Sitting of 5 July 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
The House being met, the Clerk Assistant at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:—
Whereupon Sir ERIC FLETCHER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PETITION

  Road Programme
  Mr. Allason: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to ask leave to present a Petition to this honourable House on behalf of the electors of Hemel Hempstead and others. The Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government will reinstate in the road programme bypasses to the towns of Hemel Hempstead, Berkhampsted, Tring and King's Langley, in view of the danger to human life. The Petition is signed by over 3,800 persons.
  The Petition concludes:
  Your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [Lords]
  [Queen's Consent on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified]
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tomorrow.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TECHNOLOGY

    Computer Industry
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Technology how much Government backing, and what guaranteed orders he proposes to give to British computer manufacturers to support their research and development costs and to assist them obtain export orders; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): Substantial support is being given to the British computer industry through research and development contracts and through a succession of Government orders.
    Sir C. Osborne: May I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to convey to the Minister of Technology my congratulations on his appointment and my good wishes in the important job which he has undertaken? May I ask the hon. Gentleman two Questions? First, will the new Minister continue the support which was given by the previous Minister in buying British machines rather than American machines for the universities, the Post Office, and the nationalised industries? Secondly, will he extend the export guarantees to cover the exports of these expensive machines which are now taking place?
    Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend will certainly continue the support for the British computer industry which has been given in the past. We have under consideration the question of extending the export guarantees to cover these machines, but I am not yet ready to say anything on the matter.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can we count on further help for computer-aided designs?
    Mr. Dell: This matter is under study in the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride. We certainly have the matter under attention.

    Machine Tools(Export Orders)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology what was the percentage change in net new export orders of machine tools between January and March, 1966, and the corresponding period in 1965.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Peter Shore): Twenty-one per cent. lower.
    Mr. Biffen: Are not these disturbing figures? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, for the six months ending in March, the figures are over 20 per cent. lower as well? Has he indicated his concern to the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Shore: There has been during the last three months a decline compared with the previous quarter. It is true that the trend in the last six months has been downwards but I am glad to say that, in the last month, there has been a significant upward movement. We are, of course, in touch with the E.D.C. for the machine tool industry about this and other matters affecting the industry.

    Fast Breeder Reactor, Dounreay
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Technology what discussions the Atomic Energy Authority has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board to determine the price to be paid by the Board for electricity generated by the 250 megawatt fast breeder reactor at Dounreay.
    Mr. Dell: The Authority has had discussion with the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board. Surplus electricity produced by the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay will be purchased by the Board at a price which will enable it to be sold to consumers at normal tariff prices.

    Shipbuilding and Ship-Repairing Industries
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Technology (1) what
    226
    reorganisation of his Department he is making to deal with the transfer to it of responsibility for the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries;
    (2) what steps he is taking to recruit to his Department staff with special knowledge of shipbuilding and ship-repairing.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): My Department is working out, in consultation with the Board of Trade, the detailed arrangements for the transfer of responsibility for the shipbuilding industry, but it is too soon to say what reorganisation or additional staff will be necessary.
    Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of continuity in this vital industry, particularly just after the recommendations of the Geddes Report? Is he further aware that frequent changes of responsibility from one Ministry to another are undesirable and that he will have to do a lot to counterbalance it?
    Mr. Benn: I am sure that the Government are well aware of this. Appropriate staff will be moving with their related departments. One of the reasons the process is being taken at this pace is to avoid interruption of the work on Plowden and Geddes.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend or either of his Parliamentary Secretaries be making contact with the shipbuilding interests?
    Mr. Benn: Of course. In this case, the Board of Trade is in touch with the shipbuilding interests and the staff coming to my Department is already in contact with them.
    Mr. David Price: May I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment? Will the Government announce their decision on the Geddes Report before responsibility for shipbuilding is moved from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology, or will it fall to the right hon. Gentleman to present the Government's reactions to the Geddes proposals?
    Mr. Benn: The first work on the Geddes Report is being done by the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall be involved in any decisions.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade be in direct consultation at all stages with the shipbuilding community, since it had no knowledge or consultation before the transfer of these departments was arranged, which is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the industry?
    Mr. Benn: While I appreciate that point, this is a matter of the machinery of Government and of organisation. It was proper for the Government to take this decision, but there will be no lack of contact.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made at the present time for dealing with research, development and construction in the shipbuilding industry; what additional arrangements he proposes in the near future; and what discussions he has had with the industry with a view to determining the nature of this machinery.
    Mr. Benn: The Board of Trade takes the lead in discussions with the industry on ways in which the Government might help. The Ministry of Technology is now to be associated with those discussions. Arrangements already exist in my Department for reviewing with the industry its research needs.
    Mr. Osborn: Has the right hon. Gentleman actually had meetings already with the shipbuilding industry in connection with construction as distinct from research?
    Mr. Benn: I have not myself personally, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about this, I will report what has been done.

    Departmental Changes
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology if he will now publish a revised organisation chart for his Department incorporating all the changes made since 9th March, 1966; what changes and additions have been made since this date; what further changes and additions are contemplated in the immediate future; and how many civil servants and personnel are involved.
    Mr. Benn: The basic organisation remains the same as stated on 10th May, 1966. The detailed organizational
    228
    changes will follow the implementation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement on 16th June, 1966.
    Mr. Osborn: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and wish him well. Can he state whether these proposed changes, which were undoubtedly announced for internal political reasons and which are now obviously not necessary, are themselves technically and administratively justified?
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the change and the reason for it, which was to bring together different aspects of the engineering industry, of which he has great knowledge. We shall be looking at this over the next few months before the change takes place and I will bear in mind the points that he or other hon. Gentlemen like to put.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special attention in this change to the position of the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern and make certain that the Prime Minister's earlier undertaking not to fragment or erode or vitiate that important scientific centre will be the continuing policy of his Department?
    Mr. Benn: Discussions are going on, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a specific Question about this subject, I would be glad to try and answer. Discussions are going on with the Ministry of Defence about the extent to which it will need to take over the responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation.
    Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, throughout, the House will be concerned to ensure that, with the added responsibility of his Department for the whole of engineering, arrangements are made for the necessary support for the sale overseas of British engineering products? We should like to hear more about the arrangements, particularly for the transfers from the Board of Trade, and that the support that these industries have enjoyed from the Board of Trade will not be jeopardised by going to two Departments rather than one.
    Mr. Benn: I am aware of the importance of that point and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it.

    Scientists and Engineers
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Technology (1) what staff is available to the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology for continuous oversight of the supply and employment of qualified scientists and engineers both in general and with particular reference to employment by Government agencies; and
    (2) what permanent machinery exists for formulating and implementing Government policy for optimum employment and redeployment of scientific manpower within the Ministries and other public bodies.
    Mr. Dell: The Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology provide experienced staff to support the work of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology. Making the best use of manpower resources in Government agencies is primarily a matter for the Departments concerned and the Treasury.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the staff provided by the Department of Education and Science be occupied full time on the work of the Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology? How are the requirements of the Defence Departments, which use a considerable number of qualified scientists and engineers, co-ordinated in the whole programme?
    Mr. Dell: It is the objective of the Government to ensure that scientific personnel previously used on defence are used, so far as possible, on civil work in future, and this matter remains under continuous review. Eleven senior staff are directly concerned with the work of the Committee.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, three years ago, the Prime Minister made a speech at Scarborough about the brain drain? What are the Government doing to prevent these highly qualified people from going to the United States and elsewhere? The brain drain is worse than ever before.
    Mr. Dell: The Government are giving the greatest possible encouragement to advanced technology but it is necessary that all aspects of advanced technology be judged from the point of view of economic viability.

    Computers (Training Syllabuses)
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Minister of Technology what is the machinery of co-operation between his Department and the Department of Education and Science on the drawing up of syllabuses for training in the use of computers.
    Mr. Dell: The Ministry of Technology is represented on the Inter-departmental Working Group on Computer Education under the chairmanship of the Department of Education and Science.

    Plan for Engineering
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has had with leaders of the engineering industry on implementing those parts of the Plan for Engineering for which his Department is responsible.
    Mr. Benn: Continuing discussion with industry on the implementation of the National Plan is one of the principal activities of my Department. The range of industries is too large and the discussions are too numerous for me to itemise them.
    Mr. Hamling: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Is he aware that the trade unions in the engineering industry are most anxious to give every assistance they can towards implementing the National Plan and making the engineering industry much more efficient than it has ever been?
    Mr. Benn: I am, of course, aware of that. The Plan for Engineering, published in 1951 and again in 1953 by the Confederation, deals with many of the issues now the subject of consultation between my Department and the unions concerned.
    Mr. David Price: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will from time to time publish a revision of the National Plan? I think he will agree that a five-year plan ought to be revised after the second or third year when it is clear that it has not been fulfilled in its earlier years, so that the objectives are at least realistic?
    Mr. Benn: This would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs but, in so far

    231
    as it affects industries which my Department is responsible for sponsoring, we will keep the position under review.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to apprenticeship schemes? It looks as though the apprenticeship period should be reduced from five years to three in many cases.
    Mr. Benn: We are in consultation about this matter with the Ministry of Labour.

    Machine Tool Industry
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a statement in the steps he has taken to reorganise the machine tool industry in Great Britain.
    Mr. Shore: With the encouragement and support of the Ministry of Technology, there has been considerable progress in the last two years in the concentration of the machine tool industry into stronger units. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation will facilitate such further developments as prove necessary.
    Mr. Hamling: Can my hon. Friend say what plans his Ministry has for Government-sponsored machine tool factories?
    Mr. Shore: We have no plans at present, but I assure my hon. Friend that there are no doctrinaire, anti-public enterprise thoughts in this Ministry at this time.

    Hurricanes
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Technology, in view of the heavy cost to the British economy during the last three years through calls on British insurance companies and Lloyds and damage to British-owned property because of destruction by hurricane, what experiments he is planning in his Department or sponsoring in research elsewhere towards lessening such damage.
    Mr. Shore: The effect of wind pressures on buildings is studied at the National Physical Labarotory and at the Building Research Station. The Overseas Division of Building Research
    232
    Station is always ready to give advice on the design of buildings for hurricane areas.
    Mr. Tilney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is much more than a matter of buildings and that the claims resulting from Hurricane "Betsy" were the biggest of all time for the British insurance industry, and that thousands of lives are lost every year because of hurricanes? If there can be international liaison over locust control, surely there can be international collaboration in lessening hurricane damage.
    Mr. Shore: I should like to look at that, but I can tell the hon. Member that the Building Research Station has prepared model building regulations for small buildings, which are shortly to be published, and that it is the small buildings, I am informed, which are the greatest problem rather than the large structures, which are generally quite adequate.

    Hovertrains
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Technology what research and development his Department is now sponsoring on the Hovertrain; what will be the cost of this during the current year; what percentage this will be of all funds from private and governmental sources spent on this development; and whether he is satisfied that the total funds available are adequate.
    Mr. Shore: None, Sir. But Hovercraft Development Ltd., a subsidiary of the N.R.D.C., has been doing some experimental work. It has constructed a small dynamic model and has completed plans for experiments with a man-carrying vehicle.
    Mr. Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of this great new development which is in danger of slowing down because of the lack of energetic Government support? Does he consider that the amount of money now available, Government or private money, is sufficient to see that progress is made?
    Mr. Shore: This application of the air cushion principle should be seen against the general background of the development of the Hovercraft industry. I agree that this application is very much at the beginning of its development, but we have

    233
    now reached the stage where further major progress will depend upon detailed studies between H.D.L. and British Railways and studies which, I hope, will embrace alternative fast, land transport systems.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made for dealing with research, development and production in the telecommunications field; and what proposals he has for improving telecommunications in this country.
    Mr. Benn: Standing arrangements have been established between my Department and the Post Office and discussions are in progress with individual firms in the industry. In addition the Department's Technical Advisory Committee for Electronics can also consider basic aspects of research and development in this field.
    As to the second part of the Question, primary responsibility for the telecommunications services rests with the Postmaster-General and I am in close touch with him regarding the future of telecommunications in this country.
    Mr. Hastings: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no long-term future for this country in the international telecommunications market unless we engage in an adequate national space programme? In this context, has he seen the Follett Report in 1964 which makes it abundantly clear that in this country we are capable of developing a Commonwealth satellite communications system? What is his view?
    Mr. Benn: That is rather a different question although very important. One of the first questions which I raised with the industry in October, 1964, was the possible development of an export market in earth satellite tracking stations. I also attended both Commonwealth telecommunications conferences. But I think that these matters are now up to the Postmaster-General.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for his Ministry to give advice to the Post Office on a simpler problem—how to ensure that ordinary letters are delivered on time?
    Mr. David Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, particularly having had the experience of being Postmaster-General, that of all the responsibilities which his Department has this is probably the most important? Would he not agree that those countries which at any moment of history have been at the fore of communications technology have also as a result been those countries which economically and politically have been most successful?
    Mr. Benn: I entirely share that view and that is why I am glad that last year, for the first time, in terms of external and internal telecommunications, we narrowed the gap with other countries and that this is the fastest growing science-based industry in the country.

    Aircraft Industry
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made for dealing with research, development and construction in the civil aircraft industry; what additional arrangements he proposes in the near future; and what discusssions he has had with the industry and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors with a view to determining the nature of this machinery.
    Mr. Benn: Responsibility for the aircraft industry continues to be with the Minister of Aviation until the transfer to my Department announced by the Prime Minister on 16th June takes place.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman do a little better than that? Can he say when talks will be started with the S.B.A.C., which has no inkling as yet as to what form the new arrangements will take? Does he not think that it is time that this industry, which this year alone will be responsible for about £200 million worth of exports, was given some adequate means of communication with the Government? Will he do his best to see that that is brought forward?
    Mr. Benn: As I said, the Ministry of Aviation is responsible for contacts with the industry until transfer takes place. When transfer takes place, those staff who have been in contact with the industry and other relevant staff will move

    235
    to my Department. I do not think that the difficulties of the transfer will be as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that military and civil aircraft research and development and so on have been interdependent ever since we embarked on these projects? Does my right hon. Friend think that it will be an advance if we now separate them and put them under separate Ministers?
    Mr. Benn: Those considerations were in the Prime Minister's mind before the decision was announced on 16th June it is in order to eliminate any doubts about the details of the transfer that discussions are now going on with the Ministry of Defence about the exact definition of Ministry of Aviation responsibilities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see the great value of bringing aviation engineering into a Department which has wide responsibilities for the allocation of R. and D. in the country as a whole.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind as the new Minister that he is now taking on far too many new activities and that communication is the most essential feature of the new post? Will he again consider the amount of activity which he is taking under his own wing?
    Mr. Benn: The allocation of responsibilities within the Government is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide, but it is a little early for the hon. Gentleman to assume that an industry is necessarily wrongly placed in the context and under the sponsorship of one Ministry which, for the first time, brings responsibilities for the engineering industry together with the Government research effort.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to his colleague, the Minister of Aviation, before he takes over that the House should be informed of the date some time beforehand? Is he aware that I recently put a Question down for answer by the Minister of Aviation tomorrow and received only 48 hours' notice of its transfer to the Board of Trade, well down the list? Is not this a very discourteous way to treat hon. Members?
    Mr. Benn: The allocation of Questions as between Ministers is not a matter for
    236
    me, but I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about the exact date on which transfer will take place.
    Mr. David Price: Although the responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry have obviously not been of his own choosing and there is always a reasonable argument between vertical and horizontal structure, the Prime Minister having decided on the one, will the right hon. Gentleman take care in dealing with these industries to assist them with their selling problems where he can?
    Mr. Benn: This is a responsibility which rests particularly with the Board of Trade, but I do not think that any Ministry responsible as we are for the advancement of technology in Britain could possibly fail to take due account of the export potentialities of developments, and we shall try to encourage them as far as possible.

    Annual Report
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology whether he will prepare and publish an annual report upon the current work of his Department and his programme of work for the future.
    Mr. Benn: I have no plans to do this, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for this suggestion, which I shall consider carefully.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this question, bear in mind that the responsibilities of his Department are very complex and inevitably technical and that it would be for the benefit not only of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen but of the public at large if he would follow the practice of the Department of Education and Science and produce an annual report?
    Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not the general practice for Government Departments, but I am very conscious of the considerations which he has put before me. The research stations do publish annual reports, but I shall consider this matter very carefully.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are also hon. Members on this side of the House who would

    237
    welcome the publication of an annual report?
    Sir C. Osborne: Before the Minister makes his annual report, would he be good enough to look into the problem of how, allegedly, the American industrial worker is able to produce two or three times per hour more than his British counterpart—[Interruption.]—and will he see what can be done, from a technological point of view, to put this right?
    Mr. Benn: That is another question but it is obviously one which awaits me. My personal annual report is still 363 days away, and I shall give consideration to it.

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology what estimates he has made of the number of new staff needed in his Department in connection with the new Selective Employment Tax, and of the cost of this additional work.
    Mr. Shore: It is difficult to gauge the precise work load which will be involved, but it is estimated that not more than four extra staff will be needed. The additional annual cost falling on the Ministry of Technology Vote may be about £10,000.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the Minister aware that there will be a large number of applications from firms requiring certification for their applications for the premium? Is not all of that going to take time and require a large number of additional staff? Can the hon. Gentleman say what the timing of this will be?
    Mr. Shore: Our best estimate at present is that four additional staff are required. The responsibility of the Ministry of Technology in this matter is, as will be known, for certification of scientific research establishments covered by Clause 1(2) of the Bill. As for the timing of it, I assume that we shall be in phase with the Ministry of Labour.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Dog Licences
    Mr. Loveysasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue is received annually from dog licences.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): In 1964–65 the receipts from dog licences issued in England and Wales were £997,361 and in Scotland £76,572.
    Mr. Loveys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to figures accepted by the R.S.P.C.A., nearly half of the dogs in this country are not licensed at all? Would not the Exchequer benefit and would not there be a smaller number of unwanted dogs if licences had to be obtained by purchasers before the dogs were collected from the vendors? May I also ask whether an increase in the licence fee has been considered?
    Mr. Diamond: As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am sure that he will be aware that proposals are at present before the House and new legislation is contemplated, under which variations in the licence fee can be more readily dealt with than at present when legislation is required. In answer to the other part of the supplementary question, no decision has been reached with regard to such a change.
    Mr. Peyton: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would tell me if I am right in thinking that dog licences were originally started in order to help finance the war against the French? If that is so, would the right hon. Gentleman ask his Department to digest the information that Napoleon is dead and that we are at peace with France?
    Mr. Diamond: I will take due note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to poodles.

    Government Contracts
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the decision by the London Borough of Camden Council to ensure that all contracts have a clause barring any form of discrimination, what progress has been made in inserting a similar clause in all contracts with Government Departments.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): The Government are opposed to discriminatory practices wherever they occur, and are considering urgently the best means to ensure that

    239
    Government contractors do not engage in racial discrimination.
    Mr. Winnick: May I ask the Chancellor whether the Government are willing to agree in principle to such a clause appearing at a later stage in Government contracts? Can the Chancellor say what progress is now taking place in considering the possibility of inserting such a clause in Government contracts?
    Mr. Callaghan: The principle is quite clear. How far it can be embodied in a particular contract, or in Government contracts generally, is now the subject of consultations between Departments and with others outside the Government.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: This Question does not say anything about racial discrimination. Is the Chancellor equally prepared to condemn, as I am, say, racial discrimination and, for example, discrimination between contractors who may or may not employ wholly union labour?
    Mr. Callaghan: There is a Question later on the Notice Paper about the negotiations with trade unions, but I must say that I was assuming that my hon. Friend was referring to racial discrimination, because that was what the contract of the London Borough of Camden Council referred to.
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct Ministers not to place contracts with firms which refuse to recognise or negotiate with trade unions.
    Mr. Callaghan: Government contractors have to comply with the Fair Wages Resolution, which deals with wages, conditions and membership of trade unions. If my hon. Friend knows of any particular cases of difficulty, I am sure the appropriate Minister will be glad to help him.
    Mr. Walker: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would look at the Written Answer given by the Minister of Labour in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, concerning a firm in my constituency which depends very largely on Government contracts for its existence and which refuses to recognise or negotiate with trade unions involved? In view of the pledge given by our party at the General Election to legislate against such firms,
    240
    may I invite him to anticipate that legislation?
    Mr. Callaghan: I will certainly look at this because it is quite clear that firms, in their own interests, should be willing to negotiate with well-organised and recognised trade unions. There is no better path to industrial peace.
    Mrs. Knight: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assure this House that he will not accede to the desires of various of his hon. Friends and curtail the freedom of firms to run their businesses as they see fit?
    Mr. Callaghan: That seems to be asking me to give an assurance which I clearly have not given in the original reply.

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received from charities, social service and voluntary organisations over the Selective Employment Tax.
    Mr. Callaghan: Quite a number. The point has been met by providing for repayment of the tax paid in the Selective Employment Payments Bill.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Chancellor aware that there is a great deal of satisfaction among many charities that they are to be exempt from the Selective Employment Tax? Would it be possible to look again at the question of them having to pay the tax in the first place, since a number of charities will have the problem of raising the money even though it is to be refunded later?
    Mr. Callaghan: I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have been present in the Chamber when we had exhaustive debates on this matter. It was made quite clear then that if we use this system, which is very economical in manpower, as has been revealed earlier this afternoon, there is no possibility of exempting charities from the initial payment. I must repeat that when the charities came to see me, they emphasised that it was not the money that was so important as the principle of being exempt from taxation.
    Mr. Ramsden: Has the Chancellor had representations on behalf the London

    241
    Library which, although not strictly a charity, is fairly akin to many charities in view of the educational character of its work?
    Mr. Callaghan: Not only have I had representations but the matter has been debated during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Nations Association is to be treated as a charitable institution for purposes of the Selective Employment Tax.
    Mr. Diamond: The Bill now before Parliament provides for the repayment of the Selective Employment Tax to charities as defined under existing law. It is not for me to decide whether an individual body is a charity.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend consider amendments, if they are required, which will make it quite certain that the United Nations Association will not be made to pay this tax?
    Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend put down a Question about charities which I have answered quite clearly. I can only repeat that it is not for me to decide whether an individual body is a charity. In the final result, that is for the courts.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press my right hon. Friend on this matter? if the Government take a large sum from the United Nations Association, which will in great measure cripple its work, while they are paying more than the total budget of the Association to salesmen to propagate the sale of war machinery throughout the world, many people will feel that this is quite wrong.
    Mr. Diamond: I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is no need for anxiety about any tax which the Government propose crippling the work of this excellent organisation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Without anticipating the discussions which we shall have on a future Bill in Committee, is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that all these matters must go to the courts? Is it not possible to find a method of deciding whether what one might call the fringe charity is a charity or not,
    242
    perhaps within the discretion of the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter?
    Mr. Diamond: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in the sense that it is for the Charity Commissioners or for the Secretary of State for Education and Science or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland to say whether any body is a charity under existing law. Only when there is dispute about that would appeal to the courts lie.

    Bank for International Settlements(Annual Report)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have a copy of the latest annual report of the Bank for International Settlements placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Callaghan: The Library has a copy.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the fact that this report sets out the circumstances whereby, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins), our international financial transactions depend on assurances of the Government restraining internal demand, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that all his hon. Friends should study this report with care?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, and I hope the whole of it, not just selected parts which happen to meet the convenience of the hon. Gentleman. I thought that it was a well-balanced report.

    Motor Vehicles (Taxation)
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a scheme for taxing and insuring motor vehicles by means of a tax on petrol sales; and what would be the approximate administrative costs saved by altering the present method of taxation in this way.
    Mr. Diamond: The administrative savings from substituting petrol duty for vehicle excise duty cannot be accurately estimated, partly because the registration procedure would have to be retained for

    243
    control purposes. My right hon. Friend has no plans for effecting vehicle insurance through the tax system, which would require a very extensive administrative machinery.
    Mr. Whitaker: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, though, that this would prevent evasion, would save the time of civil servants and would fairly allocate the burden in proportion to those who enjoy motoring? Therefore, will he urgently reconsider this policy, which seems to have overwhelming advantages?
    Mr. Diamond: I am not sure to what my hon. Friend is referring. The advantages do not exist in either part of the Question which I have answered.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the Chief Secretary inform his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) that there is already a petrol sales tax of 3s. 3d. a gallon and that the British public would not accept a further tax, even from a Socialist Government?
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present system is breaking down because hundreds of thousands of vehicle owners deliberately and consistently avoid paying the Road Fund tax and no attempts are being made to enforce it? Therefore, my right hon. Friend should either ensure that the tax is paid or drop it altogether.
    Mr. Diamond: No. Reports and suggestions of the duty being evaded to this extent are very much exaggerated. Routine reports suggest that unlicensed use amounts to approximately 1 per cent.

    Capital Gains Tax
    Mr. John Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has so far been collected in Capital Gains Tax; and what has been the cost of assessing and collecting it.
    Mr. Diamond: About £200,000 so far. The cost of assessing and collecting the tax cannot be segregated from the cost of administering other taxes.
    Mr. Smith: Does not this mean that we should simplify this very complicated tax, thus freeing many able people, both inside the Revenue and outside, for more productive work?
    Mr. Diamond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recollect that we have had many debates on the tax from which it has emerged that proposals are called simplification but really refer to abolition.
    Mr. Doughty: Does not the Chief Secretary's reply confirm that this tax is not worth the trouble taken in collecting it in view of the great damage it does in this country and other countries?
    Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. It is too early to come to such a conclusion. The Budget estimate was for £5 million this year. There is no reason at present to alter that estimate.

    VIETNAM
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on the Commonwealth Mission on Vietnam.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to my Answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 21st June.
    Mr. Campbell: Although the Mission may not be received in person by the Hanoi régime, should it not now be active in consulting other Governments concerned in accordance with its original terms of reference if it is ever to promote a conference?
    The Prime Minister: There may be a case for reactivating this Mission. if it had to be done, as I have already explained in the House, it could be done very quickly by consultation with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
    Mr. Maxwell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that exhortation with the North Vietnamese pays as little as exhortation with anybody else? In view of this, would he consider whether this country could promise to contribute, say, £50 million or £100 million to the redevelopment of South and North Vietnam if they agree to peace talks?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that appeals and exhortation will be successful. I am not certain that promises of economic aid would add anything. But my hon. Friend will be aware of the very imaginative programme being

    245
    worked out internationally for the Mekong River, costing, I think, 1,000 million dollars in Western aid, a great deal of it from the United States. He will also be aware of other work which will be undertaken by the Asian Bank.
    Mr. Blaker: In any consultations within the Commonwealth, or within the Commonwealth Peace Mission if it is re-established, will the Prime Minister do his best to make sure that full weight is given to the views of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand?
    The Prime Minister: When the original Commonwealth Peace Mission was appointed—and it was very enthusiastically supported by the then Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies, as he made clear—they were fully involved in not only the selection of the proposed Peace Mission, but also in its terms of reference and in the guide lines given to it.
    Mr. Park: In considering reactivating the Commonwealth Peace Mission, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the widespread alarm caused by the growing impression that the United States Government no longer favour a negotiated settlement in Vietnam, but are now seeking to secure a military victory at any cost? Will he repudiate the view that the solution to the conflict lies in the partition of the country along Korean lines? Will he reaffirm that—[HON. MEMBER: "Too long."]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's supplementary question is long enough.
    The Prime Minister: I have always said—and I think that the whole House agrees—that a political solution is the only solution which can bring peace in Vietnam. The actual form of that solution must be left for those who get round the conference table to negotiate it. But as recently as last Saturday the President of the United States made clear once again his Government's willingness to engage in totally unconditional discussions, given, as he said, only a room, a table and somebody to talk to.
    Mr. Heath: In view of the emphasis which the Prime Minister has rightly placed on consultation with Australia and New Zealand over the Common-
    246
    wealth Mission, can he now say why it was that there was no consultation with Australia and New Zealand over his own statement dissociating the Government from the latest steps in American policy in Vietnam, especially in view of the fact that this had been commonly discussed in the Press as well as elsewhere for a number of weeks before the action was taken?
    The Prime Minister: The Australian and New Zealand Governments were fully aware of our position, stated in the House as long ago as 21st December last, that if such bombing occurred we would dissociate ourselves from it. We have had no representations from them on that question at any point.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister if he will seek clarification from President Johnson of the reasons for the negotiation by the United States Administration of 99-year leases on the main American bases in Vietnam, including Da Nang, with a view to taking action in the matter as co-chairman of the Control Commission and a party to the 1954 Geneva Agreements, which provide for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and bases from Vietnam.
    The Prime Minister: The United States Government do not hold any such leases whether in Da Nang or anywhere else in Vietnam and I have certainly no knowledge of any negotiations for the purpose of acquiring any such leases.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Would my right hon. Friend make further inquiries into this subject, because I have reason to believe that my information is correct? Furthermore, will he make it clear now that he would oppose any American measures that perpetuate their occupation of South Vietnam or partition Vietnam, even if those demands are put forward in unconditional negotiations backed by a large American force?
    The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to consider any evidence that my hon. Friend cared to send me. I do not need to make any such representations to the United States Government. As recently as 18th June, President Johnson made it clear that they do not intend to hold bases in Vietnam. He said, "We are not fighting to remain in Vietnam, not

    247
    to retain bases there, and not to control the affairs of their people." It is not American policy, in fact.

    MEMBERS (DUTY ABROAD)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister how many Ministers and Members of the House were summoned to the United Kingdom from duty abroad at public expense on 13th to 15th June, 1966, and for what reasons; and what was the total cost.
    The Prime Minister: No Ministers, Sir, but six Members of the Parliamentary delegation to the Western European Union meeting in Paris, returned at their own request a little earlier than had previously been planned. Since they did not return to Paris at public expense, no additional cost fell on public funds as a result of this.
    Sir C. Osborne: While thanking the Prime Minister for that assurance, may I ask him if it was not rather hard on some of his younger colleagues to bring them home merely to vote, when he has a majority of 100 at his disposal?
    The Prime Minister: We did not bring anyone home, except those who asked to be brought home. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in May of last year, when we offered pairs to all the Council of Europe delegates on the other side of the House, the Conservative leaders insisted on bringing them home from Strasbourg to vote in the steel nationalisation debate.

    EUROPE (DISENGAGEMENT)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister to what extent he reached agreement with Chancellor Erhard on a policy of disengagement and the establishment of a zone in Europe free of nuclear weapons, foreign forces and military alliances, comprising both Germanys, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and limiting and putting under international supervision the conventional forces of these States.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the communiqué issued after the German Chancellor's visit which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th May.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the German Chancellor, on his return to Germany, reported to the Bundestag that complete agreement had been reached between the two Governments on all essential questions concerning the present international situation? Was such agreement reached over German and European security on the basis of the Labour Party policy which is summarised in my Question, or was it reached on some other basis and, if so, what?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend always preserves to himself the right to interpret Labour Party policy. But, so far as disengagement is concerned, I explained the position of the Government, which is in full accordance with party policy over many years, in the debate which we had in July of last year.
    Lord Balniel: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten what Labour Party policy was? At the time of the last election, was it not to seek to create nuclear-free zones? May I ask him what initiatives have been taken by the Government, and will he perhaps respond to the frequent requests from his back benches to publish a statement indicating progress in disarmament talks?
    The Prime Minister: I have answered many questions on this in the House and referred to it in a number of foreign affairs debates. Our position on nuclear-free zones was discussed with the German Government as long ago as March, 1965, and has been repeatedly discussed since then with our other allies. The position is that we should like to see nuclear-free zones, on condition that the zones are not only free of missiles stationed within those areas but of missiles targeted on those areas.
    Mr. Hooson: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his talks with the German Chancellor or otherwise he has ever suggested that there should he exploratory talks between representatives of the N.A.T.O. Powers and representatives of the Warsaw Pact Powers with a view to seeing what possibilities there are for a détente in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made that point in recent N.A.T.O. meetings, and the point was made again

    249
    by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think that it is very important that further progress should be made in this direction, not necessarily by a straight confrontation between N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact representatives in such discussions, but certainly on agreed lines in a whole series of bilateral discussions.
    Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an entirely new situation in Europe at present, with the great possibility of a solution to the European problem? Has he given consideration to the idea which has been floated by the Russians, the French and others of a European security conference in order to try to reach agreement on a European security pact?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are opportunities for improved relations and a relaxation of tension between East and West in Europe. On the question of a security conference, we have always taken the view that it is important that such a conference, when it takes place, should be successful a id should not be a place where we get propaganda statements or the set positions of both sides. That is why we need a lot of patient discussion bilaterally between ourselves and the Soviet Union, and between other Eastern and Western European countries first.

    HONOURS SYSTEM
    Mr. Palmerasked the Prime Minister if he will recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a Commission to review and report on the honours system and methods used to make awards, and that the Commission be asked to make recommendations for enhancing the prestige and standing of awards and making styles and titles accord with the public dignity of a modern nation.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling that the present honours system has fallen largely into disrepute and that it is no longer representative of true social merit? Will not an innovating Administration like his own consider fundamental reform?
    The Prime Minister: I am giving a lot of thought to these matters myself, and I hope shortly to be able to make a statement in the House. I do not think that a Commission is the right way of dealing with the situation.
    Mr. John Smith: Would it not meet the point if the Prime Minister were to make his recommendations for honours more from amongst those who apply for them, as is done with the new Queen's Award for Industry?
    The Prime Minister: In the case of the Queen's Award for Industry, it is necessary for the Advisory Committee to have particulars of the export and productivity performances of firms. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if it were a question of appointing those who apply for it, I would have a very wide field of selection, but I am not sure that the qualitative result would be as satisfactory as the quantitative.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why does the Prime Minister make such a brutally negative reply to his hon. Friend—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask the next Question, No. Q6.

    HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to a reform of the House of Lords designed to make it more systematically representative of the estates, professions, trades and religious and cultural life of the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: I have no evidence that there is any general desire for a reform in the composition of the House of Lords.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has not this been an outstanding question for more than 50 years now? While the House of Lords is an extremely valuable and expert body, is it not desirable to seek to make it more so while keeping an elected proportion of hereditary peers? Will the Prime Minister take advantage of the French Prime Minister's visit to discuss with him

    251
    the ideas underlying the French proposal to amalgamate the Economic and Social Council with the Senate, with a view to having a second chamber such as I have suggested?
    The Prime Minister: Now that I have heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for the composition of the House of Lords, I am even more reinforced in my view that there are many ideas about composition, but I do not know that there is any great enthusiasm for any one proposal. What has been a matter of concern for some years—and it was dealt with in the recent election manifesto of the Labour Party—is the question not of the composition but of the powers of the House of Lords.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say where on earth he got the idea that there is no pressure in the country or in this House to reform the House of Lords, if not to abolish it completely? Will he give an assurance that the promise, threat or whatever it was in the Labour Party manifesto to curb its delaying powers is only the first step in the reform of the place along the corridor?
    The Prime Minister: In fairness to my hon. Friend, I should make it clear that he has not been one of the applicants for honours. He obviously misheard me if he thinks that what I said was that there was no desire for a reform of the House of Lords. I said that there was no desire for a reform of the composition of the House of Lords. The promise in the Labour Party manifesto referred to powers, not composition.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Have any of the Prime Minister's right hon. or hon. Friends asked for a life peerage within the last 48 hours?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, there have been no such requests, and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that since October, 1964, we have not been ennobling any sitting Members or giving them knighthoods, or baronetcies, or anything else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sorensen."] It is, of course, the fact—I overlooked this—that two of my hon. Friends went to another place shortly after the formation of the Government in October, 1964, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who had a long, distinguished record as Patronage
    252
    Secretary in the matter of rewarding his back benchers, will have noticed that we have not given knighthoods, baronetcies or peerages to sitting Members from that moment.
    Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon Friend nevertheless bear in mind that, whatever attempts are made to improve the House of Lords, there is only one reform that we want, and that is to get rid of it quickly?
    The Prime Minister: Even on that proposition there are many views in different parts of the House and in the country, but I think that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) will recognise that a considerable number of scientists, professional men, and representatives of the religious and cultural life of the United Kingdom, to quote his Question, have recently been recommended to go to the other place and that this, over a period, is doing what he wants to do in the last few words of his Question.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: With regard to the power of the House of Lords, would not the best plan be to introduce a Parliament Bill in reverse so that when a Measure of law reform has passed the upper House twice, it should pass this House subject only to a six months' delay?
    The Prime Minister: That is a very interesting proposition, and of course a great many law reform Measures are now emanating from the other place. But I think that this is a matter to which one would have to give further consideration. Perhaps in due course it might be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we must move on.

