks, I might have thought he had signed this letter; although he did not. The Times has been conducting its own private little war against comprehensive schools. Now I have an affection for The Times; it has, after all, a respect for the dignity of the English language; but we all like teasing The Times; and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, had a nice "crack" yesterday about it. But in the words of the now familiar song, I have grown accustomed to its face.
In recent weeks, in a leader which took a steep dive into reaction, a series of letters were sparked off, a clarion call for the downtrodden middle classes, rousing them from their slumbers and telling them they had nothing to lose but their brains. These letters accuse the Government of a diehard egalitarianism, of risking excellence for equality, of gambling with the future of our children. Education, they cried, was not political, was not social, was just plain educational. Few letters pointed out that education had anything to do with opportunity or with economics. It was the citadel that was threatened, the grammar school.
Actually, my Lords, the debate on secondary education has been going on for years in the country, and there has been a certain amount of guerrilla warfare on comprehensive schools which had died down but has now flared up

181
again. This universal debate on education has been gathering momentum because of the growing realisation that our competitiveness, even our national survival, depends on a big expansion of our system. There is a dearth of every kind of skill in this country; and first and foremost we want more and better education. The last Government, in response to the mounting pressures, positively spawned committees, inquiries, reviews and reports—Crowther, Newsom, Robbins and Plowden among them. In any emergency someone is bound to say: "Send for an inquiry". Now it is: "Let us have an inquiry into the comprehensive schools". And this is the only issue that I take up with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London. I do not think an inquiry is necessary at this stage; we have had quite enough experience of the comprehensive schools. I find myself very much in agreement with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
My Lords, in the last few years a revolutionary concept has spread, and has been accepted by most of our educationists: that the differences in ability among our children are largely determined by their opportunities. By our process of early selection at 11 we waste and under-utilise great reserves of ability in our children. I notice that the eminence grise of noble Lords opposite is Sir John Newsom. Mr. Hogg, the Minister of Education in the Conservative Government, leaned heavily on him during the recent debate in another place. I myself am not so enthusiastic about the Newsom Report; and what enthusiasm I felt was rapidly cooled after I had read in the Observer Sir John Newsom's views on the education of girls. His views were so old-fashioned as to be antique: women ought to be taught special subjects, a little music, perhaps a little literature, a modicum of biology; cosy and functional.
Now I do not suggest that conversations between men and women consist exclusively of topics such as nuclear physics, or even the bank rate. But these atavistic views add insult to injury; insult to women's intelligence and injury to our economy. One-third of our labour force is female, and we are likely in the future to need more and more skilled and educated women. We have still to profit
182
from great reserves of ability in women which have not been tapped.
The Government's policy of abolishing selection at 11 produces a completely new situation. A change in the pattern of our education becomes inevitable. The Labour Party have long felt the urgent need for a reform of the present system, and here we think that the comprehensive school can do more for educating most of our children than the secondary modern schools, although there are some very good secondary modern schools. I know that great fears have been expressed and stirred up about the grammar schools. Some of us on this side of the House share a feeling of anxiety about the best ones—not all of them are worth going to the stake for, or even to the polls. I went to a good one myself. I have never accepted the rather sombre cliché that schooldays are the happiest days of one's life, but this school bequeathed to me an intellectual curiosity which rarely dies and always enriches one's life.
The Government have said that the grammar schools will be extended and integrated in many ways. Reorganisation is a key to progress, but it is not always an open sesame. Largely, we can change as quickly as we can increase the number of teachers and buildings. Here, time is on our side. Speed, I think, is not the first priority. We can ignore the political arguments about grammar schools if, while extending and integrating them—and this is not beyond the ability of the local authorities—we maintain the high standard of the best of them. It is foolish to incur, as some local education authorities have done, the hostility of the grammar school teachers. They should be on our side. We wish only for more children to profit from their high standard of teaching. Some local authorities do not seem to realise the benefit of handling this delicate problem with tact.
We have heard much lately of Bristol and Liverpool. The Bristol plans have been passed because they have a strong case, though they have not finally elucidated the position of the direct grant schools. Bristol has built 17 good comprehensive schools and 60 per cent. of their children are in them. I think that, with greater regard for public relations, and if they had explained their position

183
more carefully to the public, their plan would have been far better received. In Liverpool, the plans are under consideration. There the situation is more complex. The public are aggrieved because notice of the changes proposed was very short. The teachers are up in arms, and the headmaster of a famous grammar school has resigned.
Here I must express a personal anxiety. When selection at 11 has been abolished, the plans for reorganisation cannot be left entirely in the hands of local authorities. The Government have an increased responsibility (here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton) and must give guidance as well as direction. I see no merit in causing alarm and despondency among parents and teachers; because even those of us who are wholly committed to the comprehensive principle, and believe that it works towards a more harmonious society, as well as being necessary for the economic recovery of our country, know that the changes must take time. In this matter, as I have already said, time is on our side. As the changes proceed and the results can be judged, they will be far more potent persuasion and propaganda than all the words that tot up to idealistic thinking. There are dangers that we must try to avoid about comprehensive schools themselves. By creating neighbourhood schools we run the risk of substituting creaming by location for creaming by selection. The Leicestershire plan, so popular with many people, still seems to favour more middle-class children, because of parental choice.
Finally, I believe that comprehensive education is the pattern towards which we must work, with wisdom and without undue haste. My husband used to say that an ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory—or it might have been a hundredweight. The Government are not seeking to destroy the present educational system: they are seeking to reform it. We can no longer live in an ivory tower. We have to go out into the world, a world of change and competition.
6.16 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, I do not think that it is professional pride that makes me believe that there are few subjects this House can discuss that in the long run are more
184
important than the organisation of secondary education. I hope that we are all increasingly agreed that the realisation of our plans for economic advance, for defence, for making our contribution to undeveloped countries, and for improving the quality of life of our own countrymen, all ultimately depend on an educational system that shall be efficient and shall be humane. That is why we have had a succession of Reports on various aspects of education—Crowther, Newsom, Robbins; and Plowden still to come.
Yet, as soon as we begin to discuss the actual organisation of secondary education in detail, we apparently find ourselves involved in an area characterised by prejudices and misconceptions, by inconsistencies and an enormous amount of sheer ignorance. It is also characterised, of course, by administrative complexity. For, in discussing this subject, we must never forget that this is now by far the most important field in which very considerable power rests with the local authorities. All this complexity makes it difficult for anyone with any first-hand experience of education and with, in addition, very strong beliefs about it, not to talk for far too long, and particularly difficult to avoid the temptation simply to make points against those who do not share his views. I want, if I can, to avoid these temptations, although, in view of some of the speeches that have been made, they are going to be very difficult to resist.
First, can we isolate what in fact we are arguing about in our present controversies? Reduced to its bare essentials, it is whether children above the age of 11 should be educated in common schools or in schools which differ in their curricula and methods according to the intelligence of the children in them, the type of school being determined by some kind of selection process. I will not go on and elaborate what we mean by intelligence. I will not take part in those rather old jokes that have been made about intelligence tests, because most competent psychologists are convinced that intelligence tests do in fact test the intelligence.
I need not say that the problem is a good deal more complex than this in practice because it is affected by individual circumstances. I personally have no doubt, for example, that in Anglesey

185
the solution of having several common schools is the right one and has certainly been successful, because it would be difficult and wasteful to concentrate the comparatively small number of highly academic children in separate schools. What, then, we are arguing about is not so much whether in certain circumstances some kind of comprehensive system is right or wrong, but whether in all circumstances any kind of separation between schools on the basis of ability is to be deplored and the common schools are everywhere to be encouraged. That is really the crux of the argument.
In favour of that position let us admit at once that there are powerful arguments. The primary school curriculum may be distorted or impoverished by excessive preoccupation with the examination. It may be claimed, and has been claimed, that selection at 11-plus is inaccurate and therefore unjust, or is all too accurate and therefore divides people into classes too rigidly. It may be claimed that transfers between different schools, although they occur, must always be more difficult than between streams within a single school. Then, it is said—and this I believe to be very important indeed—that the process of selection, the very existence of different kinds of school, is a divisive element in society; that it perpetuates and creates divisions of class and leads to the emergence of a meritocracy that is sometimes held to be more harmful than other kinds of élite;, for reasons which are not always clear to me.
These are, frankly, weighty arguments. I think it is possible for a partisan—and I am partisan—to produce answers to them all. I myself go so far as to defend the 11-plus, because I have selected children at the age of 11 with a considerable measure of success judged by future career. I would defend the 11-plus in some form so long as it is not final. I would even say that it is no bad thing for children to be well grounded in English and arithmetic, and that if a school is so bad that it narrows its teaching unduly, mere abolition of the examination will not make it a good school. One can, and should, justify the limited range of the 11-plus and its use in these apparently comic objective tests, on the grounds that these represent a deliberate attempt to minimise the effects of social background and to bring
186
about social justice. One could emphasise that it is no fault of selection as such that one L.E.A. may provide three or four times as many grammar school places as another.
But these are not the points I want to make. They are also not debating points. They are points of substance, but they are not the ones I am concerned with. Nor do I want to talk as an ex-grammar school boy or as an ex-grammar school master about the destruction of good schools, as we sometimes do, because I know that this is the last thing that most of my noble friends on my left would wish to do. What I must try to do is to raise quite frankly some of the misgivings that are felt about many of the proposals for a rapid and universal programme of comprehensive school education, because they are misgivings shared by a great number of knowledgeable men and women in the schools; and unless you are convinced, then no system will work.
First, we are anxious to be convinced that the individual child will really be more likely to find an education suited to his talents in speed and content, and in particular that the very able boy or girl will not be frustrated and held back, or the very dull bewildered and discouraged. I know that these points have been made before to-day, but I have got to make them because they arise from years of experience. So many schemes of reorganisation—and here I have to become a little technical—for example, assume a five-year course for "O" level, when one knows that the able child must have, or should have, the opportunity of a four-year course if it is at all possible. One's misgivings were not diminished when in the debate in another place one speaker talked about the education of clever children as being an easy business so that they could be taught in groups of a hundred or so. Such an attitude shows a failure to realise the particular needs and importance of such children. I have taught them, and I know.
The fact is that in this country we have a shorter educational span for the able than almost any other country in the world. This is a point of crucial importance, and it is seldom sufficiently appreciated. Our university courses are, rightly or wrongly, the shortest in the

187
world. I would say, wrongly. But before we alter our school system we have to be prepared to find the money, the buildings and the time to lengthen our university courses. If we are to do justice to individuals, if we are ever to hold our economic position, we must organise our schools so that our pupils may be taught in groups as homogeneous as possible, so that they can move at their own pace, however fast or however slow it may be. Of course we know that this is an ideal. Of course it is not possible to have all that one would wish in this kind of way in a scattered rural area. But here we must make special arrangements by favourable staffing ratios or the provision of boarding accommodation, just as we do for the child who is specially gifted in music or ballet, where, curiously enough, we do admit selection—and the noble Lord, Lord Snow, would add mathematics, but not literature or languages.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think I made it clear that mathematics is easily identifiable at a very early age, and therefore I should regard it as at least tenable that those selected got justice in effect.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: Yes; it is a tenable view, I agree. It is also tenable that you can select high general academic ability. However, this is, as I say, a very technical argument, and this is no place to go into it. That is the trouble.
Secondly, we may well have misgivings about staff. I am thinking of the critical shortage of those teachers with the special skills required to teach either the very slow or the very gifted. The rare man, or still more rare woman, who, for example, can teach sixth form physics very well must surely be ensured a full use of his or her abilities by concentrating, so far as we can, those who alone can profit from his or her unusual gifts. This is only possible if we aim at homogeneity rather than heterogeneity in intellectual standards. Thirdly, one must be afraid of patchwork solutions. A good school must normally be designed with its particular ends in view, as many of the best comprehensive schools have been. It is no substitute to take a group of existing schools, often separated by consider-
188
able distances, and by simply giving them one head and one name to believe we are serving the cause of educational and social progress.
But my greatest misgivings are much deeper than these. Of course, the defenders of the comprehensive school are right when they emphasise that education has social ends, and that our schools will reflect our aims and hopes for society. It is naïve to speak, as I admit many of those opposed to comprehensive schools do speak, as if education could be conceived in a social or political vacuum. The most important object of the comprehensive school is to help in the removal of class barriers; and it is the one to which I personally am most sympathetic. And my greatest fear is lest the comprehensive school may accentuate the very evil it proposes to cure. In a rural area—and I have seen some splendid common schools in the United States—a common school may well cover a wide range of social backgrounds. But in the great towns and cities is this so? All too easily we may find ourselves in the situation which exists in American cities, where the neighbourhood school, simply because it serves a neighbourhood, embodies a social stratification reflected all to clearly in the performance and careers of its pupils.
I know that if the school I worked in for sixteen years became a neighbourhood school the social range of its pupils would be far less than it is to-day. Its greatest glory, in my eyes, was not its academic excellence. Its greatest glory was that it gave a boy from any home background the opportunity to share in that excellence. It was able to do so because it drew from a wide area, and because the only criterion for admission was ability. Of course the poor were under-represented compared with the middle class. Of course this is true of most grammar schools, and of all universities, for inevitably the child from the home which is poor culturally and socially is denied from his birth many of the opportunities that are given to the more fortunate.
But no system of education, unless it be of Platonic ruthlessness, can of itself change completely an inequality that arises from such deep social forces. It may, and should, alleviate it by providing opportunities that the home

189
cannot give. But it may also accentuate it by driving more pupils and more staff into the private sector. It may do so still more by limiting by the accident of neighbourhood the opportunities of those who, by ability and character, manage to transcend the limitations of background and environment. For every school there must be selection. May I repeat that, so that it is absolutely clear, because so many noble Lords have talked about abolishing selection? As soon as you have a school, you have to decide who is going to it. There must in fact be selection. We delude ourselves—or, rather, we do not probably delude ourselves; we delude other people—when we talk about abolishing selection. What we have to decide, quite simply, is whether that selection shall be by birth or wealth, by ability and aptitude, or by neighbourhood, which is so often the same as wealth. It is because I believe that ability and aptitude are the right criteria that I view so many schemes of reorganisation with so much misgiving.
A society in which social class is unimportant is not to be achieved by educational means alone, and certainly not by schools drawing on one neighbourhood. But I know, because I have seen it happen, that a city grammar school can be as strong a solvent as exists for those divisions of wealth and birth, accent and environment, that should ultimately be irrelevant in the creation of ties of respect between man and man.
These, then, I have said frankly, are some of my misgivings as I contemplate the future of secondary education. You may say that they simply express the attitude of a professional defender of the grammar school, the prejudices of one who has always taught clever boys, three of whom were among the noble Lords I saw here this afternoon, and of whom only one now remains. If you say that, it may well be true. But they are fears that are shared by many people of wide experience and genuine concern, many of whom are, like myself, left of centre in politics; and therefore I believe that they must at any rate be taken into account.
At the week-end the Secretary of State, in what seemed to me an admirable speech, spoke of a period of five years
190
during which he felt that we should be preparing for a more extensive growth of the common school. It seems to me vital that we should use those five years, during which it seemed from the tone of his speech that if he could help it he would not approve hasty and patchwork plans, in a constructive way. It will be fatal if we go on voicing the same prejudices and the same catchwords from either side; if we go on producing the same utterly futile statistics to prove that comprehensive schools are good because some such schools obtain a large number of "O" levels, or, conversely, that they are bad because they produce very few Oxbridge scholars; if we go on saying that education has nothing to do with politics or, conversely, that its primary aim is social engineering.
What, then, must we do? I believe—and I am sorry to find myself in disagreement over this with the noble Baroness who spoke last—that a strong, hardworking and expert committee should be set up to examine the specific questions of the organisation of secondary education in a profound, critical and comparative way. It must accumulate the facts on which something like a policy could be based which, although national in general direction, would allow local variations to flourish. It must concern itself with finance, for the financial implications of a policy that shall be genuinely comprehensive, and not simply a matter of names, are very important indeed, and may well prevent us from doing things of, perhaps, higher priority. It must listen to and evaluate the attitudes of teachers.
For example, one of the facts that I do not myself know, and should like to know, is how far the present system produces a genuine sense of failure among those who do not go to grammar schools. This is the sort of information that this committee can bring out and evaluate. It must attempt to assess educational and social results, and, because five years is too short a time for many conclusions in this field to be valid, it must be prepared to go abroad and learn from the way in which the common school has worked in countries with a longer experience of it, because a great deal of research has been done in the United States on this problem. Without such a study, I believe we are in danger of jeopardising

191
much of value in the variety of provision that the last twenty years have seen created.
I believe that fundamentally this is a matter that should be much more a technical discussion of means rather than of ends. Some may well say: "Not another committee. What can it do to resolve differences of ideology when the two sides differ not only about the kind of education but about the kind of society they want?". Do we differ so much? Concerning the ends, there is an agreement that is often obscured by the controversy itself—the ends of national well-being and the quality of life of the individual person. The greatest danger to me is that in the heat of these arguments we may lose sight of urgent problems and reforms scarcely less important than those of secondary education; the priority that education as a whole should have in our national thought; the priority that we should give to slum primary schools or secondary schools with inadequate laboratories, for example. These are vital questions. Above all, we must recognise that the quality and quantity, and the continuity of teaching, rather than the label, is what makes a school, and that improvements in the training of teachers are, perhaps, of greater urgency than any other task we can set ourselves.
Over many of these issues, many of us who are concerned with education are united. But it is not enough to be united over ends; we must be knowledgeable before we can decide on means. In this particular controversy over the organisation of secondary education I believe, if I may say so, that many of us are simply not knowledgeable enough. It is for cool, constructive and rational appraisal that I ask, so that the legitimate fears of some of us may be examined and perhaps dispelled, and the legitimate hopes of others be based on a surer foundation.
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I think many noble Lords will realise that I find myself speaking under great difficulty, having listened to the brilliant speech of my noble friend, Lord James of Rusholme. He has given us a picture so clear, so sensible and so filled in in detail that perhaps one might think, after that, why make a speech at all?
192
But there is a point that I want to make this evening and I assure your Lordships that I hope not to take up too much time.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Snow, tell us that we ought to be cautious and that the Government were determined to be cautious. Again, the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of London, said that we should not be in a hurry and that we should be more cautious. It is the question of hurry which is causing me very great anxiety; whether we shall stop and think; whether we can persuade the Government to stop and think; whether it will be realised that as we now have another Secretary of State for Education and Science we might say, in all sincerity, that he must be given time to stop and think before he can come to any definite conclusion on what should be done. I know quite well, and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, has also said this, that in a controversy such as we have been having in the last few weeks we have to stop and think if we really hope to find out what is the best plan.
I would first say that there is a good deal of agreement between us; we are not entirely in disagreement about secondary education. We agree, I think, that we have in our sixth forms in this country a very high standard of ability. I do not believe anybody will dispute that. I think we should also agree that, though the quality is there, the quantity is not what we should like and the frontiers must be enlarged and brought more up to that high standard from what I might perhaps call the middle group of ability. After all, they are individual people, but one rather likes putting them into groups in that way, and I think your Lordships will understand.
I think we also agree that in this country we have good schools and not-so-good schools. Sometimes the not-so-good schools are what they are because of the buildings and the equipment and sometimes the teacher/pupil ratio. Above all, it may be the skill of this or that particular teacher which makes the good schools. But the good and the not-so-good schools cover grammar, modern, comprehensive schools and the rest. Therefore, how can we possibly test what is the success of one type of school against another?

193
Our comparisons are simply superficial. We may not be comparing like with like. There is good in them all. We say: "Does one particular school necessarily do very much better?". I would answer at the present moment, "No"; but we really cannot tell. I think that the aim of them all is the same and that it is very difficult actually to say how near they are getting to what they are aiming at.
There are, of course, defects and I would certainly say that we ought to keep our educational organisation under review and look at the defects and see if they can be remedied. But I believe that this is not the time to make a fundamentally different approach to the whole subject. We know the defects. The interesting thing is that those who are putting forward the idea that we should, what is called, "go comprehensive"—I wish they would go to a grammar school and learn better expressions—very often give certain reasons that are completely illogical.
We know, and we call it a defect, at least I do, that more children are eligible to go to grammar schools than there are grammar school places for them; that the places are not there. In many areas it is the case that there are very few places in grammar schools, and in other areas there are more. We are told that this is unjust. The question is asked: "where is social justice? The child is starting under an injustice and therefore we must have comprehensive schools". That does not seem to me a logical argument. If we really wanted them to go to grammar schools and thought them sufficiently able and eligible we should increase the number of grammar schools and the provision of grammar school places. There are those who say that because these children are not getting grammar school places and because everyone is not getting a grammar school education, we must smash the grammar schools up. That surely is illogical.
My Lords, regarding the present 11-plus examination about which we go on hearing, I would say, as one who thinks that at any rate for some schools there must and should be selection, that there should be some test or examination; and I would certainly not at this moment
194
say what would be the right age. After all, we have the Plowden Committee sitting who will have suggestions to make, and I think that we ought to await them. I noticed in the newspapers, I think yesterday, that, with the support of the Ministry of Education, research projects are being started which will take three years. I read down the list of research projects and saw that one is to be carried out in Manchester, another in Leicester and others in different parts of the country, one on the study of methods of examining other than by written papers and another on the formulation of new English tests. It might help us, if we go in for selection, to hear the results of these three-year studies. Until now I have drawn your Lordships' attention to various points on which I think we are all agreed.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, not on the last point. I know that the noble Baroness, who is speaking in a very interesting fashion, will not mind my saying that the question of whether one has to wait for the end of every piece of social research is rather a large one.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I am going to ask for more waiting in a moment; and I have taken in the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Snow, and the right reverend Prelate, who said that we ought to go slow and be cautious.
Now I come to the part with which I thoroughly disagree. Mr. Michael Stewart, who was then Secretary of State for Education—I had to pull myself up and not say "Minister"—on November 27 in another place said:
"In the Government's view we ought now to accept that the re-organisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines should be national policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 702 (No. 22), col. 1785.]
That declaration of intent filled me with alarm and despondency. The decision is to be made now; but we have nothing like the information on which to make it. There is to be only one type of school. I would urge that we keep, to as great extent as we can, our diversity, our different schools and methods of teaching. The decision is to be taken now and there is to be only one type of school. The noble Lord opposite shakes

195
his head. Perhaps I do not understand English but:
"In the Government's view we ought now to accept that the re-organisation … on comprehensive lines should be the national policy."
The Government say, "We have now decided it is to be national policy". I am not saying the whole of the schools to-morrow are to be turned into comprehensive schools, but I am saying that in taking the decision now that is going to be national policy not only are you going to affect all the work and organisation of all the local authorities, but you are going to worry and upset a great many people, and I am sure many of the teaching profession.
Now I ask myself, Why this decision, and why now? The answer to the decision that national policy is to be on comprehensive lines is, as we know, to get rid of separatism; everything to do with separatism is bad. I could not help wondering why then were we paying a good deal of money— £12,000 for one project of research; we were helping to pay £43,000 for another—if we are never going to have any separatism. I thought it would not be particularly useful. But then, of course, I can see that even these doctrinaire anti-separatists must feel and must realise that you cannot do away with it altogether. You can do it more in private. You can select and separate inside the school instead of having children going to different schools. Whether it will make things any better, I do not know.
Some schools tell me it is easy to move the children from one stream to another; some say not. But in any event we shall have to separate them in order to teach them. I know it is also said that the great thing is that they are all together, the able and not so able, and therefore it will keep them mindful of "the common humanity which should unite them". If I may translate that into the sort of words I would use in the ordinary way, I would say that I presume the object is to prevent the more able ones from becoming superior and swollen headed and to prevent the less able from feeling they are second-class pupils. I am not saying anything about social standing.
Again, I have made a good many inquiries about these schools, and I find
196
that very often the children who are not so academically minded—they may be very bright but they have not the same aptitude for what is called "book-learning"—are not necessarily going to love those who have the aptitude for book learning. In fact it is much more likely to cause the jealousy it is desired to abolish. I do not think it will cure it. It may be inside the school or outside, but some form of selection or separatism is inevitable.
I want to make it perfectly clear I am not opposed to comprehensive schools I am known not to be opposed. I remember that in the year I left the Ministry of Education I had seventeen comprehensive schools for which I approved the building. I remember also great excitement about Kidbrooke, the comprehensive school which is now very well known and which I am interested to be able to say started when I was at the Ministry. I had the great pleasure of going down, with the L.C.C. officer, and seeing over the school in detail once it had started.
At that time we had a great deal of difficulty in the House of Commons, and an Adjournment debate, because, while approving the opening of Kidbrooke as a comprehensive, I had not agreed, when appealed to by over 3,000 people, to close the Eltham Hill girls grammar school. At that time I was told that if Eltham Hill was not closed, and the teachers and pupils sent from there to Kidbrooke, Kidbrooke would never succeed; that I was killing it at the start; that I was trying to down the comprehensive school. I am delighted to know that Kidbrooke has been such a success and that Eltham Hill is still going on. Rumour has it that later some more grammar schools may go. But that policy I carried out and still believe in.
Let us see all types of school and find out which is best. We might want a mixture of them all. What I plead for is letting them all live together—no selection, no tests for comprehensive or for secondary modern; and, for the parents wanting them to go to grammar schools some form of selection, whatever may be thought best. As to the age at which selection should take place, I am not suggesting anything; because I do not know. But I do think that for the

197
next few years we should try out schemes like that. In that way also the parents would have choice. I know that I shall be told if parents have too much choice they will probably choose the new beautiful buildings, and that it will not be from the educational point of view. But that we must risk.
It is because, in that declaration of intent by Mr. Stewart in another place, the word "now" is used for taking a decision that I feel so strongly on the subject; and I appeal to the Government to keep their minds open and take no decision for the time being. We are told that they are not thinking of doing it in a hurry, that it will take time, and all the rest of it, but that the decision should be made now. We are awaiting the Report of the Plowden Committee, which will probably tell us much more that we want to know about primary education; and it is on the primary education, of course, that we are going to build the secondary education. So it seems to me quite mad, before we hear more about that, to make the decision.
I wonder, also, whether noble Lords have considered, on this subject of the timing, what was said in the Crowther Report:
"The time has not yet come, if indeed it should ever come, when a single national pattern can be prescribed".
And then there is the Newsom Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said that we had too many Committees and Reports, with a tremendous amount of interesting information. Perhaps she found that she did not find it easy to read and remember them all (and neither do I), or she might have noted these points about making the change now. The Newsom Report says:
"It is misleading to think they can test the success of the secondary modern school because there has not been time yet. It is of course even more premature to attempt a reasoned judgment of comprehensive or other types of secondary organisation."
That comes from the people who have studied the subject.
My noble friend, Lord James of Rusholme, urged that there should be a much more thorough examination, not saying "Are we for comprehensive or against?", but getting down to the facts and finding out; and that would be my plea to-day, to go more slowly. And
198
surely it would be possible for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to say that he wants some time to think about and study the subject; to say that the national policy for the time being is to allow the different forms of school to continue, to help them all, so far as possible, and in doing so find out more about what will be best for the future. We learned from the papers this morning that the Government are considering a comprehensive inquiry into the future of football. My Lords, my plea is for a comprehensive inquiry into the future of education.
7.0 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for putting down this Motion and giving us the opportunity of discussing this subject. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Phillips on what I thought was an outstanding maiden speech, based on long experience and, I thought, full of essential wisdom.
Last year when we debated education in your Lordships' House I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made one of the best speeches on educational policy that I have heard for a long time, particularly on the subject of teachers and teachers' auxiliaries. I greatly regret that I cannot say that to-day. I felt that it was unfair and wrong of him to suggest that there was less thought and care for the idea of education on this side of the House than on the other, that we were determined to push through a certain policy because of political dogma, and that we are not at all concerned with the interests of the child. This, of course, is quite false.
As for what I thought was rather a personal remark that he made, I think that Socialists, people who believe in a basic change in our society, often find themselves in this sort of dilemma. I can give an example of it from my own experience. Both of my children went to ordinary State primary schools and were lucky enough to win, in one case a free place at a small public school, and in the other a place at a grammar school. I am a humanist and I do not believe in religious education in schools; I think it is wrong. That is by the way. But I have never attempted to keep my

199
children away from the religious services and so forth that take place in the school, because I do not want to separate them off from their fellows and because I want them to feel free to make up their own minds on this important subject. I think that we in this society often find ourselves in the dilemma where, to some extent, we have to move along with something that we do not agree with, in the interests of our children and because it happens to be the only thing available.
I do not want in this debate to go much into the question of the actual organisation of secondary education. I think it has been exhaustively covered this afternoon. Before coming to the main point of what I want to say, I should like to make a few comments on one or two of the remarks that have been made. We have heard from various people, first of all, the suggestion that the comprehensive school is a kind of straitjacket in which we are going to get rid of variety in education, and what we are going to do is to pass everybody through one particular channel. I do not think this is true. If one studies all the statements that have been made on comprehensive education, or if one looks at the present experiments and developments that have been made in comprehensive schools, one finds that there are comprehensive schools of various sizes and various kinds. Therefore it is not true to suggest that what we are suggesting is one big pattern which we are going to impose on the rest of the country.
It has also been suggested that we must have caution in this matter. I think this is advice we should all respect. But I would repectfully remind your Lordships' House that, away back in 1943, in a Government White Paper on educational reconstruction there was a firm statement which said that all the evidence showed that children could not be segregated, or divided, or channelled or whatever you call it, at the age of 10½. But, 22 years later, we still have in many parts of the country this same 11-plus system. That is caution for you, if you like! I should be inclined to call it "over-caution".
I think that most intelligent people have come to realise that you cannot defend the system, and I have noticed that in fact no noble Lords on either side have been able to defend the system which grades
200
our children like so many sacks of coal. How can you tell whether a child at the age of 10½ is going to be bright burning, or slow burning, or simply nutty slack? You cannot. We are told that we are trying to impose a national plan and interfere too much nationally. Of course we want local education authorities to have the utmost freedom. But freedom can go too far, and there are occasions, I think, when some kind of national direction and national lead and national help is necessary. We have been told several times to-day of the discrepancy between various parts of the country, whereby a child, if he has the misfortune to be born within certain geographical boundaries, stands far less of a chance of getting to a grammar school than a child on the other side of the road in another county. We know that this is wrong, and nobody on the other side would support it. Surely this is a case for something to be done nationally.
Take the question of school books. In 1961 and 1962, according to official figures, Plymouth spent 20s. per head per school child in secondary modern schools for school books— £1 per head. But the County of Huntingdon in the same period spent 55s. 6d. on school books. Clearly, there is some kind of discrepancy there. In the same year, Grimsby spent 8s. per head on school books for primary children; but King-ston-upon-Hull spent nearly £1 per head. It seems to me that you are putting some children at a disadvantage purely because of the place where they were born, and therefore some kind of firm national leadership on that sort of question is obviously essential.
If you accept the principle that there must be no segregation of this sort—we all accept that there must be some kind of selection (that is clear), but if you accept the fact that it cannot be done at 10½—the selection must be a much more natural process. If you accept the fact that selection cannot only be done on the basis of rather narrow academic abilities which leave out of account questions of personality—in other words, you accept basically the principles of the comprehensive idea—you must do something about it. We are told to be cautious. But you cannot just be a Christian on Sundays, for that is not to be a Christian at all. If you accept a