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House. I should like to make a statement on Rhodesia.
As the House knows, talks have been taking place in Salisbury between British and Rhodesian officials, on an exploratory basis and without commitment on either side, to see whether a basis exists

253
for negotiations. The purpose of these talks has been to see whether negotiations based on the six principles could ultimately take place, and with whom those negotiations would be held, on a constitutional basis.
I should like to thank the House for its patience in not pressing for information; but, since I have to inform the House that these talks are being adjourned for a period, it is right that without breaching the secrecy which I have told the House I consider essential, I should say something about the stage which has been reached. The discussions have been useful in clarifying attitudes and intentions and in further identifying the problems which have to be met in order to achieve a solution acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, and acceptable to this House. It has been agreed that there should now be a pause for further consideration of the respective positions, before the talks are resumed later in the month. In the interval sanctions will, of course, be fully maintained.
So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they intend to employ the pause in hard thought on all the main aspects of the Rhodesian problem, particularly the right constitutional arrangements within Rhodesia and Rhodesia's future place in the family of nations. These are related and, indeed, inseparable aspects of the same problem, for there would be no purpose in reaching agreement on the constitutional future of Rhodesia if that agreement did not at the same time win for Rhodesia acceptance in international society. It is expected that the talks will be resumed at a fairly early date. The House will agree that it is important that they should then make more rapid progress, for I am sure that the House will also agree that the present situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Mr. Heath: The House is glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found it possible to make this statement. At the same time, will he realise that the House will find itself in a slightly difficult position over the timetable which he has announced in that after this pause the talks will be resumed, the House will he rising, presuambly, early in August, and I understand that there is to be a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Con-
254
ference in September, so that the House will not have any opportunity of expressing its views about the progress of the negotiations or any of the issues being discussed? Will the Prime Minister kindly bear this in mind? Perhaps we could put him on notice that we may have to ask him for a further statement, bearing in mind the possibility of requiring a debate later.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right in the points that he has made. I have in mind what he said three or four weeks ago—and I agreed with him—that there must be a fuller statement before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess. I cannot at this moment say how much progress might have been made by that time, but I agree that there must be a statement which will be as full as we can make it. Whatever the state of the discussions, I hope to make the statement in sufficient time before the Recess to allow the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, if they wish, to debate it afterwards.
Mr. Bellenger: Although the House understands the difficulties of this situation, nevertheless the mere fact that discussions are taking place on an official level has raised hopes which we trust will not be dashed, but they cannot go on interminably. Will my right hon. Friend therefore announce to the House at some time when these talks are to be raised from that level to something much more high-powered, because the situation to which the House has agreed, namely, the imposition of sanctions, is causing a tremendous deterioration in the Rhodesian economy which will not be conductive to a settlement of this dispute if it is delayed for too long?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend in expressing concern about the situation—not only because of sanctions, but for many other reasons—if these talks do not make progress. I could not give any indication of the rate, or even the probability or otherwise of the talks becoming negotiations until we have made more progress in the talks, because I am sure the House will insist that there should be no question of negotiations with anyone unless we are satisfied not only on the constitutional basis, but that they are likely

255
to give effect to the six principles on which successive Governments and this House have insisted.
Mr. Sandys: Will the Prime Minister see that the adjournment is as short as possible, because delays in this kind if situation are obviously dangerous?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly see that the adjournment is as short as we can make it, though if talks are going round and round on some rather narrow aspect of one or other of the principles, this, too, is dangerous, and this is why I said that during the adjournment in the next few days we will give very deep thought to any further ideas that we may have to try to bring this matter to a successful conclusion, given the conditions which the House will insist on our keeping to.
Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on the seriousness and, above all, the secrecy of these talks? But, further to that, will he bear in mind that a number of the measures which Rhodesia has to take to meet sanctions will be irrevocable, and will link her more closely with South Africa, and that her readjustments to the south with South Africa are very much easier than the adjustments of Zambia to the north, and that as time goes on it will become more and more difficult to get back to a reasonable relationship?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that these talks have been serious, and I am glad to say that they have been secret. A high level of secrecy has been maintained. My hon. and learned Friend will recognise that the solution must be one which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, it must be acceptable to this House, and it must be acceptable to the general community of nations.
My hon. and learned Friend will realise—and here I am thinking of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said a few moments ago about the Commonwealth conference in September, for example—that the British Government are in a most intolerable position in that we have to bear the international responsibility for the Rhodesian situation because of the clear admission
256
all over the world about where sovereignty lies; and that in an international sense we have throughout these months, as our predecessors did, been sheltering Rhodesia from world opinion. It is extremely difficult and galling to have to carry that position when, at the same time, our physical power, in terms of our ability to affect the situation and the settlement, is so limited for reasons that we all know and about which none of us can be happy.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will not come as a surprise to some of us that there has not proved to be a sufficient identity of views between the two sides to form a basis for negotiations? Are we to take it that the communiqué from Lagos on 12th January still obtains, particularly the reference to the period of direct rule, moving to constitutional talks? Secondly, since the talks are to be adjourned until later this month, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that a period of three weeks' hard thinking and three weeks' continued sanctions will produce a very dramatic change of heart? Would it not be better to adjourn the talks until September, when sanctions will have had longer to bite?
The Prime Minister: The House debated the Lagos communiqué very fully after the Lagos Conference, and I made a full statement on the question of direct rule, the 1961 Constitution, and the rest, on 25th January.
The hon. Gentleman refers to three weeks' pause and then three weeks' negotiations. I hope that in this pause it will be possible for attitudes to develop—we certainly intend to think very hard about the timetable here—which will help to force the pace a little.
I do not agree with the hon. Member that the sensible way would be to adjourn until September and let sanctions work more severely on Rhodesia. In any case, as he knows, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, there is the Commonwealth conference in September, and I feel that it would be a great mistake to cease to make any progress which could be made while waiting for that.
Mr. Dickens: During the adjournment will the Prime Minister consider taking

257
steps to broaden the basis of these talks to include representatives of African opinion in Southern Rhodesia, since the Africans form the majority of people in that country?
The Prime Minister: These are preliminary talks, designed to lead ultimately, if they are successful, to discussions on a constitutional basis. As I have said, we still have to settle the question with whom these discussions should then take place. In these preliminary talks it would not be helpful—if l thought it would be I should recommend it—to widen the basis of the talks. My hon. Friend will remember that when I was in Salisbury last October I had wide-ranging talks at the highest level will every branch of African, Asian and coloured opinion.
Mr. Wall: When these talks restart at the end of this month, does the Prime Minister intend that they should be at a Civil Service or at Ministerial level? Does he recall the appeal that Mr. Smith made publicly that they should continue at Ministerial level? Is there any unbridgeable gap at the moment?
The Prime Minister: The position has always been—it was Mr. Smith who stated it a long time ago, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have also said this—that they should be without commitment at an official level, and not a Ministerial level. I do not know how the hon. Member could suggest that there could be such talks at Ministerial level, because there are no Ministers in Rhodesia. That is why I said that one of the problems to be solved is the problem of the constitutional basis of the talks, and with whom they should take place.
Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact remains that this adjournment suggests that they have run into difficulties? Will he bear in mind that some hon. Members on this side of the House who have been waiting impatiently for the sanctions to take effect are beginning to think that the time has come for more drastic action to be taken to restore law and order in Rhodesia?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that sanctions are having a deep effect in Rhodesia. If he is not
258
aware of that, I know that many people in high places in Rhodesia are aware of it. I have made it clear that until this issue is solved there will be no question of relaxing sanctions. But I have not heard any suggestion that on the part of Her Majesty's Government—the position of Zambia is a different one—there should be a tightening up of sanctions.
Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised that any solution must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole—this has always been known as the fifth principle—and also to the House, but I think he added this afternoon that it must also be acceptable to the international community. It is not difficult to think of some countries to whom the only acceptable solution would certainly not be acceptable to this House. Will the Prime Minister recognise that the additional principle which he has enunciated is one that we shall want to consider carefully and to have clearly defined?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. On a number of occasions I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the fact that although this is a matter for British legal responsibility—it is not contested in the House—and although we have sought to keep it in our own hands, there is deep international concern about it. We are "carrying the can" and sheltering Rhodesia while remaining powerless to get the solution that we in this House would consider right. I do not think that anyone could devise a constitution for Rhodesia which would be universally acceptable to all the 100 members of the United Nations, ranging from one extreme very much to another. We have to produce a solution that we think is the right one, and one that we can defend.

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

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL [Lords]
Bill referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Bowden.]

SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2)
3.41 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of England and Wales relating to homosexual acts.
It is now nearly nine years since the Wolfenden recommendations were made—a period during which the recommendations have been so much publicised and so much debated that if public opinion polls are any guide there is little doubt that the public understand and, by a substantial majority, approve those recommendations.
Nevertheless, in seeking leave to introduce a Bill of this kind it is important to emphasise that the recommendations made in the Wolfenden Report, as in my proposed Bill, would result in a penalty for a homosexual offence against any boy under the age of 16 which could be up to life imprisonment; that it would mean, under the Bill as under Wolfenden, that any indecent assault upon a boy could result in a period of ten years' imprisonment; that any public act of indecency, as now, could result in two years' imprisonment; and that further, under the Bill and by way of the recommendations of Wolfenden, in the case of any act of gross indecency against a youth between the ages of 16 and 21 it would result in the present penalty of two years' imprisonment being increased to one of five years' imprisonment.
More, my Bill would embody a Clause similar to that hammered out in another place. It would protect military discipline in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, so that Section 66 of the Army Act would remain undisturbed—that Section providing punishment for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
Further, in accordance with the Wolfenden proposals, the Bill would provide that any premises found to be used for homosexual practices would constitute a brothel, attracting the same penalties as would be the case for premises now used for heterosexual practices. Only those wilfully blinding themselves to the nature of our proceedings could suggest that the Bill would assist or approve of homosexual practices, or would condone any act of
260
indecency against a youngster, or any public display of homosexual conduct.
No one suggests that the House approves of fornication, adultery or lesbianism because we do not catalogue them in a list of crimes. Nor would any such approval be extended to homosexual activities by the Bill, particularly as, in so many instances, homosexual conduct would remain a crime attracting the most severe penalties. But the Bill would mean that the burden of criminality would no longer be attached to acts committed in private between adults.
I believe that the present law is unjust and unenforceable. The Home Office spokesman in another place suggested that there were half a million homosexuals in the country. Evidence given to the Wolfenden Committee suggested that there were perhaps about three-quarters of a million. Certainly, since there can he little doubt that the sexual drive of those fortunate enough to be heterosexual may be attributed similarly to homosexuals, but directed, of course, elsewhere, it must be, as the present law stands, that millions of criminal acts, speaking legalistically, are committed each year.
It is an absurdity that, as a result of the law as it stands, apart from motorists, homosexuals comprise the largest class of criminals in the land. Yet the position is, as we all know, that there are fewer than 100 convictions in a year amongst homosexual adults committing acts in private. The detection rate, clearly, therefore, is derisory. The law is as random in its application as it is demonstrably unenforceable. Those who wish to retain the law as it stands must face up to the fact that if it could ever be enforceable at all this could only be done with the most massive recruitment of police ever envisaged, by the invasion of privacy in a manner which I believe the whole House would find intolerable. Nor can it be pleaded that the law can bring reformation. I have said before, and may be permitted to repeat, that to send homosexuals to overcrowded, hermetically-sealed male prisons is as therapeutically useless as incarcerating a sex maniac in a harem.
Can the law be said to be a deterrent? How would we married men respond to a law enforcing celibacy upon us? Would we be deterred? Since these wretched men have similar compulsions, only,

261
lamentably, directed to men and not women, how is it credible that the law acts as a deterrent? In the meantime, the law has side effects which, as the Lord Chancellor has said, means that it does more harm than good to the public. It is a "blackmailer's charter" which no sympathetic administrative action can or has prevented. Almost half the total cases of blackmail reviewed over three years by the Wolfenden Committee showed that they had some connection with homosexuality.
The law as it stands is an invitation to hoodlums. Too many recent documented cases have revealed that it allows them to steal with impunity. It prevents the integration of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens into the community, for any person who suffers the appalling misfortune of being a homosexual is bound to be under the gravest burdens. For most of them there can be no question but that they are permanently denied the blessings of family life, the gifts and rewards of parenthood, the gift of a mature love with a woman.
As the law brands them as criminals and outlaws, their isolation is intensified, they become increasingly estranged and many retreat into a ghetto, cut off from involvement in the community, feeling hostility from the community. Too often they react by succumbing to anti-social attitudes.
It is because they are informed by compassion that it is not surprising that the Church Assembly, the Church of England Moral Welfare Council, the Roman Catholic Advisory Committee, set up by the late Cardinal Griffin, the Methodist Conference and the Unitarians, with all the clinical experience which comes to them from their pastoral care, have all called for the implementation of the Wolfenden Report. Is it not time, is it not overdue, that the Churches' call was heeded in this House?
In Belgium, in Holland, in Sweden, in Denmark and in France, the law is substantially the same as that recommended by the Wolfenden Committee. I understand that the law has recently been altered permissively in Czechoslovakia. The Home Secretary pointed out recently that there is no evidence that the relaxation of the law in Austria in 1960 has led to any increase there in homosexuality. To change the law will
262
not take us into uncharted seas. Indeed, this country went boldly through its history until but 80 years ago free from the present harsh laws without the decay which those who oppose the Bill so frequently prognosticate.
Yet I believe that the worst failure of the present law is the preoccupation with punishment of homosexuals which leads to the community not taking the preventative action which might possibly save a little boy from the terrible fate of growing up a homosexual. Little as we know of the etiology, certain it is that there are dangers to a boy if an over-possessive mother ties him to her with a silver cord so that the boy, enveloped in a feminine aura, is never able to break out and assert his masculine independence.
Equally certain it is that among fatherless boys there is a disturbingly high rate of homosexuals. A lad without a father, lacking a male figure with whom to identify, is sometimes left with a curse, for such it must be, of a male body encasing a feminine soul. If such are some of the precipitating causes of the ambiguity of the sexual rule amongst these people, who, with any compassion, can demand that to one disability in childhood must be added the stigma of criminality in adulthood?
All in this House, on both sides and all sections of opinion, I know, wish to see a diminution in the incidence of homosexuality. But I believe that education in mothercraft and, what is perhaps even more important, education in fathercraft, the mobilising of our social resources to lend more aid to the fatherless, the provision of more male child care officers and more male teachers are far more likely to succeed in this respect than praying in aid our penal system.
We have debated this issue within and without the House now for nine years. Earl Attlee, when he supported this change, said recently that far more is being said about homosexuality than need be said. I think that that is right. There is an element of morbidity in this continuing debate. I hope that the House today will take the step which may bring this debate, ere long, to its conclusion.
3.59 p.m.
Sir Cyril Osborne rose—
Hon. Members: Oh, no.
Sir C. Osborne: I hope that hon. Members will not make up their minds, at least until they have heard what I want to say.
I beg leave to oppose the Bill and I will be brief. I believe that the Bill could have such grave social consequences that it is the duty of all hon. Members who are not already pledged to vote against it. I will give three practical reasons for so claiming. The first is that the sponsors have never explained why the Bill should not apply to the 600,000 men in the Armed Forces, nor how discipline will be maintained if private buggery is permitted to civilians and denied to the soldiers, sailors and airmen. [Laughter.] Hon. Members gave my opponent a fair hearing. I hope that they will give me one.
Nor have the sponsors explained how discipline could be maintained if this licence were given to our fighting men. I believe that the result of the Bill would be an increase in the very crime, the bestial habits, which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) deplores. The very fact that the Bill would increase the penalties for crimes against boys under 16 and youths under 21 surely emphasises the immense dangers that could result if this filthy habit were to increase.
My second practical objection is this. I claim that the sponsors of the Bill have no mandate whatever for the Measure. I hold in my hand the three party election manifestos. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Socialists did not put one word in their manifestos about this so-called homosexual reform. I therefore say that the sponsors have no mandate whatever for the Bill. Why was there not a word in the party manifestos? We are all politicians and we have all sought votes. The framers of our manifestos knew full well that the ordinary people of Britain, to whom we go for our votes, would not have stomached this proposal.
The hon. Member for Pontypool referred to the Army Act and to "disgraceful conduct" of "an unnatural kind". Ordinary people are horrified at the thought that this sort of thing might increase. I am certain that had it been put in the party manifestos it would have been rejected by the electorate.
264
The Bill would appear to give Parliamentary and public approval to this revolting form of immorality. Thus, I put it to the House that the sponsors of the Bill, who have previously claimed that there are about 1 million "homos" in this country, cannot really make that claim. I do not believe it. I do not believe that our country is as rotten as all that. It is an awful slur on the good name of the country to say such a thing.
Further, if this House is representative of the nation, it would mean that there are at least 30 "homos" in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names."] The allegation comes from the benches opposite, not from me. I am denying it. it is exactly 21 years today that I first had the great honour of being made an hon. Member of this House. During those years I have had the great privilege of having friendships with hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will allow the hon. Member to proceed.
Sir C. Osborne: Dirty minds come to dirty conclusions. I have never come across one case of a "homo" in this House.
How can the sponsors of the Bill be so certain that this practice is so widespread? Will the hon. Member for Pontypool say how many "homos" he has known in Parliament during his membership of the House?
The third practical objection I have to the Bill—[Interruption.] I regard this as a desperately serious matter and I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those below the Gangway, to take note of this—is that there is no Parliamentary time available for the Bill.
>Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.
Sir C. Osborne: No Private Members' Bill can be made law unless the Government of the day find the necessary time. I have more confidence in the northern common sense of the Prime Minister than to believe that he would give Parliamentary time for this Bill, and thus have the odium of this dirty Measure tied to his party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Shame or not, I am standing up for what

265
I believe to be right. The Government's timetable is already choked. Eight major Bills are already going through and more are waiting to go through.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have from time to time complained that no Parliamentary time is available to discuss urgent public problems like Vietnam and the Common Market. We have not been able to discuss them because of the lack of Parliamentary time. Indeed, a week last Thursday the House was told seven times during one hour that the Government would like to bring in certain reforms, but that the necessary Parliamentary time was not available.
It is scandalous that the hon. Member for Pontypool and the sponsors of the Bill should claim that the private privileges of homosexuals should, from the point of view of Parliamentary time, come in front of the urgent matters which hon. Members want to discuss. I beg hon. Members, with my whole heart, to vote against the Motion.
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):—
The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 100.

Division No. 94.]

AYES

[4.7 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Dunnett, Jack

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Albu, Austen

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Anderson, Donald

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Archer, Peter

Ellis, John

Judd, Frank

Armstrong, Ernest

English, Michael

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

Ashley, Jack

Ennals, David

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Astor, John

Ensor, David

Kirk, Peter

Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lambton, Viscount

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Fernyhough, E.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Awdry, Daniel

Fisher, Nigel

Lee, John (Reading)

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lector, Miss Joan

Balniel, Lord

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lipton, Marcus

Barnes, Michael

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Barnett, Joel

Floud, Bernard

Loveys, W. H.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Foley, Maurice

Luard, Evan

Bell, Ronald

Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Lubbock, Eric

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Bessell, Peter

Forrester, John

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Fowler, Gerry

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Biffen, John

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

MacColl, James

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Fraser, John (Norwood)

MacDermot, Niall

Booth, Albert

Freeson, Reginald

Macdonald, A. H.

Boston, Terence

Gardner, A. J.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Mackie, John

Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

Ginsburg, David

Mackintosh, John P.

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

Bradley, Tom

Gregory, Arnold

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Brinton, Sir Edward

Gresham Cooke, R.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Brinton, Sir Talton

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Maddan, Martin

Brooks, Edwin

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marquand, David

Brown, Bob (N'e'tle-upon-Tyne, W.

Hamling, William

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Buchan, Norman

Hattersley, Roy

Maxwell Hysiop, R. J.

Cant, R. B.

Hazell, Bert

Mayhew, Christopher

Carlisle, Mark

Heffer, Eric S.

Mellish, Robert

Henig, Stanley

Mendelson, J. J.

Carmichael, Neil

Herbison, Rt. FM. Margaret

Mikardo, Ian

Channon, H. P. G.

Higgins, Terence L.

Millan, Bruce

Chapman, Donald

Hirst, Geoffrey

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Coe, Dents

Hooley, Frank

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Concannon, J. D.

Hooson, Emlyn

Moonman, Eric

Crawshaw, Richard

Hornby, Richard

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Horner, John

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Moyle, Roland

Dalyell, Tam

Howell, David (Guildford)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Murray, Albert

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Howie, W.

Neave, Airey

Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Newens, Stan

d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

de, Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Delargy, Hugh

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

Dell, Edmund

Hunt, John

Oakes, Gordon

Dewar, Donald

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Ogden, Eric

Dickens, James

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Oram, Albert E.

Dobson, Ray

Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St. P'cras,S.)

Orbach, Maurice

Donnelly, Desmond

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Orme, Stanley

Driberg, Tom

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Royle, Anthony

Varley, Eric G.

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Sharples, Richard

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Palmer, Arthur

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Pardoe, John

Sheldon, Robert

Wall, Patrick

Park, Trevor

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Wallace, George

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Walters, Denis

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Silkin, John (Deptford)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

Weitzman, David

Peyton, John

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Wellbeloved, James

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Skeffington, Arthur

Whitaker, Ben

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Smith, John

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Prior, J. M. L.

Snow, Julian

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Probert, Arthur

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Redhead, Edward

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Rees, Merlyn

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Reynolds, G. W.

Swingler, Stephen

Winnick, David

Richard, Ivor

Taverne, Dick

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Worsley, Marcus

Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Yates, Victor

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Thornton, Ernest

Zilliacus, K.

Roebuck, Roy

Thorpe, Jeremy

Rose, Paul

Tilney, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Tinn, James

Mr. St. John-Stevas and

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Tuck, Raphael

Dr. David Kerr.

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Mawby, Ray

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Goodhart, Philip

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Alldritt, Walter

Goodhew, Victor

Murton, Oscar

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Gurden, Harold

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Bence, Cyril

Hannan, William

Neal, Harold

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Harper, Joseph

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

O'Malley, Brian

Black, Sir Cyril

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Blackburn, F.

Hiley, Joseph

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Braine, Bernard

Hoy, James

Pentland, Norman

Brewis, John

Hunter, Adam

Percival, Ian

Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pink, R. Bonner

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Iremonger, T. L.

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pym, Francis

Cary, Sir Robert

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Randall, Harry

Chichester-Clark, R.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cooke, Robert

Kenyon, Clifford

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Cordle, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Small, William

Costain, A. P.

Kimball, Marcus

Stainton, Keith

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Kitson, Timothy

Symonds, J. B.

Crowder, F. P.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Talbot, John E.

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Leadbitter, Ted

Tomney, Frank

Dalkeith, Earl of

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Urwin, T. W.

Doughty, Charles

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Vickers, Dame Joan

Drayson, G. B.

McBride, Neil

Ward, Dame Irene

Eden, Sir John

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Mapp, Charles

Winterbottom, R. E.

Galpern, Sir Myer

Marten, Neil

Younger, Hn. George

Gibson-Watt, David

Mathew, Robert

Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

Maude, Angus

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Sir C. Taylor and

Mr. Dance.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Abse, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Wood, Mr. C. Pannell. Mr. Strauss, Sir P. Rawlinson, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Varley, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. St. John-Stevas, and Mr. John Horner.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2)
Bill to amend the law of England and Wales relating to homosexual acts, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES 1966–67
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for the following services connected with University Education. Polytechnics and other Colleges, namely:

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1966–67

  £

  Class VII, Vote 1, Department of Education and Science

  10

  Class VII, Vote 5, Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain

  10

  Total

  £20

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
  4.20 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: The main object of this debate is to register the dissatisfaction which vie on this side of the Committee—and, I hope, not only on this side—feel at the way in which the Government have handled the university building programme during the past year.
  The expansion of higher education has been one of our most creditable national achievements during the 1960s. The Secretary of State himself in last January's debate described the figures of university expansion as "remarkable" and quoted them. He said:
  "In 1939, the total number of university students was 50,000 and the entry 15,000. In 1960, the number of students was just under 108,000 and the entry nearly 30,000. Today the number of students is 168,000 and last October's entry was over 52,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 242]
  Those by any standard are remarkable figures. At the same time the student population in colleges of education has risen from 28,000 in 1958 to over 70,000 at the present time: and full-time advanced level courses in technical colleges have risen in the same period from 13,000 to approximately 40,000.
  270
  All these figures reflect the greatest credit on the institutions concerned, but they would not have been possible without the capital expenditure which we on this side of the Committee authorised when we were in power. I commend the achievements of higher education in Britain during the 1960s to the attention of all those, whether of Right-wing or Left-wing sympathies, who suggest that nothing right happened under the Macmillan Government after the "Wind of Change" speech.
  Perhaps even more important than the expansion was the commitment which the Government of which I was a member took on, with the approval of the whole House, immediately on the publication of the Robbins Committee Report in November, 1963. I remind the Committee of two paragraphs from the Government's statement then issued:
  "The basic assumption of the Report is that courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue and who wish to do so. The Government accept this assumption and also the calculations on the number of places, both in higher education as a whole and in institutions of university status, which flow from it.
  The Government adopt the Committee's calculations for 1967–68 and 1973–74 as their objectives for those years. Plans are being put in hand and resources will be provided accordingly."
  That commitment was an important declaration of policy and it was also right. It remains the basis on this side of the Committee of our policy for higher education. It was right in the national interest because of the significance of educational advance to any industrial nation at a time of rapid technological change.
  Of course, this applies not just to university education but also to technical education at all levels, as I said to the House when we last debated education. I said that the quality of the education service depends not only on how we train our top alphas but on the quality of the training we give to our betas and beta minors as well. We should also consider the levels of general education in the schools.
  Nevertheless, it is perhaps worth remembering in the context of this debate

  271
  that the National Plan singles out the importance of university education
  "because of its contribution to the growth of the economy."
  I remember the right hon. Gentleman's speech on 4th April, 1963, when he was dealing with overall policy for economic growth and specifically referred to the importance of
  'more rapid spending on all forms of higher education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 703.]
  Over and above the national interest we thought it was right as a matter of social justice that competition for university entry should not be allowed to become more intense than it was already.
  It is important for the purpose of our present debate to bear in mind the most recent U.C.C.A. Report, which suggests very strongly that the pressure of demand on university places is not going to slacken. It is probable that the trend in the proportion of qualified school leavers will compensate to a greater degree than had been expected for the fall in the size of university age groups. It is certain from the Department's published statistics that the Robbins Committee underrated the provision for full-time education that would have to be made by 1973, despite the magnificent work by Professor Mosier and his teams which use statistics and projections in a more rigorous way than any earlier Report in this country.
  The commitment made at the time of the Robbins Report was regarded by the universities as the start of a completely new chapter in the history of higher education in this country. What Lord Fulton said to the Estimates Sub-Committee was right. He said:
  "After Robbins there was an air of confidence in the universities; they thought 'Now we can expand, we shall have the money to do it'… The universities had got into a state of mind in which they felt that if they expanded they would only be lowering their standards … I think they thought that the Robbins Report and the way in which it was received was a new kind of guarantee this was no longer going to happen …"
  There is not the same confidence today and one important reason has been the unhappy story of the university building programme during the past year. During this period the university building programme has suffered three blows,
  272
  which I shall describe. First I shall deal briefly, because we have been over this ground in the House, with the consequences of the Chancellor's measures last July. The Unversity Grants Committee said that the building programmes announced in 1964 for the period up to April 1966 were the minimum needed if the Robbins target of places for 1967–68 was not merely to be met but to be sustained. I emphasise that the need was not only to build up to the requisite number of places but to sustain that number. As a result of last July's measures, £15 million worth of university building starts were held over from last year's programme and only £12 million has been added to programmes for this year and next year. So that even by the end of this Parliament universities will still not have fully recovered from the effect of cuts made in programmes which we on this side of the Committee originally authorised as far back as 1964.
  There have been two other factors which we have not debated in this House. My second point is that it came to me, and no doubt to other hon. Members, as a genuine surprise and shock that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to add anything to the 1968–69 programme to take account of the results of the U.G.C. inquiry into obsolescences. When we were in office we always recognised the 1967–68 and 1968–69 figures as provisional and subject to review in the light of results of this inquiry. Sir John Wolfenden confirmed this in evidence to the Estimates Sub-Committee, Question 369, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State himself said on 26th January that the 1968–69 figure was "subject to adjustment".
  The U.G.C. has now completed its survey on obsolescence. I should imagine that it had a full schedule of buildings which are now more or less useless in some cases for their present purpose and in other cases for any purpose, and also of buildings where quite a modest sum would render them efficient. I put it strongly to the right hon. Gentleman that it would do a great deal for university morale if he would look at this again and say that he will allocate a special sum in addition to the programme already announced for 1968–69 to be devoted to making good obsolescence. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Member

  273
  for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with whom I had many passages at arms when he was a Treasury Minister and I was at the Department of Education. He has confirmed to me that it never occurred to him that when it came to the point some special allocation would not be made for this purpose.
  Thirdly, there has been a rise in costs since the autumn of 1963 which has effectively cut the value of authorisations by £3 million to £4 million. The right hon. Gentleman has just approved an 8½ per cent. increase in cost limits for school buildings with consequent increases in money value of the school building programme. It has been suggested in several quarters that 8½ per cent. is an inadequate figure, and it certainly casts some doubt on the intention to hold to National Plan education targets in terms of constant prices. But having met the increase in costs for school building, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least allow what he would call a"fair"increase for university building costs and adjust the university building programme accordingly? This is all the more important as the consequences of the Selective Employment Tax for building costs are still to come.
  As it is even the £25 million cannot all be allocated, since I understand that tenders cannot always be obtained at present cost limits, so there is a need to go up by an extra 4½ per cent. out of the reserves which the U.G.C. keeps for these purposes. We consider that, bearing in mind the continuing pressure of numbers; the built-in momentum of expansion in many university departments, which is a highly important factor; the need to repair obsolescence; arid the rise in university building costs; £25 million is, as I put it at Question Time, a grotesquely inadequate building programme for 44 university institutions for 1968–69.
  The years following 1968 are the years in which we should be making good obsolescence in preparation for the renewed rise in the size of the university age groups during the 1970s. We cannot afford to go into the 1970s with an under-capitalised university base. That is why we on this side of the Committee say that the minimum annual university building programme should be £30 million.
  274
  In real terms, even that would be no bigger than the programme which we were authorising for the universities, together with the colleges of advanced technology which then had a separate programme, during the years immediately before the Robbins Committee's Report.
  If the right hon. Gentleman, as he justly may, prays in aid the economic situation, I can only repeat that I have not found a single audience that thought that it made sense to cut university and technical college building and yet plan in the National Plan to spend £100 million a year subsidising school meals and milk.
  We must not forget that the task facing the universities is not merely of reaching a numerical target but of sustaining the increased numbers without sacrifice of standards. The burden is particularly heavy on the older civic universities like Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and London. All too often people write in the Press as though the universities consisted of Oxford and Cambridge and then the new universities, whereas the older civic universities are providing many of the most important courses in the Arts and fundamental science, and they make a large contribution to learning. I can make no claim to being an academic myself, but many of the current works of history which I enjoy reading are by lecturers or professors in the older civic universities. We have to make adequate provision for these universities as well as building up the 20 new ones.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it Conservative Party policy at the moment—perhaps I should know—to cut school milk services and school meals to provide finance for the universities?
  Sir E. Boyle: Our policy was stated in the early hours of the morning just about a year ago when Mr. Christopher Chataway first spoke. I would far rather see some increase in basic school meals charge, provided that there were proper schemes of remission for those in need, than have cuts in university building of the severity that we have today. I would gladly state that anywhere.
  I have three points to put to the right hon. Gentleman before leaving the question of the universities. I shall try to be as brief as possible as we started our debate so late. The Minister will not be

  275
  surprised if I return again to the question of the projected new technological university for the North-East. He must soon complete the "urgent examination" to which he referred on 24th February last year. I think that he was right not to give any special category of S.I.S.T.E.R.S. but I think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), who is now a member of the Government, put a strong case in July 1964 for a new technological university on Tees-side, where there is a large concentration of population and of capital intensive industry, with no university institution, and there is a strong case for the Government considering a boost to technology with one completely new technological institution.
  Secondly, we believe that the party opposite has sold the electorate a pup over medical education. The White Paper on the hospital building programme, and numerous speeches by the Minister of Health, speak of the increased entry of 250 students as "the equivalent of three new medical schools of average size". Everyone to whom I have spoken agrees that 120 is the smallest desirable medical school. Do the Government think that the provision of an extra 250 student places is adequate, bearing in mind that the numbers in general practice are likely to be 900 lower in 1967 than in 1963? There is real urgency here.
  My last point on the universities is to draw attention—and here I am sure that the whole Committee will agree—to the great importance of the decisions which will be taken by the U.G.C. in connection with the forthcoming university quinquennium. In allocating funds for the next quinquennium, the U.G.C. will have to play a more positive rôle than ever before.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was right in the January debate to stress the need for the U.G.C. to concentrate resources and to rationalise the provision of costly equipment. I have come to feel that the growth of subject committees on the U.G.C. is right, so long as they do not have the effect of supressing new lines of development.
  We shall also see a great increase in demand for post-graduate courses. A period of post-graduate study will be increasingly regarded as right preparation
  276
  for a growing number of highly responsible jobs.
  I do not propose to speak at length about the Franks Report. It would merit a speech in itself, but one point on which I agree with the Franks Committee is on the need to increase both the number and proportion of post-graduate students.
  So much for the universities. I now turn to the important White Paper which was published in May entitled "A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges". I wish to say a few words about the Government's proposal, as stated in paragraph 28, to:
  "designate a limited number of Polytechnics as the main centres for the future development of full-time higher education within the Further Education system."
  I begin with the very first words of the White Paper:
  "Much has changed since the White Paper of 1956 on Technical Education …"
  That is the under-statement of this Parliament so far when one sees what has happened over the past ten years. The number of full-time and sandwich students has increased from 67,000 in 1956 to 190,000 last year; all advanced level students have gone up from 47,000 in 1956 to 170,000 last year; and full-time and sandwich students at advanced level increased from 13,000 to 52,000 in the same period.
  I mention these figures because it would be wrong to debate this subject without paying a tribute to Lord Eccles. Seldom has any initiative by any Minister proved so fruitful in such a short space of time as was the case following the White Paper of 1956. Also we should never forget the achievement of the colleges of advanced technology as pacemakers during this period.
  I believe that the non-autonomous technical colleges, under whatever name, have a continuing major rôle to play in higher education. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not one of those who want to see the whole of higher education swept into the university orbit. More nonsense is written and spoken about this—not least in another place possibly—than on any other current educational issue. There should be a continuing place for technical colleges concerned with learning but primarily institutions of professional training closer

  277
  to the world of work than the autonomous universities can ever be. I agree with the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) when he says that he would like these colleges to play some part in teacher-training as well. There is a strong case for that.
  Coming to the White Paper itself, it is clearly right to concentrate expensive sources in fewer centres. It is right also to designate a limited number of polytechnics as main centres for the future development of full-time higher education. This is sensible economically and, one must add, also from the point of view of the institutions themselves. I have always sympathised with the posit on of those regional technical colleges which just failed to become colleges of advanced technology. Nevertheless, on the face of it, this White Paper is, certainly in parts, a little more dogmatic and schematic than I altogether like.
  First, I feel that it would be wrong to draw a sharper dividing line between the polytechnics and the area colleges beneath them than ever existed in the old days between the colleges of advanced technology and the regional colleges. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel his way cautiously over the rundown of higher education in colleges other than the polytechnics. Obviously, the two most controversial paragraphs in the White Paper are paragraphs 21 and 22. under the heading,
  "Full-time higher education at other colleges."
  I hope that he will go cautiously over this. Individual higher education courses of high quality are to be found in a number of colleges which would never claim to be polytechnics. An example given to me is the catering department at Torquay Technical College. People will ask, "If the Devon local authority still wishes to run this course in Torquay, which is highly regarded, why should the central Government bully the local education authority to send it off to a polytechnic in Plymouth?". That is the sort of issue which we shall have to face for the future.
  Second, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not overlook the argument which has long been associated with the Association of Teachers in Technical Colleges,
  278
  that there may be a real advantage in having full-time and part-time students doing higher education side by side. I have always felt that there was substance in that.
  Mr. E. Rowlands: The logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is not in favour of the binary system but against it. All that he has said suggests that when one begins to make a division between the technical colleges, the universities and the other institutions one creates as many anomalies as in the other system.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am coming to that. I do not think that one need go to extremes in this. I am in favour of a spectrum of higher education institutions; and this applies also to institutions of higher education outside the university system. At one end of this spectrum—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree here—there may be strong arguments in individual cases for institutional links between a university and a non-autonomous college. To give one example, there is the University of Aston, well known to me—what was formerly the Birmingham C.A.T.—and the Birmingham College of Commerce, adjacent on one campus site. The same is true of the Manchester precinct.
  Mr. Rowlands: And in Cardiff?
  Sir E. Boyle: I shall not venture into Wales after what happened in some earlier debates. Much the same could be true in the future for Brighton University and the Brighton College of Technology.
  At the other end of the spectrum, a college doing generally non-advanced work may nevertheless have at least one advanced course which justly enjoys high esteem over a wide area. In between, there must be scope for a good deal of concentration and rationalisation as courses become more costly. I recognise the case for an institutional link in some cases, but I do not accept that one should try to sweep the whole lot into the university orbit. Many of these colleges are much closer to industry, which has given them much more leadership than the universities have. At the other end, I do not want to see a sharp barrier between polytechnics and the area colleges, many of which, even if they could never become polytechnics, have, as I say, individual courses enjoying high esteem.

  279
  There must be scope for a good deal of concentration and rationalisation as courses become more costly, but I hope that the policy laid down in the White Paper will be pursued with due regard to present performance and local feeling as well as the interests of the part-time student no less than those of the full-time student.
  I have tried to cut my speech to a fairly modest compass today because, although many of us will be pleased at the outcome, the earlier debate today has taken a considerable share of the time. We shall certainly need to debate education again in this long Session and when that time comes we shall, perhaps, have a more general discussion covering the state of play in secondary reorganisation and primary education. Indeed, the central theme of our next debate may well be the Plowden Council's Report.
  It is artificial to cut up education in a debate like this. Our concern in this instance with university education and competition for university entry is clearly linked with the great concern which we feel on this side that there should be no fragmentation of sixth form teaching groups and that secondary reorganisation schemes should be soundly based. But we make no apology for raising this more limited debate today, and I end as I began with a reference to the universities.
  It is a particularly worth-while objective in any democratic community to make higher education available to all those qualified and willing to pursue it. Quite apart from the aspects of professional training and learning, there is what I call the ferment of ideas in the university, giving more people the opportunity to partake of the intense intellectual life of the university, the intense meeting together of minds, which I regard as something of infinite value in itself in any community. But this objective set out in the Government's White Paper, following the Robbins Report, entails constant planning ahead and a determination to see that the necessary resources are provided in good time. We on this side believe that there is an overwhelming case for some increase in the university capital programme, for the reasons I have set out. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will look at the matter
  280
  once again. Otherwise, we shall divide the Committee upon it.
  4.46 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): As a result of other business, we have been allowed only just over two and a half hours for this debate. In these circumstances, I have some doubt whether it is right to have two Front Bench speakers from each side. But, as the Opposition have decided to have a second speech from the Front Bench, I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to reply briefly on the subject of the White Paper on polytechnics. I shall confine myself almost entirely to the universities.
  This is the sixth debate on education since I became the responsible Minister, and of these five have been on higher education. I regard this as somewhat unbalanced and I am glad, therefore, to hear from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) that we shall at some time in the future discuss questions affecting the schools. This is not the opportunity for a major speech on anyone's part covering the whole of higher education, partly for reasons of time and partly because we had a very long debate on the universities in January this year following the Report of the Estimates Committee. I shall confine myself to a few particular points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, we are discussing this subject against the background of sustained and rapid expansion in all sectors of higher education and at a time when everybody has become accustomed to accepting the Robbins figures, or something more, as though these were a matter of conventional wisdom. It is worth reminding ourselves that the expansion which we are now achieving exceeds what was thought possible even four years ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman will remember the debate on the universities which took place on 5th April, 1962, when the late Hugh Gaitskell gave both him and Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, a rough time. If we look back to what was expected in terms of expansion even then, we see how remarkable the actual achievement has been.
  On that occasion in 1962, the right hon. Member for Handsworth said that

  281
  165,000 places in 1966–67—that is, this coming October, including the C.A.T.s
  "In my view … represents the fastest practicable rate of university expansion, and no one conversant with our universities has ever suggested that they could be expanded a a faster rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1962 Vol. 657, c. 772.]
  That was only four years ago. The actual outcome is that we expect the universities, this October, to have a student population of 189,000, that is, 2,000 above the Robbins target and many more thousands above the rate which the right hon. Gentleman said in April, 1962, was the fastest practicable rate of expansion.
  As regards the colleges of education, the right hon. Gentleman said in April, 1962, that the total of students in 1966, this year, would rise to 48,000. The Robbins Report, more optimistic, set a target of 71,000. The actual figure we expect to reach this September is nearly 83,000, again something very much more considerable than was ever envisaged in the past.
  Taking higher education in the further education system—that is, full-time and sandwich courses in technical colleges—in April, 1962, the right hon. Gentleman did not quote a target for this year. The Robbins Report set a target of 40,000 full-time students in this sector by 1966. In fact, we already have 47,000 full-time students in this sector.
  Therefore, over the whole field of higher education and in each individual sector we have far exceeded the expectations set by the right hon. Gentleman and his Government in 1962 and comfortably exceeded the Robbins targets as well. This may be judged to be a very considerable expansion on the part of the whole of the higher education system.
  Turning to the universities particularly, as the right hon. Gentleman did, we had from him this afternoon, and we have constantly from vice-chancellors, in their annual reports, complaints about the inadequacy in public expenditure on the universities. It is worth while now and again to get the question of university finance into some kind of reasonable perspective, because from reading some of these speeches one would never in fact gather what the actual figures are.
  Ten years ago total U.G.C. expenditure on the universities was just over £37 million, which was about 6 per cent. of
  282
  all educational expenditure. Five years ago expenditure on the universities was £80 million, which was about 8 per cent. of all educational expenditure. This year U.G.C. expenditure on the universities is £207 million, or about 12½ per cent. of all educational spending.
  Taking capital spending alone, we find that the rate of increase over the last decade has been larger for the universities than it has been in any other single sector of public expenditure. In other words, the universities have been obtaining a rising share of an educational budget that itself has been taking a rising share of national income. In these circumstances, I do not think that the universities can possibly say that they have been meanly treated by successive Governments.
  However, I come now to the particular complaint that the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon about the effects of the Chancellor's deferment measures last July. We have debated this before, so I shall deal with it only comparatively briefly. The effect of this deferment, as the right lion. Gentleman said, was that the universities will lose over a period of years £3 million as compared with the programme that they had been previously allocated.
  It is worth considering what this programme was as compared with the £3 million which they are likely to lose. This was the university building programme announced by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on 2nd September, 1964. There are two quite remarkable and interesting things about that date. First, it was only a few short weeks before the General Election. Secondly, it coincided with a period when I imagine it was known to Cabinet Ministers in the then Government that the balance of payments deficit was running at a very high figure. I do not know what figure they had in front of them, but by then it must have been a figure of £500 million to £600 million a year. In other words, this was an immediate pre-election programme announced at a time when they already knew that they were running into really severe balance of payments difficulties.
  The fact is—I say this only because the right hon. Gentleman constantly came back to this point, so perhaps this had

  283
  better be said—that the programme was merely a paper promise. It was a cheque drawn against a large and rising overdraft. It was in line with a number of other promises about public expenditure which came in those grandiose closing days of the then Conservative Government and meant, in fact, practically nothing in relation to the actual economic situation.
  I would imagine that some subconscious recognition of the looming dangers if the Conservatives were to have got back must have been in the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, because his statement on this subject—here I come to the point as to whether the figures for the second and third years were provisional or not—contained this sentence:
  "the figures for the second and third years … will be subject to review at that time in the light of the prospective economic situation and of other claims on the construction industry."
  This was not mentioned by the right hon. Member for Handsworth. He correctly pointed out that they would be reconsidered according to the terms of this statement in the light of the U.G.C's advice on the capital position of the universities. But this statement also includes the provision that the second and third years would
  "be subject to review … in the light of the prospective economic situation".
  The prospective economic situation turned out to be what it was, what has been again and again debated in the House of Commons, and what I do not want to debate this afternoon.
  The only surprising thing about this, considering this proviso and considering what the economic situation was beginning to look like in September, 1964, is that apparently the universities took this paper promise as representing some absolutely firm commitment which was certain to be carried out in practice. It is surprising that none of the high-powered economists, by whom presumably vice-chancellors are surrounded, ever pointed out to them just what the dangers were. Those are the circumstances of this programme of which £3 million has been deferred.
  Against that background how have the universities fared?
  Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Gentleman is honestly mistaken if he supposes that the programmes which have been cut by the present Government were not announced until September. The programmes announced in September were the programmes for the years following April, 1966. The programmes for 1964 and for the 15 months 1965 to April, 1966—in other words, the programmes vital to the short-term Robbins expansion—were all announced well before the summer of 1964. I will, before my hon. Friend winds up, look up the exact date.
  Mr. Crosland: No doubt the programmes were announced in two halves before then, but it does not alter the point I am making that the long-term programme, which is what the universities are very much concerned with, was this one announced on 2nd September, 1964. That was the programme, for example, which covered 1968 and 1969 and which is now a matter of acute concern to the universities. Therefore, I will not reiterate the point that this programme was announced at a time when it was already clear that the country was running into the most serious balance of payments difficulties, and account should have been taken of this by any realistic people.
  What we have attempted to do, as the Committee knows—we have discussed this before during the last few months—is to reconstruct this programme following the deferment as rapidly and as generously as possible. The consequence of this reconstruction is that the universities, on our present programme, will lose some £3 million out of a total of over £140 million spread over four years. I do not think that they can maintain, given the economic situation, that this was a harsh, unjust and intolerable cut to fall on them. Other parts of public expenditure also had to suffer in this situation and I do not think that the universities can claim that they were picked on, or that they have been unduly harshly dealt with.
  When discussing the question of university building programmes and university finance generally there are a number of things which tend to get forgotten or or least not to get brought clearly enough out into the open. One is that, in addition to the U.G.C. expenditure—those are the figures I was quoting earlier—the

  285
  expenditure of the research councils has been growing at a very rapid rate, at about 13 per cent. in this current year, despite the economic situation. A significant proportion of this flows through the research councils to the universities.
  It is also sometimes forgotten, or at any rate not mentioned, that, again despite the economic situation, the Government announced last December that we accepted the broad principle of the Flower; Report, as a result of which about £20 million will go to the universities over a period of six years for new university computers, equipment, buildings and operating costs. I am very pleased to be able to announce this afternoon that Professor Flowers has accepted my invitation to become Chairman of the Computer Board, the establishment of which was recommended in that Report.
  It is also worth bearing in mind, when considering the total picture of university finance and building, that they, unlike other parts of the education system, are extremely well placed—and I am delighted that they are—to attract funds, both current and capital, from industry and foundations. My attitude to this is very simple: good luck to them. If they can get it, I am delighted.
  Substantial additional sums of income, both current and capital, tend to be more easily available to the universities, and on a considerably larger scale, than to other parts of the higher education system and, still more, of course, to the schools as a whole. We all know from the recent Press reports that in some cases these capital grants can amount to very large sums of money. The Press was full last week of one example and it is not the only one.
  Many new universities have attracted considerable grants and I am delighted that they should be able to do so. But when we are considering university finance and buildings we must make some allowance for this when comparing the universities with other parts of the education system. I know that the universities would like more, and, of course, we should all like to give them more. Especially am I extremely conscious of the severe pressure which is now being exerted on them by the present building
  286
  cost limits and I am actively considering this matter.
  I am also very conscious of the point to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention—the danger that there may be to our older provincial universities which, if one may put it so, might rather lose out in the present situation. This is a serious danger which we all recognise. To some extent, however, this is the price we pay for having decided—it was not my decision, but the previous Government's—to create a university system with no fewer than 43 universities—a very considerably larger number than most countries have of comparable population. At any rate, on this aspect I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
  But, having considered all these points, one must say that the universities have not been badly treated, given the very large increase in spending that I have described; given the large capital programmes that they have been allocated under the reconstituted programme; given the general national economic situation, which is the background to all these matters; given the extreme pressure also on other parts of the education system which also have a claim for additional resources that are available; and given the fact that, in our judgment, the present allocations will enable the universities at least to achieve the Robbins targets.
  As I say, they have not been unduly harshly treated and I do not take at face value the suggestion sometimes made by vice-chancellors—and I understand why they make it—that confidence in the universities and the morale in them is at a low ebb. That is not what I find when I go round the universities. Naturally, it is the job of vice-chancellors to make their case as strongly as they can, but when I talk with staff and students I find little sign of this alleged low morale. On the contrary, I find these places full of the most bustling activity, a great deal of building and of confidence in the future.
  Here, perhaps I may refer to what the right hon. Gentleman rightly said in a recent speech—that we tend in this kind of discussion to suffer from "communal melancholia". This applies in particular to the universities when speaking of their own problems. Obviously,

  287
  one wishes that there were more time to debate and develop other points about the universities, but I shall only mention some of the things going on in our universities that I find extremely exciting.
  There is an increasing involvement by the universities with the non-university world of government and industry. This is very marked all over the country. The only example I will quote is the encouraging involvement of the universities in regional planning. Three of the regional economic planning councils have university chairmen and I think that in practically every one of the regions the universities are doing a great deal of work for the councils.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: But is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most important regions, North Staffordshire, is isolated from other regions and that the fact that it does not have a college with full technical studies has created deep distress and concern? Will he bear this concern in mind before making a final and irrevocable decision on the issue?
  Mr. Crosland: I will bear my hon. Friend's concern in mind on this, and it comes as no surprise that there might be some complaints from that area. Indeed, they were rather what we expected.
  As I was saying, there is increasing involvement in outside activities, both Governmental and industrial, by the universities and a new willingness on their part to discuss what their entrance procedures should be. The Franks Report highlighted this problem and the interest of the universities is symbolised by the Standing Conference that the vice-chancellors have set up. With the appointment of Mr. Alan Bullock—which the Committee will welcome—as Chairman of the Schools Council, the dialogue between the schools and the universities will become closer in future.
  It is striking, wherever one looks, to see the increased attention given to efficiency and productivity. We now have almost a complete university at York built with one the industrialised building systems—"C.L.A.S.P."—and we have the exciting experiment in industrialised building at Bath. The use of university buildings is a matter of concern to vice-
  288
  chancellors, and it is interesting to see that they have set up a special committee to consider how O. & M. methods might be applied to universities and in two regions—Scotland and the North-East—co-operative experiments in the use of O. & M. are about to take place. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned postgraduate studies and things are going ahead rapidly here. The national picture shows that we are ahead of the Robbins targets for postgraduate students.
  The most striking development in the U.G.C.'s activities is the decision of the Committee substantially to reorganise itself into subject groups. We might find this to be a major reform of the Committee. I am certain that it is a reform that will make much easier what the right hon. Gentleman drew attention to—the need to have some kind of rationalisation of courses when we have 43 universities. Clearly, not all can be equally pre-eminent in every single subject from ancient Greek to nuclear physics.
  In dealing with the question of students' rights, we are seeing a welcome development in the terms of the universities' attitude to their students. We have been able—or, to be more exact, the Privy Council has been able—to give some help in this direction by encouraging new universities when having their new charters approved, to insert into them certain important provisions for safeguarding students' rights. This is an important and necessary development.
  Against this background of rapid change and development in the universities, what is the Government's objective? First, it is to ensure the necessary resources for expansion. I hope I have shown that these resources will be there. Secondly, it is necessary for the Government to take a view of the needs not only of the universities but of higher education as a whole and not to look at the one divorced from the other. One of the ironies of the discussion of the binary policy is that a number of those who strongly attacked the policy supported the recommendation of the Robbins Committee that universities should be hived off to another Ministry, where they would, in fact, have been divorced in responsibility both from the colleges of education and the technical colleges. That would not have been a right thing

  289
  to do and it was, of course, rejected by the last Government.
  It is extremely important to have an overall view of all higher education. One ands this need when discussing broad national requirements such as the need to increase management education, the output of town planners and architects for example. One cannot settle this kind of question except by looking at all aspects of the system if we are to ensure something like fair shares between the universities and non-university sectors. For example, the U.G.C. has established cost limits common to universities and colleges of education and is now working on trying to find common cost limits for non-residential accommodation which will apply to all sectors of higher education. This is an important and encouraging development.
  There is one essential point where one must take some total view, and it is when discussing the numbers whom we wish to enter higher education, say, ten years ahead; how the numbers should be distributed among universities, colleges of education and the technical colleges. We cannot have an intelligent policy for the future of higher education if we divorce any of these sectors from each other. I have been very concerned at the absence since the Robbins Report of any systematic analysis going on anywhere in the country both as to the total numbers thought likely to be, in the famous phrase, "qualified by ability and attainment" to enter higher education and, even more important, by the absence of any serious consideration as to which sector of higher education they should most desirably enter, which sector should be expanded relatively as compared with the others.
  One of the things which we are now doing in my Department is establishing a long-term planning division one of whose functions—only one, I hope—will be to try to keep Robbins up to date. This phrase has been used in the Committee before when it has been said 'low terribly important it is to keep the Robbins figures and projections up to date. 'The only place where this can be done is in the Department and it will be one of the functions of the new planning division which we are in process of setting up.
  290
  What we are all committed to in this Committee is expansion, and inevitably expansion produces great strains on those who have to undertake the burden. It is obvious enough that the strain under which the universities suffer is not confined to the universities, but is felt by all parts of the education system and it must be if we are to have a progressive and expanding and dynamic society. In such a society, with rising standards and rising numbers, this strain will be felt at all points and will be with us for as far ahead as we can see.
  My own view about higher education is that we have made the resources available for this challenge of rising numbers and rising standards to be met. On this there is no difference between us—that the object of the entire exercise is that steadily over the years we should enable a rising proportion of our younger generation to enter higher education and derive benefit from it.
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): In view of the limited time at our disposal, I ask hon. Members to keep their speeches as short as possible.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Irving, and I promise you that I shall keep my remarks brief in view of the short time allocated to this debate. I can promise you that I shall confine myself to my notes and that my speech will take only six minutes.
  In the Appendix to the White Paper the needs of the Southern Area have been only partially met by the creation of Portsmouth and Oxford as polytechnics. There is a very large area of West Hampshire, South Wiltshire and the County of Dorset, with its natural centre in Bournemouth, which is not catered for in the scheme for the provision of higher education facilities by a polytechnic. With a catchment area population of more than 620,000 and a growth rate of 10 per cent., it seems unreasonable that the nearest designated polytechnics are more than 50 miles by road from Bournemouth. In parentheses, Bournemouth is 51, Bristol, 82, Oxford 94 and Plymouth 124 miles away.
  Owing to the very successful record of the College of Technology in Bournemouth, there is a very serious shortage

  291
  of accommodation and a pressing need for new buildings. Both staff and equipment are of a very high calibre and competent to deal with polytechnic level work and it would be a tragedy if this fine organisation were dispersed. On the other hand, the Bournemouth area could easily provide residential accommodation for any number of students at reasonable cost.
  Bournemouth College of Technology has for many years provided a comprehensive range of full-time and part-time courses of either degree or below-degree level to meet the requirements of the Government's scientific establishments, including the Atomic Energy Authority, and the extending engineering, electronic and computer industries, as well as commerce and the professions and industry's vital need for the training of technologists and technicians. In fact, Bournemouth College of Technology is already running highly successful full-time degree and final professional examinations which are not likely to be discontinued. Moreover, the concentration of scientific research and the scope of the large industrial development, especially in the chemical, electronics, computer and engineering industries, together with excellent additional facilities and amenities, make Bournemouth an ideal choice for one of the new universities. Close intercourse between university, college of technology, college of art, research establishments and industry would be of inestimable value to all concerned.
  According to the White Paper, 50 per cent. of the proposed polytechnics will be situated in towns which have an existing university. This can be seen from paragraph 12 on page 5 of the White Paper. It refers to "the availability of lodgings", yet it is clear already in many university towns and cities that lodgings are at a premium and that expansion of polytechnics would exacerbate this situation.
  It is here that the seaside resorts, whose accommodation is used intensively during the summer vacation, but which have a surplus of lodgings at other times of the year, could come into their own. The emphasis placed on siting the proposed polytechnics in existing industrial centres, while no doubt making sense in the short term, could have a longer-term unfortunate effect, since there will probably
  292
  be a period of ten years before any further polytechnics are designated. Thus, the elite of higher education, the universities and polytechnics, will be in the industrialised areas, often both in the same town, and this may well be a factor in drawing brighter young people away from other areas, a problem which may already be arising in Bournemouth. We must think ahead so that imbalances in population ages and skills which already exist are not made worse.
  I welcome the considerable extension of higher education which there has been in the past 20 years. I regard the brains of our youth as part of the capital assets of our country which must not be squandered by neglect. I am glad that it has been found possible to establish new universities in various parts of the country—in some cases very near to existing universities and often with special emphasis because of the local availability of experienced workers and opportunity and research. For this reason I would especially urge the suitability of Bournemouth where an enlightened attitude to the arts has been cultivated alongside highly technical research work of various kinds. The fact that many boarding houses would welcome students for three regular terms a year in out-of-season months makes Bournemouth especially suitable for a new university for Wessex, and the presence of many retired folk with wide experience and excellent qualifications adds to the cultural attractiveness of the town.
  However, may I conclude with one word of caution? Many of us are concerned about reports which come from time to time of moral standards which have been tolerated in certain universities. I remember a lady warden complaining that her work was complicated by the difficulty of keeping students out of each other's beds. Disclosures about drug taking and suicides cause alarm at a time when so much of the nation's resources are being spent on education.
  Is it too much to ask that university and college authorities should exercise something of parental oversight over these adolescents who are committed to their care? Surely that is part of their duty to both parents and the State.
  Mr. E. Rowlands: As a recent warden of a hall of residence of a university, may

  293
  I tell the hon. Gentleman that we keep general parental case over our students?
  Mr. Cordle: I am sure that that will be welcome news.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I have no territorial claims to make for the North-East and I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement on polytechnics. I want to discuss very briefly the general aspect of higher education, and I would like to tell the Secretary of State that we appreciate that the great difficulty with educational priorities is that no one is satisfied with the expenditure on education. I believe that it ought to have a far greater priority than it has. I appreciate the figures which he has given and the very strong case that he has made out, but because I believe that education is fundamental to the sort of social change that is essential to modern society, I think we ought to have an even bigger priority accorded to education, and I assure him that he will have the support of his hon. Friends in pressing the case even harder with the powers that be.
  Everyone shares in the pleasure of hearing the announcement of the expansion of higher education, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that we want to go even faster. If I may coin a phrase, I would say that we believe in expansion and in high priority for education because we want to give equal opportunity to all of our youngsters to become equal citizens. The education service is the key to such opportunity. When one thinks of all the rejection that goes on in education, at the way in which our youngsters are inhibited because of the lack of opportunity, it is no wonder that we have so many misfits, youngsters looking for kicks in their leisure time because of all of the opportunities which they have been denied through educational rejection.
  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very bold decisions that he has made in spite of the restricting factors of the economic situation and the continuing demands upon every section of education. I applaud his White Paper on the polytechnics, about which I shall have something to say later. One of the difficulties in discussing universities is that we tend to generalise, and I hope that those who read our criticisms will
  294
  understand the difficulty under which we work when we place them all in the same category. So far as the non-autonomous sector is concerned, the difficulty is that we talk to them and they cannot understand that the same pressure is being put upon the university sector as is being put upon their sector in order to increase productivity.
  There is a widespread belief in technical colleges, colleges of further education and educational institutions that in some way or other the universities are getting away with it. I do not accept this, because I happen to know the facts, and I know that great pressure is also being put upon the universities. Even so, there is this widespread impression, and the Department has a job to do to make sure that there is no discrimination in the pressure that is brought to bear to maintain extra productivity in all sectors of higher education. In the new circular on polytechnics, I would summarise the aim of higher education as being to offer comprehensive facilities within reasonable access of students whether full-time, part-time or undertaking a sandwich course.
  We know that resources are stretched to the limit, whether teaching resources, supply of equipment, buildings and so on. It is surely common sense to seek greater concentration of full-time higher education. We cannot afford overlapping and duplicating with the limited resources at our disposal. I would reinforce the words of the right hon. Gentleman about the need for flexibility. There is undoubted apprehension in many places which have been left out of the lists of provisional polytechnics among the staff and the governing bodies. I hope that we shall continue to have flexibility of entrance qualifications to the various courses. We have to remember that further education has suffered somewhat because of the constant desire on the part of staffs and principals particularly to shed low-level work and to be rather reluctant about taking part-time students. The result is that some further education colleges have to take far too big a proportion of part-timers. It is difficult to achieve a real community life, leading to personal development, where there is not a hard core of full-time students.
  I hope that in the application of the principles of the Circular the Secretary

  295
  of State will continue to be very flexible and will not draw severe lines. We must get away from the ladder principle in higher education. The very close links which the technical colleges have with industry, the professions and commerce are very valuable. I sometimes get very anxious when I hear people talking, at various conferences, about the technical colleges and their close links with industry. It is not a crime to pursue courses of vocational content which incorporate a training element. These are just as educationally desirable as other courses. Certainly they are in no way educationally inferior.
  There is nothing degrading about preparing oneself to earn a living, and it is about time that we reminded folk of that when they talk such airy-fairy stuff about higher education. Some remarkable figures have been given this afternoon. In a reply in this House three weeks ago it was said that the current grants from public funds for universities totalled £224 million. This is a tremendous sum by any standards, and, as the Secretary of State has reminded us, they are claiming an increasing proportion of educational expenditure.
  I want to suggest that universities should justify themselves a little more to the public and that they should be subjected more to public scrutiny. I know that this leads to much misunderstanding and needless suspicion, but it is quite obvious that when such a sum of public money is involved the public have certain rights and responsibilities. The universities must make their own case. I have not heard of anyone who would want to interfere in any way with academic freedom of universities. We are not trying to dominate or to interfere, but that does not mean that there is not a case for public accountability and for the universities justifying themselves.
  Very briefly, I want to mention one or two matters that have concerned me as I have talked to university students and visited various universities. The first is failure rates. There is no doubt that some universities have preconceieved notions of what the failure rate should be. Far too many of our intelligent youngsters capable of getting a good degree are thrown out of university. Sometimes this is because of the lack of
  296
  individual attention paid to students. But the high failure rate which we have in certain faculties in certain universities is a serious waste of precious teaching time and a criminal waste of scarce resources. It is also very harmful to the individuals concened. Far too many good students are rejected, not because they are incapable of getting a good degree, but because the course available is not the right course for them and sometimes there is not enough flexibility to enable them to change their course after the have started their university career.
  There is great scope here for fresh attitudes in certain faculties in some universities. Many would profit from a serious investigation into teaching methods and traditions. I welcome very much the progress being made. I know that there are vice-chancellors and university staffs who welcome the new trends, and I would commend them to those who have been rather tardy about revising their attitude.
  I read a speech in the Listener not long ago by a university teacher who put forward a point of view which I know is shared by many university teachers. He placed his first responsibility and first obligation to his subject. He said:
  "This overrides all my other loyalties and responsibilities."
  Does it? There are many immoral and inhuman pursuits which have been fostered and practised in the sacred name of research and the search after knowledge for its own sake.
  Those whom we teach are important. Human qualities are just as important as the subject, perhaps more important. I think that they should be paramount. I sometimes become anxious when I talk to people about the value of research. Of course, research is valuable, although we should justify what we are doing because a good deal passes under the name of research which would take some justifying in the light of the limited resources available.
  There are universities which claim to pursue learning for learning's sake. I suggest that they have not always been in the van of progress. The revolutionary ideas have not always found the greatest favour in the universities. Some universities have not distinguished themselves in their attitude to the entry of women into

  297
  higher education or in their reactions to suggestions about admissions. What I am convinced about is that both sectors—that is, what we call the autonomous sector and the public sector—have a great deal to give each other and to teach each other. The autonomous sector could do with much more public accountability and public scrutiny. At the other end, the public sector—certain technical colleges, and so on—should have rather more autonomy. There should be no question of interference in the day-to-day running of the college and the curriculum, and so on. A great deal can be done in exchanging ideas and facilities.
  As I see it, the priorities given by the Secretary of State should be reinforced by the House. We are proceeding along the right lines. Public education is always a question of priorities. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) talked about the meals subsidy. It is true that we can select various things in isolation and ask whether we are justified in giving them the priority which they get because it means that other things have to be held back.
  We have made a mistake in recent years in pretending that we can do everything at the same time. I am glad that we have a Secretary of State who is prepared consciously and deliberately to make decisions on priorities. They may be unpopular, but, because I believe that they are in the interests of the youngsters of the country, and because I believe that we are getting a balanced progress in education, particularly in higher education, which does so much to enhance the character and personality of the individual, I am sure that my right hon. Friend can count on our support, especially in his demand that education should have an even bigger share of the national cake.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) has said, but he will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks in detail because I want fairly shortly to put to the Minister o' State one or two questions about the activities of the universities in science and technology, and particularly the need for expansion there. For that reason, I
  298
  welcome what the Secretary of State said about the appointment of Professor Flowers as Chairman of the Computer Board which the right hon. Gentleman announced. I am on the governing body of the Imperial College of Science, and. therefore, I speak from that point of view.
  Before I go into that matter, I should like to comment on what the Secretary of State said about the universities and their share of the national income and whether-they have a right to feel uneasy about the present position. He is rather inclined to brush aside their anxieties. They exist not only in the breasts of vice-chancellors. Whether they will be convinced about his theory that the present economic situation is all due to the last Government, the fact remains that people are worried about whether the present rate of expansion will meet the Robbins target. That is the real issue. No doubt other hon. Members will refer to it.
  Many people in the universities are worried, too, about growing interference with their finances and financial independence. I am not sure that we should exaggerate this. I have read the speech of Sir Ifor Evans condemning what he calls "the surrender to Government finance". Over two-thirds of universities' income comes from State resources. I do not think that we should take this too seriously, but I should like to see a reduction made in the questionnaires that they have to answer at short notice, particularly when asked to "quantify" their activities. The universities should be dedicated to study with the minimum of interference, but I cannot wholly accept that they should be entirely independent in matters of finance, however nostalgic that may be.
  As I say, I wish to relate my remarks to science and technology and, in particular, to draw the attention of the Minister of State to our industrial future in this connection. I take, first, the University of Oxford, on which there was recently a good article by Mr. Hutchins of the Education Department. At Oxford last year, 60 of the 120 men who took the honours degree in chemistry were working for research degrees. Of those 60, 47 went into industry and 13 into teaching. The national figures are about the same. This presents us with a real problem, because there is a tremendous shortage of

  299
  engineers, few of whom do university research and we have four times as many post-graduate chemists as engineers.
  In so far as we all aim to tie up the activities of the universities with industry, may I ask what work is being done to get the priorities right? Engineering should not be left to industry and Government establishments. The universities should take a fuller part in teaching engineering by interchanges with industry. University research in pure science is more attractive to many young people because it is felt to offer "more freedom" than industry. We notice that at Imperial College, and I am told that the same is true of Oxford. If pure science gets overstocked with the best brains, the engineering departments will go short. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will comment on what I have just said and tell us what is being done.
  If the Robbins targets are to be reached, as we all hope they will be—it depends very much on how the economic policy of the Government solves the difficult situation that we are in—we shall need a three-fold increase in university graduate studies in science and technology. At least, that is the calculation which I have been told. Therefore, this expansion at the moment clearly cannot be sufficient to do that under the present programme.
  When talking about industry and the universities, we are always told of the example of the United States, where clearly there is a much closer relationship between the universities and research in industry. Our research effort is a comparatively small one. I remember Lord Bowden saying that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology does more applied research than all the British universities put together. That does not mean that we cannot produce research of good quality, but we have to spend more money on it. In so far as it is true that there must be a threefold improvement and increase in postgraduate studies, there must be more money, and there is not enough now.
  Talking of Lord Bowden, in connection with pure science and the need for dedicated men, he recalls that, in the early 'thirties when he was working with Lord Rutherford, the total budget was £2,500
  300
  a year, and Lord Rutherford used to say to him, "We have no money to spend, so we shall have to think." I know that it is an exaggeration to say now, when we have developed nuclear physics, that we should put things into reverse in any way in regard to those principles. But it would be a good thing if we did more to train the best minds. Lord Rutherford believed that his discoveries would be of no economic or political importance, and he died thinking that, yet the Cavendish Laboratory today is able to spend £300,000 a year.
  Therefore, I plead for a degree of free enterprise in the universities, particularly in scientific and technological research, and for a minimum of interference. If the capital funds at the disposal of the University Grants Committee are inadequate and financial control grows, we shall not see the same original results that we have seen in the past. We have to get the right priorities and, while I welcome much that the Secretary of State said, particularly about computers, I think that he is being a little over-optimistic about the feelings of the universities in regard to future expansion.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: The debate began, as such debates must begin, with the Robbins Report—that classic State document on the subject of higher education. I am glad that both sides of the House have accepted the Robbins principle that all young persons qualified by ability and attendance to pursue a full-time course of higher education should have the opportunity to do so.
  I want to look quickly, not backwards but forward, to the period beyond 1968 and to what will happen to university places in the period 1968–74. The National Plan envisages acceptance of the Robbins figure of 219,000 places in 1974, which is only 21,000 over the 1967–68 target which we now all confidently expect to be reached. That represents an 11 per cent. increase in the number of university places in about six years.
  On the statistics provided by the Department of Education and Science in a fascinating projection published in 1964 and relating to the year 1963, it appears that the increase in demand is likely to be of the order of 23 per cent. in that period. I will not weary the House with the

  301
  details, which can be looked up and checked. I assure hon. Members that those figures show—and nothing has happened since then to modify them—that between 1968 and 1974 there will be something like an increase of 23 per cent. in the number of candidates with good qualifications for admission to universities. In that time, we have envisaged an increase in the number of places of only 11 per cent.; so that it appears that the competition for university entry in that period will be very much more intensified if we stand pat on the Robbins figure.
  We all know what the results of that intensification will be. It will result ha pressure on sixth forms for specialisation and a distortion of the liberalisation of sixth forms which we would all very much like to see. A further consequence which may flow if we stand pat on the target for 1973–74 is that the number of 21,000 additional places will be spread over a period of six years and over some 40-odd instititutions.
  It is quite clear that the major part of the expansion must occur, quite rightly, in the new universities and in the colleges of advanced technology which have recently achieved university status. That means that the older civic universities in particular may be faced with an extended period of years in which their student numbers do not rise at all. That can only mean that they will have no claims to additional staff and no claims to academic developments in terms of new courses or new departments.
  If that occurs, and I hope that it will not, I would submit that it will not have a good effect on the morale of a university whose expansion is brought to a halt. I am not saying that the position will necessarily arise, but on the figures in the projections that we have it is undoubtedly true that there will be a halt to expansion in certain parts of the university sector in the six years from 1968 to 1974.
  The situation outside the universities presents a slightly different picture. The work paper on polytechnics does not accept the Robbins figure of 41,000 students by 1973–74. The figure has been raised to 70,000, and that 70,000 is to be achieved not by 1973–74 but by 1969–70; in other words, there has been a 75 per cent. increase in the numbers planned in half the period of time
  302
  originally envisaged. Obviously there will have to be a change of balance between the expansion rate in the university sector and the rate in the non-university sector of higher education.
  I wonder whether that reflects the thinking which lay behind the Woolwich speech and the so-called binary system. It is a shade ironic that the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions, who raced to embrace the Woolwich speech as its charter of freedom, has now had the binary knife applied to its own sector of higher education and finds that under the system of polytechnics there will be two sectors outside the universities. If these plans come to fruition it means that we are moving towards not a dual system but a tripartite system of higher education, with three separate sectors. I hope that it will not arise. I hope that the flexibility which has been pleaded for from both sides of the House will continue to exist and that we shall not have developing an 18-plus more vicious and more unpleasant than the old 11-plus. I think that the trends which might stem from the White Paper need to be carefully watched, and that we must have a sustained and careful debate on the possible consequences of it.
  With regard to the geographical distribution of the proposed polytechnics, I find it odd that none is proposed for the East Riding, the North Riding, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdon, Suffolk and Norfolk. Almost the whole of the eastern part of England is excluded from any proposed polytechnic under this scheme, and I hope that this aspect of the geographical location will receive a little further scrutiny.
  I want to touch on three points with regard to the internal organisation of the universities themselves, because we have had a certain amount of, not exactly criticism, but suggestion, that the accountability of the universities is not perhaps all that it ought to be. I suggest that there are three spheres in which the universities should be a little more forthcoming on this question of public accountability.
  I have been a little disappointed at the attitude of some of my former academic colleagues, at the niggling and petulant manner in which they have regarded the cost analysis now being carried out by the University Grants Committee. I think

  303
  that this petulance is unjustified. I think that the universities will find that this cost analysis, though it may be too complicated at the moment, and might need modification, will be valuable to them—and will be valuable internally to each separate institution—as a check that they have achieved the right balance between the various aspects of their work and the work of the different faculties. I hope that the attitude to this cost analysis will be revised, and that the universities will be more forthcoming.
  Secondly, I should like to see more attention paid to the question of staff-student ratios. The Fifth Report of the Estimates Committee produced some astonishing variations in staff-student ratios for the same faculties in different universities. One accepts that different faculties may justifiably have different staff-student ratios one from the other. For instance, medicine will have a different ratio from that for the arts or social sciences, but what makes me uneasy is the wide variation in staff-student ratios in the same faculties in different universities.
  In science, one university has a staff-student ratio of 1 to 9·9, and another 1 to 4·5. In the arts there are variations from 1 to 11·5, to 1 to 7·3. In the social sciences there are variations from 1 to 14·9 to 1 to 7·7. Academic manpower is expensive and scarce, and it is very important—and I am sure that the universities recognise this—that the public should be persuaded that this manpower is being used to the fullest possible advantage.
  One has only to demonstrate this arithmetically to see how important it is. If there is an institution with 1,000 academic staff, and one accepts a ratio of 1 to 7, 7,000 students can be taught there. If, however, one accepts a ratio of 1 to 8, 8,000 students can be taught there. That means an extra 1,000 students can be taught with the same manpower, and at the same cost. I am not arguing for either of these figures. I am not saying that 1 to 7, or 1 to 8, is the right figure, or, indeed, that it is possible to have a one for all the various faculties, but I think that the wide discrepancies thrown up in the Estimates Committee's Report need further investigation, and that the universities would be wise to look into this matter themselves.
  304
  Thirdly, I think that there is considerable scope for careful analysis and study of the use of existing buildings. Some months ago I tried to do a little exercise into the use of classroom places, and the number of classroom places required for a given number of students. I assumed, rather airily, that the U.G.C. would have some figure of how many classroom places were required for a given population of students. I was told that no such figure existed.
  This is a complicated calculation because in a university there may be as many as 400 to 500 students in a class, or as few as half a dozen, and there are enormous complications of timetable, but I do not believe that it is beyond the mathematical expertise of universities, aided perhaps by the use of computers, to calculate what number of classroom places there ought to be for a given student population, allowing for differences in subjects and faculties.
  I am not concerned with laboratories. Laboratory places are a more special consideration. I am concerned simply with the provision of classroom places, and no careful study seems to have been made of requirements. These places not only cost considerable capital sums, but they have to be cleaned, heated, lit, and maintained, and the business of cleaning, lighting and maintenance in a modern university is an enormously expensive one, and growing in costliness all the time.
  Those are the three things in respect of which the universities could well make closer and more careful investigations without any threat to their academic freedom, without any suggestion of interference from outside. I believe that the results of such investigations would be very valuable to the universities themselves, and would help to justify their expenditure, in so far as it needs justification, to the public.
  I have not in this short debate touched on fundamental matters of higher education. There is not time for this, and I am sure that there are other hon. Members better qualified than I am to discuss the deeper problems of universities and technical colleges.
  I believe that, whatever the difficulties, there is a greater feeling of social responsibility in the universities today than ever

  305
  before, that corporately and as individuals the academic world is conscious of its responsibility to the larger community, and that it is only too anxious to play a full part, and to help, in dealing with our national problems.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Woking-ham): Other hon. Members have been so admirably brief that I shall do my best in a few moments to comment on only two matters. The first arises out of a comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who talked about the academic excitements which arise when persons are gathered together in a university. I want to refer to that and to make a comment which diverges from the view held by both Front Benches.
  If I were trying to put my finger on the greatest problem that we have in training those who will teach. I would say that it was their status, or what they believe to be their status, and I would go on from there to look very closely at the way in which we organise our colleges of education with reference to the links which they have with the universities.
  I believe that this aspect of the so-called binery system—itself a perfectly dreadful word—is wrong. We build new colleges in close proximity to universities. We increasingly allow students at those colleges to take a degree course. We require them to be there for three years. I am certain that the logical consequence of this thought is that the colleges of education should be integral parts of the universities, and that both major parties were wrong when they decided to leave them substantially under the authority and control of the local education authorities.
  Nobody feels more strongly than I about the value of local connections with education. Nobody feels more strongly than I, for example, about the value of local authority representation on the boards of primary and secondary schools. But I do not believe that the same considerations apply to colleges of education. I do not believe, for example, that the governors of such institutions have to deride the kind of very local, personal matters which, in the experience of us all, are the concern of the governors of primary and secondary schools; indeed,
  306
  the students with which they are concerned are drawn from a far wider area, and many of the small, domestic matters upon which very valuable advice is given by the governors of primary or secondary schools do not arise in respect of colleges of education. I do not expect that individual regions of the country feel a sense of belonging to a college of education in the same way as they do to local primary and secondary schools.
  In consequence, I am sure that we have missed an opportunity of raising the status of those who are being trained to be teachers and who are undertaking courses fully as wide and fully as important as those of any modern university, but who are denied the additional status of having been to such places of learning. I want to place this firmly on the record my own belief—if necessary as the only Member who is out of step with everybody else; no, I am delighted to find some fellow rebels on the Benches opposite.
  If I were asked what was the most important development in higher education generally in the years since the war, I would say that it was the broadening social base from which students of all kinds are drawn. No longer is the word "university" considered only in a few homes, comparative to the population; rightly and properly, it is an institution which enters into the lives and homes of people who would never have considered the possibility a few years ago. Increasingly today it applies to higher forms of further and higher education.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth has rightly drawn attention to the fact that increasing numbers of our young people will be undertaking post-graduate work. If that is the case, considerable problems will arise in connection with the subject of grants for post-graduate work. Therefore I want to confine my remarks exclusively to grants for undergraduate work. I am profoundly concerned about the talk that I have heard to the effect that the system of grants for undergraduates is under review and that active consideration is being given to making loans instead of grants. I am sure that the country would be making a fundamental mistake, at least in respect of undergraduates, if the clock were to be put back and a system of loans rather than grants were instituted for students.