201
principle, if you agree that something is right, then you must be prepared to make the changes necessary to achieve it.
The point that strikes me most of all the opposition to the comprehensive system is that speaker after speaker gets up—and we heard this from another place—and says, "We are in favour of it. We like it. But please let us keep our grammar school, or keep this and that." They want their cake and they want to eat it. It seems to me that we shall get losses, as Lord Snow said, and we shall get gains. We have to weigh up—I agree, cautiously—whether we are going to get more gains than we are losses. I am convinced that we are. If you agree with that as a principle, then you just cannot sit back and appoint another Committee and wait another 22 years before you make changes. You have to work towards it.
The right honourable Member for Marylebone, Mr. Hogg, in another place, said that a democracy cannot afford to neglect its gifted children; that a democracy which despises the gifted as eggheads has abdicated to dictatorship. That is true. But my experience is that there is not much danger of the egg-head either being despised or neglected. Since I came to Westminster and to your Lordships' House I have noticed that the eggheads are pretty well dug-in in positions of influence and seem well able to look after their own. The trouble is that eggheads have a constitutional tendency to ally themselves with fatheads; and it does not really work out from the point of view of a good policy. The fact is that all children are gifted in some degree and we should not think in terms of an élite. Our problem is surely to devise a system which will give them all an opportunity to develop their gifts to the full.
I want to turn for a few moments to another aspect of secondary education. It seems to me that we are arguing so much about form and method and organisation that we tend to forget something which is just as important—namely, the content and quality of the secondary education that our children are getting. We should not only consider what kind of school we want to put the child into; we must also consider what the school is putting into the child. One of the worst features of the present selective system is its inflexibility, its concentration on
202
what I call narrow academic policy, and its judgment of success on the number of "O" or "A" levels that it may achieve.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he is the second speaker in this debate who has spoken about a "narrow" academic policy. I cannot think why academics are considered "narrow". One could have nobody more academic, for instance, than the noble Lord, Lord Snow, but there is certainly nobody less narrow than he.
LORD WILLIS: Perhaps it is an unfortunate choice of term. I agree that Lord Snow could hardly be called "narrow". What I mean is that one tends to judge the success of a school or an individual by the number of "O" levels achieved, and leave out of account any qualities of personality and drive that a child may have. We have all, I am sure, at some stage in our lives seen a boy who is brilliant at examinations, or even brilliant at university, who to some extent has burned himself out; or the boy who has been marvellous at passing examination papers but who, when it comes to getting a job and fitting into a position to earn his living, has not the qualities of leadership or personality and the other things which go to make the people who matter in this world. Very often somebody with good academic qualifications is to be found in some small and rather narrow job, if your Lordships will forgive the word. That is what I mean by the kind of inflexibility which we have to face.
This, to some extent, is worse in grammar schools than in secondary moderns. The secondary moderns are to some extent, but not entirely, free from that sort of pressure. Teachers and pupils alike are victims of pressure-cooker education. Too many of our schools are like factory farms, where we train children like battery hens, fattening their minds with facts. And then we wonder why so many of them, at the end of it all, have No 1ndividual flavour; why they are unable to show a free-ranging intelligence.
To-day everybody is an expert on the so-called teenage problem, and I must take my share of blame for contributing to the discussion. But I am convinced that a tremendous part of this problem is being manufactured, unwittingly, in

203
our schools to-day, first, by what has been called the separatist system, which creams off the natural leaders, which drives a wedge between young people who live in the same street, even in the same house, marking one as successful and the other as a failure. We are often shocked, quite rightly, by what appears to be the callousness and indifference of some young people, by their hatred of the adult world, and by their indifference to society. We cannot condone this, but we can surely understand it, and understand that we begin the process in many of our schools when we start streaming and classifying, when we mark children and group them as A's, B's and C's.
Secondly, the problem is created in part by the nature of the education they receive and by this tremendous pressure to achieve success in examinations and in "O" levels. We live in a tense, exciting world, a world full of dangers and opportunities, a world which is bubbling and steaming with change. This is the world some people see reflected in the newspapers and on television. But in many schools—and I would stress, not all schools—there is no reflection of the real world whatsoever in the curricula. The children step out of the real world into a cloistered and corridored monastery where the exciting journey into knowledge is reduced to the dull task of remembering and analysing known information. They do not learn, with all that implies; they are taught. And what they are taught often has little relation to the world outside and, above all, it does not involve them, it does not move them, and it contains no magic.
We have all known those unforgettable moments in life when we have stumbled on a new author, or when a piece of knowledge that has come fresh and new to us has illuminated for us a whole new corner which previously was dark. This is the adventure of knowledge. My grouse is that in so many of our schools it is no longer an adventure. Many of the textbooks in use are years out of date or follow old, well-worn paths. In some schools, children are still being asked to make a précis of Hamlet's soliloquy "To be, or not to be", or to re-write in their own words Henry V's speech before Agincourt. This is reversing the ancient alchemist process: it is turning gold into base metal.
204
One hundred years ago or more William Cobbett wrote a series of letters to his son James, in which he set out the principles of English grammar. It is the simplest and best book on grammar that I have ever read, and it contains in its 127 small pages all that anyone ever needs to know about English grammar. What is even more important, he conveys some of the excitement and magic and glory of words to his son. Yet our educators to-day seem determined to complicate grammar; the books get longer and longer. Children are forced to learn the "adverbial phrases of concession" and other things which have no meaning and have been robbed of all simplicity. Geography, which ought to be a tour of exploration of the world, is reduced to the same level. The mind is stuffed like a rag-bag with unnecessary and unrelated and practically useless bits of information.
I was talking the other day to a young lad of 14. I think he knew the height of the coastal ranges in British Columbia; he knew the average mean rainfall in New Guinea, and he certainly knew something about the "terminal moraine which forms the threshold of a fjord ". But he was uncertain about the location of Vietnam. He put it, correctly, somewhere in Asia, and confirmed that there was some fighting going on there; but that was the limit of his knowledge. The same lad could probably give your Lordships a complete run-down on the Hundred Years' War, even to such fine detail as the fact that the French found plate armour to be too cumbersome. It is all there in his textbook. But he would be less well-informed if you brought him up to date. How can you blame him, when you pick up some school books on modern history and find the world financial crisis of 1931 more or less dismissed in the following words:
"… in the summer of 1931 the financial difficulties aggravated by the world-wide slump in trade became acute—and even the Bank of England was in difficulties."
End of crisis! Then the General Strike—a rather important event in recent history, whichever way one looks at it—dismissed in twenty words:
"In 1926 a General Strike occurred, but the Government took energetic measures and within a few days the strike collapsed."
End of strike!

205
I mentioned Divinity in my opening remarks, but turning to Divinity you get the same picture. I happen to be a humanist, and I am opposed to religious instruction in schools. But that is another matter. I am certainly not one of those people who want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". I happen also to think that social ethics and moral standards are important and should feature in every school curriculum. It is generally assumed by most people that ethics are taught with religious instruction. I would suggest that some people may find it well worth while to look at some of the Divinity textbooks. I know from personal experience that the greatest importance seems to be placed not on morals or ethics, or on the real meaning of the Christian teaching, but the child on knowing the identity and relationship of Ahab, Naboth, Ramoth and Naaman; who begat whom; Ur of the Chaldees, and so on.
There is another side of this. I should like to quote a great authority, the present Headmaster of Eton. He said:
"Many boys reject Christianity in their teens, and honestly so, because they do not believe in it. When they do this some are apt to do a package deal, rejecting social responsibility, too. Yet it must be, and ought to be, possible to teach fundamental basic principles of living in a democracy, unrelated to formal Christianity."
He goes on to suggest that ethics should be separated from religious instruction, and this idea deserves some thought.
My Lords, this is not the main point of what I am trying to say. It may be that I have painted too gloomy a picture. The last thing I want to do is to denigrate our teachers or to deny the fine, imaginative work that is being done. There are schools which are alive to the excitement of learning, but they are too few. There are schools where pupils and teachers are in partnership in a fight for knowledge, and, above all, where the school is related to the community.
There is a school called Swakeleys, at Ickenham, a secondary modern school for girls, where social studies are, to my mind, an example to the rest of the country; where social studies are integrated with almost every branch of study. Recently the girls did a housing
206
project; and they went out in groups and saw a New Town, a stately home, a slum street. They studied local housing estates, rents; the relationship of the council, or the landlord, to the tenant; the work of building societies, and so on. They came back and discussed it, they wrote about it and they really have found out something about the problem. That is the twin process—acquiring knowledge and social awareness at one and the same time.
The same school did a survey of social needs in the area. Speakers were invited from the welfare services, the pensioners, an orphanage, a hospital and so on. The girls then decided that they wanted to interview people about these problems, and they went out en masse and investigated them. In the end, they evolved practical means of helping the aged, the sick and the lonely. That is a secondary modern school.
Forest Hill, a comprehensive school, has a similar approach; and the Headmaster of Eton, when he was Headmaster of Bradfield, also did a great deal to break down the isolation between his boarding school and the community, and to help his students to learn social awareness. It can be done, and money need not be a limiting factor. Because one thing which young people have in common, and with which above all they are blessed, is the gift of improvisation. If we can inspire them to do something they will do it. There was an example at Hele's School, at Exeter, where the art master decided to start a class in sculpture which proved to be very popular. They begged a small room; they got together a minimum of tools, and the boys themselves collected twenty pieces of stone from an old fireplace, scrap from local junk yards, and a local business man provided off-cuts of steel. There is practically nothing that cannot be done in an improvised way, without waiting for the money, so long as the will is there.
One criticism made of young people is that they expect the welfare society to give them everything on a plate—and there is some truth in this, although possibly we have been largely responsible for creating it. But it is an attitude which can be changed. Young people have proved time and time again that they respond to a challenge, and they can so

207
easily be shown the way to give, as well as take.
So, my Lords, I believe that there is an urgent need, not only to talk about the organisation of this secondary education, but to consider its content, to look again at our textbooks, to look again at our syllabuses, and generally to think in terms of bringing those schools much more into the local community life. Ethics, social studies, social responsibilities, the arts ought to be in the centre of the system, instead of being relegated to the sidelines because of the pressure of examinations. We have to help our children to learn more about the activities of living human beings, and less about the activities of those human beings who have been dead a thousand years, important though they may have been.
All this has tremendous implications for teachers, and the training of teachers. I do not have time to go into details now, but it is obvious that this matter will require thought and action; and I am quite sure that teachers will respond as they have in the past. I hope, therefore, that the Government, when considering the organisation of secondary modern education, will give consideration to some of these questions. If we need a Law Commission to modernise our laws, we urgently need an Education Commission to modernise our educational methods and to bring back into education, or to put in it, if it was never there before, the magic and adventure of education. I believe that this is an urgent problem.
7.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I plead for a bipartisan or, if the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches prefers, a tripartisan national educational policy. In that hope I was greatly encouraged by the most brilliant and practical speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I was sorry that he was so severely taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Surely such moderation, such practical common sense, as the noble Lord showed is a thing to be encouraged and not to be blamed.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Snow, who again made a moderate, sensible, practical speech, much on the lines of the very sensible pronouncements of the present and previous Secretaries of State.
208
I believe that if it were left to us here at Westminster we should not find great difficulty at arriving at that national bipartisan policy for which I plead; and it is needed. We cannot go on putting our system of education into the melting pot every time there is a change of government in the town hall or in Westminster. And it must be a national system.
I commend to your Lordships an article that appeared in to-day's Guardian newspaper, on the mobility of parents, and dealing with parents who move, mainly, unfortunately, from the North of England to the South, and take their children with them. Our present fragmentary system means that each time a child moves its home it may go to a different type of school. A child who has been at a comprehensive school may suddenly be faced with a secondary modern or a grammar school, or some other variety, such as the two-year period of education. This is not fair to the children, and it is not practical. Therefore, I sympathise very much with the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that rather stronger powers should reside in the Secretary of State, and that the local authorities should sacrifice a certain degree of their independence.
The difficulty, of course, is that power lies not here at Westminster but with the Party men in the country, and particularly with the local authorities. I agreed strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said about their publicity methods, and the need to lead, rather than to drive, the parents and the ratepayers. I hope that the Party leaders, especially the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will make it their business to induce in their followers a certain degree of their own moderation and good sense.
I was interested in the pleas made by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, in his brilliant speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, for further inquiries and further delay. There is much to be said in theory for such a course, but in practice we shall not get it. We shall not get the Labour Party to accept anything slower than the five-year programme which the Secretary of State desires to see carried into effect; and even when the inquiry had been completed, I do not think there would be a sufficient degree of national unity about the results to make the inquiry worth

209
while. It therefore seems to me necessary that the Conservatives should accept as a general aim of policy the movement towards comprehensive schools within the terms offered by the Labour Party, and taking into account the inevitable delays that circumstances and financial considerations will cause.
There seem to be two general objections of an educational character to the comprehensive schools. One is their large size: the fact that you cannot have an efficient comprehensive school of fewer than 900 pupils. I think that there are two factors that are going to reduce that compulsive size problem. In the first place, some of the more brilliant and older pupils will be "creamed off" into the sixth-form colleges which are, I believe, a very hopeful experiment. In the second place, I think it very likely that the Plowden Committee will accept the principle of a later age for entry into secondary education. I was deeply interested in the analysis of the situation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who is to be congratulated on her brilliant maiden speech; but I rather gathered that the noble Baroness felt that there was No 1deal age; and I daresay that she is right. But in practice, and as things are, there must be a general age, perhaps with some exceptions allowed, at which children pass to secondary education. Now I am very strongly of the opinion that that age should be 12 rather than 11. If that is recommended, if it is accepted and if we can face the task of rebuilding and enlarging our primary schools to fit that conclusion, then, of course, the size of the comprehensive school will be reduced by a factor of perhaps 15 per cent.
The other argument against comprehensive schools which is used by Conservatives is based upon the excellence for their purpose of comprehensive schools, and it runs as follows. If you are the kind of child that is going to leave school at 15, then you had better go to a secondary modern school so as to be at or near the top of the school by the time you leave it. But, my Lords, we have decided that the school-leaving age must be raised to 16, and I believe that many boys and girls will then consider staying on for an extra year, so that the "C" and "D" streamers will
210
in many cases be 17 before they leave; and, again, if the sixth-form colleges draw off the top class of intellectuals, we shall see the less intellectual boys and girls at the top of the school. Much, of course, depends on the attitudes of employers to juvenile labour, to the certificates which the schools will issue, and to the training which these schools will provide. Much, too, depends on automation, and the degree to which we can make our curricula attractive to these pupils. But I myself hope very much that the less intellectually able pupils will stay on, and I believe that they will do a great deal of good to the school if they do.
My Lords, I was educated at a school in the Midlands which attached a very high value to games, and the members of the school rugger team, the school cricket team and the second teams were held in immense respect and veneration. Naturally, some of these athletes—by no means all, but some—were boys with more brawn than brain; and they constituted a respected class in the school. They were called the bucks, and they were allowed to turn up the ends of their trousers. Indeed, some were so great that they were allowed to wear grey flannel trousers. I mention this because the problem of adolescent eccentricities in dress and adornment is one that perpetually perplexes headmasters and head mistresses, and gets into the newspapers. By far the best way of checking these tendencies is to make these eccentricities the privilege of a small but muscular class. You may be certain that they will not then spread through the school.
The bucks, of whom I was not one, were, I think, a very pleasant class in the school, and they profited very considerably from their schooling. They were jovial and rowdy, but, on the whole, a good natured lot, and they were by no means kept under or subdued by the intellectual grandeur of the demi-gods of the upper sixth. They worked with the army class, and I am sure they became very good regimental officers. They were quite satisfied with their position, and they did a great deal of good to the school besides playing games for it with great success. They checked the intellectual arrogance of clever little boys. My Lords, that needs doing. I was speaking to a professor at an ancient

211
university recently who said that the trouble with some of the freshmen coming up from grammar schools is that they think they have come up not to learn from the university but to reform the university. That is intellectual arrogance, and that is what the less bright but more sensible members of the "C" and "D" streams in a comprehensive school will surely correct.
I hope, then, for comprehensive schools, and I trust there will be bucks in them. With that, schoolboys and schoolgirls will learn that most important lesson: that in this world there are highbrows, middlebrows and lowbrows, and they have got to live together and respect each other.
From the Labour side we have had very moderate and sensible speeches, and I believe they are willing enough to meet Conservative views if they are the views of progressive and sensible Conservatives like the noble Lord, Lord Newton. The Labour Party realises perfectly well that, though they have set themselves the goal of five years before considerable progress is made, even that may be rather too short. It all depends on how much grant the Secretary of State can extract from the Treasury, on the availability of land and on the capacity of the building industry. I am very glad, incidentally, that the Secretary of State is going to take a firm line with sham comprehensive schools, where two buildings as much as two miles apart are nominally united in one school, because that, as everybody who has drawn up a school curriculum knows, is nonsense. I should have said that a mile was the very outside limit, and that even that might be too much in a city when children have to pass between one building and another through crowded and dangerous streets. We cannot support sham comprehensive schools of that kind, and it will be much better to adopt as a temporary expedient some variant of the two-tier system.
There are two other matters on which I hope for some reassurance. First, I have been asked to say a word on the denominational question. I speak as a Catholic, and your Lordships will realise that the authorities of my Church are always anxious to co-operate with the State so far as they possibly can. We are bound to do so. After the last war
212
the State decided that there must be secondary modern and grammar schools, and we duly divided our schools into secondary modern and grammar schools; not because we particularly liked the system but because that was the system that the State wanted. Now the State is changing its mind and wants us to unite our schools into comprehensive bodies. Well, we are willing indeed to do so, but our ability to do so is handicapped in certain ways. There is a financial problem. I do not want to dwell on that; it will need negotiating and we hope for reasonable treatment. But there are also severe problems of organisation.
Your Lordships will understand that a minority school system must transcend the boundaries of a local authority. There are commonly not enough Catholics in one local authority to have our own self-contained system within that authority. You may have a grammar school in one area and you may have a Roman Catholic secondary modern school in a contiguous area and an unequal number of primary schools in the two areas. If one area "goes comprehensive" and the other does not, what is a poor puzzled Papist to do? We are up against a problem of organisation which will take a great deal of solving and we ask for patience, thought and care, to enable us to do what the State is now wanting us to do. But I stress that, if we can do it, we shall do it very willingly indeed. It is No 1nterest of ours to divide our community into clever Catholics and stupid Catholics or to have any other divisions that we can possibly avoid.
The noble Lord, Lord Snow, has quoted from St. Paul. I make his words my own: "We are members of one another". I am afraid that I was going to put it in a less dignified form and say, "The more we are together the happier we shall be." Therefore, I am sure that these factors will be considered in the Ministry and that we shall be given a reasonable opportunity to do what we are required to do.
The other matter is, frankly, a more difficult one. It is perhaps the most important thing I have to say. I beg Her Majesty's Government to be very cautious over the direct grant to grammar schools. When I was speaking before I intended to make it clear,

213
but did not do so, that I was referring primarily to the maintained grammar schools which are the property of the local authority and with which the local authority may do what they like. When it comes to the direct grant grammar schools which feel menaced by such schemes as have been put forward in Bristol, we have a very difficult problem.
I would say three things about these schools. First, they are very good schools. For the most part they are pace-setters in education; and it should be with great reluctance that we menace the future of really efficient establishments. Secondly, they are schools in which class distinctions are being obliterated; the 25 per cent. of entries from local authority scholarships integrate very successfully with the 75 per cent. of fee-paying pupils. I have been at pains to inquire about this from as many teachers as possible, and they all agree that the integration is highly successful. As one of them put it to me: "We do not bother about accents here; we are all working too hard."
The third reason—and I think it is the one which most deserves attention—is that the direct grant grammar schools (with which I will class all those independent schools that take a certain number of scholarship pupils from the local authorities) represent the system of education preferred by professional classes in this country. It is no use arguing that they are wrong, that they should be willing to accept comprehensive schools as a substitute. It is what the professional classes want.
I would ask your Lordships to carry your minds back two or three years, to the time when we were exceedingly worried about the brain-drain, the exodus of professional men, and particularly scientists, to the United States and to Canada. The right honourable gentleman, then Lord Hailsham, tried his best to find reasons that would persuade the professional classes to stay in, or return to, this country. About the best reason he could find was that in this country people will get the kind of education they want for their children. He was not talking about public schools; he was talking about the professional class schools, the direct grant schools. For it is there that the university teachers, the scientists, the doctors, the valuers
214
and the professional men, in general, send most of their sons and nearly all their daughters. If those schools are taken away in a hurry it will lead to a greater readiness on the part of the professional classes to emigrate. Let me remind your Lordships of the figures that appeared yesterday, to the effect that in the ten years preceding 1963, 4,900 qualified medical graduates left this country for Australia alone.
Secondly, if these professional classes are deprived of the schools they will accept, then I think we shall find a greater development of independent schools, schools of a much lower standard educationally. I speak of what I know. I know of country towns where there are no direct grant grammar schools, and though there are excellent maintained grammar schools, and excellent secondary modern schools, it is nevertheless a fact that small and, I should say, doubtedly efficient private schools are flourishing. It is simply because a great many people insist on paying for their children's education.
My Lords, I apologise for wearying you with too long a speech, but there are many matters which I was anxious to communicate on this problem. In another place when this question was debated, play was made with the names of some Shakespearian characters. May I hope that in this House it will be the case that my favourite Shakespearian characters, Beatrix and Benedict, after their stormy courtship and many misunderstandings, will end the play with a fruitful union?
7.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BOWDEN): My Lords, the hour is late, and according to our list the debate is only half over. I feel, therefore, that it would be your Lordships' wish that I should not repeat the substance of speeches which have already been made and which have included points which I should otherwise have been interested to put before your Lordships. The length of our list of speakers is an evidence of the great interest which this topic excites in your Lordships' House and of the importance of the subject. Almost every speaker this afternoon has said that this is a subject of major importance, with which the whole future of the country is bound up.

215
I think it is important that I should remind your Lordships of what is at stake. We are considering the general question of the education of young people from the age of 11 onwards. It is at the age of 11 that the vast majority of them are taken out of the main stream of the educational process and to all intents and purposes deprived for the rest of their lives of any opportunity of completing a course in a university. Occasionally, and notoriously, there are exceptions to this rule and people who have been rejected at the 11-plus examination find themselves famous because they have ultimately graduated. Nevertheless, it is almost true to say that those who fail, as we put it, their 11-plus, are unlikely to achieve a standard of education which fits them for a proper place in the modern world.
This is an intolerable situation. It is not surprising that it was condemned as intolerable as long ago as 1943. Nor is it surprising that a change in the educational system has been urgently recommended by the teachers' associations and that already the local education authorities responsible for two-thirds of all the children in the country have begun to work on schemes for the reorganisation of the educational machine in a manner which will prevent this appalling waste.
I think it is true to say of our entire English educational system that it is much too rigid at all stages. I have already said that nearly 90 per cent. of the population is rejected from the educational world at the age of 11. We have to consider the fate of the selected 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., or even 40 per cent., as we have been told it is in some parts of Wales. At 16 they choose the subject they are going to study in the sixth form and so they have to reject the greater part of the total content of the common knowledge with which all educated people should be familiar—a selection which occurs in no other country in the world. At 19 they arrive at a university, if they are fortunate, and within the first hour of their arrival have to choose the subject to which they propose to devote themselves for the rest of their university careers—and a man who decides to be a chemist must usually decide what sort of chemist he is going to be in his very first hour at the university. So far as I
216
know, in no other country in the world is this choice demanded of young men until the end of their first, and sometimes of their second, year of university studies.
Finally, when a man has graduated and takes up a job, he finds that he has to sign a contract of employment which enrols him in a pension scheme, designed deliberately to make it impossible for him to move. He finds himself immobilised by restrictions, which again are imposed uniquely in this country, which are quite unnecessary and which are a source of grave industrial inefficiency. It is also assumed in this country that a graduate has learned all he is going to need for the rest of his professional life, and proper facilities for study and revision in later life are not available to him. At all stages, our English educational system imposes restrictions on its students not to be found in any other country in the world.
This evening we are talking about the first and perhaps the most serious of these restrictions, but I should not like the evening to pass without emphasising to your Lordships that when we have solved this problem, other problems, almost as important and perhaps equally difficult to solve, will remain for discussion and, I hope, for solution. No other country in the world would be prepared to contemplate for one moment the idea that a large proportion of the young people of the country should be discarded from the whole educational process at such a tender age. It is a process which is indefensible and indescribably wasteful. Come what may, it must be changed. As my noble friend Lord Willis has told us, it was already admitted by the Government of the day in 1943 that the system was indefensible. The problem we have to solve is: what are we going to do about it now?
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, I wonder whether, when the noble Lord talks about being discarded from the whole educational process, he means when at the age of 11 children are selected to go to secondary modern schools. Is he describing the secondary modern school as being "discarded from the whole educational process"?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, I expressed it more fully when I said that children were deprived of the opportunity

217
of completing the entire educational process and of taking a university degree.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, I think very many teachers, devoted teachers, in secondary modern schools would regard the description of going to a secondary modern school as "being discarded from our educational process" as extraordinarily alien to their view of their function.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has reminded me of this, because I realise that I expressed it rather unfortunately. The point I was trying to make is that the opportunities a man has of completing the educational process, of acquiring final qualifications and of learning all that the university has to teach him about modern science are often lost for ever at an absurdly early age. The fact that that is another variety of education (which is a point I am coming to next) is of great importance, and if I have inadvertently so phrased my remarks as to underestimate this, then I beg your Lordships' pardon.
The point I want to make now is that the educational system with which the fortunate few are confronted is of itself incomplete, and is incomplete because it is based upon assumptions about education which I myself find extremely hard to accept. It is based on the assumption that almost everything is to be justified by purely literary criteria and by a fluency in manipulating words and symbols. This particular ability is one of great importance, but it is by no means the only one. One of the most unfortunate of the consequences of this selection at the age of 11 is that skills of extreme importance in the world which are as rare and precious and very often far harder to assess than the fluency with words and symbols are entirely neglected. One of the most difficult problems with which a university is confronted is in assessing the criteria which make for skill in an engineer. If an engineer is to be a designer he must have an understanding of three dimensional shapes, a fluency in manipulating them, an understanding of the way in which they interact. This visual sense, this sense of shape, is entirely ignored by the process of choice at 11, yet when it it is allied with extreme mathematical ability the combination makes a great engineer.
218
Our own system seems almost wil-fully to discard from its highest manifestations those qualities which are not susceptible to the easy test provided by symbolism. It ignores some of the most important of all intellectual qualities, and makes it very improbable that some of the potentially most skilful of our young people will have an opportunity to learn those parts of the work which are uniquely reserved for people who study in universities.
We have discarded some of our best people from the academic world; and we have, furthermore, deprived that academic world of the opportunity of concerning itself with many important intellectual disciplines, although our future as a country depends on the way in which we are able to exploit all of the talents of our people. Any system which makes distinctions where none should exist, which rejects as uneducable people who have extremely important qualities, must not be perpetuated any longer.
I hesitate to repeat what has already been said so often, but we must remember that this selection process and this emphasis on symbolism is a very recent introduction into the educational world. When I was young almost all the schools and almost all universities accepted a large and representative cross-section of society. Our concentration on this very restricted type of skill has been introduced in the last few years. I do not believe it has any justification either educationally or in any other way. The attempts which have been made in the secondary modern schools to develop the talents which their students possess are, of course, extremely praiseworthy, and I myself, knowing them fairly well, have often been amazed at the skill shown by the teachers in exploiting the abilities of their pupils. But, none the less, the highest part of our educational system is debarred to them, and it is this which is of itself so serious.
The real argument should not be about the nature of the organisation with which we have to contend: it should be ultimately about the scale of the education which is available. If, for example, as in some parts of America, something like one half of the entire population goes to the university, I would not think it mattered by which

219
route they ultimately got there. But if, as in this country, only one in twenty is able to go, and if as in this country two-thirds of the pupils leave school at the age of about 16, then it seems to me that the method by which the original selection is made is all important. I think that our own method of selection is wrong. I think, furthermore, that the only way in which the problem can be resolved is to abandon any attempt to separate children into sheep and goats at the age of 11, and to follow the pattern of education universal elsewhere in the world which allows people to mix on terms of equality so that each appreciates the virtues of the others throughout school life.
Two or three noble Lords have accused us of indecent haste in implementing the decision, and have suggested that we ought to study the matter in more detail before we finally make up our minds. The general idea that changes are necessary has been commonplace for twenty years or more. Also, despite the fact (as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, explained), that the Ministry have no powers of coercion in these matters, the Ministry have through their inspectors and their staff great influence on the local authorities which are choosing their new plans for organisation. I am confident that over the next few years all the plans which are going to be put forward by local education authorities will be discussed at length and in detail.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question? Am I to understand that the noble Lord is suggesting that the Secretary of State should somehow require Her Majesty's inspectors to get local educational authorities to accept their policy?
LORD BOWDEN: No. What I say is this. I think this matter is obviously exercising local authorities greatly, and I think it probable that the majority of them will consult with Her Majesty's inspectors and with the officers in Whitehall before they finally draw up their plans. It is open to them to ignore the Government almost entirely, as your Lordships will understand, but, in practice, we have found that most of them are only too anxious to be helped in any way open to us; and I think that in the
220
course of the next year or two we shall accumulate an immense body of information and as much evidence as can be acquired by a committee. The important thing is that until the general proposal is made to organise the schools on new lines, and people think about the details, we shall have no evidence on which to base a case.
I think that in the course of the next four or five years we shall accumulate as much information as can be found in this country. I think that the objections which have been voiced about excessive haste and ignorance are exaggerated. I am quite certain that no member of the Government, and none of the people in the Ministry, would for one moment presume to say that they knew all the answers or were in a position to dictate policy in detail, even supposing it were within their power to do so. I think, nevertheless, that there is a considerable amount of information available, and I am quite certain that information will accumulate rapidly in the course of the next year or two. Let us remember that most authorities want to proceed. More than half of them have already announced their intention of proceeding, and I think that their enthusiasm for change (which will, I am quite certain, improve our educational system) will attract popular support.
On the other hand, I must say—and I think it is only fair to say this—that many of the changes will involve great administrative difficulties. One must never underestimate the amount of work that will be needed to introduce any new system of education whether it be good, bad or indifferent. Administrative problems will tax the resources of the schools, the local education authorities, and all our own people in Whitehall. We face a very difficult task. We believe that great advantages will accrue from a change which is designed to make people feel united one with each other for as long as is possible. We think we should proceed with what I believe the Supreme Court once described as "all reasonable speed". I should like to end, as I began, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for introducing this most important subject to us this evening, and other noble Lords and Ladies who have contributed so helpfully to our deliberations, and whose ideas will be a guide and a

221
help to all of us who have some responsibility for putting this policy into effect.
8.13 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton for putting down this important Motion this afternoon, and giving your Lordships an opportunity of discussing the future policy of Her Majesty's Government for secondary education in this country—a matter which is, of course, of paramount importance. My only excuse for addressing your Lordships for a few moments this evening is that I have spent nine years as a member of the West Suffolk County Council, having retired a few months ago. I am still on the governing body of the Newmarket Grammar School and Newmarket Secondary School, and I am well acquainted with the work of these two schools. Both are housed in modern buildings, with up-to-date equipment. And at both schools the academic and games results are encouraging. I would add that at the Newmarket Grammar School, which is a joint boys' and girls' school, out of nineteen pupils who took the "A" level examinations over ten have gone on to universities throughout the country. I think that is a pretty high record.
I should also like to say that 20 per cent. of the pupils in West Suffolk grammar schools have qualified in the examination. Nobody in my county who has passed the examination has refused to go to a grammar school somewhere within the county. I feel that the great Butler Education Act of 1944, which established a varied system of secondary education with the concurrence—and I would emphasise these words—of all political Parties (because at that time there was a National Government) should be given a longer period to settle down, and should not be lightly discarded in favour of a system which has not, in my opinion, been adequately tested, and which has all the appearance of being based on doctrinaire principles.
I should like to put in front of your Lordships a few financial aspects, as I see it, in my county. It is only one of the smaller counties, but I think it is typical of many other counties. The implementation of the Butler Act, which has now just been finished in my county and by the end of the year will be finished
222
in all counties, has meant spending on secondary education in the last twelve years, up to March 31, 1964, a capital sum of £1,600,000. This expenditure has provided six new secondary modern schools and two grammar schools, and the enlargement and modernisation of eight others. A further sum of approximately £400,000 has been spent on primary education, providing ten new primary schools and the enlargement and modernisation of approximately nineteen others. At the county town of Bury St. Edmunds the county has also built the first phase of a college of further education at a cost of over £100,000.
Your Lordships will appreciate, from the figures I have given, that while the total amount spent on primary and secondary education is approximately £2 million, only one-fifth of that amount—and I emphasise that figure—has been spent on primary education capital projects. The county of West Suffolk, which is only one of the smaller counties, has over 100 primary schools. I think it is common ground that the needs of the primary schools should be given a much higher priority in the allocation of the available resources. I was glad to see that the new Secretary of State for Education and Science, in a speech in Manchester last Saturday, as reported in the Sunday Telegraph on February 7, said that
"he would not be content until all primary school children were taught in reasonably sized classes in modern schools."
I should like to say that in our county (and I think this applies in many counties) we have been able to reduce the size of classes in secondary schools to about 30, and to something between 20 and 25 in the grammar schools although sometimes it is a little higher. But the primary schools are still very overcrowded. I was in one the other night,—a Church school of which I used to be the manager which had very good results—and some classes there have over 40 pupils. They are in the queue to get money for enlargement, but it has not yet come forward, and I am afraid that it will be two or three years more before it does come. If local authorities are again asked to remodel their system of secondary education, which would entail a great deal of building and large sums of capital payment, for a system of comprehensive education, I think it would be to