  307
  The people who would be most affected would be those to whom I have referred, into whose homes higher education generally, and the universities in particular, have moved with increasing force. The fact is that if daddy lives at St. George's Hill, Weybridge, which is a perfectly honourable place to live, daddy will repay the loan; but if daddy lives in a local council house, which is an equally honourable place to live, and earns his livelihood by working for the local council, and his fifth son has got a place at a university, daddy cannot repay the loan. The families whom we would not want to penalise will be penalised by a system of loans.
  I hope that the Minister of State will be able to reply to my next point. I am a lawyer, and I submit that every lawyer always looks at the enforcement of any law. It lies within the competence of the Committee to pass any law, but lawyers always look at the enforcement of the law, and I believe that a system of loans would be honourably respected, although bitterly resented, by most students if it turned out to be the wish of the Committee, and then dishonourably ignored by a minority, in respect of whom it would physically not be possible to enforce the recovery of the loan.
  I ask the Committee to consider the position of a man who emigrates for a long or short period, or the impossibility literally of extracting blood from a stone. If the former student has not got the money there is no power by which any court or this House can extract it from him. Very strong resentment would be caused by the contrast between the honourable student who observed his obligations and the few students who did not. It would be a resentment out of all proportion to the numbers involved.
  In accordance with the general self-denying ordinance of the debate, I merely record the fact that this is the moment when we must warn the Minister of State, in no uncertain terms, that if he seeks to reorganise the present system of undergraduate grants and to replace it by a system of loans, he will draw around his head a swarm of angry bees and Members of Parliament from both sides of the Committee. Although this may be a somewhat fierce debate, it has been—as are all our education debates—a
  308
  very friendly one; but the Minister must not trade upon the friendliness of this side by tampering with the grants in this way.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I support the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). I want to add one more to his most telling points against a system of loans. We must also remember that higher education is a form of investment, and that we need every young man and woman we can train. This is a form of obsolescence charge, and it is being applied at the very time when we are trying to convince sections of the community that higher education is not the prerogative of a small group, but is available to everyone.
  If we rush into this situation, and insist upon loans, we shall undo the work done by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the past 20 years. I can think of nothing which would be more disastrous, and which would be a more backward step for higher education. I thank the hon. Member for making this point.
  I start by agreeing with the sentiments expressed by both Front Bench speakers. I agree with the Minister that more money—and a higher percentage of money within the educational sphere—is available for the universities, but I do not agree that there is an atmosphere of complete confidence in the universities. There is considerable alarm. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who is a member of the Governing Board of Imperial College, is right in saying that there are doubts and worries in the minds of many people involved in higher education whether they will be able to meet the Robbins targets, although those targets may be too low in the near future.
  I was a little disappointed at one remark of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), when he said that money for higher education could come from a cut in school meals or school milk. It would be very unfortunate if it went out from this Committee that these were the two alternatives, when the Government were spending £8,000 million or £9,000 million a year. We can find many alternatives

  309
  which are much more sensible and acceptable than this one.
  Even if the money is not directly available, if the economic condition is such, there are one or two other alternatives by which we might improve the atmosphere in the universities and convince them that more can be done both by them and for them to improve the situation without necessarily spending considerably more money.
  Looking back over the history of higher education in the last 10 or 12 years, I do not think that we have been as successful as some people imagine. We have increased numbers and we have more institutions, but this has been achieved in a rather haphazard fashion which reflects little credit on our capacity for future planning. I do not blame anybody. I admire the individual members of the U.G.C. who have toiled through this field, but I ask the Committee to remember that the U.G.C. has 22 men on it who are the heads of big departments, who are carrying on their own research and administration and who are expected, at the same time, to plan and advance a whole sector of higher education.
  They are now coping with over £200 million per annum and 90 separate institutions in 40 universities. This is not possible, which is the reason for some of the unevenness of development. After all, there was no great expansion or planning for a number of years in the 1950s. Then, suddenly, the"bulge"was knocking on the gates of the universities. These young men and women, who had been born just after the war, and had been alive for 15 or 18 years and for whom nothing had been done, arrived at the gates of the universities and we were presented with a political as well as an educational crisis. There was sudden action and we threw up another seven universities.
  I admire a great deal of what has been done in the new universities, but if we did this again would we create these seven universities? Would we not further expand some of the existing "redbrick" universities and civic universities, and be more sparing with new creations? After this expansion came the Robbins Report, and we were surprised to find that we had insufficient statistics. The
  310
  Minister told us that he was alarmed that insufficient statistical work, planning and preparation was still being done. All this shows the difficulty, I would say the impossibility, of trying to plan this vast sector of higher education with a part-time academic body which, although working prodigiously hard, cannot keep pace with this situation.
  If any hon. Members have had the experience of a U.G.C. visitation, they will know what I mean. These unfortunate men travel to a university, weighed down by a mountain of paper which they cannot possibly assimilate. They stay for half a day if the university is small and two days if it is the biggest possible. Every minute of their time is taken up. They are beseiged by deputations and delegations. At the end of the day, I cannot conceive how they can get the "feel" of this institution, how they can adequately judge these things for perhaps the next quinquennium. It is impossible, yet we cling to this form of administration of higher education—the U.G.C.
  I hope that hon. Members will not imagine that I am in any way hostile to academic freedom, but I think that it is a confusion in many cases. It covers two or three separate things. The crucial thing is not academic freedom, which is a confusing term, but intellectual freedom which counts. Nobody in Britain would tamper with intellectual freedom. Our whole life, our institutions, our Press everything in the country—supports intellectual freedom. I cannot imagine saying, "The answer to this piece of research is that the First World War was caused by A rather than B," and we could not imagine telling practical teachers how they should teach or what they should teach.
  It is an entirely different thing to say that academic freedom involves treating a large and vital sector of higher education in this remote-controlled manner through a part-time body which cannot cope. When one goes round the universities, one finds that nobody supports the U.G.C. because it is the best method but because they cannot think of a better immediate alternative. I suggest that we could construct a better method in the next few years by organising higher education so as to retain intellectual freedom but, at the same time to allow this House to

  311
  exercise greater control, to get more information for the public and to give the universities a feeling that their needs are fully understood, that they have a method of explaining their case to the public.
  If we did this, we would do something to remove the frustration, part of which is caused by lack of money, but part by the curious remote control which operates at the moment. My hon. Friend said that he was disappointed at some universities' "prickliness" about the quantitative controls applied to them. Some of these controls are silly. An example is when one is asked to divide the cost of a particular piece of equipment between post graduate and under-graduate teaching and staff research. In many cases, this cannot be done.
  But this quantitative control arises only because the U.G.C. cannot know the university intimately. It cannot get to grips with it or understand its needs. It has to operate from a long way off. Secondly, a method is needed of university control which can also push a little. I do not believe that any body of men, however honourable, can be left to control their own profession completely by themselves. This applies to medicine, to law and to all types of organisation.
  We investigate the Civil Service, probe it and have commissions. We consider it and talk about it in the House. Almost every senior profession is subject to this type of criticism. We ought to be allowed to discuss such matters as a disproportion between staff-student ratios. Those of us who have been in universities have seen difficulties arise when there is a sharing out of staff. This is done sometimes with expert planning but, often, when small oligarchies are in control, the easiest decision if one is to live with one's colleagues is to share new posts equally, one apiece. If there are four faculties, each can have one.
  I remember once working in a university and asking why the faculty of divinity needed a lectureship each in campanology and liturgiology and the dean said, "If you are having two each, we will have two." Again, there is, in certain faculties and universities, considerable under-employment. This is known outside and it does the universities no good. They might as well
  312
  concede it. I used to travel to work at one time and see a poster which said, "Join the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and fight for a 40-hour week." I used to reflect happily on my university colleagues who had a 40-hour year and were still fighting.
  I do not want to push these points too far. We can do a lot to help the universities by instituting a better system of public control which is more sympathetic and understanding, which could give larger sums to science and technology, for instance, which could leap ahead and give special grants where they are needed, but it might also be suggested that in certain faculties, it is a mistake for every university to teach everything. It is a mistake to reduplicate department after department. In some cases, extra staff may not be needed if they are only to teach four hours a week.
  I know some universities where the teaching term, in effect, ends on March 13th or 20th for the summer, and the next formal duties of the staff are on 4th or 5th October. Nobody can seriously tell me that, if we are short of money and staff, we need four and a half months' holiday for this type of highly educated manpower. Nobody can tell me that we need to keep our libraries and classrooms unused for a total of six months in the year.
  I see that Canadian and American universities are experimenting with a four-term year. The staff get one term off, they get the same holidays for research, but the university and its facilities are available for four terms in the year. They give the student the opportunity of graduating in four years of three terms or three years of four terms, which does a great deal to speed things up. I would like to see one of our universities trying out this experiment. There are many other methods we could try to use our facilities to greater advantage—to get back to the Robbins enthusiasm—and one suggestion I have is that we should produce a U.G.C. which hands out the money but which is more a part of the Ministry of Education. I do not think that we could abolish it. Indeed, there would be too much opposition to that. But in five or 10 years' time I believe that we will have to insist on more control, so let us make the U.G.C.

  313
  more a full-time body and more definitely a part of the Ministry of Education.
  At the same time, we should give the universities an opportunity to express their point of view to the public. I would, therefore, like to see the Vice-chancellors' Committee expanded, with more members from other levels of university staff so that the universities would be able to give an explanation in public of what they desire. I would like to see Parliament setting up a Select Committee on the lines of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries to investigate two or three universities and their expenditure every year, although not in a hostile or critical sense. I say that because I do not believe that it is good for any body of men to be left totally in control of £200 million. The universities should be able to discuss these matters with a friendly committee, talking the matter over and discussing what they have done and how they might be able to do better. That would benefit all concerned.
  When I was a university professor I was a member of the Study of Parliament Group which was designed to improve the conduct of the House of Commons. Now that I am an hon. Member of the House of Commons, I would like to be a member of a Select Committee designed to improve the conduct of the universities.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Because of the time at our disposal, I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) will forgive me if I do not comment on his remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) mentioned that this had been a friendly debate, and I hope that he will forgive me if I introduce a slightly less friendly note because I was somewhat surprised at the tone of the Secretary of State's speech.
  However pleased the right hon. Gentleman may be with the progress that has been made—and the right hon. Gentleman called it "progress"—I thought that he was being rather complacent about it, for the picture in the university world today is very different from what hon. Gentlemen opposite said it would be in the heady days just prior to the 1964 General Election. At that time there were many promises, real or implied, and,
  314
  for example, the present Prime Minister found himself able to write:
  "Higher education is facing a crisis of unprecedented severity, and, if disaster is to be averted, vigorous action will be essential the moment a Labour Government is returned to power."
  The Secretary of State wrote in his election address:
  "Labour demands a major educational advance."
  What a different picture we have today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) deployed some of the differences and I hope that the Secretary of State is still demanding—although so far it appears to many of us that his demands have fallen on unhearing ears—because far from vigorous action is being witnessed.
  To begin with, we had a postponement of the university building programme. More recently, we have had cuts. The confidence engendered by Labour statements has sadly evaporated, so much so that the university world deplores the present situation and the inadequacy of the resources that are being allocated. The Principal of London University commented in his 1965–66 Report on the fine response by the universities to the request of the U.G.C. in regard to the extra number of student places which they could provide, a question which was posed the very day after the publication of the Robbins Report. He stated:
  "Little did they realise that, less than two years later, they would be in a position which would bring to mind the plight of the Israelites who. centuries ago, were commanded by the Pharaoh of the day to make bricks without straw."
  To give another example, the Chairman of the University Court at Sheffield stated that the Governments curb had had
  "… a disastrous effect on the university's programme."
  Yet another example: the Registrar of the new University of Kent said last December, about the universities' development plans:
  "Nobody knows about the remainder of the programme…. The University Grants Committee cannot get a decision. We are bogged down in bureaucracy."
  I do not wish to detain the Committee by giving further examples of the views of those who are directly concerned with the universities. Suffice to say that the

  315
  important remarks of these people should be put on the record to indicate the extent of the current air of disillusionment.
  The people I have been quoting and many others concerned with the universities—lecturers, students and students to be—might well echo the words of the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) who, in a long and interesting letter to the Prime Minister upon his resignation, stated among other things:
  "In fact, just before the General Election you"—
  the Prime Minister—
  "gave me to understand that you would help to break down the shibboleth of the belief that what we needed to secure economic recovery was sufficient power in the hands of the Government to compel the unions to accept without question the decisions of the Board for Prices and Incomes."
  He went on:
  "Unfortunately, you did not maintain that view and so our present policy has taken us into a position where disputes … have been inevitable".
  The implication of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Nuneaton is obvious—win an election under one flag of convenience, but haul it down quickly when the need for it no longer exists. I thought that the whole burden of the Secretary of State's speech today was an apologia of this. The right hon. Gentleman said that the universities had not been unduly harshly treated, but I do not believe that there is any excuse whatever for the right hon. Gentleman having cut back their building programme.
  In the light of the paramount importance of the universities to the future of this country—and in my view the future of Britain depends to an ever-increasing extent on them—their treatment should have been the very opposite to what has been doled out to them by the Secretary of State. That the treatment meted out to them so far by the Government is far from acceptable is the very reason for today's debate.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Hornby: I apologise to a number of hon. Members who have not yet had an opportunity to speak in what has been a short by interesting debate in which a creditable numbers of speeches have been made. I
  316
  was surprised at the outset to hear the Secretary of State almost complaining of there having been too many debates on higher education. What a strange turn of events compared with two or three years ago when, on these benches, hon. Gentlemen opposite were complaining about very much the reverse situation; how we should be discussing this important subject far more.
  My impression is that the right hon. Gentleman's complaint about there being too many debates on higher education is certainly not a complaint that is echoed in the universities, in which there is no longer any feeling that the discussion of their affairs by the House of Commons is an intrusion into their affairs. Rather, they take it as a compliment and a realisation of just how important to the national interest we regard what they are doing.
  Incidentally, I thought that the Secretary of State was a little less than just to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) in saying that this interest in higher education was out of step with any similar interest in the schools. If he consults the record he will find that on 2nd March of this year we had a debate on secondary reorganisation, and on 25th April he will find 10 extremely interesting columns of my right hon. Friend's comments on schools and teacher supply as compared with half that number on the universities.
  The background to this debate has been the growing concern about the abilities of the universities to reach the Robbins targets. I entirely agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) that the Minister was brushing aside a little too lightly the anxieties of vice-chancellors and others. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of melancholia, but whether that applied to the speeches in this House or to the universities I am not sure. We would not be wise just to set it aside as that, and no more, and not to take serious account of the complaints that are being made of some of the postponements that have been necessary in the planning of a number of universities—
  Mr. Crosland: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the word

  317
  "melancholia" that he has just quoted came from a speech made by his right hon. Friend in Birmingham, three days ago.
  Mr. Hornby: Then we now have the authority of both right hon. Gentlemen and of Punch, so we are in very good company in using the word again.
  Also in everyone's mind in this debate has been the growing realisation throughout the country, and certainly in this House, that adequate provision for higher education is vital to us as an industrial nation. Equipment keeps scientists here; it is lack of equipment more than anything else that leads to the brain drain. There is a need for engineers in industry. We have report after report from university appointments boards of industry's crying need for much larger numbers of graduates of one kind and another than they are getting; of the need for teacher supply, and so on.
  We were grateful to the Secretary of State for mentioning a number of interesting developments, but it seemed to me that his case really amounted to this. Present allocations, he contended, will enable the Robbins targets to be met. The universities are not being badly treated, but are getting a rising share of a rising educational budget. Perhaps we may just ask one or two questions about that argument. Of course, the expenditure graph is going up—so it has been, and so it must. The question is whether it is adequate to the needs admitted by hon. Members on this side of the House, by the right hon. Gentleman and by the universities themselves.
  The Secretary of State referred in his comparisons to 1960–62 and asked us to consider what has happened since then. He will, however, remember that 1962 was pre-Robbins, and prior to the examination and the acceptance by the House and by my right hon. Friends of the chart that Robbins prepared for the nation of the needs in this field in so much detail and with so much skill. Those needs were accepted, and we are now questioning whether the capital that is made available will be equal to the needs.
  Secondly, the Secretary of State—and, in a previous debate, the then Minister of State—said that there had been no
  318
  serious cuts since July, 1965, but only postponements of improvements. In such a key field as this, the point that needs emphasising again and again is that postponements are in themselves cuts unless any rises in costs that have taken place during the period of postponement are made good. We have had no indication from the Secretary of State of any addition from the previously announced sum. I should be grateful to the Minister of State if he would tell us whether any addition there will be possible.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the figures for expenditure as maintained at present by himself are higher than those that my right hon. Friend was able to propose when he held office, but in making that point, as my right hon. Friend said, no account was taken of the fact that two of the programmes during the time when he was responsible were provisional, and allowance has to be made for the results of the obsolescence study on which my right hon. Friend commented. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to tell us whether any allowance is now to be made in the programme to take account of the study, which has now been completed.
  I mention that point because I think that it is true, as has been mentioned during the debate more than once, that the burden of the expansion programme is falling very heavily on many of the civic universities, where this problem of obsolescence and the need for capital to deal with it is being most acutely felt.
  The Secretary of State asked us to bear in mind that, according to his own contention, he was ahead of the Robbins figures. But, in addition to what Robbins originally wrote and reported, we have to bear in mind that it is now universally agreed that the Robbins estimates are under estimates of the numbers of those needing university places; and that to meet the national need we have to be ahead of the Robbins figures. We want to know what allowance is being made for the new estimates of the numbers likely to need, and be of a standard to qualify for, higher education.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman said that we have to consider the overall economic position. Of course we have—we quite understand that. The national economy is always with us, as every

  319
  Department, and particularly a heavy spending department as the Ministry for Education and Science very properly is, must realise, but here the question for the economy, just as much for the individuals and human interests concerned, is one of priorities. Research, industry, engineers, exports—we have mentioned the points before; the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members opposite during the election, and in the last Parliament and in this are full of emphasis on the high priority that must be accorded to economic interests no less than to educational interests and the development of higher education.
  We on this side are bound to say that bearing in mind the July cuts, bearing in mind the rise in costs by as much as 12 per cent. since 1963, bearing in mind that some allowance for these rising costs has been made for the schools but not—and, again, we should like to hear more of this—for the universities, we wonder whether the universities are being given quite the high priority that was accorded to them in earlier speeches and thoughts, and which was accorded to them when my right hon. Friends were in charge of this Ministry.
  The present position is a serious one for many of the universities. Of course, they realised that it would be a testing time for them. I accept that they would be right up against the margin of what they could achieve in any case. That reinforces the argument for asking the Secretary of State to beware, if possible, of postponements which have been necessary and to reinstate them if he can. We have suggested some of the reasons why they should be reinstated.
  I shall briefly refer to one or two additional points made in the debate. I welcome very much what the Secretary of State said about research now being undertaken and work being done to keep the information supplied by Robbins up to date. If we are to get the allocation of resources right in this field this is very essential work.
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said about the status of the colleges of education and those teaching in them. I was interested in the perfectly valid point he made, but I ask him to agree that if one wants to think
  320
  about the status of the colleges one should also think about preserving the close links with the schools into which those who are learning how to teach and who are practising teachers will go.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) about the distances between many districts with substantial areas of population and their nearest polytechnic, is important. Of course, we want to concentrate on scarcities of people and resources. Up to a point that conflicts with trying to provide these centres relatively near to centres of population. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hands-worth said at the beginning of the debate, when asking the Secretary of State to go cautiously on any changes made in this direction.
  I think that he will find that there are many existing institutions which, in the end, it would be seen valuable to have continuing in many of the courses they are at present running and which in the mind of the Secretary of State may now be earmarked for removal elsewhere. I think that he may find he is able to move towards a compromise in this respect. If he is to rigid on this he may find a loss of enthusiasm in.many places where excellent courses are being run and a loss of skilled staff and valuable contacts with industry.
  I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister of State to reply to the debate. I come back to its main purpose, the priority now being accorded by the Secretary of State to the vital question of expansion of higher education. The universities were by us, and have in recent years been, given a very high place in the ranking for capital and other development. Certainly, vice-chancellors, among others, have a feeling that with the many competing claims which admittedly are before the Government the universities may be slipping back a little. In the opinion of the House of Commons it would be unwise if that were to be allowed to happen.
  Unless the Minister of State can correct the impression which the Secretary of State gave that all is on target and all is relatively well in the universities and in what is being provided by the Government for them, my hon. and right hon.

  321
  Friends will be compelled to divide the Committee.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): This has been a brief but extremely interesting debate. It has also been very wide-ranging. One would have hoped that there would have been time to deal with the many interesting and important points raised by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, but, as my right hon. Friend said, he desires that I shall spend the comparatively short time at my disposal dealing with the main aspects of the important White Paper, "A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges". If there is time I shall refer to points raised about the university sector, but I am sure the Committee will bear with me if I concentrate for the most part on technical colleges and prospective polytechnics.
  In the debate there has been general approval for that White Paper. Hon. Members are in general agreement that the central aim of the proposals—to lay the basis for a distinctive sector of higher education within the further education system to complement the universities and colleges of education—is broadly acceptable. Certainly, the progress in further education in the past few years has been remarkable, reflecting the greatest credit on all concerned and particularly on local authorities on whom special responsibility has fallen in this matter. Their part in promoting the growth of the further education sector over the past 10 years is a major argument for the retention in public control of one sector of our higher education system. This is one of the advantages of the binary system.
  There are 47,000 full-time and sandwich advanced students in England and Wales in the further education system and about 100,000 part-time advanced students. The National Plan makes clear the intention of the Government that by 1969–70 there should be 60,000 full-time and sandwich advanced students in England and Wales. This compares with the Robbins Committee estimate of 46,000 places by 1973–74, so here again we have overtaken Robbins and the progress is very creditable.
  This, of course, does not include provision for students of 18 and over pursuing
  322
  courses in higher education which are not at present classified as advanced. On the adequacy of financial provision to match this progress, I remind the Committee that 10 years ago the value of further education major applied programmes was £9 million. Next year it will be £27 million. Putting the matter in terms of total public expenditure on further education, £50 million was spent on further education in 1955–56, £115 million in 1964–65 and the figure will rise to £170 million in 1969–70.
  The National Plan shows that whereas total education spending will rise by 32 per cent. in the five-year period, planned spending on further education will rise by 58 per cent. These figures show that the Government are in earnest in developing to the full the further education sector as part of the united effort in higher education to provide for our young people, according to their age, aptitude and ability, the proper training which they deserve.
  The proposals are intended to bring about a significant measure of concentration of resources. This is the central aim of the proposals. Quite naturally, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have shown understandable concern lest this should lead to over-hasty action in which very substantial and reputable colleges may be left out of a useful rôle in higher education.
  My right hon. Friend wishes me to say emphatically that there is no intention of creating a rigid pattern, irrespective of traditions and individual circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) pressed for flexibility, and the right hon. Member for Handsworth asked us to move cautiously. A proper reading of the White Paper will reveal that this is precisely the way in which we approach this question. The changes proposed will not be effected overnight or in haste. They are essentially flexible and evolutionary. The great care with which provisions for consultation have been worked into the proposals proves this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not designate a college or a group of colleges for status as a polytechnic, whether by merger or federation, until t here has first been full consultation with

  323
  the Regional Advisory Councils and with the local education authorities concerned.
  Furthermore, he will consider what views regional economic planning councils have to put to him about the position in their regions. This applies to regions which may feel, having looked at the appendix to the White Paper that they have been, as it were, left out. The fullest possible discussion and consultation with the authorities in such areas will be conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to Staffordshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to East Anglia. They can be fully assured that the position in the areas which they mentioned will be the subject of very careful consideration and study.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: With regard to East Anglia, there is the question of growing expansion not only in population, but in all education and further education. Therefore, will the Minister take account not only of existing circumstances, but of the likely circumstances as they develop over the next 10 years?
  Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the regional advisory councils and the local authorities will, like the hon. Member, have those considerations very much in mind when they discuss the position with the Department.
  These major centres will be developed as comprehensive academic communities, catering for full-time and sandwich students at all levels of higher education. The aim is to make the centres strong and large enough to offer a wide variety of disciplines, and to sustain an active community of staff and students. They would normally be expected to be capable of ultimate growth to at least 2,000 full-time students, apart from the part-time students recruited locally.
  They must deal with three sets of students. We should get this absolutely clear. First, there are the full-time sandwich students, aiming at degrees and professional qualifications of degree level. Secondly, there are the full-time and sandwich students aiming at a range of higher educational qualifications below degree level. Thirdly, there are the part-time students at both levels.
  324
  This is also a description of the function of the other colleges which are not upgraded to being polytechnics, and which will continue to serve these three categories. The creation of the 28 to 30 major centres of polytechnic activity in no way means that there will not be that kind of activity in other colleges which are not upgraded.
  The point was made—I think by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby)—that there are colleges which, for one reason or another, cannot be included in a polytechnic arrangement, but which, nevertheless, have a high degree of attainment and of work, and it would be a great pity if any system were to result in our losing such colleges from the general higher education arrangements. This will not be so.
  We shall need, in addition to the new major centres, a large number of part-time centres of higher education spread all over the country within reasonable access of students, of whose travelling difficulties we are very conscious. Part-time courses will continue to be subject to the criteria for approval of courses which are in force from time to time, and, as recommended in the recent Pilkington Report on size of classes and approval of courses, special consideration will be given to the needs of scattered country districts.
  Secondly, the White Paper specifically provides for the continuance of full-time as well as part-time work in the specialist centres—colleges of art, agricultural colleges and the rest, when it is not practicable to include them in polytechnics.
  Thirdly, there is the important provision under which colleges which are not specialist centres will be able to continue with full-time as well as part-time higher education if they satisfy special needs, as evidenced by the students' support necessary under the normal approval procedures.
  There will, therefore, be no lack of flexibility, and we shall continue to need extensive provision outside the polytechnics. As to the colleges which, sooner or later, will have to give up their full-time higher education, I say this: one of the most important education Acts that the House unanimously approved during the last two or three years is the Industrial Training Act, which is now

  325
  beginning to be implemented. The teaching and practical resources of the colleges which will not come into the polytechnic area will be increasingly needed in order to serve the young men and women from industry who, under that Act, will be seeking special training and education.
  I am sorry that I have not been able to refer to a number of important points. As I have said, I was extremely anxious that the main points of misunderstanding and misapprehensions about the terms of the White Paper should be clarified. My right hon. Friend and I would be most

  Division No. 95.]

  AYES

  [6.59 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gower, Raymond

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grant, Anthony

  Neave, Airey

  Astor, John

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nott, John

  Balniel, Lord

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bell, Ronald

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Biffen, John

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Peyton, John

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Heseltine, Michael

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brewis, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Pym, Francis

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bryan, Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hornby, Richard

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hunt, John

  Roots, William

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Royle, Anthony

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Clegg, Walter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Cooke, Robert

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Sharples, Richard

  Cordle, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Carfield, F. V.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smith, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Stainton, Keith

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kirk, Peter

  Stodart, Anthony

  Crawley, Aidan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Talbot, John E.

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Tapsell, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Dance, James

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Temple, John M.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

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

  Tilney, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Loveys, W. H.

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Doughty, Charles

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Wall, Patrick

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maddasn, Martin

  Walters, Denis

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Farr, John

  Marten, Neil

  Whitelaw, William

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maude, Angus

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mawby, Ray

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Foster, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Miscamphell, Norman

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mol t-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Mr. More.

  ready to meet hon. Members who have raised important points on which they would like further information, or groups of hon. Members, and discuss those points very fully with them.
  Sir E. Boyle: In view of the Minister's failure to answer our points on obsolescence and rising costs in university building, I beg to move, That item Class VII, Vote 1 (Department of Education and Science) be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 267.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Finch, Harold

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mellish, Robert

  Alldritt, Walter

  Floud, Bernard

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Anderson, Donald

  Foley, Maurice

  Milian, Bruce

  Archer, Peter

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ford, Ben

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Ashley, Jack

  Forrester, John

  Moonman, Eric

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Barnes, Michael

  Garrett, W. E.

  Moylo, Roland

  Barnett, Joel

  Garrow, Alex

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Baxter, William

  Ginsburg, David

  Neal, Harold

  Bence, Cyril

  Gourley, Harry

  Newerrs, Stan

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Bessell, Peter

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Binns, John

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamling, William

  O'Malley, Brian

  Blackburn, F.

  Hannan, William

  Oram, Albert E.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hattersley, Roy

  Orme, Stanley

  Boardman, H.

  Hazell, Bert

  Oswald, Thomas

  Booth, Albert

  Henig, Stanley

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Hooley, Frank

  Pardoe, John

  Boyden, James

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Park, Trevor

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Horner, John

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Bradley, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Howie, W.

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Hoy, James

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Probert, Arthur

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Purley, Cmdr. Harry

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hynd, John

  Randall, Harry

  Cant, R. B.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rankin, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Redhead, Edward

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rees, Merlyn

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Chapman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Coe, Denis

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Judd, Frank

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Roebuck, Roy

  Cronin, John

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

  Rose, Paul

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Leadbitter. Ted Ledger, Ron

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Luard, Evan

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

  de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Dempsey, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Dewar, Donald

  McBride, Neil

  Slater, Joseph

  Dobson, Ray

  McCann, John

  Small, William

  Doig, Peter

  MacColl, James

  Snow, Julian

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Driberg, Tom

  McGuire, Michael

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Dunn, James A.

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Swain, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Ellis, John

  Mahon, Peter (Preston S.)

  Thornton, Ernest

  English, Michael

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

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Ensor, David

  Manuel, Archie

  Tinn, James

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mapp, Charles

  Tomney, Frank

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Marquand, David

  Tuck, Raphael

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mason, Roy

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)

  Whitlock, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Yates, Victor

  Wallace, George

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Zililacus, K.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Weitzman, David

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mr. Waiter Harrison and

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mr. Harper.

  It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set
  down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business).
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (SEAFORTH WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
  The Bill is promoted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which is a public trust owning and controlling the Port of Liverpool. In the Bill the Board asks Parliament for certain powers to carry out what I can describe without exaggeration as the biggest and the most exciting and enterprising dock construction scheme in England in this century. I am humbly proud to represent the constituency in which this is happening. I am unrepentant that perhaps some objections which I have to the contents of the Bill have resulted in the facts of this scheme being brought on to the Floor of the House instead of being tucked away in a Committee upstairs. It is a project of immense national importance to our external trade.
  I will sketch the background to the Bill and to the project set out therein. There are on the Liverpool Docks and within the Port of Liverpool 37 miles of quay in the 2,700 acres of the Port of Liverpool. In the 171 foreign berths, 43 coastwise berths and three petroleum berths there are two major inadequacies. "Inadequacies" is perhaps a mild word. It might be more apt to describe them as defects or strangleholds to development of the docks and of trade across the docks as it is envisaged in the next 10, 20 or, indeed, 50 years. The two major defects are, first, the lack of deep water berths—that is, berths—over 35 ft. in depth—and secondly, the narrow Victorian construction of the rail-served berths of the Port of Liverpool.
  To overcome these defects the Board first envisaged a scheme which would have cost £65 million and would have provided 30 new deep water berths. That scheme would have been carried out over quite an extensive area to the north of
  332
  Gladstone Dock, which, as hon. Members who know the Port of Liverpool will know, is the northernmost dock on the Liverpool side of the Mersey. That scheme of 30 new berths at a cost of £65 million would have bitten deeply into a pleasant and picturesque residential area of my constituency along what might be called the Waterloo Front. That full scheme may well come into operation at some future time, but that is not the scheme which is put before Parliament in the Bill.
  The present scheme is likely to cost £36 million and to provide 14 deep water berths with wide areas of working space. On about 300 acres of land and foreshore at Seaforth just north of the Gladstone Dock and built out into the Mersey will be these 14 deep water berths having a depth of about 42 ft. and being able to take ships up to 650 to 800 ft. in length and of from 60,000 to 70,000 tons. These 14 deep water berths will be divided into two bulk cargo berths and 12 general cargo berths.
  The need for this is clearly shown by just one simple statistic. I do not want to give many figures which it is not easy to memorise. The dry cargo in the Port of Liverpool has increased by nearly 100 per cent. during the last 15 years and is expected to increase by another 100 per cent. in the next 15 years, so I think that the need for an extensive scheme of this sort has been clearly proved and its national importance is shown by the past increase in trade and the expected increase in trade. Right hon. and hon. Members can appreciate that such a massive scheme of development cannot be executed without disturbance to the neighbourhood. About 300 acres are to be taken to build the dock buildings on the land. The piers of the docks them-selves will stretch out into the Mersey by about 3,500 ft.
  In this respect the scheme differs from the normal development scheme which public authorities, local or otherwise, bring before the House in Private Bills. It is not just a simple development scheme of a corporation which wishes to develop a small area within its jurisdiction. These are docks comprised of slanting piers out into the Mersey, piers giving about 70 ft. quay margins, which will slant towards the north-west. The bunding wall will

  333
  be about 3,500 ft. from the land. Slanting at that angle the piers will overshadow the residential front for a considerable distance and will damage the character of the residential area for a considerable distance along that front.
  This is not easy to explain without a blackboard and a piece of chalk. I ask hon. Members to imagine the shore as running north and south. The docks will not protrude out from the shore at right angles from east to west, but will point towards the north-west, causing a sort of V-shaped overshadowing of part of the residential area. To the east of that coastline, on the land, there is a large rectangular area which will be used for the dock buildings and the dock installations behind the docks themselves.
  The Board owns most of the land, so there will not be any very extensive compulsory purchase. But there will be an extensive effect on the property in the neighbourhood which is not compulsorily purchased. For the acquisition of the land, the Bill has certain of the normal provisions. Clause 3 introduces provisions for both acquisition and compensation under the Land Clauses Act.
  Clause 5 states the land which may be acquired by the Board. It says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may enter upon, take and use such parts of the bed, banks and shores of the river Mersey and of the sea and such of the lands in the borough of Crosby in the county and in the borough as are delineated on the deposited plan and described in the deposited book of reference as may be required for the purpose of the works authorised by this Act … and for the reclamation of land in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
  Later, the works are set out for the purpose of which land can be acquired. Compensation for damage done during the execution of the works and from the act of carrying out the works is provided in Clause 16, subsection (1) of which sets out the works to be carried out.
  Clause 19(3) provides that
  "In the exercise of the powers conferred by this section the Board shall cause as little detriment, and inconvenience as the circumstances permit to any person and shall make reasonable compensation for any damage caused by the exercise of such powers."
  So any of the neighbouring properties that suffer injury while the works are
  334
  being carried out are properly protected by that Clause.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: Am I right in thinking that Clause 19(3) is confined to the subsidiary works? There is no parallel protection, so far as one can see, regarding the main works described in Clause 16.
  Mr. Graham Page: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. I was perhaps concertinaing—if that is a good word—my remarks, because I have been unable to discover the difference between carrying out main works and the subsidiary works, which seem to include all those things which might damage adjoining property in the carrying out of building docks and installations and so on. It is true that Clause 19(3) relates to subsidiary work, but I think that it would cover damage caused to neighbouring property through the building of the docks and the erection of buildings on the dockside, and so on. This, then, deals with the owners whose property is taken in compulsory purchase powers. The Land Clauses Acts deal with this aspect and gives compensation. Clause 19 deals with those injured during the execution of the works.
  Clause 8 deals with the acquisition of part only of certain properties:
  "No person shall he required to sell a part only of any house, building or factory, or of a park or garden belonging to a house, if he is willing and able to sell the whole of the house, building, factory, park or garden unless the tribunal determines—

  (a) in the case of a house, building or factory, that such part as is proposed to be taken can be taken without material detriment to the house, building or factory; or

  (b) in the case of a park or garden, that such part as is proposed to be taken can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house to which it belongs."