223
the detriment of primary education and education as a whole.
Before I sit down I should like to explain to your Lordships that in these counties these new secondary schools—and very fine schools they are—are doing a fine job of work. I have visited many of them, not only in Suffolk, but in Cambridgeshire and other counties, too. They are situated about eight or ten miles apart, and are built for something like 500 to 700 pupils. I cannot see, with schools seven to ten miles apart, that you can have a junior and senior wing in a comprehensive school under one schoolmaster. It is quite enough of a job for a headmaster to look after a school of about 750 pupils, which is about the size of a secondary modern school in Newmarket, although we have some slightly bigger. The headmaster tells me that he is not able to do a lot of teaching because he has so much administration to do. If one has two schools to look after, seven to ten miles apart, in areas of that sort, I do not think the system will possibly work. I am not against having a comprehensive school in new areas where it is probably the right thing to have one, but I am completely against destroying all our good grammar schools throughout the country for a system which I do not think has been sufficiently tried out. I hope it will not be done anyway until a Royal Commission has been set up and has investigated the question.
It has been going for only eight to ten years, perhaps not quite as long as some of the secondary modern schools, which have not had time to settle down. Many pupils now get good results with their "O" levels. They do not take as many subjects as grammar school pupils, but they take five or six subjects and many pass three or four. I think we are getting about 75 per cent. successes from the ones who go in for examinations, but not enough yet go in for examinations, although the numbers are growing. Examination entries started only three or four years ago in many of these schools.
My Lords, I hope Her Majesty's Government will give this whole matter a great deal more thought. I am fortified in the words I have said to your Lordships to-night in reading of an
224
important meeting of the Association of Chief Educational Officers, held in London last week and reported in The Times of February 5, 1965, under the heading "Warning over rush to scrap 11-plus". Mr. Clegg, their President, said:
"These arrangements might well get rid of the 11-plus, but prove in other ways to be an educational disaster, particularly for the socially under-privileged child whom they were mainly designed to help."
Mr. Clegg went on:
"It may be a good thing to mix the sheep and the goats—I believe it is—but do not let us assume that merely by mixing them they will be better fed."
The Report goes on to say that the President's theme was that the decade from 1954 to 1964 (and these are very important words) was probably the greatest so far in the history of public education, but that the service was running into sundry dangers. This is a non-Party organisation and its President said in those words that more has been done for education in the last 12 years than in the previous history of our country.
I think that statement was worth quoting, but I should like to quote from a letter published in The Times of January 18, 1965, from Mr. L. R. Stirling, an American teacher on exchange in this country at the Blue Coat School, Sonning, Berkshire. He said:
"My two years here have confirmed my opinion that the British as a whole are the soundest people on earth, in education and other fields. But I am most disappointed to see a strong movement afoot to destroy the superb grammar school aspect of your school system in favour of a barely tested (in England) comprehensive plan."
Coming from an American who has been on exchange for two years in this country, that is well worth bearing in mind.
With those few words I have pleasure in supporting the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend, Lord Newton. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Snow, say to-night that we must think long and proceed slowly on this important subject, because if we destroy all that we have good now for something which is not sufficiently tried I think it might end in chaos.
8.26 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin in the way in which most noble Lords have begun, which is traditional in this House, in thanking the

225
mover of the Motion for having put it down. But I should like to go further and thank the noble Lord for the speech he made in support of his Motion. I thought it was one of the best and most objective speeches I have heard on this subject, and I speak as one who has taken part in every education debate since 1950, of which, I think, I have initiated more than half. I feel that there is very little with which one could disagree in the very fair speech made by the noble Lord.
As the fourteenth speaker in this debate, it would be surprising if I had anything very much new to say. Most of the things that I might have said have, of course, been said already. But there is one criticism I might make about the way in which the debate has gone. I think it has been too much confined to the discussion on the merits and demerits of the comprehensive school. I do not think any noble Lord or Lady who spoke actually came out strongly against the comprehensive school. There were various degrees of enthusiasm, coming down to almost zero, but nobody was actually opposed, although the logic of some of the arguments that were put forward in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, was such that I was rather surprised to hear that she was not against the comprehensive school. All her arguments were against it. I invite the noble Lady to read her speech to-morrow morning at breakfast. I think she will find that she did not give a single reason in favour of the comprehensive school; every argument was against. But she took some credit for having approved the Kidbrooke school.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: And 17 others.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Baroness can take that credit, but her arguments were against comprehensive schools.
At any rate, on that particular issue I think what probably divides noble Lords on the other side of the House from those on this side is that we, as a matter of policy, I think have a bias in favour of the comprehensive school; that is to say, we recognise that there are cases where it is not suitable, not appropriate and not desirable—and instances have been given, which I do not want to repeat, by many speakers on the other
226
side in the course of the debate—whereas noble Lords opposite take the view that the onus is against the comprehensive school and that in each individual case the argument has to be proved. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, shakes his head, but I have already exempted him because I said that he had made a perfectly objective speech, but I would not say that about other noble Lords. I do not say that their speeches were not objective, but I do say that they tended rather to take the view that the case for a comprehensive school still has to be proved in each individual case.
I think the Government are right in saying that we should declare a policy, and the policy should, in my view, on this particular issue be in favour of the comprehensive school unless the case is established otherwise, and in many cases it would be. I do not want to repeat the arguments, as I have said, as to the cases where you would not have a comprehensive school. I feel that the debate might have ranged rather wider than merely on this particular issue. After all, we are talking about secondary education, and there are many types of secondary education which must be discussed and upon which policy must be settled. So I would say to my noble friend Lord Longford, who is going to wind up the debate, that I hope he will be able to say something about the wider aspects of secondary education. I am referring, in particular, to the public schools, the direct grant schools, the technical schools, and to the secondary moderns. I imagine that the secondary modern would be comprised in the comprehensive school.
If we are going to have a policy on secondary education we must first make up our minds what we are to do about the public schools. I recognise that they are in a great minority. I am not one of those who say that the public schools ought to be abolished. Most of them are first-class, and they provide a far better education at the present time than is found in either the grammar school or, still more, the secondary modern. Of course they do. That is the raison d'ê tre for their existence. My quarrel is simply that, in a community where we are seeking to give every child an equal opportunity in life, it is wrong that certain people should be able to

227
purchase a place in the superior schools and thereby keep out other children who are equally, or better, able to benefit from this education. I would not abolish them—of course not. The better they are, the more worthy they are of being retained. But I think that, in a secondary education system, in every kind of school the places ought to go to those who can best benefit by those places.
Obviously, one can have a little discussion as to how one should decide. One can have a discussion about who pays—the local authority, the Exchequer. But I should hope that the broad principle can be accepted that we should be moving towards a system of secondary education in which no place can be bought, thereby depriving somebody equally or better able to benefit from that place. It may well be that there are many questions of ways and means to be settled, and I myself, unlike some of my noble friends who have spoken from this side, would approve of an inquiry into how this can be brought about.
Most speakers paid lip service—though I hope it was sincere, too—to the idea of equality of opportunity in education. I think that most speakers said that they desired it. But when it comes to the point, are they prepared to face up to doing something about the public school, about the direct grant schools and other schools of that character?
I was present when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, parts of whose speech I very much regretted, chaffed my noble friend Lord Snow for, I understand, preparing to send his boy to an expensive public school. It reminds me very much of my boyhood, when members of the Socialist Party used to be accused of making profits in a capitalist society. It was suggested that, since they were against profit-making and wanted public ownership, they ought not themselves to be taking advantage of the opportunity of making profits. But, of course, we were living in a capitalist society, and we had to live. And one cannot blame the noble Lord, Lord Snow, for taking advantage of present conditions which permit of this kind of thing and doing the best, as he thinks,
228
for his boy. What we do blame, of course, is the system which permits anybody, whether he is a member of my Party or any other Party, to do such a thing.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Does he really believe that no parent should be allowed to save up his money—because many parents of humble means do save their money—to send their boys to a private school? Does he say that that should not be allowed?
LORD SILKIN: That would be the logic of what I am saying. I am not afraid of the logic of that Of course he should not. That is my argument; that merely because a man possesses money, he ought not to be able to buy a place and, therefore, buy what I regard as an unfair advantage for his child. By so doing, simply because he is able to pay for it, he is depriving somebody else who could benefit more from a place in that school. That is what I object to, and I think it ought to be national policy. to see that that does not happen. And I am suggesting that the ways and means of ensuring that should be inquired into by a Committee.
May I say one final word about the technical schools? Very little, if anything, has been said about them to-day. It may be that in a form of comprehensive education technical education would be included in the curriculum of the comprehensive school; but that is not so at the moment to any considerable extent, and there are many children for whom a technical education is the most appropriate thing. Some children are not academically minded, and to a large extent are wasting their time even in a secondary modern school; and that would be still more the case in an ordinary grammar school, and might even be true with the normal comprehensive school. These children who are allegedly backward might well benefit from a technical education, and certainly this ought to find a place in any comprehensive education.
My Lords, it is a little disheartening to speak to fewer people than have already spoken in the debate, but at any rate I have maintained my record of having spoken in every Education debate since 1950, and I hope that, at least on

229
the point of the public schools, I have given my noble friend something to reply to.
8.40 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the whole House will be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton, not only for instigating this debate but for the very thoughtful and practical way in which he did so. I should also like to pay a very sincere tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for a most thoughtful and rational maiden speech. For some years I was actively concerned in politics, on the opposite side of course, in Fulham, where she still lives, and I still value the friendship of many people in her Party in Fulham and she is symptomatic of the kindness which one finds in that part of the world. It was a speech based on practical experience, and as such was a valuable one, the more so in that it was restrained and yet thought-provoking. I am sure that we all hope to hear a good deal more from her.
I do not think any reasonably minded person would wish this debate or any other discussion on education to become a kind of batting match between secondary modern and comprehensive schools. I have spoken on Parliamentary matters to a number of grammar schools and also to at least one comprehensive school, and the questions and reaction which I received from the children at both types of school were immediately sound and sensible. I remember recently lecturing to the John Ruskin School, a grammar school in Croydon, where most of the staff and the pupils are of a different political persuasion from myself, as the name "Ruskin" would suggest. But the chair was taken by a young man of about 14. He took it with the aplomb and confidence of a grown man. I pay my tribute to him for that.
I think one of the problems here is whether the comprehensive system, if applied throughout the country, is really going to benefit the mass of our children to a greater extent than the present system of secondary education combined with a number of these schools. The last thing I would suggest is that no more comprehensive schools should be built, but I am not sure that a moratorium should not be placed on this until we have gained rather more experience from what has happened at Kidbrooke, a school
230
with a good record, and other comprehensive schools where one hears of things which are not so good. I do not propose to belabour that point tonight, because I know that our schools, whether public, primary or of any other kind, have their shortcomings and examples of bad behaviour, both by teachers and by pupils. As in every social matter we hear all too much of bad things which happen, but rather too little of the good things which happen. That applies to schools of all kinds.
We have heard a certain amount about the class distinction problem of these schools. I should like to quote from a letter in the New Statesman and Nation of December 11, 1964, a letter which I read and which I am bound to say that initially I found difficult to believe, but I read it again and a third time and realised that in cold print it was true. It is written by a Mr. Chapman from Glasgow. It is headed "Comprehensive Schools," and I should like to quote the last paragraph which concerns this man's daughter, who was then in the "A" stream of this particular school. It says:
"She has begun to despise all the children in the lower streams, and none of my socialist views about equality will convince her that someone well-mannered, well-spoken, clean and clever is not necessarily better than the rest. She feels no pride in her school, but a strong distaste for the majority of her fellows and a withdrawal from them. Far from breaking down the class barriers, this school is succeeding in erecting them higher than ever."
I do not for one moment want to suggest that this is symptomatic of every comprehensive school or of every child; but this is a disturbing factor, and I hope that, before they embark on any large-scale policy of this type of education, the Government will think most carefully about things of this kind which could happen. Of course at every school we get instances of children being bullied, being "sent to Coventry", and so on. But, after all, the main argument for the comprehensive school has been that it will allow the less bright child to be given opportunities and that it will smash the snob barrier. If in fact it were proved that this could be done then the case for these schools would be strong.
Now I come to another problem which is particularly true of urban areas, such as Surrey, where I live. How is the land going to be acquired for these schools of

231
perhaps 1,800 to 2,000 pupils? There is already a shortage of land in the South-East and, short of pulling down a number of existing schools, this is going to be a real problem. Obviously, if schools of this kind are going to be built, those who support the measures will wish the schools to be equipped with the best staff, the best rooms and buildings and to provide comfort. But all this is going to need land. I should like to ask the Government whether they have in fact borne this in mind. It was a point raised during a debate in another place and I do not think it was suitably answered then. I hope that it will be considered now.
There is, in Epsom, one of the best known and most efficient grammar schools in the South of England—I refer to the Rosebery County Grammar School for Girls. It has about 700 pupils and its university record is highly impressive. The entrance places cover from St. Andrew's to Exeter. The headmistress is a person whom I know well. I have been attending the prize givings for the last eight years. Here, they have girls whose parents come from every walk of life. The greatest possible opportunities are given to these girls. I should like to quote briefly from a thesis on this subject of comprehensive schools which the headmistress recently wrote after a visit to the United States. She spent some time there, and the visit gave her the impression that the comprehensive system of education had its defects. She says this:
"Can we afford the new vast buildings and the reorganisation?"
She is making a comparison with the kind of buildings which they had in the United States. She goes on:
"Have we fully considered the disadvantage of size, or rather, to put it another way, do we realise what a smaller community can give to a child which the bigger one cannot?"
I will not quote further, because time is getting on, but that gives the gist of her point.
Something has been said about the public schools. I went to one of the smaller public schools in Devon. I was there during the war years, and in those days we used to take in a number of pupils from Tiverton Grammar School. There was absolutely no question of any snob barrier. Those boys were accepted from the first, and they did as well as,
232
if not better than, those who came from what some regard as the superior homes—although that is an expression which I personally heartily dislike. It is quite wrong to say that the public schools are based on questions of money. Competition nowadays is extremely great, and if a child has not got the ability there are very few public schools which a child will get into merely by his parents having money or knowing the headmaster. I should like to see more direct-grant public schools. Recently I went round one at Ockham, a very good school with an excellent headmaster and a very good record.
To conclude, I would ask the Government to think very carefully before pushing ahead with this enormous scheme. I do not think there has been sufficient consultation with the county councils concerned, or that the full implications have been considered. We are living in an age of competition, and one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the brighter child must be considered very carefully. I should be the last to say that the not-so-bright child should be held back, but we are legislating for children of the future: the clock must go forward and not back.
8.55 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I would not speak this evening were it not for the fact that six years ago, almost to the day, I addressed your Lordships in the debate on secondary education then initiated by my noble friend Lord Silkin. I have now torn up most of my notes, as most of the things have already been said, so I can assure the House that what I have to say to-night will be very brief indeed.
I should like, first of all, to redress the balance in some way for that speech, which probably no one remembers, but six years ago I did in fact oppose my Party on this very issue. Now I wish to say that I see things rather differently. Perhaps I should do well to say just how I see things differently. I certainly would agree with my noble friend Lord Snow that the various techniques which exist for selection, leading to segregation, have in fact been discredited. As an ex-teacher who has taught in almost every kind of school, including a secondary modern school, a grammar school and a special school (of which