  It means that, if the Board requires only a part of a person's property and the rest of the property left in his hands is damaged or deteriorates in value or is deprived of amenity or convenience, he is entitled to claim compensation. But many owners retaining all their land adjacent to the dock development will lose perhaps a great deal more than the man who has had part of his land taken away from him. I do not think that, as against the Board, I really need argue

  335
  this with any great force because the Board itself has recognised the principle. When the Bill came before a Committee in another place, the Board gave an undertaking to certain adjacent owners, to a body calling itself the Crosby Residents' Association.
  I assure the Minister that I hold no brief for this body. In fact, I have suffered severely at its hands for supporting the Bill. I had to face a meeting in my constituency of about 500 of my staunchest supporters in the ordinary way. I supported this project and I only escaped through the back door with my life I think. I have never had such a violent meeting in what is usually a very peaceful constituency. Nevertheless, I hope to support the Association not in its opposition to the Seaforth works project, but in its desire to obtain a fair deal for the residents adjacent to the development.
  The Board also recognises this because it has given an undertaking that, on the roads bordering the dock area, it will give notice to the owners of these properties when it intends to start work and the owners may then give a counter-notice to the Board requiring it to purchase their property. The undertaking relates to two sides of a rectangle which will form the working part of the docks. This area is now a pleasant part called Potter's Bar and is bounded on two sides by dwelling-houses, on the third side by the existing docks and on the fourth side by the Mersey.
  In respect of the houses bordering it on two sides and which are outside the area to be acquired for the purpose of the scheme by the Board, the Board has nevertheless given the undertaking that, if an owner of these houses feels that he is injured by the dock development, he will be entitled to serve on the Board a notice and it will purchase him out. I always prefer undertakings of this sort to be embodied in a Bill. I would much rather see this one plainly stated in the Bill as part of the powers of the acquiring authority. But even if it were in the Bill in that form, I think that these powers would stop short of the implementation of a principle obviously recognised in this undertaking.
  If it is accepted that something ought to be done to relieve the hardship of
  336
  those who suffer a loss by a project of this sort, it is surely quite illogical to restrict it to those who merely face the land where the project is to be carried out, who are on the road adjoining it, and to refuse it to those who in this case will suffer damage by the docks themselves slanting out into the river in front of their properties.
  The undertaking does not give the Board any alternative whether to pay compensation for the loss or damage suffered by those residents, or to buy them out. The undertaking obliges the Board to buy them out. I would have thought that the right thing to do was to include in the Bill some provision that any of those whose property is damaged by this development should have the same right as the man who has part of his property taken from him and receives compensation for the damage done to the remainder of his property, but that their genuineness in this should be tested by the Board being allowed to say that, instead of paying compensation, it will buy them out.
  If the owner, having given notice that his property had deteriorated in value, had claimed compensation and then had had the reply from the Board to say that it would not pay compensation, but would buy him out, he should be entitled to withdraw his claim and remain as he was. This would be fair to both sides. I would have thought that it was right to put a straightforward provision of that sort into the Bill for compensation for what is well known in law as material detriment to property.
  It is no answer to say that this has never been done before. A project of this sort has never been done before. It is quite an exceptional project and it needs exceptional treatment, both from the point of view of the authority carrying it out, and the individuals who are affected by it. Every year, we have public authorities acquiring new powers in Private Acts. I recollect that only last year the City of London came to the House with an entirely new proposition for making owners of adjoining streets into criminals for the acts of other people. We were promised then that that particular new law for the City of London was quite exceptional and would remain to only the City of London. This year,

  337
  the Greater London Council included it in its Bill and has been given the power.
  This sort of thing has happened again and again. Many local authorities are proud of being pilots for schemes of this sort for trying out a new law for the benefit of their communities. Perhaps in this case we can try this out as a pilot for the individual's rights, as so frequently we are asked to try them out for the rights of public authorities.
  Because of Clause 8 recognising a principle, but only partially recognising it, and because of the undertaking which recognises a principle, but only partially recognises it, I hope that the promoters will see that an appropriate Clause to this effect is included in the Bill.
  There is another matter which should be included. In this, I refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Statement of the Promoters, which, no doubt, hon. Members will have seen in their post this morning or yesterday. In paragraph 3 the promoters describe the works and the phasing of the works and go on in paragraph 4 to say:
  "The promoters are satisfied that these new works are required as a matter of urgency to meet the requirements of the trade of the Port of Liverpool. This view is fully supported by the National Ports Council who in their Interim Plan for Port Development published in July, 1965, in referring to the proposed works, stated at page 75 that they will be required as soon as they can be built and that the work on them should be treated as a matter of urgency. They went on to express their alarm that the berths of the first phase were not expected to be in use before 1971 and that, as contemplated at that time, those in the second phase would not be completed until 1975. They added the works should be completed sooner if possible.'"
  I imagine that on that encouragement the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board will try to get on with the work as quickly as possible, and from the point of view of the work being done, I hope that it will.
  But that means it will use its power to expedite entry under Clause 9. This allows it to enter land at very short notice and to take possession; in short, to evict the owner of that land. But if the compensation is not at that time agreed, the Board has no power to pay it. If, for example, the owner is convinced that what he is being offered by way of compensation for the compulsory purchase of his property is not a good enough figure, he is entitled to have that tried by the Lands Tribunal. But it will
  338
  take his a very long time to get his case before the Lands Tribunal. The Board will not wait for that, because it will want to get on with the job and it will use its powers to enter.
  The individual may be turned out of his home, perhaps without the resources to buy another. He may be turned out of his business without the resources to acquire another business. The Minister has heard me put this argument upstairs on more than one occasion, but it applies particularly to these provisions. Here is an authority coming forward and asking for special powers to carry out a special project. It is recognised that people will be injured through this project being carried out, but it is a project for the benefit of the community. If it is to be carried out quickly, there will undoubtedly be cases when it is impossible to agree the compensation at the moment when the Board will have to enter to carry out this development work.
  The Ministry of Transport has a rule that in such cases the Minister may pay to the owner 90 per cent. of the district valuer's valuation and leave the rest to be argued out before the Lands Tribunal. Payment is without prejudice and the owner fighting it at the Lands Tribunal may have to pay back some of that 90 per cent. But it enables the owner to acquire other property if he is displaced and it enables the public authority to enter into property without feeling that it is causing grave hardship to some individual if it can provide him with funds to rehabilitate himself in a home or business elsewhere.
  I would have thought this would be a right provision to put into the Bill, having regard to what is said in the promoters' statement when they say that they want to get on with the job and do it quickly. A disputed claim for compensation will not be settled in the three years within which the Board wants to take its powers under the Bill. If it is disputed, it will take a long time to be settled before the Lands Tribunal. I would hope that the Board might be permitted to advance at least 90 per cent. of what it would regard as the compensation to which the man would eventually be entitled.
  I am grateful to the House for bearing with me for this length of time. To us on Merseyside this is a vitally important

  339
  project. Wt hope that it will go forward as quickly as possible in the national interest, for the benefit of the local communities, and for the benefit of the Port of Liverpool and the City of Liverpool. But in carrying out this project, I hope it will be seen that protection is given to the individual who might suffer hardship from being deprived of his property.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for bringing to its attention the problem of compensation. As the House knows, he is an expert on local authority legislation, on their powers and how they should be used. Naturally I agree very much with what he has said about the greatness of the port of Liverpool. Colleagues on both sides of the House would agree that it is not only the port of Liverpool, but the port of Birkenhead, Wallasey, Crosby and Bootle, and I hope to see the day when it will be the port of Greater Merseyside. But that is quite another matter. Many of us had the privilege of being guests of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on a lovely autumn day and being taken aboard the Dock Board yacht to be shown the site of the new dock.
  Quite rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has referred on many occasions to this great development, but I regret that technically at least he wants to put it back by at least six months. Of course we all have sympathy with many of his constituents. I have the privilege of living in Liverpool and my house has the most lovely view across the Mersey. I would object if the town clerk of the Corporation of Liverpool planned to build something which deprived me of my view.
  Whatever might be said, I do not believe that a Private Bill of this kind is the right measure to use for changing the general law of compensation in Britain. We must all agree that no one has any legal right in either a view or a property which is affected by what may happen to contiguous properties. One knows what might be the feelings of those who live immediately under, say, the Hammersmith flyover. One has great sympathy
  340
  with those who have lived, as my hon. Friend's constituents have done, in a charming part of Merseyside, looking across the wide sweep of the Mersey and knowing that in a few years' time that view, the delight of their children and friends, will be changed substantially.
  But it would be changed for the betterment of the people of Merseyside and of Crosby. I do not believe that one can change the general law. For instance, if there is a by-pass around a city or a small village, is my hon. Friend wishing to compensate the shops whose trade will diminish and the petrol stations which may no longer serve passing motorists because of the by-pass? Laws have to be changed in due course, but this is so fundamental that I cannot believe that it is right to change it in a Bill of this kind.
  It would be grossly unfair upon other citizens of Merseyside and of Crosby who may not be allowed compensation under other legislation while some would be allowed compensation if the House were to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend. Since 1906 the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has held powers to develop the estate into Crosby up to the Cambridge Road area. Anyone who has bought a house in that area in the last sixty years had only to look at the town map to be aware of the ultimate plans of the Board.
  My hon. Friend referred to further developments north. I have no doubt that, as the Dock Board has already shown great understanding for the needs of his constituents who wish to conserve their property, when this addition is made those living on the Esplanade or Marine Crescent or any of the other delightful roads of Crosby will be considered. The Crosby Residents' Association has already made its complaints and the Board has agreed to consider any representations made by the Association about the appearance of the northerly portion of the work.
  After the consultations and discussions between the residents and the Board, I have no doubt that the view may be bettered by agreement between the two parties. The Board has also said that a limited number of properties on the northerly side site, that is the northerly side of Crosby Road South and

  341
  in Cambridge Road, will or could be purchased. The Board is prepared to purchase them at an agreed price. I take the view that on this development the valuation of the property is much more likely to go up in the years to come than to go down. The Board has said that it is prepared to pay a price which the owners would have received before the announcement of the proposals. I hope that the House will bear in mind that the only owners of property to be acquired by the Board are the Crosby Corporation, British Railways, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster other than those whom I have already mentioned and whose property could be sold by private agreement. I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to see a fair deal for his constituents, although I am not at all sure that it would be possible to provide compensation of 90 per cent. of any purchase price paid according to the custom rather than the rule of the Ministry of Transport.
  I should like to quote part of a letter which I have received from the Chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which says that the Board may
  "be expected to acquire the land they need immediately but there will, in fact, be very few, if any, cases in which a reference to the Lands Tribunal is at all likely to be necessary."
  It goes on to say that the Board would
  "give sympathetic consideration to any application by the owner of land which they are proposing to acquire for payment of a substantial proportion of the Board's own valuation of the land—either on taking possession or in a case of hardship even prior to taking possession."
  I hope that that will satisfy the National Federation of Property Owners, which has written to many hon. Members, and the House. I believe that it is academic to put into a Bill of this kind a Clause mentioning compensation of 90 per cent. or a change in the general law.
  Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend said that the Board would be prepared to pay a "substantial proportion" of its valuation of the lands. Would he enlighten us a little more about the phrase "substantial proportion"? It would then be easier to judge the value of the Board's undertaking.
  Mr. Tilney: The Board, like the Corporation of Liverpool, is made up of eminent citizens in their directorate. I
  342
  believe that it will treat my hon. Friend's constituents fairly and that, on a valuation, it would be prepared to pay a reasonable sum. Obviously it cannot say that it will pay 90 per cent. because a small property may be involved and the extra 10 per cent. might be swallowed up in expenses. But I am virtually sure that it would more than meet any average commonsense suggestion about price by my hon. Friend.
  7.53 p.m.
  The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I hasten to intervene to provide reconciliation between the hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). I am sure that, because of the cogency and lucidity of the case which he advanced for the Bill, the hon. Member for Crosby does not intend to press his Amendment. He has taken the opportunity to raise two substantial points. In the context in which he has raised them, he can rest assured that there will be no harshness or injustice. There has been reference to the assurances, and I am sure that the Crosby Residents' Association will be well content with them.
  The hon. Member for Crosby has taken this opportunity to argue the case for altering the law. I can only briefly repeat what the hon. Member for Wavertree has said, equally effectively. I am sure that the hon. Member for Crosby recognises that there is always a reluctance to change the general law by private bill legislation. There is a particular reluctance, when dealing with compensation because, as the hon. Member said, this would cause inequities between adjoining land owners, and we are always anxious to avoid it. It would be very difficult to justify that in equity. But, apart from that, while we are obliged to the hon. Member for Crosby for opening the discussion, he will recognise that this is a matter to which we have to give much thought before changing the law.
  There is the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman raised that this is a very wide concept. He talked about the character of the area. He mentioned the illustration of a bypass of a village or town. It would be difficult to conceive of any public or, for that matter, private

  343
  development which might not have some adverse effects on somebody's property.
  The other point which the hon. Member for Crosby mentioned concerned what I might describe as "enhancement". As he is well aware, we are not discussing betterment. I have used a different word. We are concerned not with development value but with current use value. I am not saying this to discourage the hon. Gentleman. He has served a purpose in calling attention to this. All I have done is to say that before we even accepted his case that the general law should be altered we should have to pursue the matter further.
  We have elsewhere discussed the second question which the hon. Member for Crosby raised about compensation of 90 per cent. In view of what the hon. Member for Wavertree said, I would emphasise that there would be no injustice in accepting the assurance which he gave that this matter is largely academic. We are mainly concerned with the land held by the Crosby Corporation and the Duchy of Lancaster. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the experience of the Ministry of Transport. It was that experience which led me to the view that we should allow the vesting procedure for the Land Commission. But the difficulty in the proposal which the hon. Gentleman has made lies in reducing this to a statutory form. We should certainly have to look at this more carefully before we altered the general law.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised two specific points on the law of compulsory purchase. These are matters which should be considered. I know his particular interest in the law of compulsory purchase. If he thinks that he has other matters which he should draw to our attention, I would welcome his doing so. But we cannot effectively deal with these matters in private bill legislation. If there is a case for a revision or review of the law of compulsory purchase, let us do it generally. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the two points which he has raised will be seriously considered by the Government.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: It was because of the failure of the general law on compulsory acquisition that I put my name to one
  344
  of these Instructions. Far be it from me to intervene in matters concerning the Mersey, but it has been my experience that considerable hardship has been caused by compulsory acquisition all over the country and certainly in the Midlands.
  Having listened to part of the debate—and I apologise for coming into the Chamber late—I should have thought that we should not allow a Bill such as this to go through without amendment, as is suggested, if it were against the general law. If the general law has been found to be faulty, we should ensure that no other Acts were passed which perpetuated the fault.
  As I have said before, there is considerable hardship on many people who have their land compulsorily acquired. Very often they have to wait years for the cash to find alternative accommodation. It is dreadful to think that some of these people may have their land acquired, entered upon and their property taken over without having the money with which to provide other accommodation.
  As I see it, it is within the competence of the House to do something about it, although it is against the general law. In a case like this, it does not look to me that the House must be controlled by Acts of Parliament which it has passed on other matters. I would have thought that it was within the competence of the House to put it right so far as other Acts are concerned. If there is not to be any change of the general legislation and no Government come along with such suggestions, I hope that we shall see to it that there is a fairer deal for people who have to lose their land.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I have no wish to trespass into Merseyside, but, as an hon. Member representing a constituency on Severnside, I have views and a few thoughts which I would like to give to the House.
  May I say, first, that I hope very much that the interest of my hon. Friends the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) will be reconciled. No two hon. Members have striven harder to achieve local progress in their area

  345
  and to see fair play and proper compensation.
  What I am now going to say may be cold comfort to them. In looking at the great clock undertaking which Merseyside wants so badly, I hope that some lessons can be learned from the way in which the Port of Bristol has tried to achieve its undertaking at Portbury, near Bristol. In my view, it went the slightly better way round and acquired the land first, and it is only the present Government who have frustrated its efforts. It may be that in looking for new schemes in the future, and perhaps even to resolve some of the difficulties in the present scheme, the authorities in my hon. 'Friends' area will be able to acquire the land and go ahead with its works, but the present Government may frustrate even that.
  I conclude by wishing my hon. Friends well in their efforts. I hope that the Government will get on with both schemes, particularly the Portbury scheme, near Bristol.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I do not wish to detain the House very long, and I hope that no one else will. ft is unfortunate that the Bill has been held up as long as it has.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that by putting down the Motion on the Order Paper the Bill has not been delayed one moment in its next stage.
  Mr. Heffer: That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. Graham Page: It is not.
  Mr. Heffer: We have had two speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite support-mg the Amendment. We have also had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) with which I agree entirely. He has put the case admirably. But we have heard contradictory speeches. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said that the position is quite exceptionable and that he is arguing purely from an exceptional point of view. He says that it is quite different from anywhere else, and he bases that on the argument that part of the new dock will be slanting out into the river. That is his case.
  346
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) said that he was arguing for people all over the country who were affected by the development. Well, either it is an exceptional case or we are arguing a general principle. I believe that the hon. Member for Crosby is arguing a general principle and is using the Bill to try to introduce something that he wants to see brought in as a new law. If that is so, I go a long way with him. I, too, am concerned about the small people who are affected by redevelopment. I want to see them get a square deal. Every hon. Member has these problems in his constituency and knows of people who are affected by redevelopment and need some assistance.
  If we look at the exceptional circumstances and not the general principle, let us see precisely what the exceptional circumstances are. A new dock is being built in the Port of Liverpool. It needs a large wharf going round the dock. There are large wharves round all the docks there now. It is only an extension of the dock. There is nothing exceptional about it except that I hope that perhaps it will be a little more beautiful architecturally than docks we have had in the past. If it is to be exceptional, I hope that it will be exceptional in that direction.
  There is nothing new about the building of a dock. Docks are being built all over the world. Wherever a new building is put up, someone is affected. In my own constituency, an extension has been put on to a factory called Reads, which is part of Courtaulds. It could be argued that that is exceptional, because people living nearby can hardly sleep at night. There is also a new bakery being built in my constituency. People affected by that kind of thing have an important case, but it cannot be legislated for in the Bill, as my right hon. Friend has made perfectly clear.
  I would appeal to the hon. Member for Crosby not to push the matter further and make this the occasion to introduce something which is of national concern into a Measure which is concerned only with Merseyside.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for the dock being well understood by all hon. Members from Merseyside. I

  347
  hope that that goes for the whole country. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) tried to make a party point, and, accordingly, I feel that I am entitled to do the same. We in the Labour Party have argued for the dock for many years. It has been before the Liverpool City Council. Reference has been made to it in our manifestoes. We believe in it, and it is what we want.
  I understand that the Conservatives have argued for it as well. Everyone in Liverpool is for it—Conservatives, Liberals and members of the Labour Party. I ask the hon. Member for Crosby not to push the matter further and enable us to get it through as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Graham Page: Having regard to the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech on a Second Reading debate, unless, of course, he wishes to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is what I hope the House will permit me to do. However, I think that I am in order in saying why I wish to ask for a certain course to be taken.
  Having regard to the very encouraging statements of the right hon. Gentleman that the principle which I have enunciated might well become the law of the land, although I still think that my constituents are entitled to special preference, and having regard to the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I think that I would be correct in asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment to postpone the Second Reading for six months.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Graham Page, I take it that you do not wish to move your Instruction.
  Mr. Graham Page indicated assent.

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL(By Order)
  As amended, considered.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL(By Order)

    New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION.)
    If the existence of the works will result in material detriment or serious affection of the amenity or convenience of any house, building or factory and if a person having an interest in such house, building or factory shall apply to the corporation for the reasonable compensation for which provision is made in this section, the corporation is authorised by this Act to acquire by compulsory purchase the said interest (when six weeks shall have elapsed after the corporation shall have given to that person notice of its intention to acquire his interest in the said house, building or factory, as the case may be, and the application for compensation aforesaid has not been withdrawn) and if the corporation shall not so acquire the interest it shall make, in respect of any loss occasioned or to be occasioned to that person by the existence of the works, such reasonable compensation as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the tribunal.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This Clause covers the same principle as that which we have just been discussing in connection with the other Bill. I shall endeavour not to repeat the arguments, but I think that it is important to consider this principle in connection with this Bill.
    If I understand them correctly, the main purposes of the Bill are to acquire land in the city to build a new road system, and to develop land adjacent to the new road. I doubt whether such an ambitious, and rightly ambitious, scheme for the development of a provincial city has come before the House on any previous occasion.
    Liverpool is a city of 720,000 people. It is the second largest provincial city in England and Wales, it is the second port of Britain, and it handles 25 per cent. of the nation's trade. It is the focal point of a population of 2 million on Merseyside. The roads, the ferries, and the tunnel all concentrate a tremendous flow of traffic into the centre of the city. Perhaps the word "flow" is ill-chosen, because at some times of the day in the centre of Liverpool, when, for example,

    349
    there is a breakdown in the tunnel, the flow of traffic ceases in the centre of the city.
    All provincial cities have their traffic problems, but I venture to say that Liverpool's is greater than that of any other provincial city, because, superimposed on the normal traffic of a city which is the centre of such an immense area of population, there is the dock traffic, and the congestion caused by this traffic endeavouring to get its goods into and out of the docks.
    Liverpool, faced with this great problem, has decided to cater for its traffic rather than to ban it. It is true that under the Bill there will be a certain amount of restriction on traffic within the centre of the city, but I think that it is right to interpret the projects set forth in the promoter's statement on the Bill and in the Bill itself as projects for catering with the traffic rather than trying to restrict it and turn it out of the city.
    The project is to develop an inner motorway five and a half miles in circumference. Some parts of this motorway will be at ground level, but some parts of it will be elevated as much as 30 ft. There are to be dual carriageways, each of three lanes, normally side by side, but in some places one on top of the other. To a large extent this inner motorway will go through property which is obsolete and ripe for development, but it will also go through other property which is usable, and which has a long life before it. The scheme is phased over 15 years, and is likely to cost about £57 million.
    In the promoters' statement the proposed new road system is described as
    "a major ring road, built to motorway standard",
    and they add that
    "the new works as a whole will act as a hub and focal point for the primary routes which now radiate from the City Centre to the City Boundary and into the surrounding areas."
    This is all to be accomplished, not merely by building this inner motorway, but by acquiring property adjacent to it and carrying out development alongside the motorway, first, the development of car parks to keep as much traffic as possible out of the centre of the city, secondly, for the purpose of providing land for those who are displaced from
    350
    the immediate land on which the road will be placed, and, thirdly, to acquire land so as to bring this new road within a system for the whole of the City centre.
    8.15 p.m.
    I think that perhaps no scheme as bold and as imaginative as this has been conceived previously for any provincial city, and I believe that if Liverpool is to survive as a major city of the United Kingdom it is necessary for this scheme to go ahead and I believe that it is a scheme which will meet the need for the survival of Liverpool. But it involves great powers of acquisition of land.
    The Bill provides for that acquisition and for the payment of compensation by incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts as they relate to the power of acquisition of land, and the payment of compensation. It gives the corporation power to carry out these compulsory acquisitions within three years, but it also gives the Minister power to extend those three years, and if the scheme is to be phased over 15 years, obviously this power of compulsory acquisition will be extended. In such cases Clause 6 gives an owner of property the right to serve a purchase notice on the corporation so that he may force the corporation to acquire property which may have become blighted by the anticipated scheme.
    Furthermore the corporation has been very wise to provide an option Clause. I shall not go into the details of it, but briefly it means that the matter can be settled between the corporation and the owner, if the owner wishes it to be so settled, at an early date. The corporation has also given an undertaking that it will endeavour to find other suitable accommodation for many of those who will be displaced.
    To a great extent the corporation has recognised the injury to individuals which this scheme will cause for the benefit of the community, and that when land is taken, and when an owner's property is damaged, for the benefit of the community, that individual should be compensated. Thus, as in the Bill which we have recently been debating, there is a Clause which deals with compensation to the owner who is left with part of his land when the other part of it is taken for the purpose of the project. He will receive compensation, whereas the man

    351
    whose land is damaged because it is adjacent to the motorway will get no compensation at all.
    What I think it is important for the corporation to consider is that in many parts of the city there will be an elevated roadway perhaps passing by the first or second storey of an office block or residential building, and undoubtedly causing a severe deterioration in value of such a building, due to the proximity of a busy road. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) who mentioned the Hammersmith flyover.
    Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Is it not correct to say that Liverpool Corporation is not only taking the land required for the actual motorway but a small area of land on either side, for the sole purpose of landscaping it, in which case the argument that the hon. Member is putting forward will not apply?
    Mr. Page: I mentioned that as being an intention of the corporation, but I do not understand from the scheme that that will happen all along the length of the motorway. I expect that there will be many instances where the proximity of the motorway will damage adjoining property but in respect of which there will be no grounds for a claim for compensation. The damage to an individual's property should be recognised, even though no part of that property is taken from him.
    Mr. Walter Alldritt: My hon. Friend has raised the question of additional land acquired alongside the motorway and has suggested that this was for landscaping. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in reply, has said, "Yes, it is for that purpose." Is there any authority for this statement?
    Mr. Page: In their statement the promoters say that there are three associated purposes for the acquisition of land. They wish to acquire land not only for the actual site of the motorway but for three other purposes—first, for high capacity car parks, secondly, in order to offer alternative accommodation to those displaced by the motorway, and, thirdly, in the words of the corporation:
    352
    "the Corporation have sought to avoid, in the design and construction of the new elevated road, the serious injury to amenity which can arise from the mere imposition on an urban area of a major elevated road system, and drawing on the limited experience which has been gained in this field in this country, and the much greater experience gained abroad, propose to acquire on each side of the line of the new road adequate land which can be redeveloped in such a way that the new road will be properly integrated into and blend with the urban landscape."
    The promoters have recognised exactly the problem to which I am referring, namely, that if they build an elevated road neighbouring property will be damaged, and it will therefore seek to acquire land adjoining the road and thus alleviate that hardship. But there is no guarantee that throughout the whole length of the road the corporation will be able to carry out its intention as described, and if it is unable to avoid this serious injury to the amenity of adjoining properties those adjoining properties should be compensated.
    I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree is under some misconception about what I was endeavouring to put forward in connection with the previous Bill. I seek to bring into the ambit of the new Clause the question of "material detriment" to the property. This phrase is used in all the Acts which deal with compensation for severance. I seek to cover the question of material detriment, or the case where development has seriously affected the amenity or convenience of the property. I do not think that this would cover the case of a by-pass road taking away trade from business premises. I know that business premises are frequently injured in that way, but I am seeking to concentrate on serious damage to property—damage which can be seen or felt by the man who has to live or work in that property. He should be compensated.
    I see no reason why we should wait for an amendment to the general law to do this, and I hope that in the same way as the Liverpool Corporation is a pioneer in the development of city centres it may be a pioneer in the amendment of the law.
    Mr. Eric Ogden: Hon. Members will know that the Bill has the unanimous support of

    353
    all parties in the Liverpool City Corporation and also of every Liverpool Member, in principle. I want to place on record the fact that the debate, together with the previous one, has been attended by nearly every Liverpool Member of Parliament—by my hon. Friends the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), the Member for the Scotland division (Mr. Alldritt), the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and, on the benches opposite, the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney)—and I know that the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Fortescue) is also closely concerned with the Bill and supports it in principle.
    We may have our points of difference on later Clauses, but I want to put on record the fact that if some of us have deliberately kept quiet, in spite of the temptation put in front of us by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), it is because we hope to secure the Second Reading of the Bill before 10 o'clock. We do not want to do anything Lo delay its passage through the House more than it has been delayed in the past. Silence is golden on occasions, and this is one of those occasions.
    Mr. John Tilney: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I see eye to eye on so many things that I hate to find myself once again in opposition to him, although not in respect of many of the things that he said, and especially his tribute to my city of Liverpool. I rake this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the Liverpool Cathedral Committee to the Liverpool Corporation for meeting its objections. I know that the corporation has also gone out of its way to meet the objections of many Liverpool citizens.
    This is a matter in which we are all interested, on whatever side of the House we may sit. We want to see the trade of Liverpool fructify and increase, and one of the ways of doing that is to improve urban transport in our city. We have done it quite well recently with our one-way streets, on which traffic moves very much better than it did a year or two ago. We all live by the trade of the
    354
    Port of Liverpool. We want to see it increase as much as possible. I only regret that so many people who work in Liverpool wish to live either in Wirral or even in Crosby. This is something I find difficult to understand.
    8.30 p.m.
    I must point out that a Private Bill of this kind is not the method by which one should change the general law dealing with compensation, a law which, I understand, has not been changed since the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. I am no lawyer, but this is what I am told. My hon. Friend may say that it is high time there was a change, but if so it surely should be done by a general and not a Private Bill.
    I sympathise with many of the citizens of Liverpool for feeling that they should get compensation for injurious affections. It seems a little unfair that if a part of someone's property is taken, the owner of that property not only receives compensation for the land taken but also receives compensation for any injurious affection to the rest of his or her property.
    This is something which the Minister should consider in the general context of the law. As the law stands at present, it would be as well for the House to remember, with regard to injurious affection, that under Section 68 of the 1845 Act compensation is payable only if the four following requirements are satisfied—first, that the injurious affection is such that it would have given a right to an action for damages if it had not been authorised by Statute; second, that the injurious affection arises from the execution of the works and not from their subsequent use; third, that the value of the land or an interest in the land is directly affected by physical interference with some legal right of which the claimant is entitled to make use in connection with the land, for instance, the obstruction of the right of access; and, fourth, that the damage flows as a direct consequence of the actions or omissions of the body authorised by Statute to execute the works complained of, the measure of compensation being assessed in the same way as damages in an action for tort.
    Under Clause 10 of the Bill, the corporation has to give three months' notice

    355
    to acquire and it will pay the purchase money plus interest on the money when it is ultimately paid. The corporation has indicated that once it has settled the price of purchase and investigated the title, it will make that payment without undue delay. It wishes to ensure quick payment and to avoid hardships, especially for those who may have to await a decision of the Lands Tribunal about compensation.
    The corporation has also indicated that, as regards relocation, it would be prepared to advance money by mortgage according to the circumstances. Ninety per cent. may be the wrong figure, but the corporation is a good landlord and a good negotiator: a third of the city of Liverpool is owned by the corporation. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that the Corporation would like to meet the wishes of those for whom he has spoken, but Treasury consent must be received for any capital borrowed in order to pay my constituents or the citizens of Liverpool, and remember too that the corporation are no less accommodating than the Ministry of Transport.
    Mr. Charles Mapp: I was one of the four Members who, upstairs, made the recommendation referred to on page 4 of the corporation's statement. We were concerned with the fact that the commercial interests of Liverpool originally arraigned against the Bill, and for powerful arguments, withdrew their opposition before the Committee sat. To that extent, it should be recorded that the commercial interests so vividly described by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) have, in the main, been fairly well satisfied.
    The Committee upstairs was particularly concerned with what I call the little people who might be hurt. It is in the light of that that I listened carefully to the Minister's statement, for I would not like to feel that that statement, which sort of foreshadowed a serious look which will be given at this problem, will be any wider than many of my hon. Friends wish it to be.
    I come to the nub of the argument, which is that in the case submitted by various people through what I believe was a residential association, the complaints of the ordinary people were ven-
    356
    tilated before us and it became clear that the Federation of Property Owners saw that it was an opportunity for it to advance the general case for better compensation terms. I recognise this to be the fact and I assure my right hon. Friend that it will have little or no encouragement from me.
    Having said that, I recall my experience in, for example, Oldham, where we are knocking down thousands of houses every two or three years and where, in my consultations with the people concerned, I have found that the owners of commercial premises are generally well-satisfied. In other words, in their ownership of premises, when those premises fall for clearance, they have always found that their interests have been safeguarded in the first place by all the legal advice and advantages which professional ownership gives to them.
    There is, however, a case to be made on behalf of the little people—the small shopkeeper and owner-occupier—and I take part in this discussion mainly to ask my right hon. Friend if, as I hope, these people will be considered, the question of whether the existing compensation terms are fair and proper for 1966 onwards must be considered bearing in mind that there is a substantial difference between the professional owner of property and the safeguards which he takes before becoming the owner of such property and the safeguards which he operates during the period of his ownership, and the little man who is not versed in this sphere and who, for purposes of thrift or enterprise runs a little shop or owns a house or is in some other way an owner-occupier. There is a substantial difference between the two types of people.
    If, in a year or two, the House of Commons is faced with a variation in legislation which is intended to meet the hardships of these little people, then, with that possibility in mind, we should be cautious when considering this matter, because it is felt by many people that the larger businesses I have mentioned are well able to look after their own interests.
    Question put and negatived.

    New Clause.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION.)
    Before exercising any power of entry upon land that may be acquired compulsorily under this Act (or so soon thereafter as a person

    357
    having an interest in the said land has deduced a good title to that interest) the corporation shall pay to a person having an interest in that land

    (1) the whole of the purchase price of that interest if the said purchase price has been agreed between the corporation and that person, or

    (2) in default of such agreement, a sum equal to ninety per cent. of the amount recommended by the District Valuer as the proper compulsory purchase price of that interest, such payment being made and received without prejudice to determination of compensation by the tribunal.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause raises again the point of payment of compensation and I wonder if I can hope to get the same sort of undertaking from the Liverpool Corporation as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board was good enough to give on the previous Bill. The question of the payment of compensation was raised n the earlier discussion on this Bill in Committee upstairs and the corporation has given an undertaking concerning payments. The undertaking was given to petitioners against the Bill on their withdrawing their petition. I quote from a hart of the undertaking:
    "Furthermore the Corporation, for its part. will use its best endeavours to settle the purchase price and investigate title in any particular case without undue delay with a view 10 insuring that the purchase moneys may be paid as quickly as possible …"
    However, that relates only to the payment of purchase money after the purchase price has been agreed. It is the position before the purchase price has been agreed with which I am mainly concerned—where the owner of the property or anyone else with an interest in it is not prepared to accept the compensation offered by the acquiring authority. The acquiring authority is not always right in its valuation of a property, otherwise no cases would come before the Lands Tribunal. 'The fact is that many cases do come before the Lands Tribunal and the acquiring authority is held to have offered too low a figure. But it takes time to act a case before the Lands Tribunal, and my proposal in this new Clause is that if the corporation wants to enter into property it should be prepared to pay
    358
    a large proportion of the value as recommended by the district valuer.
    I cannot see that this can really be any hardship to the corporation. It seems to be a very practical and fair provision. If the Minister feels that a local authority ought not to put a provision like this in a Private Bill in case it becomes some sort of precedent, perhaps the Corporation would be prepared to give an undertaking. I am not sure whether the Corporation has power in fact to make a payment of this sort, but I think that it possibly has. After all, not the whole of the money is coming from the Exchequer; a large proportion of it is coming from the ratepayer, and the corporation would have complete control over the money which it raises itself.
    I believe that the corporation could give an undertaking in place of inserting this new Clause in the Bill. I have said before, I always prefer a statement in a Bill rather than have an undertaking outside it, but in this case I would hope that something might be put forward whereby we could be assured that the owner who was unable to agree the price put forward by the corporation was not forced, by lack of funds, to agree what he believed to be less compensation than that to which he was entitled.
    I thought the statement made on the previous new Clause by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) was rather extraordinary. I now wonder whether he intends to support me on this new Clause and to say that all the rest of his colleagues will keep silent because they want the Bill to get its Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman said "So that the Bill could get through its Second Reading," but he is a long way behind the times. The Bill got through its Second Reading because I withdrew objection to it before the last General Election by agreement with the corporation that on Report I would raise the points I had wished to raise on Second Reading. By my putting these new Clauses on the Order Paper on Report the passage of the Bill has in no way been delayed, but I have exerted the right as a Member of this House to raise in debate matters in a Private Bill.
    Question put and negatived.
    Bill to be read the Third time.

  SUPPLY
  A gain considered in Committee.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  BEER AND CIDER (MEASURES)
  8.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
  That the Weights and Measures (Exemption) (Beer and Cider) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
  This is a simple, desirable and necessary Order which, I am confident, will have the unanimous and speedy approval of the House. Although the title says that it is an exemption Order, I point out at once that it does not exempt consumers of beer and cider from the protection against short measure which the Act itself provides. What the Order does is to recognise approved new appliances for measuring beer and cider in public houses and bars of hotels which have come into use generally since the Act was passed.
  Hon. Members who take a modest glass of beer or cider occasionally will have seen these new devices in operation. They usually have the appearance of a glass or transparent plastic cylinder which, when a tap is turned or a lever pulled, fills up with beer or cider to a mark on the cylinder and then empties that amount into a glass or mug. Under the existing Regulations it is illegal to serve beer or cider from a machine of this type unless it is also served in a stamped half-pint or pint glass, a glass which has been measured and stamped by a weights and measures inspector. The customer therefore gets double protection. If he is buying a half-pint he gets a half-pint from the machine in a stamped half-pint glass.
  There are compelling reasons for eliminating the second protection of the stamped glass, but on very strict con-
  360
  ditions. The first and overriding condition is that the machine, the dispenser which I have attempted to describe, must be of approved design to make sure that it delivers half a pint or a pint every time and the mechanism and quantity marked must be examined, tested and stamped by a weights and measures inspector. These requirements will guarantee that the customer gets full measure.
  The next condition laid down in the Order is that customers must also be able to see the machine or instrument in use. It is not essential for each customer to insist on seeing the beer drawn from one of these instruments, but if he wants he can go to the bar and witness the operation. It is sufficient that the instrument can be seen in operation by customers generally. These instruments, as experienced hon. Members will know, have been in operation for a long time now in many parts of the country. We know that they operate satisfactorily and fulfil all the requirements of the Act. I am sure the House will agree that they should receive the legal recognition provided for in this Order.
  I said that there were compelling reasons why we should pass this Order quickly. The most urgent of them is that the licensing justices in one city, which I had better not name, have granted a liquor licence to a football club where World Cup matches will be played this month, but the licence carries a condition that beer is to be sold only in lightweight plastic containers. I can only guess at the reason for that condition. Unless the House approves this Order, every one of those containers will have to be tested and stamped by a weights and measures inspector at a cost of about 9d. per container. That would have a serious effect on the cost of living in that part of the country during the next few weeks, and I am sure that no hon. Member wants that to happen.
  Therefore, what, in effect, we propose to do is to allow beer and cider to be sold in any kind or size of hygienic container—the hygienic side, of course, does not come into this legislation—provided that the beer comes from a machine which dispenses the full measure. There is a wider reason for approving the Order. It will allow publicans and others

  361
  who sell beer or cider, and who use these instruments, to get rid of the stamped glasses that they must now use. They will be able to buy unstamped, unmarked glasses, which at least should reduce their costs, if not their prices.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Alison: It is a very great pleasure to follow the Minister of State on this pleasantly liquid Measure, in contrast to the rather duller solids which we have to discuss in the Committee with which we are both concerned. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We on this side of the House welcome the Order and believe that it will be welcomed by beer dispensers—here I refer to all human dispensers, including the fellow who shoves it down the hatch.
  It has taken a long time to reach this sensible compromise. There was an unfortunate twilight period in which the unfortunate publican had the worst of both worlds. He had to have a metered drawing instrument which was subject to Board of Trade inspection, and at the same time he had to dispense the metered beer into a measured glass. We are relieved that this senseless bit of double-counting is now being eliminated.
  This is welcome, if slightly tardy, legislation. Powers were taken under the 1963 Act to make this possible, and it has taken two years of Socialist modernisation to introduce this reform, which has not even yet reached the Strangers' Bar, or the Members' Smoking Room—if it ever does. But let us not be churlish; it is a welcome reform.
  One is on treacherous and unstable ground in drafting Statutory Instruments, and indeed in all legislation. I refer the Minister of State to Article 1(iii):
  "the liquor in question is so delivered after a buyer has ordered it;"
  Has the Minister realised that he has opened up another loophole for a statutory offence if, God forbid, the Board of Trade happened to be a snooper, or if, God forbid, a Board of Trade officer had a grudge against a particular publican? The publican who sees a customer, an old and valued friend, coming in and says, "Your usual, Sir?", drawing to before the order has been given, has been made guilty of an offence under the Order, because he has drawn the beer before it has been ordered.
  Mr. Darling: Surely, in those circumstances, it is the sort of standing order that does not need to be repeated on every occasion?
  Mr. Alison: It would be interesting, if it were necessary and the Order were not universally supported, to try our hand at drafting a suitable Amendment to close the loophole. No Statutory Instrument is perfect, and this, to that extent, is imperfect.
  Article 1(ii) says:
  "the liquor in question is delivered directly from the measuring instrument into the container in which it is intended the buyer should receive it;"
  It is easy to be a little facetious about this. The question arises, into what alternative container might the beer be so delivered? Article 1(ii) seems to envisage the possibility of a publican being in the habit of squirting it into somebody's eye. Is it really necessary to safeguard the consumer against this hazard, in view of the fact that Article 1(iv) makes it plain that the instrument for delivering the beer must be visible to the naked eye?
  One can only assume that the provision is meant to be a safeguard against transposition—the pouring of beer into one container and then into another, and so on down the line until a great deal is lost. If the instrument is to be visible, one would not have thought that this hazard arose, unless there were a situation—and this is a serious point—in which a messenger was sent from the office across the road with a big jug to be filled up for the rest of the staff's lunch. The jug is in no sense a statutory measuring receptacle, and it is arguable whether it is the container in which it is intended that the buyer should receive his liquor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure us that no offence will be committed if a casual messenger goes into a pub to get beer for his mates at lunch in a quart or three-pint jug.
  Article 1(i) reads:
  "the quantity of the liquor the subject of the sale is ascertained by means of a measuring instrument stamped in accordance with Regulation 14 of the Measuring Instruments (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations, 1965".
  If Beachcomber of the Daily Express, of immortal fame, had taken this little paragraph and added in brackets, "Issued by the Ministry of Bubble-blowing at the

  363
  instance of Charlie Suet", sending it in as part of his weekly column, he would have qualified for his fee.
  However, we do not want to be churlish. We welcome this tardy reform in the interests of publican and consumer. I conclude by pointing out that this is one subject, beer, in regard to which the Government recognise that customer and manufacturer are interdependent and have common interests.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: This is an interesting subject and a great change from what we usually have to discuss in the House. I welcome the Order as a step forward, and I am sure that most consumers and brewers in the South-West will welcome it, too. In the West Country we produce a great amount of cider, and we are concerned about the quantity that people are drinking. However, I still think that the best cider and beer is drawn from the wood and, whatever people say, I shall not be shifted from that view.
  I am a little surprised at the way brewers are concerned about the quantities which they supply. I should have thought that, with their very fair margin of profit, they could be reasonably generous in their measures. I can well understand the customer wanting his full measure, of course.
  In this connection, I draw attention to a practice, which may come to this country, which I saw recently in Australia and New Zealand. People there are considerably in advance of us in this matter. The beer mugs and jugs are put all along the bar, there is a pipe with a tap on it like a petrol bowser, and the barmaid goes along the bar filling up all the jugs and jars. When she has got to the end, she starts again at the beginning to make sure that all have the right quantity in them. This is a most interesting advance, and it may one day reach us in this country.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. John E. Talbot: I cannot say that I altogether welcome the Order, representing, as I do, a constituency which makes glass. I would like the Minister to tell us a little about
  364
  the consultations which took place before the Order was made. In my view, we are going about this from the wrong end. Because one bench of magistrates seems to fear that visitors to a football match will hurl glasses at one another and they want the receptacles to be made of such soft and pliable material so that if hurled they will do more harm to a person's forehead than a baby's balloon, we are to have this Order, causing considerable dislocation in the way we have served alcoholic liquors from time immemorial.
  There is one factor to be borne in mind. A stamped glass remains of the same size throughout its life. What guarantee will there be that a machine which delivers beer in what might be described as a statutory portion will be inspected at such regular intervals as to ensure that it delivers the liquid precisely in accordance with the amount the customer should receive? So much work already attaches to weights and measures departments that the onus of inspecting properly will be considerable. I should like to hear from the Minister of State what instructions he will give to weights and measures authorities to ensure that the true quantity of beer as required by the customer is delivered through these instruments, which I suppose must be accepted in the same spirit as we accept the computer age in general.
  I feel that the President of the Board of Trade should have allowed more time for thought and consideration to be given to this Order. I can only suppose that his reason for not doing so is that he is afraid of international incidents at football matches at which people might be present who are not able to control themselves with the typical English phlegm. We are so used to hearing about fights with fisticuffs on the floor of the Chambre des Deputies that we are sometimes surprised that such events do not take place here. I feel that perhaps the Government have allowed their anxieties to run away with them in their enthusiasm for this Order. If only more time were allowed for this matter to be discussed and sorted out with the trade interests concerned, I should be wholly in favour of the Order. As it is, I have reservations which I hope that the Minister of State will be able to dispel.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I do not rise to question the Order, but rather to put a few questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. As I understand, if it were not for this proposal tonight all beer containers would have to be clearly stamped or marked with their exact measure of capacity. To do this would be so costly as not to justify the degree of consumer protection which it would be desirable to achieve. Indeed, although I have expressed views on this point before, I would not press the question of consumer protection to such a point that it defeated its own object and made the cost to the consumer prohibitive.
  If beer and cider is to be sold in any type of container, provided that it contains a full measure, can we have an assurance that the customer will know exactly what the full measure is? I believe that the measure would be in bird, half or full pints. This is the normal requirement for beer sold in draught in this way. If the container is not clearly marked, it is important that the customer should know exactly what he is receiving. I hope that the Order does not in any way preclude this.
  I am not sure whether the Order has any effect—I think probably not—on the question of the marking of containers of beer or cider sold in bottles or cans. The view has been expressed by weights and measures inspectors and others that beer sold in bottles or cans should be in third pints, half pints or pints, just as beer sold in draught is. I know some of the administrative difficulties involved. I should like some guidance from my right hon. Friend as to the effect of the Order in this respect. If it has no effect in this respect, at some time in the future I hope that measures will be taken to ensure that customers are protected in this way.
  I raise these points purely to seek information. I am told that questions are sometimes designed to elicit information and sometimes to embarrass. The questions I have raised are not intended to embarrass, but what the consumer gets from liquid he buys has been the subject of recent publicity and assurances on these points would be well received from my right hon. Friend.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) asked about consultation with the glass manufacturers. Such consultation was the reason for the delay in presenting the Order. We have had a series of discussions with the manufacturers. They were worried, with some justification, about the possible quick development of this method of dispensing beer and cider and that they might have left on their hands a large supply of stamped glasses which the publicans will not take because they will be under no obligation to have stamped glasses if they have these dispensers. I think that we put their fears at rest.
  When one takes into account the total number of "pubs" and hotels selling beer and cider, the number of measuring dispensers is comparatively few. Therefore, the need for stamped glasses is still considerable, and I am sure that the manufacturers will have no trouble in getting rid of all the stocks they nave. Indeed, I believe that the demand for the manufacture of stamped glasses will go on for some time.
  I shall not be drawn into discussion about whether glasses should be provided at football matches. I shall certainly not comment on whether it is foreign visitors who are likely to misbehave themselves. I am convinced that the World Cup matches will be carried on in a friendly atmosphere and that there will be no trouble at any of the grounds involved.
  The hon. Member for Brierly Hill (Mr. Talbot) also asked about instructions to weights and measures inspectors for regular examination of these machines or instruments to make sure that they go on dispensing full measure. We did not bring the Order forward without full consideration of the machines and how they operate and how long they can be relied upon to give full measure. The examination of all these matters is another reason why there is some delay in bringing forward an Order of this kind.
  The weights and measures inspectors have been looking, by arrangement with the trade, at these dispensers and making sure that they operate satisfactorily. They are convinced that they do. From experience, they now know how frequently they should go along and make sure that everything is in perfect working order.

  367
  In a case like this, it is not necessary for the Board of Trade to give instructions to the inspectors. They have their own institution, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been involved in local government, and they consult among themselves. They also do research into matters of this kind.
  The inspectors can be relied upon to make sure that their visits have some relation to the length of time that they know that these machines will go on dispensing full measure. Of course, the Board of Trade is involved and consulted, but from my experience I would say that this is one of those happy associations between central and local government where there is no conflict of any kind—at any rate I have never come across any—because all these matters are discussed in such a sensible way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) asked how the customer will know that he is getting full measure. The mark will be on the glass cylinder of the machine and there will be a clear indication, by some device, that the measure is a half pint. My experience is that these machines dispense only half pints, but under the regulations pints could be dispensed if anybody gets around to making a machine to do so. The customer will be able to see the mark on the glass container.
  My hon. Friend also asked whether the Order dealt with the marking of bottles and cans. I regret to tell him that it does not do so. It deals only with draught beer and cider, and the very serious problem, which he has so frequently raised, about the proper marking of quantity on bottles and cans will have to be dealt with outside the scope of the Order.
  The hon. Member for Barkston Ash referred to the drafting of sub-paragraph (ii). I assure him that, having decided what we intend the Order to do—and I think that we now all understand what it is intended to do—we have to leave it to the draftsmen to make sure that we have it all in legal shape. I would not like at this stage to start arguing whether the legal language should be altered. So far as I am concerned, it will do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Weights and Measures (Exemption) (Beer and Cider) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

  PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
  9.12 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert W. Bowden): I beg to move,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to review the law of Parliamentary Privilege as it affects this House and the procedure by which cases of privilege are raised and dealt with in this House and to report whether any changes in the law of privilege or practice of the House are desirable:
  That Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. James Ramsden, Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. G. R. Strauss, and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe be Members of the Committee:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:
  That three be the Quorum.
  The House may recall that during the last Parliament there were two occasions when the Committee of Privileges had before it cases recommended to it by the House to decide whether Parliamentary privilege should be invoked. During the course of our deliberations on those two cases, we concluded that it was obvious to us as members of that Committee that a rather longer and cooler look should be given to the whole subject of Parliamentary privilege. That was confirmed at the time by articles in the newspapers, and I recall particularly one learned article by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) with which I considerably agreed.
  I said in a debate at the time that I felt that at some time the House should consider looking at the whole subject of Parliamentary privilege, certainly not with a view to adding to our privileges, but looking at the position as it was, because, when it has to deal with cases, the present Committee of Privileges is always bogged down with precedents and, rather as with Standing Order No. 9 at the moment, is tied by what has happened over many years in the past.
  The Motion is in accordance with the promise given to the House at the time

  369
  seriously to consider whether we should set up a special Select Committee to consider the: subject of Parliamentary privilege. It was felt, and I entirely agreed, that this should be done by the Committee of Privileges itself, because, as will be appreciated, at any moment it might be involved in having to take a decision on a matter referred to it by the House as to whether Parliamentary privilege should be invoked.
  The Select Committee which I am now proposing has terms of reference which have been agreed in the usual way through the usual channels. They will give the proposed Select Committee an opportunity to look at the whole subject of the law of Parliamentary privilege as it affects the House, bearing in mind that there is no desire whatever to add to our privileges in any way. It will be appreciated that this is a very difficult task and may take some considerable time. It is a task which, I am sure, ought to be carried out distinctly and apart from the review of any immediate case which might come before the Select Committee of Privileges itself. That is why the proposal is in this form.
  The composition of the Select Committee has, of course, in the usual way, been a matter of discussion through the usual channels. We have combined the experience of hon. Members who have been here for many years with that of newer Members who may have some new ideas a ad with that of Members representing the legal profession. I know that they have an onerous task to do. I think that the selection has been about right, and I hope that the House will approve the setting up of this Select Committee.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am glad that the Leader of the House has given us an explanation for this Motion, the background to it and has gone into it at some length. I am glad, also, that he has mentioned that it is necessary to look back with knowledge to what has happened in the past. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House celebrates his 21st birthday here today, as I do. I wish him and myself many happy returns. I hope that I might be here in 21 years' time and to see him here, too.
  370
  It has always been understood in this House that questions of privilege should be dealt with by old and respected hon. Members. I do not mean old in years, but old in knowledge and experience of the House. Invariably, these Members have been Privy Councillors or those who have been, as we say fathers of the House. I mean fathers in the sense of membership, not because they have the largest families. These have been the sort of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have served on the Committee of Privileges and I was therefore rather surprised to see this new Committee.
  I want to raise one or two points and, first, I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for guidance. As I want to quote from the Motion, I hope that may quote the name—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking guidance of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must name hon. Members' constituencies.
  Mr. Lewis: May I have your guidance? I want to quote from the Motion and I assume that I would be in order in quoting the names of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are mentioned there because I would not be referring to them by name but referring to the Motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must refer to hon. Members of the House by their constituencies.
  Mr. Lewis: Then it will be rather difficult, because it is very hard to remember the constituencies of hon. Members. I see their names on the Order Paper, but it is the custom to pause and wait, and turn to the hon. or right hon. Gentleman to elicit his constituency from him. I can remember the names of the older Members and I will attempt to deal with them first.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is, of course, an old and respected Member. When I say old I mean old in experience of the House. Far be it from me to say that the right hon. Gentleman is old in years, because both he and his constituents, and I am certain, his constituency party would resent that. He is an experienced and respected Member of the House. He is a former Minister and he has been active in this House for many

  371
  years. No one would query his appointment. The next right hon. Member I shall refer to is the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I was about to say that his deeds are known to us. He, too, is a respected hon. Member who has given long and faithful service to the House. He is very active and can be seen going about his business, doing his stint. We know that he has been of great service to the Opposition. He was a former Minister. Here I interpose the hon. Member for—
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The zoo.
  Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether that is Parliamentary. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) boasts of the fact that he is a Member of or for the zoo; he will know which it is. I accept his point.
  I have no personal interest in this matter. I give you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the assurance that at no time in my 20 years' membership have I been asked to serve on or be associated with any Select Committee. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to know that after 21 years of endeavour I have at long last been appointed to serve on one of these bodies. But it is not the one with which we are concerned. I have no interest in or have any wish to be considered for the Select Committee proposed in this or any other Motion.
  I am serious when I mention the hard work and endeavour of the Members who serve on these Committees. I am not suggesting that I, or any other hon. Member, should or should not be in the list on the Order Paper. But I was going through the list to try to ascertain why they have been selected, appointed or adopted through, as the Leader of the House says, "the usual channels". This is an expression of personal opinion which I believe is shared by a number of hon. Members. I am wondering how these wild and weary and weird usual channels operate.
  Let me get back to the question of those who have been nominated to serve on this Select Committee. There is the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who is a very active Member. He does a lot of work for the Council of
  372
  Europe and is very often in Strasbourg. Perhaps that is where he is now. He is an old and respected Member. I know little about the next Member. I see that he has a very good name, that he is a good English man. He is the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He is probably very knowledgeable about our Parliamentary procedure.
  Then there is the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). We cannot forget the constituency of Ebbw Vale, for various reasons. It is held now by a very active Member. He is often here and often raises points which I think help the Government—and help the Opposition. I gave my hon. Friend notice that I would attack him. I hope that he does not mind my attacking him in his absence. He told me that he had a very important meeting to attend. Perhaps he has run out because he did not want to hear me attack him. He made some remark to that effect as he left.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has had great experience. He has been in the House for many years, and he has taken part in many matters connected with privilege. However, I do not think that that alone is any reason for selecting an hon. Member, because it would apply to a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have been here for 20 or 30 years. All of them claim great knowledge and experience in matters pertaining to privilege, and all of them could claim great knowledge of our procedures. They could all walk round with bundles of papers under their arms, taking a kind of market survey, saying to other hon. Members, "I came here six months ago, and I am going to set this place alight. I am the man who can really show how things should be done. If any Committee is to be set up, I ought to be on it."
  That may be the way that my hon. Friend was appointed; I do not know. I was going to say that it may be because he often creates trouble, but that would be putting my foot in it. I would not suggest that he causes trouble, but very often he has something to say and he comes forward with ideas and suggestions. That may be why he was appointed; I do not know.
  Then we have the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). His claim cannot be overlooked,

  373
  because he is right in more ways than once. Be is right hon. and honourable He is a Queen's Counsel—a legal luminary. He is very active in the House both for the Opposition and for the Government, and we are grateful to the electors of St. Marylebone for letting us have him here, because he helps us so often, and, as one of my hon. Friends says, he is very often "bonkers", but that does not matter. We like him, and we understand why he is nominated.
  I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is sitting behind me. To save being stabbed in the back, I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that I would say anything about him when he was not present. I am rather surprised that we have Members such as my hon. Friend appointed to a Committee to discuss matters connected with privilege. He has never been a member of the Committee of Privileges and has never been within the wheels of the manipulations and manœuvrings that go on within the accepted and usual channels where all the jiggery-pokery takes place. As far as I am aware, he has never been associated with it. If he has, he has been misleading not only me, but many other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  What are his qualifications? Is it because he represents a great Welsh constituency? Is it because he represents a section of the steel industry, and we have to have men of steel on the Committee? Is it because he has from time to time taken an active interest in the question of privilege? In his case, I bow to his great knowledge and experience of our Parliamentary ways and procedures. He has great knowledge and experience of privilege and has taken an active part in the business of the House over the years. Therefore, I do not complain about his being a member of the Committee. I am sure that his appointment will be pleasing to him, as it is to me. The only reason for my raising this is to ascertain how he does it. How is it that he can worm his way into this list of acceptable right hon. and hon. Gentlemen? I think that that is a fair summary of what I was saying while my hon. Friend was out of the Chamber.
  I assure my hon. Friend that when I attack him in his absence I do so not because of any personal malice or because
  374
  I have a desire to unseat him from this position. It is merely that I want to know whether he was elected to it, appointed to it, or pushed into it. If he went through the usual channels, he might tell me, either in the House or afterwards, how and where these usual channels operate. Which route does one take? How does one wriggle into them? My hon. Friend has discovered where these usual channels are. I have been trying for 21 years to discover them but have not done so. Therefore, I have not discovered how one gets into them. I must refer to my hon. Friend at length because he is the only Member on this list who is present in the Chamber. He must, therefore, carry the cross for the other hon. Members who will be appointed, selected or whatever it is, to this Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) is a greatly respected Member of the House, but he, too, is not here at the moment. He is usually present, taking an active part in our proceedings. He is certainly present when the Finance Bill is being discussed. We have heard my hon. Friend make speeches lasting for three hours. I have not spoken for that length of time, but I could go on for three hours on this subject. My hon. Friend religiously attends our debates and takes an active part in the proceedings of the House. He is the sort of Member whom I would expect to be appointed to this Committee.
  The next name on the list is that of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). I can understand him being nominated for selection because he, too, is an old respected Member of the House and has done great service for it. He knows our procedure and is obviously an ideal nomination.
  I do not know much about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), but he has a very honourable name. He is the son of a famous father, who is in another place, and the brother of our new Chief Whip. I am sure that this is not why he was nominated. It may be that he has been nominated because he is a great lawyer, but even this is doubtful because there are many other great lawyers on both sides of the House who have not

  375
  been nominated to this Committee. Anyway, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be an active Member of the Committee, if and when it is selected.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth—
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Vauxhall.
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is a Scottish Member and therefore does not know that Vauxhall and Lambeth are the same. Whatever the Boundary Commission may say, we know our London, and Vauxhall and Lambeth are the same. Vauxhall is part of Lambeth. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is also an old and respected Member of this House. He has been very active over the years. He is a former Minister of Transport, and he has great knowledge of our rules of procedure, and so on. Then we come to the solitary Liberal Member. Again the usual channels have been working in order to insure proper representation.
  Mr. David Steel indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member shakes his head, but I am sure that the usual channels worked for his hon. Friend. He was not present when my right hon. Friend spoke or he would have heard my right hon. Friend say that the names were collected by the usual channels. He must accept the word of my right hon. Friend that the usual channels operated in the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). He was probably selected because he is another great lawyer. A surprising number of lawyers are selected to serve on these Committees.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: The House is full of them.
  Mr. Lewis: Not at the moment. Many of them are often busy in the courts, but not at this time of night. It is difficult to find lawyers in the actual Chamber.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: There are at least three lawyers in the House now.
  Mr. Lewis: Three out of 300 is not a bad percentage.
  376
  Anyway, I have been sitting here working out how the names on this list were selected. It could not have been because of length of service, and it could not have been entirely on the question of knowledge of procedure, although my right hon. Friend said that he took cognisance of those points.
  I should point out that I have no desire to be considered for or in any way associated with this or any other Select Committee. If I were selected, I would refuse to serve. But I want to know about the usual channels because new Members often approach me and ask, "How does one find out where the usual channels are? Where is the office? Where is the door? How does one get in?" They have not been here for ten minutes, however—and certainly not for three months—before they not only know the usual channels but are running them, while hon. Members who have been here for twenty or thirty years are still trying to find out where they are. In no time at all these new Members become Parliamentary Private Secretaries, Deputy Whips and then Chief Whips, and they are there.
  But when new Members ask me where the usual channels are, I cannot tell them. I want to find out, so that I can say to them, "I declare that I do not want anything to do with it, but as you are a new Member who has not found the golden key, I can tell you how to go about it.
  I do not know why the Motion was framed in this manner, so that we had no opportunity of tabling Amendments. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will agree that I am in no way connected with the usual channels. I have never been consulted by the usual channels about anything—as would be expected. But I want to know how this list was decided upon by the usual channels. How is it done? Do hon. Members write in? Is it done by ballot?—because we have ballots. I must admit that sometimes, such as when we go through the procedure of balloting for private Members' time, the Whips on both sides come along and try to interfere. Although we have come to a democratic decision on a free vote that we shall have a certain amount of private Members' time, the Whips come along and try to interfere. Do hon. Members write in or do they whisper in someone's ear, "If there is a job going or

  377
  a chance of getting on a committee, how can I do so? Do I have to get into the packet of some body or ask someone?"
  I should have liked to make some suggestions about hon. Members who would have been useful on this committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) is a past-in aster on the question of privilege. He certainly knows a little about it and would have been an ideal member of the Committee. He could have been considered through the usual channels. Perhaps he was. If not, why not?
  Other hon. Members might feel that they would like to have served on this or any other committee. My point is a general one. There is another hon. and learned Gentleman who is a little non persona grata with the Front Bench at the moment, but he is knowledgeable and is another legal gentleman—
  Mr. Bence: The hon. and learned M ember for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend tells me who he is although I have discussed this with no hon. Member present. I tell a lie: I had two words with the Leader of the House to tell him that I would oppose the Motion, but that is not a discussion.
  One of the new hon. Members is also on the Committee. A brilliant Parliamentarian, my witty and lovable hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), has been looking for a job and the Front Bench would have been wise to consider him for some such position as this, as he has a deep and intimate knowledge of our rules and procedure. He could spare the time to serve on the Committee. Perhaps he was given this opportunity: I do not know—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House is having a discussion with a Whip. They need not talk about moving the closure, because it is not my intention to talk the Motion out. The Chief Whip need not have me on the carpet for opposing Government business, because this is not Government business but House of Commons business. Some of my hon. Friends may say that it is terrible of me to oppose Government business. I sometimes do that and I probably will do it in future. However, this is not Government business, so I hope that my hon. Friends who want to be 100 per cent.—
  378
  plus loyal to the Government will accept that this is House of Commons business and that, as such, hon. Members should take great interest in it. I will, therefore, not attempt to talk it out.
  Having said that, even if this discussion were to continue until 10 o'clock I do not think that the Closure should be moved because, after all, there is no real urgency about this. It could be discussed on another occasion. The House has not had long to discuss it tonight, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not consider that I have spoken for too long. I do not often speak in the House and we do not often discuss these Committees. We tend to appoint them on the nod. That is why many hon. Members want to know how hon. Members are appointed to them, and if my right hon. Friend does not get this through tonight there will be nothing to prevent him from bringing it forward on another occasion, when I may wish to table Amendments. Then I may wish to name certain hon. Members who might like to volunteer to take part in the Committee's deliberations. If hon. Members who are interested would have a word with me, I might, if the matter came up on another occasion, table suitably worded Amendments to get them included on the Committee.
  Some hon. Members are on two, three or more Select Committees. They come to those of us who are not on them and tell us how hard they are working. We smile with glee to think of the hard work they are doing, but some of those who are smiling might also like the opportunity to take part in the deliberations of these Committees. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not suggest that an hon. Member need only put his name forward for appointment to these Committees. I know of some hon. Members who have tried for 10, 15, 20 and even 30 years to get on to Select Committees—who have tried through the usual channels and in every other way—but have not been successful. We see, therefore, that hon. Members are not appointed by that means. How are they appointed? My right hon. Friend should give an explanation.
  Why, for example, has my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale been chosen for this work? After all, he has not been the most passive, helpful and obliging hon. Member on

  379
  occasions. [Interruption.] It is true that he has tried to be helpful, but I do not see why that should qualify him to become a member of this Committee when those of my hon. Friends who did not insist on the House debating Vietnam should not be selected. Is it because my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale insisted that we debate Vietnam that his name was put forward? Or is there some other reason? If that is the reason, some of us could also clamour for a debate on Vietnam—not I, because I do not want to serve on the Committee, but some of my hon. Friends who would like to serve might clamour.
  I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some information about how all this is done. I hope that he will not tell me that which is true—[Laughter.] I assure the House that that was an unconscious faux pas, because I would not for a moment suggest that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would tell me anything that was untrue. But I hope that he will not just tell me that which is true in regard to the other side; that the Tories, when in power, used to do the same thing. I know that those usual channels worked in the same way when the party opposite was in power, but I expected that a Labour Government would operate the usual channels rather differently.
  Appointment to these Committees should be discussed openly. The Committee of Selection might be drawn in. It might be possible to have a system of nomination, with names put on the Order Paper and hon. Members asked whether they would like to serve. I emphasise that I myself do not want to serve on this or any other Select Committee, but after an hon. Member has served the House for 20, 21, 22, or 30 years it would be nice for him at least on one occasion to be asked by the usual channels whether he would like to serve on one of these Committees or do this or that.
  That would be welcome to the Member, and it would not mean too much trouble for the usual channels occasionally to ask long-serving and industrious Members whether they would like to serve. There are many hon. Members who could give good service. They are very knowledgeable and very experienced in all the ways of the House, and would
  380
  welcome the opportunity to serve. It would be helpful to the House, too, if they were asked to sit on such Committees—
  Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: Am I to take it that my hon. Friend is saying to the House that he would very much welcome an approach through the usual channels to sit on a number of Committees?
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member has completely misunderstood me. I want the usual channels to approach hon. Members who have been here a long time and who would welcome the opportunity to serve; Members who have shown an interest over many years, and who would be ideally suited for the work. If the hon. Member asks whether I want such an invitation, I must repeat that years ago, as a young Member with only two or three years' experience, I tried to get on these Committees. I tried for seven or eight years through the usual channels, but met with no success. As a result, about 10 years ago I decided, first, do not ask; secondly, do not expect, and thirdly, do not want. I do not want or expect to serve, and I would not go on any of these Committees. Nevertheless, there are some hon. Members who would, and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider my suggestion. I can see that I have at last got some hon. Members opposite interested in this subject, and I hope that the House will have the opportunity to put down Amendments to this Motion.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: We have had a rare opportunity this evening of listening to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) making a long and somewhat tortuous speech. I am sure that we are all delighted that at long last he has reached his great goal in public life, membership of the Kitchen Committee or whatever it was.
  I support this Motion which seems to provide for a Committee with a pretty well-balanced membership. I shall not go into detail, but there will be Members of all three parties on it and we could say that all the attributes are here we have art and science, and letters joined. These hon. Members have a wide measure of Parliamentary experience.

  381
  We also have an element of controversy in the presence of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It might be said in deference to the hon. Member for West Ham, North that this Committee will contain not a single Tory baronet. What better Committee could We have to look at new aspects of privilege? I am only sorry that in all the years of experience I have had in this House I know of no "usual channel" through which the hon. Member for West Ham, North could possibly pass.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was hoping that as there are still five minutes to ten o'clock the Leader of the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot speak again without leave of the House.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I ask the leave of the House for a few minutes reply?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to review the law of Parliamentary Privilege as it affects this House and the procedure by which cases of privilege are raised and dealt with in this House and to report whether any changes in the law of privilege or practice of the House are desirable:
  That Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. James Ramsden, Mr. S. C. Silkin, Mr. G. R. Strauss, and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe be Members of the Committee:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:
  That three be the Quorum.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Mr. Edward Short discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. John Silkin added.—[Mr. McBride.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (GRADUATED CONTRIBUTIONS)
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 549), dated 9th May 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be annulled.
  We cannot provide for your edification, Mr. Deputy Speaker, between the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and myself, the same kind of delightful pantomime to which we have listened for three-quarters of an hour, but we will do our best.
  I shall take a moment for introduction of this matter because of what must occur at ten o'clock. In accordance with our normal practice on this side of the House, we always study very closely any Statutory Instrument emanating from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates. We are very much obliged to him for being present tonight to deal with this one, which is a matter of detail, but none the less of important detail.
  The first question which I shall be obliged if he can deal with is a small matter of detail. I ask that he should clarify the date on which these Regulations will come into force. This, as he will know, is dealt with by the first paragraph of the Instrument, which, in turn, refers back to Clause 14 of the National Insurance Act, 1966, which, as it were, is the father Act of this Statutory Instrument. It does not seem absolutely clear as a result of Clause 14(4) on what date the Regulations will come into force. One would not expect the Act to specify an individual date and it seems quite clear from the parent Act that it is impossible for different dates to be selected for different parts of the Act and different Statutory Instruments under the Act.
  To deal with a small point of detail, could the hon. Gentleman say the date on which his right hon. Friend expects these Regulations to come into effect?
  384
  The principal complaint that we raise by way of the Prayer is that this is one more example of amendment piling upon amendment piling upon amendment. This makes life extraordinarily difficult for those who have the task of interpreting these Regulations, or advising upon them. Anybody who has to go through these matters, which are important, starts with the substantial Statutory Instrument No. 921 of 1960, the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Regulations 1960. That is the parent Statutory Instrument.
  He then finds that a first, comparatively modest, amendment was made in 1962. It refers only to holiday payments, but it nevertheless amends the first Statutory Instrument from which this all flows. He must then go to a second, and much more complicated amendment, the National Insurance (Consequential Provisions) Regulations, 1963. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has read all these Statutory Instruments carefully. The difficulty of the 1963 Statutory Instrument is that it makes a number of detailed amendments not only to that to which I have referred, but to others, so that one has to go through it very carefully to see whether it makes reference to the parent Instrument of 1960.
  I have only to pile the books on the Dispatch Box, hiding myself virtually from the Parliamentary Secretary, to illustrate my point. On top of that pile, we are now adding these Regulations.
  The Parliamentary Secretary may reply that I have only to look at Schedules 1 and 2 to find set out in neat new column form the figures that I require for the amounts of the payments and contributions. He may well be tempted to reply to me in that way, but, if he does, I shall beg him to cast his eye back through the previous Statutory Instruments, to which I have just referred. He will find that the amendments are far wider than merely the columns of figures, and anybody seeking to advise upon these matters will be wise to go through four different Instruments.
  That is the main point of my complaint tonight. In principle, we are not trying to hold up the coming into operation of the new Regulations, but will

  385
  the hon. Gentleman, as a result of tonight's discussion, make representations in his Department? I realise only too well that this is largely a technical matter upon which any Minister must largely act upon advice. Will the hon. Gentleman at least say that in future, when new Regulations of this kind, which affect large numbers of people in a very human way, are to come into force, it is desirable, where there are many amendments, to bring them forward together in one new, clean document? That would be of great assistance to those who have to deal with these matters.
  It is not too much to ask, and it would be no bad thing if both the Minister and those who advise him appreciated that we on this side keep a close eye on these matters and wish to make that representation to him. I have deliberately taken very little time on the matter. It is not one of life and death urgency, like our last discussion was, but it is a human and important point on which we hope to have a reply.
  10.5 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): The first question raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) was about the date on which the Regulations come into operation. This will be the date on which Section 1 of the 1966 Act comes into operation. The link is inevitable, because Section 1 is the provision introducing the new graduated contribution rates and the new ranges of weekly earnings on which contributions are to be charged. Clearly, we must bring into force, at the same time, the contribution tables giving effect to these rates and the ranges of earnings on which contributions are to be charged in the case of those paid otherwise than weekly.
  At the time the Regulations were made, the date of the coming into operation of Section 1 had not been finally determined, for obvious reasons which the hon. Gentleman will understand. It was, therefore, not possible to specify the date in the Regulations but it has since been fixed as 5th October, 1966, in a separate Instrument. That Instrument is known as the National Insurance
  386
  Act 1966 (Commencement) (No. 2) Order, 1966.
  The Government are anxious to bring into force as soon as possible the new earnings related supplement to unemployment and sickness benefits and widows' allowance. They will commence in the first week of October, and we must introduce the new contributions to meet the cost of them at the same time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, also.
  The Regulations were made at the beginning of May to give employers as much notice as possible of the contribution changes, and I assure the House that considerable publicity has already been given, and will continue to be given, to the changes which we are making. In particular, all employers with contracted-out employees who will now have to commence paying graduated contributions for them for the first time were sent a memorandum explaining the new provisions at the time of the making of the Regulations. They will not, of course, be unfamiliar with the graduated contributions as the vast majority of employers have employees who are not contracted out of the graduated pension scheme.
  The other matter to which the hon. Gentleman attached great importance was his criticism of the Regulations because they amend Regulations already amended. I do not feel that there is much in this point. As he said, the parent Regulations were made in 1960, when graduated contributions were first introduced by the previous Administration. Then they were amended in 1962 in relation to the treatment of holiday pay, but this amendment did not affect the provisions now under consideration.
  There have been only two sets of amendments to these provisions—those made in 1963 to give effect to the increased contributions introduced in that year and the present ones occasioned by the further increase in contributions. Therefore, the present amendments are practically self-contained. Except for the minor consequential amendment in Regulation 3(2), they merely substitute a new Regulation about the amounts on which graduated contributions are to be charged in the case of those remunerated otherwise than weekly, and new contribution tables for the existing ones.