233
we have not, so far as I recall, had any mention in this debate), I think it is extremely important to get one's priorities right. I am not sure whether anyone has said in this debate that perhaps the most important thing of all is to try to enlist more teachers. These enormous classes are the biggest barrier to sound education. If we could get more teachers, and thus smaller classes, it would be an even greater advance than any building which may be considered or any reorganisation along comprehensive lines.
However, I would add that I am now quite convinced that some kind of comprehensive education is inevitable in order to get rid of these noxious techniques of selection, whether they are the 11-plus examination or any other kind of examination which ultimately means that one group of children goes to a superior school and another group goes to an inferior school.
Perhaps the other really important point I can still make in this debate is this. There have been a number of pleas that we should go forward slowly and with caution. My noble friend Lord Willis said, in effect," If the thing is right, then let's go forward. Do not let us wait, do not let us be slow, do not let us be too cautious about it." But perhaps it is not so much a matter of being slow as of being sure that the plans for a particular area—not in general—are the best that can be devised, and that the local education authority has, in fact, consulted the teachers in that area at every stage. It is important that the local education authorities should not impose their schemes: they should persuade people to accept them. In this way I am sure that these cases of class snobbery being exacerbated by meeting together in the comprehensive school would disappear. Because I think that there is no worse teacher than a disgruntled teacher; and if you have a disgruntled staff, and in particular a disgruntled headmaster, you cannot possibly have a good school with good education.
The kind of school in which I spent most time was a school for maladjusted children. This comes into the category of the special schools, of which there are, of course, the schools for the blind, the schools for the otherwise physically
234
handicapped, the schools for educationally subnormal children and so forth; and I think we must expect this type of special school to remain. I mention this primarily because I want to reinforce what I have said about the importance of staffing—if anybody needs convincing, which I think is perhaps unlikely. In a school for maladjusted children, where the children come primarily from bad homes, broken homes, and have probably been tossed out of half a dozen schools because they were considered unmanageable, the procedure is to adopt a new attitude towards those children. But from an administrative point of view, the procedure is to have more staff per child or per group of children; in other words, the teacher/ child ratio is different.
There is one other point which is perhaps worth mentioning at this stage, and that is that some speakers in this debate have referred to the question of size. This was something that worried me a good deal at one time, and I thought it was almost inevitable that the comprehensive school should be very large, and therefore unsuitable for certain districts, particularly rural areas. In any case, I did not feel that large schools, unless they were broken up into units such as houses, were a good thing. But I now have it on good authority that this is not necessary, and that further experience in comprehensive schools makes it fairly obvious that one can, in fact, make a wide range of subjects available to the students without the necessity of having a very large staff and, consequently, a very large school.
I think that the watchword for the local education authorities will probably be that of proceeding carefully, rather than slowly—except, of course, in the case of those who have not even made a start. In spite of the very eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, I think we must accept the fact that there is a new revolution upon us, and that there is going to be a place for the type of school for which Manchester and he, in particular, are renowned. It would be a pity, in my view, if some of those wonderful grammar schools were to disappear altogether. On the other hand, comprehensive education, as I understand it, does not work properly unless you get some of the best minds coming into the comprehensive schools.

235
It is essential to the success of the scheme as a whole that this should be done.
Finally, there is the position of the independent school. My noble friend Lord Silkin mentioned the public schools and, if I may just say one last word about the independent schools, I believe that these must stay; because if one looks back over the history of the independent schools of this country, one must, I think, recognise that they have contributed a great deal to our educational knowledge and techniques.
9.7 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I feel like the boy who "stood on the burning deck, whence all but he had fled", and at this late hour I must necessarily touch only superficially upon a number of subjects which I should have preferred to explore in depth. But I want to ask a question—namely, if we were creating from scratch a system of secondary education should we dream of devising the tripartite system which we have to-day, with its bar at 10½ or 11 dividing our children into two nations, with a notice pasted on the front gate saying:
"Tradesmen's entrance only—for three-quarters of the children of this country"?
I do not think we should agree with such a scheme as that. I do not think the people of this country, if the significance of it were explained to them fully, would agree, either. Yet that is the system which we have. And what we have to do, my Lords, is to decide whether that system is going on for ever. Various noble Lords have touched upon a number of detailed considerations, most of which, I think, can be answered. Most of them have been answered in the reports of headmasters and headmistresses of comprehensive schools, and I do not want to say anything else except on the broad, general principle.
Now, like other noble Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for the masterly speech with which he opened this debate and for the opportunity which he has given to us to have this very useful discussion. But it seemed to me, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, that he was dancing on a rather slippery dance floor. Half the time I did not know whether he was going
236
forward or reversing; but, ultimately, although his speech has been described as objective, I came to the conclusion that he was fighting some kind of rearguard action in the face of the ever-advancing comprehensive army. I may be mistaken. He may be more sympathetic to the comprehensive point of view than I credit him to be; but I felt that that was the sum and substance of the very interesting things he had to say to us.
The noble Lord also said that we must advance our most gifted children as much as we can. Then he went on to tell us about the brilliant girl whose erudition fascinated him. But that girl was forced to stay in a secondary modern school. He also challenged us as to whether the gains from comprehensive education would outweigh the losses. If one refers to the various reports that the London County Council has issued, I think that question can be answered with complete confidence and satisfaction. In the comprehensive schools which have grown out of former grammar schools there are now more "O" level passes, more "A" level passes, more children in the sixth form and more children going to the universities. Even when allowance has been made for the fact that there are now actually more children in those schools, and that there has been an advance in educational standards generally and in the ability of pupils generally, the fact still remains that these comprehensive schools in London which have grown from the seed of former grammar schools are presenting a better picture so far as their results are concerned than was the case when they were operating as grammar schools alone. I have the figures, but at this late hour I will not weary noble Lords with them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, told us that behind this enthusiasm of the Labour Party for comprehensive education was some kind of plot for establishing a classless society. My Lords, there is a very unjust inequality now in education, as in several other aspects of our social life, and if we want to abolish that unjust inequality that is an aim for which I stand in no need to apologise. On the one hand, this is a social question, and a very urgently-needed social reform. On the other hand, it is an educational question, and can be justified on its educational merits alone.

237
The noble Viscount tried to make our flesh creep by telling us, with regard to these comprehensive schools, that the tension between the child and the school could, as he said, cause the child not to be properly integrated. I suppose that means that these children have become what in our terminology is called "mixed up kids". During the last week or so, I have heard of only one such case, and the child who ran away from school did not run away from a comprehensive school but from Eton. The noble Viscount also said that he believes in freedom of choice. My Lords, does the 11-plus failure get a freedom of choice?
After the speeches of the noble Viscount and of the noble Baroness, I came to the conclusion that it is clear that they and their Party are still going to wage war in defence of separatism and of the 11-plus examination. That war is still going on. They will make some occasional concessions, but those concessions will be sufficient only to ensure that the present system basically remains.
I want to interject a note on a subject that has not yet been touched upon. I shall have to do it delicately because of the Rules of your Lordships' House, but I want to say a word about the finance of secondary education. I do so because for seven years I was chairman of the Essex County Council Finance Committee and I have introduced its budgets, rising from £50 million to £60 million a year, and have become conscious of the way that very desirable and necessary educational expenditure has to be pruned in order that we may cut our coat according to our cloth. It is undoubtedly true that very much more money could be most usefully spent in our schools, in improving the fabric, in improving the facilities open to our children, and so on; but because of financial considerations the line has to be drawn somewhere.
I should like to see a much larger proportion of educational expenditure charged to the national Budget and not to the local budgets. Whether that be in the form of the State taking over responsibility for the cost of teachers' salaries or in some form of specific grant, I should not care. But I do feel
238
that education is a national service and not a local service, and that therefore the national Exchequer should accept a bigger measure of responsibility than it does at the moment. I know there are some people who say that if you transfer a burden from the rates to taxation you merely transfer it from one pocket to another; but that is not quite the case. The incidence of rates and that of taxation are very different. It has been calculated by the Oxford Bureau of Statistics—I will not go into details—that the poorer you are the bigger the share of your weekly income you pay in rates. I think that is indisputable, so I will not try to prove it. But I am glad that the Government have undertaken to look into this question, because if a bigger share of the education costs can be borne by the Exchequer it means that the parsimonious hand of some people on education committees will be lifted.
I want to have a look at the general state of secondary education. I will do so with brevity. I think we are confronted with two basic problems. The first is the shortage of teachers and the second is the shortage of schools. I am afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, must bear his share of the responsibility for both of these unfortunate situations. He was the author of many cuts; he was responsible for cutting down many of the programmes submitted by local education authorities, and that is why we have not enough schools to-day; that is why we have not enough teachers. In my own county over the last nine years we have submitted programmes for school building to cost £35 million. They have been cut down to £20 million. I know that there are other claims on the reservoir of building labour and building materials: housing, hospitals and so on. But far too big a share of these materials and labour has been devoted in recent years to projects that were far less worthy than the schools for which we are still hungry.
With regard to teachers, I know that a great deal is being done now, but I say that a great deal of time was wasted before the spurt was undertaken. Because of this shortage of teachers, more than because of the shortage of schools, we must wait five years until we can put the school-leaving age up to 16; and this is the very centre of the whole problem

239
of secondary education. We are having to delay implementing the school-leaving age of 16 years while, all around us, our rivals, our competitors, are training their children up to 16. In France, Germany, Sweden and the United States of America—on the whole, they are training their children up to 16 years of age. In the United States 90 per cent. of the children are being educated up to 16; in this country the figure is merely 25 per cent.
My Lords, I want to have a look at the Newsom Report. I do not want to summon the Newsom Report to assist or to demolish any argument about comprehensive schools, because the Newsom Report specifically stated that it was not troubled with that particular aspect of the problem. But the Newsom Report says that half our secondary modern schools are overcrowded. In the big towns four out of five of the secondary modern schools are inadequate, and throughout the country 21 per cent. of them are not up to standard. Obviously somebody is to blame for this state of affairs which exists in 1965. But I do not want to look back and apportion blame; I am a generous-minded person. I want to look forward, and at this stage, with the raising of the school-leaving age to 16 in view, we must have new views on our educational responsibilities. So we come face to face with two issues—the future of the 11-plus and the case for replacing our present schools with comprehensive schools.
Before I deal with the 11-plus, in so far as it affects secondary education, I should like to say a word about its effect on primary education, because it casts its shadow on primary education, too. What happens is that streaming, very undesirably, begins at about 7 years of age. The teacher and the pupil are both conscious of the 11-plus that lies three and a half years ahead. The teacher picks out children who look like good 11-plus prospects. The teacher also places undue concentration on teaching the child those subjects which will figure in the 11-plus examination. The result is that many of the children in primary schools do not get the benefit of the broad general schooling to which they are entitled. The school might show up with a good record of 11-plus passes,
240
but that is to the advantage of the relatively few. The majority of children may have to suffer as a consequence.
When I come to think of the 11-plus examination itself, I say that it should go. There has been a big change in the attitude of the public and educationists to this question in recent years. Once upon a time the educational experts used to swear by it. Now they swear at it. There are fifty local education authorities who have either abolished or modified, or are in process of modifying, or considering the modification of, the 11-plus examination. Surely the age of 11 (10½ it really is) is too early, even if we accept the premise that an examination is needed. I do not know whether there is any magic about this age of 11. I know that in boys and girls of that age all kinds of things begin to happen; and visions seem to open themselves to them. But was the age not fixed at 11 because the school-leaving age was then 14, and it was felt necessary to have the examination three years earlier? If that be so, the fact that the school-leaving age is now 15 has invalidated that argument; and the fact that the school-leaving age is to go up to 16 will invalidate it still further. In the private sector, of course, the age is 13. Is the private sector right and the public sector wrong? We cannot say that they are both right, one at 11 and the other at 13.
Why should we get rid of the 11-plus? Various noble Lords this afternoon have indicated one reason or another. I think there are six reasons. First, there is the abnormal strain which is put not only upon the child, but also upon the parents. Many of us live in houses where the difficulty does not obtrude itself too much: there is always a spare room or study where the child can go. But many children who are living, shall I say, in slum conditions in many of our big cities have no facilities for doing any kind of homework at home, and children in working class families are seriously handicapped.
As a result of the examination, there is a margin of children of roughly equivalent ability on either side of the balancing line, some going in and others staying out. The unfortunate thing is that, of every 20 who pass and go to grammar school, six or seven are found to

241
be unsuited to the grammar school type of education. This means not only that the best has not been made of that material, but that six or seven who may have had potentialities have been deprived of the opportunity of grammar school education.
Then there are what the psychologists tell us are the psychological effects. I do not take too much notice of psychologists and psychiatrists, but sometimes one has to listen to what they say. They tell us—and I know myself—that failure in the 11-plus examination can kill a child's ambition at that time. I know, too, that it can make the child disinterested in its education for the rest of its school life. And I know—I have been a justice of the peace for over twenty years, and one knows these things—that failure in the 11-plus, together with a lack of ambition and with disinterest in educaton, frequently puts a child on the first step of the descent towards delinquency.
The final argument against the 11-plus, and I think the most powerful one, is that of the late developer. All children are not the same; some develop more quickly than others. I think the outstanding example of the danger of arresting, disqualifying and throwing into outer darkness a late developer is that of the grand old gentleman we mourned only a week or two ago, Sir Winston Churchill. Sir Winston Churchill went to Harrow. There was a sort of 13-plus entrance examination at that time, and Winston himself has put on record his experiences in the examination room. I should like to shorten it by paraphrasing, but I could not surpass, or even equal, the words of the master himself. He said:
"I wrote my name at the top of the page. I put down the number of the question: '1'. After much reflection I put a bracket round it thus: (1). But thereafter I could not think of anything connected with it that was either relevant or true. Incidentally, there arrived from nowhere in particular a blot and several smudges. I gazed for two whole hours at this sad spectacle: and then merciful ushers collected my piece of foolscap with all the others and carried it up to the Headmaster's table. It was from these slender indications of scholarship that Mr. Welldon drew the conclusion that I was worthy to pass into Harrow."
That may be funny in one way, and sad in another. But if that boy had had to face the 11-plus examination for one of our State schools he would have been stamped as a failure at that moment, and
242
the great opportunity of his later development would not have had a chance.
Another evil thing about the 11-plus examination has been touched upon this afternoon, and it is that the chances of success vary from one town to another. They are regulated by the number of places that happen to be available. At Merthyr Tydfil it is one in three; in Middlesex it is one in four; but at Sal-ford it is one in ten. So I have come to the conclusion that the 11-plus examination stands to be condemned on every ground. Mind you, my Lords, there is nothing sacred about the 11-plus examination. It was invented only rather recently. Once upon a time, even in the days when I sent my boy to school, all you had to do was to take the boy to the headmaster, write out a cheque and put it on the headmaster's desk, and that was that. I feel that it should go.
What are we to put in its place? I have to answer that in two parts. The first is that there must be an end of separatism. That may take time, and in the meantime there will have to be some kind of interim measures. Many local authorities are adopting various schemes which they think are a substitute for the 11-plus examination. They are taking headmaster's reports; they are taking class teacher's reports; and they are taking reports on the boy's past tests, on his capacity to learn, his general intelligence and so on. These schemes perhaps cause less nervous trouble than the 11-plus examination, but they are far from perfect, and they could lead to abuses. However, I would say that they lead to no more abuses and no more anomalies than does the 11-plus examination as we know it to-day. But because of these possible abuses, I think logic leads us to say that we must have the abolition of separatism altogether.
That leads us, of course, to comprehensive education. We have comprehensive education in the primary schools, and we have comprehensive education, virtually speaking, in the public schools. Why should we not have it in the secondary schools? I know that there is a lot of prejudice to overcome. I know also that we already have about 200 comprehensive schools in the country, most of which are doing very well. I had intended, if I had had the privilege of speaking to your Lordships earlier, to

243
say something about the Leicester scheme, the Croydon scheme and various other schemes; but at this hour I must not do that. I will, however, say one or two words about the London scheme, with its big monolithic schools, as they are called. There are a few criticisms levelled at those. We are told that they hold back the brighter pupils. The answer is that those schools which have grown out of, or have been grafted on to, former grammar schools, have a better academic record than those grammar schools themselves when they were being run as virgin grammar schools.
The second argument is that the slower children are neglected. This argument seems to cancel out the other, but the fact is that the slower children are not neglected, and the slower children find themselves stimulated by their contact with the brighter ones. The third argument is that the schools are impersonal, and that the children do not get to know anybody. The answer is that any of the schoolmistresses will tell you that there is at least one member of the staff who is in personal contact with every child in the school.
The fourth argument is that the schools are too big. That argument probably had some appeal when the pupils in the schools numbered 2,000. But in many of them the number is less than 2,000, and the one which has 2,000 has said they chose 2,000 because they felt that that number would be necessary to produce a sixth form of adequate size. But they found that they could produce a sixth form of adequate size with a school of only 1,250 or 1,500. So I do not think that the argument of size, though it has been with us for a few years in the past, need be with us for very much longer in the future.
I had some other things to say, but I must stop. I want to say this in conclusion. We hear the argument that this system of comprehensive education is likely to destroy the grammar schools. That is not so. As I have said, many of these schools have been grafted on to grammar schools, which have been given a new lease of life. When all is said and done, surely it is the children who matter, and not so much some particular traditional type of school.
244
Under their new guise as comprehensive schools, these former grammar schools are producing examination results which are staggeringly satisfactory.
There are many other things which I should have had great delight in saying, but the hour is very late indeed. I stand, as I think I have probably indicated, four-square behind the policy announced by the Government for basing their future educational policy on the system of comprehensive schools, while recognising that there may have to be variants of the plan from one district to another, and that things may have to go slowly and gradually. But I believe that, in the long run, it will make for a better system of schools, and certainly for a better generation of children; and it is on that next generation of children that we and this nation depend.
9.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, when your Lordships' House is sitting so much later than it usually does, there comes, I feel, a time at which both those on the Floor of the Chamber of your Lordships' House and those elsewhere may feel that the comparative few who remain are a sort of élite who have shown by their stamina that they are determined to endure to the end. Although this is not my subject, I am tempted, if I may, just to add a word, because I have been provoked. I was provoked about 3.42 this afternoon by an observation of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who introduced the Motion, and who said, in substance, that really nobody knew whether comprehensive schools were any good, whether they were of the London kind or, he said, of the county kind as in Leicestershire.
My Lords, I appeared in Leicester in a local government inquiry of the ordinary kind—that is to say, all a question of Party politics—about the usual question as to how much of the overgrowth of the town was to be added from the county to the borough; and, as Leicester was Labour-controlled, of course they had asked for very little because the outskirts were mostly Conservative and they were afraid of losing their majority. The Commission naturally did not give them any more than they had asked for, but by the time the Commission reported there

245
had been some more local government elections and the Conservatives were now in power. Of course, they appealed to the Minister asking for an enormous increase in the borough in order that they could keep a permanent majority.
About five days before the inquiry was held there were one or two more elections, as a result of which power in the city was held entirely by five Liberals, three of whom had never been on a council before. My friend who was appearing for the borough did not know until the last moment what his instructions were going to be—whether he was going to ask for something smaller or larger. There was the usual sort of evidence as to whether the city or the county had the best ambulance service, given by the usual heads of departments, and then the inspector said that he thought we had better have an evening meeting in case some ratepayer who could not come in the daytime made a fuss, saying that he could not be heard. He said he did not suppose anybody would turn up. The only hall available was the very large concert hall. This was taken, and it was packed out with thousands of people, at a time when, as we all know, you could not get people to go to meetings. One or two of them were people in the county who did not want to be put in the borough where the rates were higher. A few more were people, used to the three-tier system of government, who said that they knew their rural district councillors, "who are looking after our own people, and do a lot of local welfare work, and we do not want it all run from the town hall."
But the vast majority were parents and they were hopping mad because in the city they had secondary and grammar schools whereas the county had comprehensive schools. Some of them had sold their homes in Leicester in order to get away from the city education system and the 11-plus and give their children the advantages of a comprehensive school education, and now they were being threatened with being put back into the city again. What struck me as, I confess, a complete amateur in this field was that all the members of the National Union of Teachers, whether from the city or the county, said exactly the same. I remember now one head teacher. She had been in a school in
246
the county and following the previous local government review she had found herself in the city. It had taken her seven years to get out of the city and back into the county with its comprehensive schools, and now she was threatened again with finding herself back in the city. Of course, I had always known that the 11-plus was not very popular, but I had never known before to what extent it was both hated and feared. It seemed to me that where you had both parents and teachers alike with experience of both systems feeling so strongly the superior advantages of the comprehensive school, it was at least possible that they were right.
Finally, the other thing which had always occurred to me in this field is this. I have a lot of younger friends, married couples with children, some of whom have given up smoking, and others who have scraped and saved in order to send their children, particularly their sons, to public schools which, after all, are comprehensive schools. Certainly when I was young you really could not be stupid enough not to get into a public school; it was just a question of money. When I ask my friends why they do this they say, "Well, I do not know that the education is necessarily any better than it is in the State schools", as they call them. I think that may be right. I know that at my public school, for example, in history I twice got up to George I, but each time I found myself the following term in a form which was starting again with William the Conqueror. You know what it is; you say "I can always learn that later". There is a moral here for all children. As a matter of fact, you do not learn later what you do not learn at school. By the time you have got a job and family you have not the time. So I do not know anything that happened in England since the time of George I, except that trouble in an American colony. A Member of your Lordships' House whom I met about five years ago, and who was at the same house of the same school, after me, told me that he never got beyond George I. But these things change—no doubt they have got to George II by now.
People say, "It is not that the education is necessarily better, but if only we can afford it it will give the boys two great advantages throughout life: first,

247
the advantage of having been at a school where they speak right; and, second, the great advantage of having been at a school with a large section of those who are going to be the employers in their generation". "Snob value", I say. "That is right" they say, "and if only we can afford it, it will be worth it every time". One thought has often occurred to me—and of course this applies just as much to my friends in the governing Party, who naturally put their own children's interests first. All those who can afford to take the best possible educational advice, and follow it up, send their own children to comprehensive schools, and it may be that what is good enough for the rich may also be right for the poor.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware, in this context, that, of all the noble Lords who sit on both Front Benches, more than half went to Eton; and that, of those noble Lords who have remained in this interesting debate, I think more than one-third were also at Eton?
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, on a purely technical point, the actual distribution of intelligence in schools is something that I know a little about. There is no more common superstition than to regard the public schools as comprehensive schools. There are some that are indeed fairly comprehensive, but the schools of which the noble and learned Lord is thinking are very far from comprehensive; and at the school I know best, where the actual I.Q. distribution has been determined, there are very few boys with an intelligence quotient of less than 120.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If I may interrupt the noble Lord with great deference, is he making a second speech, or what exactly is he doing?
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: I am asking, if I may, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he would explain the statement that these are comprehensive schools.
9.45 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are coming to the end of a most expert and interesting debate on secondary education, and until the end of this debate
248
we were covering a fairly narrow field. But in the last five minutes we seem to have widened the range of our discussion. We have heard from a number of very distinguished speakers, and it would be invidious for me to single them out. They included two ex-Ministers of Education and an ex-Minister of State, as well as the present Minister of State and many distinguished educationists. In fact I think we should congratulate the Government on having produced four Front-Bench speakers to support their case. But I should like just to refer to one particular speech, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who made her maiden speech earlier on. I know that we all felt that she spoke with considerable experience of her own, as a primary school teacher at one time and now concerned with adult education, and I am sure that we all hope that she will continue to address us in the future.
As all of your Lordships have already said, we owe a great debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Newton. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, paid him an elegant compliment in saying that it was the best objective speech he had ever heard. Certainly, I could not do better than reiterate that. We must, of course, face the fact that there is controversy between us, particularly on the point of comprehensive schools. The debate has been conducted in an argumentative but reasonable fashion, and I should like to assure noble Lords opposite that I accept their argument as genuine and not in any way held for any other reasons.
One point that particularly struck me which was made earlier on in the debate and which I think most of us would feel in agreement with, is that although we have been mainly concerned with the argument over comprehensive education, the fact is that most of us believe that the real problem of secondary education lies in the provision of teachers, the building of new schools and the subjects that are taught in them. I am sure that if we could solve these three problems satisfactorily the rest would fall into place and we should not be having controversy over the problems of organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mace mention of public schools, and this was followed up by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I was not quite sure whether the noble and

249
learned Lord on the Woolsack was going as far as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in wishing to abolish all fee-paying schools, but I see that this is a logical—
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not intend to abolish the schools. I thought they were, in the main, good. It is the principle of entry by fee-paying that I am concerned with.
LORD ABERDARE: Yes. I am sorry; that is really what I was after. I personally should feel that whereas certain reforms of the public schools might be desirable in the way of admitting boys paid for from local authority funds, I could not possibly agree that it would be right to prevent parents who so wanted from paying for their own children's education in the way that they thought best.
Why this question of comprehensive education has become the issue that it has is the decision of the Government to adopt a national policy of comprehensive education, thus revolutionising the present educational set-up without, we feel, any thorough inquiry, and without any proved experiment, and against the clearly expressed views of many parents and teachers. Of course the present system has its weaknesses, but I think we should be over idealistic in supposing that any other system will be without its drawbacks; and I feel it would be better and much more beneficial, both to the children and to the teachers, not to make any sweeping changes but to build on the system that we have already.
The major criticism of the system at present is, as we made perfectly clear throughout this debate, the selection of children at the age of 11 to go to grammar schools or to secondary modern schools. This, indeed, may cause hardship in a minority of cases, and it is a difficulty which I am sure we all wish to overcome. Some of us question whether the right answer is to impose a comprehensive system and, in particular, whether this is the right time to take such a decision. I am sure your Lordships will have been impressed by what was said on this point by my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh, from her wealth of experience, and also by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, both of whom asked for more inquiry and research before coming to final decisions.
250
As the system exists at present, none of us has any quarrel with the grammar schools. Throughout the debate we have heard praise paid to them. Except that there may not be enough of them in some areas, everybody seems to admire the work which they are doing. In fact, the Government spokesmen have assured us that they do not wish to damage them in any way by their adoption of a comprehensive system, although some of us find it difficult to see how this is going to come about. I should also like to say from this side of the House that we see much good in secondary modern schools, and noble Lords opposite have not really paid them the credit which, to some of them, is their due. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, perhaps accidentally, did them a rood deal of discredit, and I thoroughly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord lames of Rusholme, said when he tried—
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, I should like to emphasise the fact, if I may, that I obviously used an ill-chosen phrase and thereby by no means did justice to them. I know them well and admire them, and I am sorry if in some way I underestimated them in what I said.
LORD ABERDARE: Of course, we accept that from the noble Lord. I rather thought that was the case. Within their brief of looking after the education of the average or below-average child they have had considerable success. We also believe warmly in the Report of Sir John Newsom, who was, for some reason, described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, as the eminence grise. We believe that was a highly imaginative Report, and some of the reforms which it introduced—and some of the work which is being done now in the secondary modern schools in putting them into practice—are very valuable and are having a good effect.
Where the problem seems to me to lie is with the small minority of boys and girls who fail their 11-plus but who develop late and who would be better placed in a grammar school. It is the selection procedure and the difficulty of later transfer which is the real problem. But these are problems which can be tackled practically, without necessarily

251
going into a 100 per cent. comprehensive system. My noble friend Lady Horsbrugh drew attention to the fact that there is at the moment a Committee sitting under the chairmanship of Lady Plowden considering this problem of selection. I would agree with her that we should be wise to await the outcome of their investigations before taking any irretrievable step.
The trouble is that many supporters of the comprehensive principle look on the word "selection" as anathema, but unless we are going to have one vast comprehensive school covering the whole of the United Kingdom there is bound to be some form of selection. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, drew attention to one of them: selection by area, for each comprehensive school will serve only one particular area. This surely will lead to a distinct difference between schools according to what type of area they serve.
Moreover, within the comprehensive school there will have to be selection between the more and the less gifted children academically. One type of education is more suitable to one type of child than another. There will still be within the comprehensive school those proceeding to higher education and those leaving at 15 or 16. There is bound to be selection between them, if both are going to get the education best suited to their varying talents. Selection forms part of our natural life as long as we live, from the cradle to the grave, and often it is made in very much more unfair ways than it is in the educational system. Selection procedures are often haphazard and unscientific. This does not mean to say that we should not always be seeking to improve them, but my point is that a comprehensive system does not automatically solve them all.
My Party, the Conservative Party, is certainly not against comprehensive schools. I think that has been made perfectly clear in the debate hitherto. In fact, the number of comprehensive schools that were built when we were forming the Government is surely evidence of that. We believe that in certain areas they have a most usefulrô le to fulfil, and particularly when they are specially built for the purpose. Moreover, we are equally interested in such
252
experiments as the Leicestershire scheme, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, and other developments. But there is a deep division of opinion in educational circles, of which I think we should take due note, about the merits of a fully comprehensive system. This is surely obvious from this debate, and is obvious to anybody who reads the columns of The Times Educational Supplement.
Ultimately, surely, our educational system will depend more on our teachers than on any particular form of organisation. Whatever system we have, we shall have to find the teachers and they will be the same teachers as we have at present, with the same children, the same subjects and, until we can rebuild extensively, the same schools. I suggest, therefore, that we must be very cautious in doing anything that might damage the best features of the present system. There are urgent problems of school building and teacher supply that should be our first priority, rather than wholsale reorganisation, especially at a time when we are to raise the school leaving age to 16 in the fairly near future.
As I understand it, the Government are now committed to a circular to be issued by the Secretary of State to all local education authorities, asking for their plans to reorganise their schools on a comprehensive system. This is putting pressure on them to devise a host of schemes, similar to those already well known to us, for combining existing school buildings into comprehensive units. This is surely bound to lead to some disruption and considerable damage to well-established grammar and secondary modern schools. How tough is the Secretary of State going to be in turning down unsuitable makeshift schemes, and—if I may follow up what was said by my noble friend Lord Newton—has he the powers to prevent unsuitable schemes from being adopted? His powers under the 1944 Act, as my noble friend has explained, are strictly limited and, having encouraged local education authorities to produce plans, can he then stop them from being put into practice if he does not. think they are suitable?
I would remind your Lordships of a memorandum on the reorganisation of secondary education, issued by the National Union of Teachers and the Joint

253
Four Secondary Schools Associations, referring to their doubts about such schemes unless suitable buildings were available, and saying:
"Schemes which rely on improvisation or sketchy adaptation of existing buildings are unlikely to receive our support … Neither the Union nor the Joint Four could support schemes of reorganisation which disregarded local needs and aspirations; which too hastily abandoned school units of proved success in meeting those needs or which would be put into operation in inadequate or unsuitable accommodation."
My Lords, on November 27, when the Secretary of State enunciated Government policy on comprehensive reorganisation, he went on to say:
"… the Government fully accept that this cannot be done overnight, nor could it be done by any one method".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 702 (No. 22), col. 1785.]
How much there will be in that proviso will depend on how the Secretary of State uses his powers. But I would suggest that in considering these schemes, and what is or is not feasible, he pays due attention to the words of great wisdom which this evening fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, with his wealth of practical experience in secondary education.
Lastly, my Lords, what of the direct grant schools? We have heard extremely little about them. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London made mention of them, but he did not seem to be as apprehensive of the problems involved as I should have thought he might have been. After all, if they are expected to fall into a comprehensive system they are going to be involved in a great deal of extra financial burden, and I wonder what is the view of the Government as to exactly how these direct grant and denominational schools are going to find their place in the system.
My Lords, I end as I began. We consider that the Government's proposals for comprehensive schools are dogmatic. We should like to see a pragmatic approach to the reform of our educational system. If I could sum up the debate to-day, I would say that the burden of advice to the Government from these Benches, from the Cross Benches and from the Bishops' Benches is to think twice, think again and move forward with caution.
10.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, this debate was started on a very high level many hours ago—it seems many weeks ago—by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I hope I do not sound patronising if I say that he made a speech today that some of us had always thought he would make one day, and now that he has made such a splendid speech I hope he will go on to still further achievements. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke to us with an air of judiciousness and calm. I thought that the Opposition had moved to the Right; and he struck a slightly more partisan note, but a very acceptable one, in what he placed before us. We on this side have tried to show our respect for the House, as was suggested by the noble Lord, by bringing to bear no less than four Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, and the noble Lord, Lord Snow, spoke from wide educational experience; and my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor summed up this matter, in a way in which I have tried for years to sum it up but have failed, when he said, "What is good enough for the rich should be good enough for the poor". I thought that put the whole thing in a nutshell.
My noble and learned friend was very modest about his own schooldays at Harrow. All I know about his achievements there has been derived from a noble Lord who is the only Member of this House who might possibly be (I am not certain about it) larger than the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and who was a friend of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when at Harrow. He told me that one of them acted Watson and the other Sherlock Holmes. I must leave those of your Lordships who know the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, to guess which was Watson and which Sherlock Holmes.
My Lords, I agreed very much with what fell from my noble friend Lord Silkin—or shall I say from my noble friend Lord Leatherland, since my noble friend Lord Silkin has left us—and from the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, when they stressed the fact, which of course was well within the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, at the beginning, that there are other issues which are ultimately more important to education than that which we nave been discussing today. I think