  387
  This type of straightforward amendment is common form in Regulations concerned with rates of contribution or benefit and should not give rise to much difficulty. In any event, employers will have the assistance of a revised edition of the "Employer's Guide to Graduated National Insurance Contributions" and copies of the new sets of contribution tables will be distributed by the Ministry. Therefore, in general, employers will not have to work things out from the Regulations alone. So the hon. Gentleman can dispel any fears he has in that regard.
  For those who need to have recourse to the Regulations, however, the existing Regulations, as amended in 1962 and 1963, are available in convenient form in the consolidated edition of "The Law Relating to Family Allowances and National Insurance", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and stocked, I imagine, by most public reference and legal libraries. I again assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be amended to take account of these new Regulations in the very near future.
  As the hon. Gentleman has said, these Regulations are highly complicated and very technical. I have taken note of what he has said with regard to the
  388
  information which has to be passed on to my Department, but I trust that he is happy with the explanation, brief though it has been, and the assurance I have given him on the specific points he has raised.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I am obliged for the very helpful way in which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with this matter. The hon. Gentleman is always helpful. It was I who pointed out that the first amending Regulations do not affect these Regulations, but this illustrates the point I was seeking to make about the difficulty of this matter. One has to ensure that they do not affect the Regulations, because they are referred to in this Statutory Instrument. Obviously, common prudence dictates that one ensures that they do not affect these Regulations.
  However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It was very helpful to have brought out the point about consolidated Regulations being available in a different form. In view of the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has given the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL SCHOOLS (SUPERVISORS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  10.14 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may ask why I am raising the question of the pay and conditions of supervisors employed in children's residential special schools. It is not a constituency problem, although it was first brought to my attention by people from a school in my constituency. I received a letter from these persons who brought the matter to my attention. They say:
  "We, the undersigned, write for no personal gain, for we are both leaving the Service in September to commence studies at university and Teachers' Training College respectively."
  It is perhaps symptomatic of the service that they are leaving. Accompanying the letter was a very good report which those concerned had obviously been to great trouble to compile, and I think you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that normally when one leaves a certain job, perhaps in a state of frustration, one is only too glad to shake the dust from one's feet. It is, therefore, to the credit of those concerned that in this case that is not what they did but that for the good of the service they brought the matter to my attention. Accompanying their letter was a good number of signatures from various special schools in different parts of the country concurring generally in the approach the two sponsors had made.
  What are these special schools? There are five basic types—for the delicate, the educationally subnormal, the maladjusted, the physically handicapped and the deaf. I have no doubt, although obviously I have not been able to extend ray inquiries all over the country, that these five basic types cover a wide range.
  No one can doubt that the task of fitting the children in the schools to take a normal place in society is a highly skilled job. It needs devoted care, even dedication. It would be fair to say that it needs perhaps a higher degree of skill than at a normal school. The penalties of failure are probably very high. At worst, perhaps the inmate who goes out
  390
  into the world might be condemned to a life of crime; at best to unhappiness and, perhaps, failure in life.
  It is against that background that the work and responsibility of the supervisors have to be assessed. In 1963 a working party was empanelled, following the head teachers' conference at Swaylands Special School, and produced a report of the"circumstances of recruitment, conditions of service and employment of children's supervisors. So far as I can ascertain, little action was taken on it, although I intend tonight to make fairly wide quotations from the report.
  Now I come to the duties of the supervisors. According to an advertisement that one might see for such a post, the job is to look after small groups of pupils after school hours. But that gives no indication of the type of work expected. The supervisors have to enter into full-scale participation in the total development of the children, and I want to quote here from the report.
  "It is important to realise that children in school do not have the normal home influences which most children enjoy and that such aspects of growing up as toilet training, acquiring acceptable feeding habits, habits of cleanliness in washing, bathing and care of teeth, have to be taught in school. In addition, social behaviour in and out of school is largely a matter of precept, example and training and it is the business of the school to inculcate habits of obedience, politeness and courtesy to adults and children. The bulk of the responsibility falls on the Supervisors who in this very important respect stand in the place of parents."
  The report also says:
  "Due to a variety of reasons, chief among them is probably the increased day provisions for handicapped children, all residential Special Schools are dealing with an increasing number of children who are emotionally disturbed, in many cases seriously. This poses problems of handling, care and discipline which are not easily solved. What has hitherto been the work of the Specialist Schools is now common to us all and requires qualities of resilience and stability in staff which are not easily found….
  Wrong handling can increase the strain on a school to breaking point and of course is disastrous to the children themselves."
  These supervisors are not passive overseers. The children spend about 25 hours a week in school classes, so 143 hours remain, out of which about 70 hours is the estimate for sleep and about 70 hours out of classrooms, most of that time in the care of the supervisors. When

  391
  one considers what is at stake and the responsibilities on the shoulders of the supervisors, it is obviously vitally important to recruit the right type of person. It is disquieting in some respects to read in the report:
  "Although great care is taken during appointment and in following up confidential reports, most Heads are only too unhappily aware that candidates"—
  that is, for the post of supervisor—
  "do succeed in obtaining employment as Supervisors who are not temperamentally or morally suitable to work with children. A period of training resulting in a recognised qualification would enable a much more accurate assessment of a person's suitability for the work and could go some way to avoiding the appointment to schools of the undesirable characters whose actions have given rise to so much trouble in the past."
  That is a rather serious indictment of some of the recruiting which has taken place. Time is getting on and so I will not give some further quotations which I had intended to give, but my investigations have revealed a good many shortages at many of these colleges.
  I want to spend a few minutes discussing the duties of the supervisors. These, as the supervisors admit themselves, are rewarding but tough. Assaults are frequent. It is natural that in class children should submit to a certain amount of discipline, but when they come out of class they assert themselves. It may interest the Parliamentary Secretary to hear that I saw two of my friends just before the debate began. They had been on to the school in my constituency, who told them that one of the supervisors had had a ball thrown at him and had had a bone in his ankle broken and his nose broken. That happened today.
  To give a rough idea of the pattern of duty; from 7.30 a.m. to 9 a supervisor may be on duty, from 9 to 12 off, from 12 to 2 on, and from 2 to 4 off, and so on, with the last duty 5.15 to 8.30. A routine can be laid down to some extent, but obviously in schools of this sort, as in others, there cannot be a shift system. For example, on seven days out of 21, they are on dormitory duty, which means being on duty from 8 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. with three and a quarters hours off in a day.
  Other duties include supervisors' meetings, held in their own time; times "on
  392
  call", as it is known, with no set time or days; availability for escort of boys to hospital, the dentist, and collecting boys from home. There are out-of-school activities such as the savings scheme, the care of pets, cycling parties, which is a great responsibility with such children, and group activities such as stamp collecting, art, scouting and so on. In addition there is all the preparation made by the supervisors in their spare time for such occupations.
  Another extract from the report is illuminating. It says:
  "A leaflet issued to intending supervisors by one school for maladjusted boys in our area—"
  that is in my constituency, states:
  "No fixed hours of duty are specified. Supervisors are appointed to carry out duties as determined by the headmaster, the hours being as required by the nature of employment. Entitlement is to one clear day off each week, only in exceptional circumstances should rest days not to be taken … and so on."
  A reasonable estimate of the hours put in by a supervisor is something over 50 hours per week with the additional "on call" days.
  That is some idea of the responsibilities of children's supervisors and the special qualities and skills needed by them. I would like to have a short look at pay and conditions and the status of supervisors. First of all, pay. I obviously cannot go into detail in view of the time that I have left, but I want to show that it is grossly inadequate for the responsibilities of the people concerned. This is the salary scale at the schools with which I am concerned. It begins at £525 a year, rising to £675 a year, rising by August, 1966, to £725 a year. An annual deduction of £133 is made for board and residence. The report says:
  "For our part we receive monthly cheques in the region of £44. After all deductions, superannuation, board and residence, about £24 remains."
  The report of the panel formed had the net effect of raising the starting pay by £10 per annum in 1964, from £515 to £525. That puts the seamen's demands or any other demands in some sort of perspective.
  It is interesting to note that when this happened the Middlesex County Council raised the board and residence charge by £9 so that the supervisor was left with £1 net rise in the year. There is a good deal

  393
  more, but I have not time to give it. The rates vary"between authorities, and this is one of the difficulties; everyone seems to compete with everyone else in offering different salary scales. I inquired from Surrey County Council and it had no supervisors at all. They pay their teachers an additional £300 a year for so many extra hours' work a week. It seems to work very well, and it may be a thing which ought to be looked into.
  That, briefly, deals with their pay. Now may I quote some remarks from the report about their living conditions. It says:
  "We feel that insufficient attention has been given in the past to the living conditions and amenities which are offered to our Supervisors. We have to remember that the life we ask them to lead is in many occasions isolated and unnatural. They are required to work at times when the rest of the world is free, at evenings and especially weekends."
  There is a good deal more to the same effect.
  If I may, I will now give a few more intimate details about the actual living accommodation in the schools. The bed-sitters for the residential staff, including the supervisors, are in the main school buildings and naturally suffer from any disturbances. These may seem small things, but they are very important, as anyone who has studied these sorts of things knows.
  It was found, for example, that one room was very close to the kitchens, and the noise from domestic appliances such as potato peelers and washing machines caused disturbance. Another room was adjacent to the haircutting and medical room, with constant traffic in and out. Another room was between two dormitories, and the supervisor could not put on his record player or entertain guests because he disturbed the dormitories. Another had a bed-sitter above the staff room and, as a result, was kept awake.
  Those working in the schools realise that they must accept noise and inconvenience, but, due to the fact that many of the buildings housing these children were not designed for schools, the living accommodation cannot be away from the main buildings, and that is a most vital need so as to give the staff opportunities for rest and relaxation. If it was provided, it would prove to be one of the most decisive steps towards attracting residential
  394
  staff. In addition, of course, food is also important.
  Then I come to status, and again I quote from the report:
  "For too long Supervisors have hovered uneasily in status between the domestic and professional staff. Every effort should be made to integrate supervisory staff into the total life of the school. It is important to realise that they should feel valued and that all staff, teaching as well as non-teaching, should understand that the work of Children's Supervisors is skilled, exacting, professional work."
  Pay and conditions are important to status, of course. But, in addition, the 1963 report recommended that a training centre be established and a recognised qualification granted. I believe that that would be more important than anything else in improving the status of these men.
  Finally, I summarise the five points which I ask the Minister to consider. Firstly, on salaries, there should be a national scale for children's supervisors and allied workers. There must be an increase in the present salaries to bring them in line with the responsibilities of the work. Secondly, there should be a fixed upper limit on the number of hours worked, because there is none at present, and all time worked after that should be paid overtime. I believe that the police have a scheme to meet this, and that might be looked at. Thirdly, on living conditions, there should be a building programme to give a basic standard of accommodation, and, most important, living quarters should be away from the main school building. Fourthly, there should be a training centre with recognised qualifications for supervisors being trained. Fifthly, there should be a standard advertisement setting out the conditions of work, and the conditions of service should be available at interviews.
  I hope that the Minister will consider these points very seriously. If he cannot promise acceptance now, I hope that he will at least promise to inquire into the situation, with a view to correcting what I believe to be a very great evil today.
  10.35 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): In the short time available to me I shall deal as fully as I can with the points raised by the hon. and gallant

  395
  Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). May I first say that this is an opportune moment for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be raising this question. In fact, it is rather more opportune than even the hon. and gallant Gentleman may believe, because tomorrow my right hon. Friend's own advisory committee on handicapped children will meet to start some new deliberations into this whole problem, in addition to other research and thought with which I shall deal shortly.
  At the moment there is probably more thinking going on about the whole of this problem than there has been for some years past. I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, and the report on which he drew for his comments. I had not had the opportunity of reading or knowing about this report until the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned it, but I assure him that I shall study it to see whether there are any lessons which my Department or I ought to draw from it.
  It goes without saying that we all wish to endorse what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about the dedication of these people. I think that was the word the hon. and gallant Gentleman used, and I do not disagree with him. I do not think that it is too strong a word to use about the people to whom the whole of our society should be grateful, these folk who give so much of their lives to dealing with the categories of children about whom we are talking.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted five categories of children. I had listed seven categories, in the hope of giving them to the House, and perhaps I might therefore add two to those listed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. These are the blind and partially sighted children, and epileptic children, both very important and large groups of children. It is impossible to be too enthusiastic about the work of those who are responsible for the education of these children.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman was concerned about the pay and conditions of these supervisors. There is no doubt about the esteem in which we hold them, but I think that I ought to say, as I attempted to say on an earlier occasion when the hon. and gallant Gentleman
  396
  questioned me about these matters, that it has always been the practice that the House of Commons and the Government cannot accept direct responsibility for salary negotiations in the case of these special residential schools. They are covered by the National Joint Negotiating Committee for Local Authority Services, and I think that there is a special sub-committee which deals with the special residential schools category as well as other categories affecting the Home Department and other local authority residential homes.
  It is important for us to remember that there are 336 residential schools, with a total of 21,000 residential places for children who are unfortunate enough to be in these categories. I am aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn upon his experience in his constituency where there are one or two schools, but the fact is that there are 336 of these schools with 21,000 residential places in them. In order to get the picture into perspective, I should point out that there are another 50,000 handicapped children who receive their education in day schools, and not in boarding schools. It is clear that conditions vary considerably among these 336 schools.
  Clearly, in some of the schools conditions are likely to be first-class. I would like to see them first-class in all. I agree that the learned Member may be aware of some schools where conditions are not up to the standards that we would like to see. I can only tell him that this is a local authority matter, but that I shall be delighted, if he will let me have details of the schools to which he referred, to see that they are personally investigated by my Department. It is the practice that H.M. Inspectorate, who constantly keep in touch with the schools, as far as possible, take up with them points which they feel to be important. The schools themselves are very well aware of the constant need for new thinking in this regard.
  On the question of a further inquiry, which the hon. Member raised earlier by way of a Question, I must tell him again that such an inquiry is already well under way, being chaired by Professor Lady Williams, who is well known in this field, on behalf of a committee of the National Council of Social Service. I am advised that the committee, which

  397
  has gone into all the questions that the hon. Member has raised, has been extremely thorough in its investigations and has taken a great deal of evidence, and I know that he will be encouraged to know that its report is now in draft form. Again, I will see that all he has said this evening is conveyed to Professor Lady Williams and her colleagues, in order that they can have the advantage of the hon. Members comments before finalising their report.
  I cannot stress enough the importance that the Government have always placed on the question of the independent negotiation of salaries. This is not something in which Ministers can directly intervene. It is sufficient for me to say that I am quite clear that the case that he has been putting forward this evening will be considered by the National Joint Negotiating Committee, and I hope that it will have realistic and sympathetic regard to his remarks. I am certain—having had a little experience of the way in which these joint negotiating committees work, and the importance of all employees belonging to their appropriate organisation so that they can have their point of view adequately presented in these negotiations and discussions—that the people whose job it is to put forward a case on behalf of teachers and supervisors will be quoting and praying in
  398
  aid the remarks of the hon. Member when they next negotiate their case.
  I finish by repeating the five conditions to which the hon. Member referred. Salaries and hours of work are questions for the National Joint Negotiating Committee, and I have no doubt that the Committee will have regard to what the hon. Member has said. Living conditions are matters for each local authority. We are aware of the constant need to keep them up to date and the hon. Member would expect that in my Department there is tremendous sympathy for the whole field of education of the handicapped. In the Department of Education they often get more consideration than other branches, and I am delighted that that is so.
  Training centres and qualifications, and standard advertisements are matters that I had not previously thought about, but I will give the hon. Member an undertaking that I will think about them—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TECHNOLOGY
  Dounreay Experimental Research Establishment (Research Facilities)
  Dounreay Experimental Research Establishment (Research Facilities)
  Nuclear Ships
  Nuclear Ships
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Departmental Staff (Security)
  Departmental Staff (Security)
  Arms and Weapons of War
  Arms and Weapons of War
  Scientific Research Establishments (Selective Employment Tax)
  Scientific Research Establishments (Selective Employment Tax)
  Scientific Manpower (Committee Report)
  Scientific Manpower (Committee Report)
  Research Stations
  Research Stations
  British Computers
  British Computers
  Automation Projects
  Automation Projects
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £Sterling
  £Sterling
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Income Tax (State Retirement Pensions)
  Income Tax (State Retirement Pensions)
  P.A.Y.E. (Construction and Civil Engineering Industries)
  P.A.Y.E. (Construction and Civil Engineering Industries)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Inland Revenue (Administrative Grade Officers)
  Inland Revenue (Administrative Grade Officers)
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
  B.A.O.R. (Support Costs)
  B.A.O.R. (Support Costs)
  Finance Bills and Associated White Papers (Printing Costs)
  Finance Bills and Associated White Papers (Printing Costs)
  Customs (Cost of Control and Duty Collected)
  Customs (Cost of Control and Duty Collected)
  Government Publications (Printing Costs)
  Government Publications (Printing Costs)
  Blind Persons (Tax Allowance)
  Blind Persons (Tax Allowance)
  Retail Sales Tax
  Retail Sales Tax
  Investment Overseas
  Investment Overseas
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Dawley New Town (Consultants' Report)
  Dawley New Town (Consultants' Report)
  Rate Collection (Lancaster and Oldham)
  Rate Collection (Lancaster and Oldham)
  Government Sites (Circular 100 Procedure)
  Government Sites (Circular 100 Procedure)
  Nuclear War (Disposal of Urban Population)
  Nuclear War (Disposal of Urban Population)
  Private Streets (Existing Laws)
  Private Streets (Existing Laws)
HOUSING
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  London Rent Assessment Panel (Outstanding Cases)
  London Rent Assessment Panel (Outstanding Cases)
  Option Mortgage Scheme (Discussions)
  Option Mortgage Scheme (Discussions)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Commonwealth Secretariat (Programme)
  Commonwealth Secretariat (Programme)
  Salaries and Administrative Expenses
  Salaries and Administrative Expenses
  Oversea Migration Board (Servicing Cost)
  Oversea Migration Board (Servicing Cost)
  Commonwealth Countries (British Journalists (Expulsion)
  Commonwealth Countries (British Journalists (Expulsion)
NIGERIA
  Press Correspondent (Deportation)
  Press Correspondent (Deportation)
RHODESIA
  Anglo-Zambian Talks
  Anglo-Zambian Talks
  Radio Zambia (Z.A.N.U. Broadcast)
  Radio Zambia (Z.A.N.U. Broadcast)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Small-wiring Cables (Aluminium)
  Small-wiring Cables (Aluminium)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Space Probe Radome, Christchurch
  Space Probe Radome, Christchurch
  Aldermaston (Nuclear Weapon Tests)
  Aldermaston (Nuclear Weapon Tests)
  Concord Project (Workers)
  Concord Project (Workers)
BECHUANALAND
  Relay Station, Francistown
  Relay Station, Francistown
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (SPEECH)
TELEVISION AND BROADCASTING (SPECIAL MINISTER)
  TELEVISION AND BROADCASTING (SPECIAL MINISTER)
  TELEVISION AND BROADCASTING (SPECIAL MINISTER)
FAR EAST
  FAR EAST
  FAR EAST
SHIPPING INDUSTRY (INQUIRY)
  SHIPPING INDUSTRY (INQUIRY)
  SHIPPING INDUSTRY (INQUIRY)
NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN
  NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN
  NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN
EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (COST)
  EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (COST)
  EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (COST)
SOUTH ARABIA (GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL)
  SOUTH ARABIA (GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL)
  SOUTH ARABIA (GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL)
PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE (DATE AND PLACE)
  PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE (DATE AND PLACE)
  PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE (DATE AND PLACE)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigs (Bacon Production)
  Pigs (Bacon Production)
  Cats (Export Licences)
  Cats (Export Licences)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Married Officers and Other Ranks
  Married Officers and Other Ranks
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  H.M.S. "Eagle"
  H.M.S. "Eagle"
  Rhodesia (Royal Navy Operations)
  Rhodesia (Royal Navy Operations)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schoolchildren (Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus)
  Schoolchildren (Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus)
  PASSPORTS (APPLICATION FORM "A")
  PASSPORTS (APPLICATION FORM "A")
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Metropolitan Police (Trial of L. J. Bradbury)
  Metropolitan Police (Trial of L. J. Bradbury)
  Fugitive Offenders Act
  Fugitive Offenders Act
  Prison Service Establishments
  Prison Service Establishments
  Indian Boys (United Kingdom Passport)
  Indian Boys (United Kingdom Passport)
  Private Security Organisations
  Private Security Organisations
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Retail Prices Index (1960–66)
  Retail Prices Index (1960–66)
  Ministry of Labour Gazette (Cost)
  Ministry of Labour Gazette (Cost)
  Construction Industry (Training of Craftsmen)
  Construction Industry (Training of Craftsmen)
COAL
  Welsh Steam Coal (Summer Price)
  Welsh Steam Coal (Summer Price)
POST OFFICE
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Industrial Injuries Benefit (National Assistance)
  Industrial Injuries Benefit (National Assistance)
  Contributions (Product of Additional Penny)
  Contributions (Product of Additional Penny)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Students
  Students
  Old-Age Pensioners (Marriage)
  Old-Age Pensioners (Marriage)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Government Departments, London (Office Space)
  Government Departments, London (Office Space)
SCOTLAND
  Croft Head Fence, Shetland (Cost)
  Croft Head Fence, Shetland (Cost)
TRANSPORT
  Two-tone Horns
  Two-tone Horns
  Roundabouts (Right of Way)
  Roundabouts (Right of Way)
ROADS
  M1 (Contractors' Work)
  M1 (Contractors' Work)

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

LORD MOYLE
Arthur Moyle, Esquire, C.B.E., having been created Baron Moyle, of Llanidloes in the County of Montgomery, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Henderson and the Lord Champion.
Several Lords—took the Oath.

B.E.A. AIRCRAFT PURCHASE
2.47 p.m.
LORD BRAYE: 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 the reason why British European Airways are contemplating the purchase of foreign aircraft at a time when Great Britain's foreign exchange situation is in difficulties, and in view of the fact that many workers in the British Aircraft Industry could find themselves unemployed or on short time, when they should be producing the best designed and safest aircraft in the world.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, British European Airways are considering the purchase of aircraft to meet their requirements for additional capacity after 1969. They are still evaluating the various aircraft types, British and American, which are available. My right honourable friend is engaged in discussions with the Corporation and the manufacturers on these questions and will, I have no doubt, be making a statement in due course.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, while declaring an interest in this subject, may I ask the noble Lord who replied whether he would accept that the purchase of American aircraft by B.E.A. would adversely affect our balance of payments, and would also be a most damaging blow to the British, and indeed the whole European, industry?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Viscount has expressed a view which certainly is widely held; but it is for British European Airways, under the Statutes, to take the decision that they think fit, and of course, in practice, to consult the Government. These are matters which my right honourable friend has much in mind.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while hoping that Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to see that the air-bus remains a fully European project, may I ask the noble Lord whether his right honourable friend would consider approaching his opposite number in France to see whether it would be possible jointly to develop an aircraft, such as the VC 10, which would meet the growing needs of B.E.A., possibly of Air France and other European airlines, during this intermediate period before the air-bus is introduced?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making, and I can assure him that these are matters which my right honourable friend has much in hand. It is also a question of a possibility of whether some interim purchase may be necessary, but I am afraid I cannot to-day anticipate my right honourable friend's views.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, would the noble Lord inform the House whether or not the VC 10 production is to be reduced?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that really is another question. It does not arise out of the original Question.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, may I ask a further supplementary question? Might I remind the noble Lord that, although B.O.A.C. cancelled a substantial part of its order for VC 10 aircraft some time ago, this aircraft is now making very good profits for

947
B.O.A.C. owing to its popularity and therefore its very high load factor compared to the Boeing 707? Will he draw this point to the attention of his right honourable friend who is considering this matter?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that was a statement, not a question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: I should have thought it was a question, with respect.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord said, may he remind me. I cannot think that this is a serious question intended for answer.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: The second part of my question was, would the noble Lord draw this to the attention of his right honourable friend?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should not be surprised if my right honourable friend in fact studied very closely everything that the noble Viscount said.

CHILD WELFARE INQUIRY IN DORSET
2.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in their investigations of child welfare in the County of Dorset they were satisfied that the foster-parents concerned had been fairly treated, and secondly whether they found any evidence that incidents of the character under investigation were a "frequent occurrence".]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the purpose of the inquiry by the Home Office inspectors was to investigate the general standard of child care in Dorset, and it was not directed to the
948
question of whether the foster-parents in the particular case which came before a court were fairly treated. Nothing, however, came to notice to suggest the contrary.
I can, however, give an unqualified answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question. It is "No".
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the assurance in the second part of the Question. Can the noble Lord say, as a result of his investigations, that no reflection was passed by the reports on the foster-parents, and whether in fact they have had to seek other employment, and may have to seek another house?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot comment at all on the questions of the noble Earl regarding employment and/or a house. I have no knowledge of these matters. I would further add that the question of the foster-parents is the direct responsibility of the local authority and not that of my right honourable friend. I have, however, as he suggested, studied all the official documents on this case and there was, in fact, no reflection whatever on the foster-parents, who have been true foster-parents for many years.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD SIMEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it is necessary to do everything that can be done to protect foster-parents from what are often irresponsible slanders? Otherwise, they may be unwilling, to continue with the valuable public service which they give the community.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend and I recognise the great debt which the whole community owes to people who are prepared to take a child into their homes as a member of the family. There are careful investigations by local authorities before foster-parents are able to take up this duty and there is constant supervision by child-care officers and medical officers throughout. It is a matter of great regret if, by slanders or malicious gossip, over which we have no control, these people are injured in any way.

RHODESIA
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House may like to know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement shortly after 3.30 p.m. on the current discussions with Rhodesia.
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

POST OFFICE (SUBWAY) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.56 p.m
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
The Supplementary Benefits Commission
3.—(1) There shall be established, in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act, a Commission, to be known as the Supplementry Benefits Commission, which shall exercise the functions conferred on them by this Act in such manner as shall best promote the welfare of persons affected by the exercise thereof.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Supplementary Benefits" and insert "Social Security Supplements". The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I pointed out that
950
up to the present "benefit" has always meant a contributory benefit. Indeed, not all contributory benefits were in fact described as benefits. The amount payable on retirement was called a pension and never a benefit; and, of course, it would be quite incorrect to call a noncontributory old-age pension a benefit. That is a pension which disappears under this Bill.
LORD BOWLES: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Is he going to discuss together the first two Amendments dealing with the change of names'? That might be convenient to the House.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. If that is for the convenience of your Lordships, I would suggest that they should be discussed together. The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, said:
"If the noble Lord"—
he was referring to me—
"or any noble Lord, suggests another word, or name or title, we shall be happy to consider it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 275 (No. 26), c. 475; 27/6/66.]
Accordingly, I am asking your Lordships to consider this new title and then the substitution for the word "benefit", wherever it occurs in the context of a non-contributory benefit, of the word "supplement".
The number of times the word "benefit" occurs in its new sense is substantial. I reckon that it occurs 29 times in Part II of the Bill alone, plus once where it is not clear to me, at any rate, whether the word is used in its new or in its accepted sense, or indeed what kind of benefit is referred to. That is one of the inherent dangers of extending the use of the word as proposed in this Bill, the danger of ambiguity. As I made clear on Second Reading, I am not primarily concerned with possible ambiguity in the legal interpretation of this or other measures; what I am concerned with is the much more serious danger of confusion in the minds of the public. I suspect that the Government want to create this confusion in the hope that by blurring the distinction between contributory benefits and non-contributory allowances or supplements they may induce some

951
at least, of the 850,000 persons at present entitled to National Assistance allowances, but not applying for them, to come forward and apply for them. If that is their motive, I am sure that the motive and the objective will commend themselves to your Lordships. But I am not so sure that the means of achieving the objective is, in the long run, in the national interest.
It may seem a small matter whether payments are described as "supplementary benefits" or as "supplements to benefits"; or, indeed, just as plain "supplements". If, however, the effect is to remove from the public mind the real distinction between, on the one hand, benefits paid from the National Insurance Fund, to which a right has been earned by contributions, and, on the other, payments made by the Exchequer, when necessary, to supplement those benefits in cases of need, then I cannot help feeling that the incentive for people to achieve independence by making provision for themselves is gravely impaired. Your Lordships will have noted that I have just used the words "benefits paid from the National Insurance Fund to which a right has been earned by contributions." Of course we are all aware that, actuarially, retirement pensions in payment have not been earned by the joint contributions of contributors and employers, even with the addition of the Exchequer contribution. But the right to them has been earned.
Your Lordships will also have observed that Clause 4 of the Bill states:
"Every person in Great Britain of or over the age of sixteen whose resources are insufficient to meet his requirements shall be entitled…"
to a supplementary pension or a supplementary allowance. I do not think that this provision makes any real change. Under the National Assistance Act, the Board is given a duty to assist persons in Great Britain to meet their requirements in accordance with regulations made under the Act, and those affected are given a right of appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against the decisions of the Board. So that they plainly have a right to certain scales of payment. Decisions under this Bill will still have to be made about whether a person is entitled to payments and, if so, to how much, and
952
those affected will still have a right of appeal.
As I said on Second Reading, I believe that people are, in general, deterred from applying for supplements far less by the difference between contributory benefits and non-contributory payments than by the need to submit themselves to a test of means; and we are all agreed that the test of means must continue. I need not go over again all the arguments which I put forward on Second Reading—arguments which were not replied to on that occasion. This is, obviously, the appropriate occasion on which they should be examined, and no doubt the noble Lord has had an opportunity to consider those arguments. I think all I need to do now is to move my Amendment, that the name of the Commission shall be the "Social Security Supplements Commission" and that the payments shall be called "supplements".
I have looked at all the provisions in the Bill in which the word "benefits" is used in its new sense, and it seems to me that the word "supplements" would in every case do better. It may be said that the name of the Commission proposed in the Bill is better, because it uses only three words while my Amendment uses four. On the other hand, if my Amendment is accepted, the name by which the Commission would normally be known to distinguish it from other Commissions will obviously be the "Supplements Commission", which is only two words. So there is an advantage there, at any rate. Also, of course, the full name identifies the Commission more closely with the parent Ministry, which seems to be an advantage.
But the real "guts" of this Amendments, if I may put it in that way, is the question of whether it is right to merge in people's minds the idea of contributory and non-contributory benefits. For my part, I think it is wise to keep them separate, although I fully agree that it is right to spare people as much embarrassment as possible when they go to receive their payments. For that reason I think that the administrative action, which the Government are proposing to take in providing a single payments book, is wise. It is sensible and humane. But it is a very different matter to leave people in doubt as to whether they have earned,

953
and to what extent they have earned, the total benefit denoted in these books and the extent to which, because of their special needs, it comes from the Exchequer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("Supplementary Benefits") and insert ("Social Security Supplements").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.7 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: I am glad that the noble Lord has taken these Amendments together. When Amendments deal with a change in nomenclature, whether it is in the name of the Commission or in the name of the benefit, it is probably a good thing to deal with them together. As the noble Lord said, the first Amendment would change the name of the proposed Supplementary Benefits Commission to the "Social Security Supplements Commission". It is true that the noble Lord opposite has taken up the invitation which I extended to him, and to any other noble Lord who preferred a different name for the Commission, to put forward a suggestion so that it could be considered. As always, he stated his case very clearly and with great conviction, and his experience as a Minister in this Department no doubt gives him a great advantage.
We have considered the suggestion, hut I am afraid that we have to say that we do not like it. I think I can reveal that a name something like this was, in fact, considered during the preparation of the Bill, when we thought of calling the Commission the "Social Security Commission". We rejected this idea for two good reasons. I remember that at the end of the war we had long debates in the House of Commons on whether we should call the Ministry the "Ministry of National Insurance", the "Ministry of National Security", and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will remember that we took part in at least one Division on that question in the House of Commons. There has always been a problem when we have been trying to get the very best names.
First, the words "social security", as we use them in this Bill, are intended to embrace both contributory and non-contributory benefits, and to embrace benefits related to means as well as benefits related to other criteria like the claim-
954
ant's contribution record and the number of children in the family. Having used the words "social security" for this purpose as what I might call a generic title covering the whole field, it seemed to us wrong to associate it closely with one particular scheme of the many which are administered within the overall framework of social security.
The second reason was that to give the Commission the same title as the Ministry, by calling it the "Social Security Commission", would create a real danger of confusion as to where its interests ended and those of the other advisory or adjudicating bodies, which already exist, began. Your Lordships will know that there are a number of bodies of this kind already in existence; for instance, the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and. on the adjudicating side, the National Insurance Commissioners. These bodies and authorities are given titles related to their function, not related to the Government Department concerned. That is why we cannot accept "Social Security" in the title of this Commission; nor can we accept that it would do simply to refer to "supplements" as the benefit which the Commission is responsible for administering. The noble Lord's other Amendment is concerned entirely with this point, and perhaps we may deal with it when I come to that part of my speech.
The Government's view is that it is right and sensible to let the Commission take its name from the title of the benefits it is concerned with. It may be thought that the Government could have found something more imaginative or exciting for the Commission's title. The difficulty is, as I am sure noble Lords appreciate, that what may appear imaginative or exciting to some will seem cheap and tawdry to others. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, gave us a telling quotation on this during his interesting speech on Second Reading. I looked it up, and what he said was this:
" 'It is not names that give confidence in things but things that give confidence in names' ".—[OFFCIAL REPORT, Vol. 275 (No. 26), col. 497; 27/6/66.]
We admit to what might well be thought a pedestrian title for the benefits and the Commission, but it describes accurately enough the main job with which the Commission is going to be concerned.
LORD ILFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment in order to say that the words I used on Second Reading were not my words but the words of St. Chrysostan?
LORD BOWLES: I am sorry I quoted the noble Lord without his permission or knowledge, but I am grateful to him for his correction. The real test is whether the Commission will do a good job, and on this I am confident that it will be as wise and humane as the National Assistance Board has been.
Now I come to the second Amendment, which seeks to change the word "benefit" into "supplement". The effect of this Amendment, which would require consequential Amendments throughout the Bill, as the noble Lord said—I think he said that 29 alterations would be necessary in Part II of the Bill alone—would be to replace the term "benefit" by the term" "supplement" as the main title of the payments awarded under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave a pretty clear indication of his thinking on this matter during his speech in the Second Reading debate. He quoted to us the definition of "benefit" from the latest edition of the Oxford Concise English Dictionary as:
" 'an allowance, pension, attendance to which a person is entitled under National Insurance' ".
He went on to say that we are now using the word "benefit" to cover both contributory and non-contributory benefit. So we are, and for good reason.
The noble Lord said that people could not be expected to live on the National Insurance retirement pension by itself: they need to have it supplemented. The fact is that nearly three quarters of a million retirement pensioners who need to have their pensions supplemented are not getting the supplement. What are we going to do about it? The Government's view is that these old people must be shown clearly that if they qualify they have a statutory entitlement to a benefit which we have called a supplementary pension. As I said during the Second Reading debate, that is the mainspring behind this Bill. Would the noble Lord prefer, instead, that we took refuge in nice distinctions and said to our old
956
people that it would—and I quote his words—
"have adverse long-term effects on the national outlook" (col. 476)
if we gave them a statutory right to a benefit giving them a little more comfort in their old age? May I quote from the other Oxford Dictionary? The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, in Volume I, defines "benefit" as:
"A thing well done, a good deed".
The Government's view is that it is time for a good deed, and this Bill is intended to achieve it.
I should also like to take up the wider issue raised by the noble Lord when he said that this was a transitional problem and should be dealt with by transitional provisions. May I refer him to what my right honourable friend the Minister said on this very point when she spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place? She said:
"It seems to the Government that the proper long-term way of tackling the problem of poverty in old age is a new scheme of national superannuation which will be earnings-related and which will give on maturity to everybody a higher standard of living upon retirement than the present scheme can possibly give. It is the Government's intention to bring in such a scheme within the lifetime of this Parliament, but this does not dispose of the immediate problem of the old people who are with us to-day—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 729 (No. 27), col. 336; 24/5/66.]
In view of this, I do not think that the availability of these benefits for the old people of to-day is likely to affect the attitude of younger people to the payment of insurance contributions.
I am not quite sure how strongly the noble Lord and his Party feel on the question of this Amendment. He spoke fairly strongly this afternoon, as he did on Second Reading. I do not want to spoil the atmosphere of this debate, but if he really felt very strongly he would, of course, have challenged the principle of it during the Second Reading of the Bill. He did not do so, and I therefore do not think he can be quite so serious on this particular matter as he sounds from time to time.
Let me now return to the alternative word "supplement" suggested by the noble Lord. If his object is to get away from a word which has strong associations with the National Insurance scheme, I do not think his suggestion is at all

957
apt. There are many payments described as "supplementary" in the existing insurance scheme. We have very recently introduced an Act to provide earnings-related supplements to unemployment and sickness benefits and widows' allowances; and the noble Lord will remember the various schemes of supplementation in the field of Industrial Injuries insurance. Does this not demonstrate the difficulty of trying to make distinctions of this kind? The Government's expressed aim is, as the White Paper says, that there should
"no longer he the sharp distinction which now exists in the administration of contributory and means-tested benefit".
That is the whole difference between us, and that is why we are so keen on this Bill. In any case, if the noble Lord wishes to maintain the sharp distinction, the word "supplement" will hardly serve his purpose.
A clear and precise description of the new benefit would be something like this: a non-contributory payment related to the claimant's means, rent and family responsibilities. But we cannot do business on names like that. The Government have decided that under the general title of "benefit" persons of pensionable age should be able to qualify for supplementary pension and others for supplementary allowances. We accept that there is no glamour attaching to these names, and I have dealt with that point already. But they serve as a fair and useful description of what we are making available to our old people, the chronic sick and fatherless families. The Government cannot agree that the noble Lord has suggested any improvement, and I must therefore ask the Committee to reject his Amendments.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having dealt so fully with my suggestion. Of course, it is true that if we changed the term "benefit" to "supplement" we should also have to change the title of the Commission. It was not because the title suggested for the Commission was pedestrian that I wanted to change it; it was because I wanted to change the word "benefit", which would inevitably have involved a change in the title of the Commission.
LORD BOWLES: I see, yes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has quoted from what his right honourable friend the Minister has said in another place regarding the intention to introduce earnings-related benefit. I do not know if he can tell us whether this is going to be this year, next year or several years hence, but the essential point to hear in mind here is that some people will be contributing more than others towards their benefit—and here I am using the term "benefit" in its present sense. Those who contribute the basic amount will get the basic benefit, the basic pension. It will follow, I think, that those who receive supplements to the basic pension, having contributed only the basic amount, will be receiving more benefit in return for their contributions, if the word "benefit" is used to cover both aspects, both contributory and noncontributory, than others will receive. This is the problem, and one wonders whether it is wise not to make a distinction between these two.
I should have liked to hear some other expressions of opinion on this. It is true, of course, that words have significance only in proportion to their meaning and to their evocative meaning. It seems to me that the blurring of the non-contributory payments and the contributory pensions under the one term "benefit" is liable to evoke in people's minds the idea that it does not much matter what they contribute, they will eventually get whatever benefit the State decides they should get in their individual cases. I do not feel that this is desirable. This is the difference between us, the real issue. It is not just a question of words. It is the significance this is going to have in the minds of people and the influence it will have, as I said on Second Reading, on the efforts they themselves make in order to achieve independence for themselves, independence of these supplements that are being provided in this Bill. They will get what they have earned, whether by basic payment or by graduated payment or earnings-related payment; and then, if the other provisions they have made for themselves, apart from their State contribution, is not enough and they are still in need, they will get payments to meet that need.
I am not convinced by what the noble Lord has said. I do not want to press this matter at this stage. I am prepared

959
to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps my noble friends may like to consider this matter between now and Report stage. It seems to me that there is a real point here. I recognise the difficulties. I do not suggest that the word I have suggested, "supplement", is important; but it is a contributory benefit, and that is why I seek to have the word "supplement". I think the noble Lord's offer should still remain open. I accept what he said: that there are difficulties in using the word "supplements"; but we should continue to look for a word that will enable us to distinguish between the contributory and the non-contributory benefits.
LORD BOWLES: My offer is still open. We have another week until the Report stage. If any noble Lord has a brighter idea than that of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, then the Government will consider it. The essence of this matter is that we do want to blur the distinction between contributory and non-contributory and means-tested benefits. That is the distinction the Government have in mind. As I said on Second Reading, this existing fundamental distinction was the mainspring of the Bill. If a compromise can be found, so much the better.
In answer to the point about when we expect to introduce the earnings-related pension, it is the earnest desire of the Government to do so at the earliest possible moment. As the noble Lord has been a Minister—indeed, the Minister of this Department—he knows the difficulties; he realises that it takes a lot of examination. It is one of the things that we have set our hearts on doing. I do not know whether the noble Lord would now like to withdraw his Amendment. Perhaps he will read my speech and then decide not to put it down again.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment; but, before leaving it, I should like to stress again that at the present time a person has a right to National Assistance payments, a right which he can vindicate by appeal to the Appeals Tribunal. There is no basic difference introduced by this Bill. What the Government are trying to do—and I do not complain about this because there is a real problem at present of bringing these 700,000 to 850,000 people within the orbit of the supple-
960
ments—is to use a little bit of propaganda, to extend the meaning of the word "benefit" in order to attract these people to make applications. It is, as it were, a propaganda extension of the word. They may be right. All I am saying is that there are, in my view, dangers in doing so. I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "persons" and to insert: "in whose interest those functions are conferred." The noble Lord said: This is a different Amendment. Its purpose is to make clearer that the function of the Commission is to deal not merely with persons who are at present affected by the exercise thereof, but also with persons who ought to be affected by the exercise of those powers, if the Commission sought them out and found them. I start by conceding that the phrase I am seeking to amend is the same phrase as is used in the National Assistance Act. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will say that it has not given rise to any difficulty; but he will be the first to claim that this Bill seeks to go further than the National Assistance Act, and it is not inappropriate that the phrase which lays down the way in which the Commission should exercise its functions should go further than the similar phrase which says how the National Assistance Board should exercise their functions.
I do not think many people would claim that the drafting of the National Assistance Act is perfect; indeed, this Bill seeks to improve the drafting in many respects.
LORD BOWLES: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I was wondering whether he might like also to say something about the Amendment to be moved next by his noble friend Lord Windlesham. They seem to be similar.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to treat these Amendments separately. The noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, in his excellent winding-up speech on the Second Reading debate said, talking about this definition:
"It gives the Commission power to seek out not only financial but also welfare needs;"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 275 (No. 26) cot 530; 27/6/66.]