255
that all the professional educators will agree that while this issue is vital today, the provision of teachers and the encouragement of teachers and the provision of adequate facilities, whatever system we claim to be going under, is the more important still.
I do not follow up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, who was a teacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, who has so much experience of education administration, because of the lateness of the hour and because, by general agreement, we have concentrated on this question of what the noble Lord at the beginning called "selectivity". But I do not regret that we have concentrated on only one aspect of education; it has taken us already up to ten o'clock, and if we ranged over the whole of education we should now be only just getting into our stride. I think we have been wise in our own generation.
I should like to say something about the public schools. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was particularly interested in this subject; but he has gone. I was looking at some figures about the national expenditure on education which, I must say in fairness, as I have said before to noble Lords opposite, have risen in the period of Conservative rule. But if we take the total of £1,322 million, it is, in money terms, more than three times what it was thirteen years ago; it is a collossal figure. And let us realise that we have hardly begun. We have made some progress, but we are not very far ahead with the policy of giving every child in this country an equal chance in education. It is worth noticing—and I give the figures for illustration: they are not meant to be precise—that at the present time in our national primary schools a child's education costs £70; a secondary place for a child below the age of 15 costs £107; and above the age of 15 the cost is £188. If you take the average for public school age, then you might say that we as a nation are paying about £150 a year for our children.
To take the fees of a first-class school like Westminster School—and I select Westminster School because it is one of the most famous and because they have boarders and day boys—they are £528 for a boarder and £315 for day boys. Even where we are trying to make adequate
256
day provision for children, we spend on our children today only about half what is spent by parents who send their children to Westminster School as day boys. This is an illustration of the distance that we have to go—and this is not a Party point—before we can begin to talk about equality of opportunities of education in this country. I would just say another word about the public schools. We can expect a statement by the Government on this question very shortly. I cannot put a date to it, but there will be an important statement in the fairly near future.
I will not return to any of the more heated aspects of my argument with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I realise he came here rather heroically and under the stress of influenza and I am afraid that I cannot have contributed to his recovery, but I hope he will soon be very much better and be fit and well again. I must however, even in his absence, reject strongly—and I do not think it is very difficult to do this inoffensively—the suggestion that we in the Labour Party are not concerned to any large extent with educational values, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said; and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who implicitly repudiated that suggestion just now.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, were both aware of what the noble Lord. Lord James of Rusholme, meant when he said he knew that what he called his "friends of the Left" were most anxious not to damage any of the good schools there are. I think the whole House in its cooler moments is aware that we are at least as interested in education as any other Party in the State, and, at times, I might think, more so. At any rate, of the three spokesmen from the Front Bench, all were at one time engaged for years in teaching, which can hardly be claimed by many Front Benches, and we have had at least two professional teachers seated behind me among the contributors to the debate. I would take this opportunity of congratulating my noble friend Lady Phillips on an altogether delightful speech, and of conveying to your Lordships her apologies for not being able to stay, owing to a pressing commitment.
There is another point I would take up with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.

257
That is the suggestion that we are not interested in parental choice. That was dealt with effectually by my noble friend Lord Leatherland, who said that at the present time one could hardly argue that the 11-plus or any selective system gave very much choice to the parents who wanted their children to go to grammar school; and as that is just what they cannot do at the present time, we cannot rate parental choice very high. Possibly Lord Eccles was questioning our attitude to denominational schools and the right of parents to have the religious education they desire for their children.
I would remind the House, without reading it all out again, that my right honourable friend Mr. Stewart, Secretary of State for Education until the other day, spoke particularly strongly and sympathetically on this subject in another place; and I am authorised to add that the Government very much welcome the co-operative views which have been expressed by the spokesmen for the Churches. It would be quite unthinkable for a national policy on secondary education to leave out the voluntary schools. They must be as much part of the national plan as grant-aided schools. The Government are considering any financial problems which may arise. They are not likely to be few or small, but they will be considered in a careful way. So I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, who, of course, is a professional educationalist himself, will agree that this Government recognise the principle of parental choice at least as acutely as any other Government we have seen.
I now come to the central issue, which was pinpointed at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Newton—this question of selection. I am not going to spend time, particularly after the very thorough going-over my noble friend Lord Leatherland gave it, on the 11-plus. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, as sometimes happens to ecclesiastics in these debates, can be prayed in aid by both sides. I thought he was entirely on our side. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, took a different view. At any rate, we can both draw plenty of encouragement from various parts of his speech. The right reverend Prelate said that "flogging" the 11-plus was "flog-
258
ging" a dead horse. I understood him to go on to say that any other selection was likely to be equally hopeless. Once we agree that there is no adequate method of selection, then we are driven towards something that must be called, for want of a better word, the comprehensive principle.
I realise that words are sometimes used in different senses by different speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, for example, refused to agree that grammar school education could be extended in a comprehensive school. That, to him, was playing with words the wrong way. He is referring to grammar school education in the sense of the grammar schools as we find them today using the basis of selection by ability; but, as my noble friend Lord Snow pointed out, grammar schools have not been like that throughout their history, except in some cases. It is not at all clear to me why children cannot be given a grammar school education in what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, calls "the academic sense" in a comprehensive school. This is where I think the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, is more wary than some of his allies, because he sees that once you reject selection at all you are, so to speak, in the end all the way to a comprehensive school. Therefore I think that, almost alone in this House, the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, whose experience in teaching must be held to be greater than that of any of us—though there is a lot of teaching experience represented in this Chamber to-day—if I understood him aright, is still an unrepentant supporter of the 11-plus. I think he used the only good words on behalf of the 11-plus that were employed today. But once you reject selection, then I am afraid you are on a slippery slope, so far as noble Lords opposite are concerned.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, the point I should like the noble Earl to explain is what we mean by the abolition of selection: because if you have a school, then you must have selection for it. On what principles? It is no use saying you are abolishing selection unless you can explain to us on what principles you propose to send children to one school rather than another.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, but

259
his method of formulating that intervention was rather over-ingenious. He would hardly say that when people go to a primary school they are selected. They may be selected because they happen to live in the area, but to say they are selected by neighbourhood seems to me to be using words in an unfamiliar way. I am afraid I cannot accept that use of the words, and it is not in common currency. I must have used the word "selection" a little crudely, because I agree that you do not have a straightforward competition in Eton. It is a selection by the purse, in the sense that only a limited number can afford the fees.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, there is the common entrance examination, and they have heightened it a good deal since our day. The noble Earl and I were at the same house together.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: We went to Eton on the same day; and were soon joined by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, so you can see what a lot of knowledge we have of each other. It is no doubt true that it is harder than it was to get into Eton. But, broadly speaking, the children of professional and propertied classes can go to public schools, unless they are retarded, and it is widely untrue of the working class.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO, no.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, Winchester was always a school difficult to get into. You need to be a brainy child to get into Winchester. The other public schools vary greatly in the amount of marks required in the common entrance.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I concede Winchester, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Snow, and I was going to refer to it, because we have been privileged to hear at least two Wykehamists during this debate and their tone was less friendly to comprehensive schools than that of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who comes from Eton. At any rate, I agree that Winchester is a competitive school. All my forbears went there; but when it came to me, perhaps they thought it safer to put me down for Eton, and that is where I went. We know, too, that there are schools
260
like the great Manchester Grammar School which are highly selective. But, broadly speaking (I have said this before in this House and noble Lords have "hopped up" to interrupt indeed, I was told by the former Lord Hailsham that the public school to which I sent my boys is highly selective—they do quite well), this idea that public schools are basically selective is, in my opinion, a complete fantasy. It is important for the reason that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave, and I would repeat what he said: that the well-to-do people send their children, unless they are somewhat retarded—and there are retarded children in all classes—to public schools.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl say, for my information, whether people's sons who go to these public schools can get in without passing an examination for selection?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Without having the figures before me, if you said that nine out of ten of the children of the propertied and professional classes could pass the examination, I think that would correspond to the truth. In other words, the child who cannot get in is the exception, the backward child. That is not at all the position for the working class, and one must draw a sharp distinction. We intend to provide for the poor and the masses what the well-to-do have all along insisted on having for themselves. When the children are backward they should go to special schools. I entirely agree with anybody who suggests that, whether the children are rich or poor, if they are retarded they need more treatment, and I shall have one more word to say about that later.
Accepting the principle, let us recognise the difficulties. There is the question of money, and I do not want noble Lords to conclude from the figures I gave earlier on that we could double the national expenditure tomorrow without ruining the country. Obviously, one has to proceed in some kind of relationship with the growth of the economy. This is not an economic debate, and I will not become involved in that aspect, but there are limits set by money. There are also limits set by knowledge. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, most notably, one or two on this side and nearly all noble Lords opposite—the noble Lords, Lord

261
Aberdare, Lord Wolverton and Lord Auckland, and perhaps most positively of all the noble Baroness—insisted that we must go slow. Indeed, the noble Baroness went a little further, because she said that we must stop. How one stops educational developments I do not know, because the building goes on, the schools are there, and so on. So I do not think it is possible to come to a complete stop. I took that as a picturesque expression. At any rate she led the "go-slow" school, and was firmest of all.
It is argued that we must have more knowledge, and anybody who stands up as a Minister, any educationist, or any kind of public person at all, who says that we should not benefit from more knowledge deserves to be hounded off the premises. Obviously, we should benefit from a lot more knowledge. The last Minister was intellectual and the present Minister equally so; and I think the present Minister, Mr. Crosland, will be particularly interested in what might be called the intellectual aspects of the organisation. He has written a notable book, which may be known to some noble Lords, which contains a good deal about the future of education, and I think we can assume that he will be most anxious to take advantage of all the best thought.
In the end, then, we have to go forward. There will be no distinction. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, will agree with this. You will not discover, for example, that the system of education at Eton is better than the one at Winchester. Their method is quite different, but you will not discover that one is better. We have had them before our eyes for hundreds of years, and nobody today can say whether one is better. It is impossible to get administrative proof, from the very nature of the subject. But let us agree with all those who suggested that the more knowledge we acquire, the better. But we cannot arrest the march of educational progress while we are trying to sort this out.
The other great problem, of course, is the problem of resources, but that takes us back to money, in the end; and I think that, for economic reasons, we have to proceed much more slowly than I could wish. I am not foreshadowing some kind of check or squeeze, or
262
anything of that kind, but we should all like to go faster at the moment than the money permits; and that is bound to be the case for a long time to come. But with that limitation I certainly hope that we shall go forward as fast as possible.
Let us be clear about one other point—though I need not tell this to educationists; the school is to some extent, at least, a living organism. If you destroy a school, it is not the crime that you commit if you destroy a human being; but it can still be a grave offence against the light. It is impossible to pull schools to pieces and start them up again and redistribute teachers and boys as though you were distributing money. There is life there; it has to be handled very tenderly. And I should like the noble Lord particularly, but other noble Lords, too, to realise that we appreciate this to the full.
Noble Lords may or may not be aware that the present Minister spoke in a very thoughtful and careful way about these matters last Saturday, and if any noble Lord wishes to have his full speech, which is not available to everybody, I shall be only too pleased to let him have it, and he will see the nature of the Minister's thought. I would quote only one sentence to act as some kind of reassurance. He is re-emphasising this message which we are sending out to local authorities in which we are calling on them for plans for reorganisation along comprehensive lines. When one says that, one does not mean, may I repeat to the noble Baroness, that we are insisting one one kind of school. We are calling for reorganisation on comprehensive lines, but it does not mean that all or most of the schools have to be exactly like the excellent schools we know in the L.C.C. which the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, in many cases authorised, although I know of some cases where she turned down applications.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I tell the noble Earl that I did not turn down any single application for a comprehensive school. The only thing I ever turned down was the closing of a grammar school to make it an addition to a comprehensive school. But I passed every single comprehensive school the L.C.C. put up.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have visited the school which the noble Baroness prevented from becoming part of a comprehensive school. But I do not want to bandy words, and I certainly was not trying to misrepresent the noble Baroness. But, in fact, she did not agree to all the plans for amalgamation from the London County Council.
As I was saying, in sending out this message the Minister was recognising the nature of the difficulties, and he said in his speech:
"It is the nature of these difficulties that there is no one general answer to them. They have to be dealt with by scrutiny of each local authority's plans for reorganisation. In some areas these difficulties are absent or slight; in others we must accept that reorganisation can only proceed slowly".
That is not the whole speech but a key passage from it, which I hope will be a reassurance to noble Lords who have expressed anxieties about too rapid a progress.
In conclusion, my Lords, as our discussion was purporting to deal with secondary education as a whole, may I turn our thoughts in the last moment or two—and I really am at the end—to the less able children; because, if we talk of secondary education as a whole, those who seem best qualified to judge would say, whether or not we are doing what might be expected at this period of time for the able children, whether we are going to do better in the future for the able children by all this reorganisation, the children we are failing quite considerably are the less able children.
Mr. Clegg, Chief Education Officer to the West Riding Education Committee, giving the Presidential address at the Association for Chief Education Officers at their annual meeting a few days ago, said this:
"It is when we look at the other end of the intellectual spectrum that we seem to be rushing headlong in the wrong direction and the sinister importance of this can hardly be exaggerated. The Newsom Report is a major documentation of the fact that the children born into the worst homes are brought up in the worst schools. Let us take a cold look at what we do to the weaker Newsom child. We say: you have not been selected at 11 for the grammar school. You are not good enough for the G.C.E. school stream in the modern school. You are not even good enough for one or two C.S.E. subjects in the modern school. You will, therefore, be placed in one of the forms which gets the poorest teachers,
264
the least choice of subject, the most meagre use of facilities, the least homework, and whose members assume the least responsibility and are the first to be sacrificed when teachers are absent. When you leave you cannot train as an apprentice. You will be the last to secure day release. You will be the last to be cared for by the Industrial Training Board."
My Lords, that is how Mr. Clegg sees our treatment of the poorer section of our population, and as our subject to-day was not just the "comprehensive" issue—though, rightly, we have concentrated on that—but secondary education as a whole, I think we ought not to close before turning our thoughts to those who are weaker vessels. Mr. Clegg said that:
"It is surely up to us, as individual advisers to our committees and as a body, to do all in our power to see to it that every child is treated with the same care and concern which we now bestow on the most able, and with the same care and compassion that we devote to those who are mentally frail."
I should like it to go out from this House—and this is non-controversial and does not bear directly on the comprehensive issue—that all of us recognise that to make sure all our children get a fair chance in life is the supreme task in years ahead.
10.30 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I hope that in my speech I did not neglect those whom the noble Earl has just described as the weaker vessels; I am pretty certain I did not. Some of your Lordships who have spoken have said that I conveyed a useful service to your Lordships in introducing my Motion to-day. However that may be, I am in no doubt at all that the only service I can now do your Lordships is to stop this argument here and now and bring the debate to a conclusion as quickly as possible. The debate certainly exceeded my expectations in more senses than one. I did not anticipate the bonus of an intervention by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; I think it was an achievement. I am very sorry that I evidently provoked the noble and learned Lord at 3.42, but, as I said in my speech, it is my ambition not to provoke anybody. I am bound to say I cannot recall arguing in the way which apparently provoked him, but I will to-morrow morning read in Hansard what I said at 3.42, and although I know the noble and learned Lord is an exceptionally busy man I would regard it as a great personal compliment if he also would read what I

265
said at 3.42 because nothing would make me happier than to feel that the provocation which I unintentionally exerted had melted away.
I would add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her most informed and charming speech. I would thank all your Lordships who have contributed to this debate and made it the memorable education debate—and we have had many in the last few years—which I think it has been. Not least I
266
thank my noble friend Lord Aberdare who sat here virtually throughout the day in order to do me the kindness of winding up the debate on my Motion for our side of the House. I am very grateful to all your Lordships, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eleven o'clock.