961
With great respect, the language used does not seem to do so. The phrase in the Bill specifically limits the persons who are to be the objects of the Commission's attention to those actually affected by the exercise of the Commission's functions and not by their powers; those cases, in other words, in which the functions are, in fact, exercised. My Amendment extends the limit to cover not only those who are affected but the others who are not, in fact, affected but who have a right under the Bill to be affected by the exercise of their functions; in other words, to all "in whose interests those functions are conferred." These words may not be the best that can be devised, but at least they underline the duty of the Board not to limit its attention to those who apply for help but to seek out those who are entitled to receive help. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 3 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BOWLES: I was not quite clear what the Amendment was about. The noble Lord started off by saying that he was moving a different Amendment, and this gave me some reassurance. It is difficult to understand. I had rather thought that the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would have been discussed at the same time. But the noble Lords do not seem to want to do that. The present Amendment, as drafted, seems not to add anything to the existing definition of the welfare responsibilities of the Commission. It seems reasonable to assume that the intention may be to raise again, in conjunction with the next Amendment, the question of a welfare detection service run by the Commission. If an entirely different line is taken, I should be glad if the noble Lord would write to me and let me consider it. I am afraid that I have been unable to understand the purpose of his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to make some sense of what I said when he reads Hansard. I am grateful to him for his undertaking to consider the point, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
"It shall be the duty of the Commission, so far as practicable,

(a) to ensure that persons entitled to supplements under this Act receive them; and

(b) to consult as necessary with appropriate Government Departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations with a view to securing proper provision for the individual needs of all such persons."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, said just now, one which is concerned with the duty to seek out need: the detection service. We aim to add these words so that an obligation is placed on the officers of the Commission to seek out need. The case for the Amendment is rooted in the figure we have now of 700,000 pensioner households who are entitled to National Assistance but are not receiving it. The figure was published in the Report last month entitled Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, when he wound up the debate on June 27.
In almost every report on social need carried out by various organisations one comes across a note saying that in the course of making the survey the interviewers came across cases of unidentified hardship which they brought to the attention of the welfare authorities, voluntary organisations or the National Assistance Board. The Leeds City Police reported that in 1965 alone they had found 101 people dead in their homes from natural causes and 48 ill or injured. Most of these were identified just as a result of milk bottles being left outside the door, curtains drawn, by neighbours ringing up for the police or the police going into the home to find out whether something was wrong. Commenting on the Leeds report The Times estimated that there might be as many as 5,000 people who had been found dead in their homes and who had been neglected and living alone.
LORD BOWLES: In the whole country?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, in the whole country. Yesterday I noticed that in the Census taken in 1961 it was estimated that there were a million pensioners living alone, so there really is a strong

963
case, I submit, for an Amendment on these lines.
Noble Lords opposite will notice that this Amendment is much narrower than the Amendment moved in another place, to which the answer was given that the Commission would be required to provide a universal detection service, that it would have to go into every home in the country. That is not so under this Amendment, which is much narrower in the terms in which it appears on the Order Paper. I think the crucial question which the Commission will have to consider, and which the Government must face this afternoon, is, who makes the first move? At the moment it is the old and needy people who have to come forward and identify themselves. It is true that they are very often persuaded to do so by the officers of the Board, by welfare workers, by friends, relatives and so on. But at the moment the onus is on them to come forward.
This Amendment aims to remove that responsibility from persons in need and transfer it to the officers of the Commission. I believe there is a precedent in the case of Service pensions. We may take it, I am sure, that it is the desire of noble Lords opposite that cases of need should be detected. I think that psychologically there is no doubt that this Amendment would have an impact on old people and needy people and on welfare workers and on the officers of the Commission. It would no longer be just a matter of existing practice, to go out and try to detect cases of need, or what the Commission hope to do, or what the Commission intend to do—nobody would argue that this is not their intention—but it would be a clear statutory responsibility to ensure that those entitled to supplementary benefits actually receive them. That is the case for this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD ILFORD: I think it right that I should say that this work of investigating cases, and of bringing to light cases where National Assistance is required, is done to-day very actively by the National Assistance Board. In so
964
far as the staff is available for doing this work, a great deal has been done by the officers of the Board. One of the methods which I used when I was the Chairman was to circularise as widely as I could those persons who come into contact with the population: doctors, district nurses, welfare officers of the local authority, anybody whose daily task brings them into contact with the population. We had a special drive which I think was very effective in bringing National Assistance to many persons who otherwise would have gone without it.
May I say a word about the survey which the Minister has carried out? It is quite true, as has been said several times this afternoon, that the survey discloses that about 700,000 old people who appear to be entitled to National Assistance are not receiving it. One must go a little further than that and, if possible, look behind the scenes to see some thing of what are their circumstances and the reasons why they refrain from applying for National Assistance to which apparently they are entitled The Minister made an estimate of the number of persons about whose background something was known. Many of these 700,000 persons have disregarded resources which makes National Assistance unncessary for them. Many of them are entitled to only a relatively small sum—two shillings, five shillings: something of that sort.
When a person applies for assistance and is told his assessment is only two shillings (as must necessarily happen within a scheme which is intended to supplement a person's income up to some prescribed figure, there will always be persons whose income is a few shillings below it) he goes away disappointed. When allowance is made for the resources which the 700,000 old people possess under the circumstances in which they are living—perhaps with children—the number in need of National Assistance is substantially reduced. The Minister's survey points out that it is reduced to something like 200,000 people. There are grounds for thinking that the number may be smaller than that. Of course, if 200,000 persons entitled to assistance are not receiving, it, and really need it, something must be done to put the system in better shape. But I think it may be said, in view of the very large number of persons

965
involved in this matter, that the National Assistance Board has not been entirely unsuccessful in bringing to light cases of persons who are reluctant to apply for National Assistance. I do not think that the efforts of the Board have been entirely fruitless.
I hope that the Committee will agree to accept this Amendment. I think it a good thing that there should be a statutory obligation on the Commission to bring to light cases of persons in need of assistance who are not receiving it. There are many reasons why I think it would be a good thing that there should be an explicit statutory power to do this. I do not think that I need dwell on those reasons; quite a number of reasons will occur to noble Lords why it is desirable that this obligation should be expressed in specific terms as my noble friend's Amendment proposes. In these circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): I think that this may be a convenient moment to move that the House be now resumed for the purpose of hearing a Statement. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

RHODESIA: THE EXPLORATORY TALKS
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just read in another place about Rhodesia. His words were:
"As the House knows, talks have been taking place in Salisbury between British and Rhodesian officials, on an exploratory basis and without commitment on either side, to see whether a basis exists for negotiations. The purpose of these talks has been to see whether negotiations based on the Six Principles could ultimately take place, and with whom those negotiations would be held, on a constitutional basis.
"I should like to thank the House for its patience in not pressing for
966
information but, since I have to inform the House that these talks are being adjourned for a period, it is right that, without breaching the secrecy which I have told the House I consider essential, I should say something about the stage which has been reached. The discussions have been useful in clarifying attitudes and intentions and in further identifying the problems which have to be met in order to achieve a solution acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, and to this House. It has been agreed that there should now be a pause for further consideration of the respective positions, before the talks are resumed later in the month. In the interval, sanctions will, of course, be fully maintained.
"So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they intend to employ the pause in hard thought on all the main aspects of the Rhodesian problem, particularly the right constitutional arrangements within Rhodesia and Rhodesia's future place in the family of nations. These are related and, indeed, inseparable aspects of the same problem, for there would be no purpose in reaching agreement on the constitutional future of Rhodesia if that agreement did not at the same time win for Rhodesia acceptance in international society. It is expected that the talks will be resumed at a fairly early date, and the House will agree that it is important that they should then make more rapid progress, for I am sure that the House will also agree that the present situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, all your Lordships, I think, will be pleased to hear that it is proposed that these talks should be resumed later this month, and I do not intend to say anything more about that. There is just one aspect to which I should like to refer: that is, that the timetable as outlined by the noble Earl, though, of course, I understand the need for it, means that Parliament and this House will not be able to debate the Rhodesian issue or anything connected with Rhodesia until probably the end of October or the beginning of November, and in the meantime there will possibly be a Prime Ministers' Conference. This means that there is a very long gap,

967
in which we shall not be able to discuss this very grave problem. Perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House would give an assurance to your Lordships that, so far as it is possible, Parliament will be kept informed of what is going on and, if need be, Parliament will be recalled.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for the restraint shown as usual by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I will certainly give him an assurance, if I may do so, that I will keep in touch with him, and we can discuss the other possibilities he mentioned.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Statement of the Prime Minister implies that the talks will be resumed at any particular level—by which I mean, are they to be a continuance of the present talks by the individuals at present involved in those talks or are they to take a different form when they resume at the end of this month?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I cannot give a precise answer without notice, but my strong impression is that they will be resumed in their present form on the same kind of level. I do not know whether all the same individuals will be involved, but it will be the same kind of talk.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that this Statement includes the reiteration that any settlement must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, could my noble friend say whether it is the intention, as in all previous cases of independence, that there shall be some discussion with the African representatives in Rhodesia as well?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, I do not think I can go beyond the Statement on the Six Principles, of which, of course, he is very well aware.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like informally to thank the noble Earl for the Statement and ask whether we may take it that the Six Principles still stand with the same strength with which they have stood up to now.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the answer is, emphatically, yes. I apologise if I failed to give the noble Lord a chance of making his views known before I dealt with some of the other speakers.

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.46 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Debate on Amendment No. 3 resumed.
LORD HAWKE: Although the Ministry may be very successful in searching out the possible recipients of these supplementary pensions, I do not think that they have done very much to disperse the slightly derogatory feeling there is in some quarters as to the acceptance of such supplementary pensions. Curiously enough, I saw an instance of this only to-day. The Church Assembly has been debating clergy widows' pensions. There is a class of clergy widows who are not entitled to a pension by virtue of the office of their late husbands, and many of them are not entitled to any National Insurance pensions either. A spokesman of the Church of England Pensions Board, which in all cases make up the incomes from all sources of clergy widows to a certain level, was able to assure the Assembly that none of these good ladies was in receipt of State assistance. That was received with cheers. That means, presumably, that many of them have refused the supplementary State pensions because they thought there was a derogatory element about them. The net financial result is that their income is made up to the standard rate from Church funds, which are charitable funds, so the State saves in that direction at the expense of the Church. I give this instance only because I think it is valuable to know that there is still a feeling against these supplementary pensions, in spite of what Ministers have said from both sides of this House and of another place for as many years as I can remember.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am making this, my maiden speech to this Assembly, because since 1927, in the old Board of Guardians days and prior to being elected to another place in 1945, I have been actively associated with benefits

969
given to the poorer people. Having in mind the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the valuable services he rendered as Chairman of the National Assistance Board, I would add my voice to his request to the Government that, if they are not prepared to accept this Amendment as it is, they might at least give an assurance that the new Minister of Social Security will have the full right and power to do what is embraced in this Amendment.
We have all had experience—and Members in the other place will have had numerous constituents coming to them from time to time—of people who are very much on the borderline and rather dread going to the National Assistance Board. Therefore, if it is felt that under this Bill the new Ministry will have all the powers required to comply with this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will give us a full explanation to that effect. If not, I sincerely hope that he will give serious thought to embracing it in the Bill. I think it would be in accord with the mood and feeling of the people in the country to-day that people should look on this as a benefit as distinct from a charitable arrangement. I think the change that is taking place in the Ministry of National Insurance on the security position is an excellent one, and this would be in accord with the feeling that is now abroad in much of the country in regard to these new social developments.
3.52 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. It is not, I believe, customary to make a maiden speech in Committee, and no doubt some far more distinguished noble Lord will say better things about it, but I should like to say how interested I was to listen to the noble Lord's speech and to know what great experience he has. I wish to take up the words of my noble friend Lord Ilford from my own experience of local government. The work that is done by the officials of the National Assistance Board is first-class; they are most accessible and approachable, and immensely knowledgeable. Nevertheless, I have found in the country district where I work that it is often difficult to get people to make an approach direct to the National Assistance Board. They
970
may, for instance, live a long way away and may not be able to get there easily.
The object of this Amendment, which is to ensure that the onus of finding out who could receive benefit is on the Commission, and also the duty to consult with local authorities and voluntary organisations in regard to these people, is a great improvement. In a scattered area it is sometimes difficult to keep in touch with people if you are working from a centre. I think, it would be extremely valuable, particularly in rural areas, to have in the Bill that the obligation is on the Assistance Board to see that every agency that can be used for this purpose is so used. I do not think there is a great number of people who are entitled to this benefit and who are not discovered and do not receive the supplementary pension, but undoubtedly there are some, and we should very much like these people to be included. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
LORD MITCHISON: I rise, first of all, to add my congratulations and my welcome to an old friend who spoke from this side of the Committee a few moments ago. It was, I thought, an excellent maiden speech. It showed what one would expect from him—after all, some of us have known him for quite a long time—and that is an uncommonly warm heart and a great deal of sense in matters of this kind.
The second point I want to raise is this. It is not, as I read it, merely a duty to find out who is entitled to supplements (if I may use that word), but a duty to ensure that they receive them. It therefore puts on the Board a rather curious obligation to see that a man who does not want to draw his supplements must, nevertheless, receive them. Nobody is going to suggest for one moment that there should be any penalty on the Commission if they fail to thrust on to someone money he does not wish to receive. But this leads me to consider a little whether there is not a duty (again, not a duty for the breach of which one would impose any punishment) on some of the old folk who are entitled to these supplements to take them. This seems, at first sight, to be a very curious proposition, but I am not sure that it is. One has to remember that if people feel they are too proud or too shy to take these benefits,

971
it is more than likely that someone else—perhaps a member of the family, or, in the case the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned, a charity—will have to make good the money in one way or another, whether in cash or in kind.
I wonder whether it would not help the Commission and others concerned, if anything is going to be said about duty, if one put a nominal duty—and I say "nominal" because, I repeat, nobody would wish to attach any penalty to it—on some of these old folk to take what they are entitled to. I think it might make it easier to say to them: "Not only are you entitled to this, but Parliament takes the view that you ought to take it, and that, so far from its being a charity, you should have it." It is rather a preposterous sort of thing, when one first thinks of it, to thrust down someone's throat, as it were, money which he does not want to take. But the difficulty in these cases is so much the difficulty among the older people, quite frequently, of their not wishing to take charity. They may have some recollection of the old Poor Law, perhaps not so far as they themselves were concerned, but as others in their family were, in the past. It is so much a misunderstanding, and I cannot help feeling that there is a good enough case for stating in the Bill that there is a duty to the community to receive the benefit.
If one were called upon to justify this, I would do so by referring, as I did just now, to other members of the family, charities and other sources from which the deficiency might have to be made up. I hope that no one will think that I am being too hard on these people. It is really the direct opposite. I am trying to help, in a curious sort of way, in a difficulty which arises out of misunderstanding. I wonder whether it might be worth consideration. I say no more than that.
3.59 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: I do not think we ought to take the last suggestion too seriously. I feel that it would be an unwarrantable interference with the private life of the individual to express in an Act of Parliament that anybody has a duty to receive anything. If a man likes to do without certain amenities or necessities in life, that, I should
972
have thought, is a matter for him and not for Parliament.
What I think the noble Lord has in mind is that the agents of this Commission should be instructed to bring to the notice of the persons entitled to these supplementary benefits (or whatever they are to be called) that there are moral reasons why they should accept them, and then to leave the choice entirely to them. But to insert into an Act of Parliament a duty, failure to perform which carries with it no sanction, seems to me to be quite meaningless. I should have thought myself that the right sort of words for this Amendment, if I may at this late stage suggest it, is that the Commission should have a duty to ensure, not that the persons entitled to supplements under this Bill receive them, but that they are offered them.
4.2 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: First of all, may I congratulate my noble friend Lord Popplewell on his maiden speech. It was the kind of speech we remember him making in the House of Commons, when he was allowed to do so: there he was a Whip. But he is not a Whip here. I am his Whip, so it is rather a nice change of jobs.
Before I come to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter has to a large extent answered my noble friend Lord Mitchison. But I know what my noble friend means. We have been Members of Parliament, and we know, as my noble friend Lord Popplewell said, how many people who are entitled to these benefits seem very reluctant to draw them. I myself have said to the person in question, "I have paid for your supplementary pension as well as you, and it is a desire of the State"—I did not use the word "Parliament"—"and our wish that you should have what is your due". There is no shame attached to accepting a supplementary benefit, or any benefit under any Act of Parliament which gives the right to a person to this kind of benefit or pension, supplementary pension or National Assistance, or whatever it is. The two Houses of Parliament desire that people who are entitled to these things should use and exercise their rights to draw them.

973
Then there is the question of how to go about it. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, spoke from more experience than anybody else of the work of the officers of the National Assistance Board. We have all praised those officers in our time, and I again express the Minister's and my gratitude to the officers for the work they do. We try in various ways to supplement the activities of the officers of the National Assistance Board. The Minister writes to doctors, nurses, home visitors and others, and in fact we do everything we possibly can. It is a shame that so many people seem not to have drawn these benefits.
This raises the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. He talked about the widows of churchmen. I am not saying anything about them, because I know none, and I know nothing about the particular conference about which he was talking. Therefore, I am not saying a single word about the Church Commissioners or Church charitable organisations. I am quite certain that, in other walks of life, there are a number of people who spread the feeling that there is still a tinge of the old Poor Law about drawing these benefits. I am quite sure there are certain snobbish elements in this country who would frown on it and, if they could, would influence people in regard to drawing their dues under this kind of legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, talked about the difficulties in her area—which is a widespread one—of getting people to do all they possibly could to help. I was thinking about this during the week, and I still think—leaving out professional people such as doctors, nurses and midwives, and local authorities and voluntary organisations—that relatives of these old people could do a great deal. Could not a niece, nephew, brother, sister, or a grandchild say, "You are entitled to this. I will see that the form is filled up or that you are called upon by a National Assistance officer"? This will begin to bridge the gap between those people who draw benefits and those who do not know anything about it. As we know from experience, some refuse, and also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, some people are helped from other charities and do not think that they should draw on what they regard as State charity.
974
We have come across people who, in view of the term National Assistance, dislike the word "Assistance". I have had many examples of this, and of people saying, "I am not taking assistance from anybody." That is the kind of remark one hears, and I have done my best to persuade people that they are taking up the wrong attitude. The word "assistance" is now going and, as we discussed last week, that may lead to an improvement in this difficulty.
The Amendment would make the Commission responsible for ensuring, so far as practicable, that people entitled to supplements actually received them, and to consult with Government Departments and other bodies with a view to securing proper provision of their individual needs which, no doubt, would include welfare needs. I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I say that he has been repeating, not necessarily all the arguments used in another place, but some of them, and therefore, to some extent, I have to go over the arguments again.
When the honourable friends of the noble Lord opposite put forward their Amendment on this subject in another place, they asked in terms for a welfare detection service of unlimited scope, extending to the whole population. There can be no doubt, as my right honourable friend the Minister said in her reply, that if the Commission was saddled with such a wide-ranging function it would only be able to perform it most inadequately. The noble Lord opposite has evidently taken that point, and the Amendment is now put forward in terms which seem to be much better and directed to a practical aim; as he said, it was narrowed considerably from the Amendment moved in another place. I say, "seem to be", for I am afraid that we cannot regard the Amendment as an acceptable statutory prescription for what we intend to do. I must go on to say that we do not regard it as either necessary or desirable to have any other statutory authority than we have already for doing what needs to be done.
The Amendment requires, first of all, that the Commission should, so far as possible, make sure that the people entitled to supplementary pensions in fact get them. But this is not really a matter one can legislate for. My noble friend thought it was possible, but again he

975
may think that to have been a wrong point of view. We cannot legislate for people to swallow the benefits in this way. One certainly could not, as the Amendment suggests, require a person to accept a supplementary pension if he did not want it. I would remind your Lordships that the Government do not propose only that the Ministry's officers should get in personal touch with all pensioners on retirement who do not specifically say that they do not want any help; it is hoped to follow this up at a later stage, in those cases where there is no need on retirement, to see whether those who did not want help in the first instance need it as they get older. These are practical measures which will do good and are within our capacity, and they require no further legislation beyond what is in this Bill. Indeed, much of the initiative in this matter must rest, not with the Commission, but with the Minister as the person responsible both for the overall administration and for the particular part of it—for instance, the retirement pension claim form which will be used for this purpose—and to lay the responsibility on the Commission would not meet the point.
This, of course, is where, I am sure, my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance—or, as she will be, the Minister of Social Security—will be taking the very best possible advice to see that the claim forms are perfectly clear, and that the other benefits to which any particular person may be entitled are brought to that person's attention. Knowing her as I do and that she is so keen, I am sure we shall not be saying, in a few years, that there are 700,000 people not getting their dues. We want to get rid of this blot on this service. It is not so much a blot as a loophole, and a big loophole. All that will have gone when another few years have gone by.
Perhaps in this context I might add a word about old people without pensions. Your Lordships are probably aware that the difficulty here is that there is no central register of these people, and whatever provision is made for them one has to rely on publicity to prompt the claims. Fortunately, the whereabouts of a large number of them are known through the records of non-contributory old-age pen-
976
sions and National Assistance allowances. Altogether some 200,000 people without retirement pensions are known from this source and they will be automatically transferred to the new scheme. We must rely upon publicity and the widest practicable spread of information about the new pension to attract the others who may qualify, and I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend is giving serious consideration to this point.
In his speech last week the noble Lord asked about the number of people, and I said 56,000 would be on the staff. Of course, one cannot just take anybody on the staff of the Ministry of Social Security and assume that that person is fit to do the work. These people are fully occupied in their present work, and I can imagine that the number of people who would be employed to carry out the tasks that this Amendment would put upon the country would be quite impossible. As Members of both Houses of Parliament we total about 2,000 people, and I hope that in our daily lives we try to do something to help people who are not helping themselves sufficiently.
The Amendment further requires the Commission to consult with Government Departments, local authorities and voluntary bodies to ensure as far as is practicable that the individual needs of such people are met, and the noble Lord has made it clear that it is what can broadly be termed "health and welfare" needs he is concerned with here. Again, there is no dispute as to the objective. The Government have made it absolutely clear that they will continue and expand the "welfare detection" service which the National Assistance Board has built up over the years. They will continue it, in that the welfare needs of those claiming and receiving supplementary pensions will be investigated and referred by the local officers to the appropriate body. They will expand it in that, as I have already explained, the Minister, not the Commission, will be making arrangements under the machinery for dealing with claims to retirement pensions, for getting in personal touch with people who are not already getting supplementary pensions and perhaps are not entitled to them, but who nevertheless, to ease the burden of their daily life, may require some

977
service like a home help, chiropody services or "meals-on-wheels". And where the local officers come across such needs they will most certainly not be turning a blind eye to them simply because there is no supplementary pension entitlement, but will be getting in touch with the local authority or other body which can meet them.
The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord does not bite at all on this aspect of the administration. That it fails to do so is, I submit, illustrative of the pitfalls which await us if we try to provide in the Statute itself for what is essentially a matter of day-to-day local administration and procedure. I must therefore ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Possibly I I should say just a word. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, on making his maiden speech. I, too, made mine on an Amendment, and not only do I agree with almost every word he said this afternoon but also I welcome additions to the rather unorthodox band of people who started their speaking career in this House by speaking on an Amendment.
I was somewhat disappointed in the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, to my noble friend. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who said yesterday that we grow more and more conservative as we grow older. These people who are entitled to supplementary benefits are mostly extremely old, and therefore, as I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, they are extremely stuck in their own grooves. So I think that not even the exhortations of six hundred-odd Members of another place and the four hundred-odd Members of your Lordships' House who really take an interest in the proceedings and therefore might happen to read what the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, said, will persuade them that they are really entitled to these benefits.
I see the difficulty that was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, and I wonder whether, instead of saying in paragraph (a):
"to ensure that persons entitled to supplements under this Act receive them;"
we could not put in some form of words like "should be encouraged to receive them". I think this would make it per-
978
fectly clear to the people concerned that Parliament considered that they ought to draw these benefits, and at the same time it would not absolutely force them to do so if they felt there was some real moral reason why they should not. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider some alternative form of words before the next stage of this Bill.
LORD MITCHISON: Since we are in Committee, I rise to reply shortly to what the right reverend Prelate regarded as an attempt to introduce an unwarranted interference with the liberty of the subject. I have always understood that we disapprove of suicide, and apparently it stands like this: you must not kill yourself, but you need not strive officiously to keep yourself alive. That is what it comes to in some of these cases. I respectfully agree with what was said: that it is awkward and clumsy to put into a Statute a duty which you do not propose to enforce. I think that was a bad suggestion, and I withdraw it in that form. But throughout to-day we have all been saying, and presumably we mean it, that it is desirable that these people should take this benefit, at any rate in the generality of cases; and I should have thought it might be possible, without using the unfortunate word "duty", to put in some declaration that it was desirable. I agree on this point with the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, that there should be some declaration that it was generally in the public interest.
It is not a point that one can draft on one's hind legs; it would need a little consideration, but it should be some form of words to intimate the general view that people ought to do this in the majority of cases. The difficulty is that these people think they ought not to take the money, and we think they ought to take the money. I am not saying there are no exceptions. I do not agree with the Amendment at all, because I think it puts the duty in the wrong form and is quite inappropriate, but I should like my noble friend to consider whether there is any possibility of putting some words in the Statute, or possibly of doing something by way of a circular, to convey to these people the impression and conclusion of both Houses of Parliament that, in general, they ought to take this money.
I do not think it is really an interference with their liberty at all, and I go

979
on the doctrine that you must interfere with people's liberty when what they are doing in exercise of their free choice may severely prejudice others. There can be little doubt that in a great many of these cases the refusal to accept what they are entitled to by way of benefit may seriously prejudice others, to wit, to take the simplest case, their family, who may have to carry a burden which it is not our intention that they should have to carry.
LORD BOWLES: I should just like to thank my noble friend and to assure him that we are going to do a lot more than just sending out leaflets.
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I, from this Bench, add a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell? His voice was particularly sweet and welcome since he was speaking in support of the Amendment.
There was no intention in anything I said to cast any reflection whatever on the work done by the officers of the National Assistance Board. I think that recognition has already been given, and perhaps this would be the occasion to give it again, to the work they do in seeking out need. Obviously that will continue. The question is: Who shall have the actual onus of responsibility? I am sorry the Government find they cannot accept this Amendment. I think they will agree that we have made serious efforts in the drafting of this Amendment to meet the points made in the other place. Some of the arguments made in the Government's reply were good, and we have tried to meet them.
It may be that the wording of the new clause as proposed is not perfect, but I hope, particularly in view of the rather wide amount of support from different parts of the House—the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, with his experience over ten years as Chairman of the National Assistance Board, the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, all speaking in support—that the Government will consider this point very seriously. If it cannot be done by Statute—and we will not press this Amendment—I would suggest that it might be done through the internal administration of the new Ministry of Social Security and the Commission itself,
980
so that a fairly clear-cut written instruction is passed down to the managers to do what they are already doing, and put upon them a positive obligation to seek out cases and not just to wait for people to come to them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( ) Annual reports on the activities of the Commission in the exercise of their functions shall be made by the Commission to the Minister, and the Minister shall lay each Report of the Commission under this subsection before Parliament."
The noble Lord said: the noble Lord will recognise the parentage of this Amendment; it reproduces Section 2(4) of the National Assistance Act. The Commission are established with their own distinct functions; for example, Clause 2(1) says:
"…there are hereby transferred to the Minister of Social Security
(b) as from the date appointed under this section, the functions of the National Assistance Board, except in so far as they are exercisable under the following provisions of this Act by the Commission appointed under section 3 of this Act."
So there is no doubt that the Commission have separate entity and separate legal responsibilities and functions. It seems logical, therefore, that they should report to the Minister on the exercise of those functions.
I appreciate that in certain instances at least, perhaps in all cases, the Commission will exercise their functions on behalf of the Minister. For example paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 says:
"Any functions exercisable by the Commission under this Schedule shall be exercisable by them on behalf of the Minister and in accordance with any directions given by him".
Even in that case, however, there would seem to be a good case for their reporting to the Minister on the way in which they have exercised their functions; but certainly it looks as if they should report at least on the functions conferred on them by the Bill itself. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment, so that the new Commission will make a report to the Minister, who will in due course lay

981
it before Parliament in much the same way as the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance lays before Parliament the reports that she receives annually from the National Assistance Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SORENSEN: This Amendment would require an annual report of their activities to be prepared by the Commission, submitted to the Minister, and laid by the Minister before Parliament. I want to assure the noble Lord I entirely appreciate his intention as expressed by him a moment ago. As the noble Lord has pointed out, his Amendment would put the Commission, in this matter of annual reports, in the same position as the National Assistance Board, who arc required by Section 3(4) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to make a report to the Minister, who, in turn, lays the report before Parliament.
I am sure there is no disagreement on the desirability of the purpose behind the Amendment; nor, indeed, about what has been said concerning the interest and relevance of the reports which the Board have produced over the years. They have given year by year a statistical and human report, which has been likened by the Economist to a "portrait of the poor", an eloquent and impressive description. I want to make quite clear that the absence of any reference in the Bill to annual reports by the Commission certainly does not imply that hereafter there will be available any less information, statistical or other, about the people with whom the Commission will be concerned. But the position is this. There is at present no statutory requirement that my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance should provide an annual report to Parliament in relation to the National Insurance and Family Allowances schemes, although, of course, such a report is produced each year. The same is true of many other Government Departments who, though under no statutory obligation to do so, produce an annual report.
This being the position, it has not been thought necessary to provide in the Bill for the Minister of Social Security to make an annual report to Parliament. The Minister of Social Security will, in
982
fact, publish annual reports, as the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has done, thereby following precedent, covering the whole field for which my right honourable friend will be responsible. This will embrace, naturally, such matters as National Insurance, war pensions, industrial injuries, family allowances and, now, non-contributory benefits. I can give the noble Lord the assurance, after consultation with the Minister, that the report of the activities of my right honourable friend's Department will include a report on the activities of the Commission, giving broadly the same kind of information which has till now been produced in the annual reports of the National Assistance Board. I hope that, with this assurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Lotto DRUMALBYN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. At the same time, I am not wholly convinced. I naturally looked up the National Insurance Act and reminded myself that there is no provision in it requiring the Minister of National Insurance to make a report to Parliament; nevertheless, he does. But, just as a pure matter of form, where a Commission is established, admittedly under the authority of the Minister, and is given separate functions, if those separate functions here are not subject to his direction, it seems that the Minister has no power to direct the Commission to make a report to him on those functions. Therefore, it may not prove practicable.
We are all reasonable people. But it seems that, as a matter of Parliamentary propriety, the Bill should make provision for the Commission to make a report on those matters on which the Minister has no power to direct them to make a report to him. I do not propose to press the Amendment any further. I would just commend this thought to the noble Lord. Perhaps he could examine it further to see if there is any matter of Parliamentary or administrative propriety involved in this. Otherwise I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SORENSEN: May I express my appreciation of the tone of the remarks of the noble Lord, and inform him that there is a point in what he has said which

983
perhaps has not been completely considered? We are most grateful to him for emphasising that. However, in view of the precedents and of public interest, I think there would at least be a moral obligation resting on the Minister to see that this report is produced. If there had been any omission in that respect, I am perfectly certain that there would have been strong criticisms raised both in this House and in another place. Be that as it may, I assure the noble Lord that I will see that this matter is again considered between now and Report stage, and although I cannot give any kind of guarantee, I am certain that his remarks and my own will be most carefully considered by the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I raise a point here, because I think your Lordships may like to have a little more explanation than has yet been forthcoming as to how the arrangements in Clause 3 are expected to work? May I draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (2), which says:
"The Minister shall make arrangements for securing that such of his officers and servants as may from time to time be requisite for the exercise of the Commission's functions are available to act as officers and servants of the Commission, and may make arrangements with any other Government department or with a local authority for the discharge of those functions by officers and servants of the department or authority."
I am not clear how the whole administrative structure of the new Ministry is to work. It seems to be the case that the Commission has not even got a single secretary; it is simply a Commission. It is expected to operate with the staff of the Ministry of Social Security, lent to it in accordance with arrangements made from time to time with the Ministry. It is not clear that they are going to have a staff lent to them. It is not even clear that they are not going to be expected to work entirely with Ministry of Social Security personnel who will, on behalf of the Commission, be carrying out the functions of the Commission.
I do not know whether there is any parallel in government for an arrangement of this kind. It seems a somewhat strange arrangement. I repeat that,
984
so far as I can see, there is no provision whatever in this Bill for any employees of the Commission. There is no provision for, let us say, a separate accounting officer; and it seems that all the payments which result from the decisions of the Commission are to be met by the Minister and do not go through the Commission. This is a novel structure, so far as I know, in government, and I think the Committee would like to be satisfied that it is likely to be an efficient structure.
As I see it, the intention is that there should be one single administrative staff, and that the present employees of the National Assistance Board will be completely merged with the employees of the Ministry of National Insurance, locally and at the headquarters. Obviously, because the present staff of the National Assistance Board have special skills and have been carrying out special functions, it will normally be the case that they will be made available to act as officers and servants of the Commission. But are they to be officers and servants of the Commission? Are the Commissioners to be masters in their own house in this regard? I am not clear about the administrative structure that is envisaged, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell your Lordships something about how the clause which deals with the constitution of the Commission and its functions is intended to operate.
LORD CHAMPION: I thought the clause was rather clear. But there it is; there is a difference between the noble Lord and myself. It provides for the establishment of a Supplementary Benefits Commission to carry out the duties imposed by the Bill, and it requires the Minister to make the necessary administrative arrangements, including, of course, the provision of staff and money, by the Minister, for them to perform their functions. So that here we have a clear duty placed upon the Minister to provide, for the use of the Commission, officers to carry out the will of the Commission in the duties that it is to perform. I should have thought this was clear.
Should there be the slightest doubt after an examination of what the noble Lord has said, we will, of course, look at it again. But, as we understand it,

985
the clause, and particularly subsection (2), requires the Minister to make available such of the Ministry staff as are necessary for the Commission to function. It also enables the Minister to arrange for the Commission's functions to be carried out by another Government Department, as the noble Lord said—for example, by officers of the Ministry of Labour dealing with unemployed persons. In some cases this may well be necessary. As the noble Lord knows quite well, a local authority in a remote area of the Scottish Highlands could perform such functions, because it would be somewhat fantastic to set up a body there when the local authority can do the work, and do it much more economically than could a specially created office in that particular place.
Subsection (3) enables the Commission to incur expenses with the Minister's approval. Such expenses will be deemed to be expenses of the Minister and, therefore, by virtue of Clause 1(2), they have to be paid out of the money voted by Parliament. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about this. The Commission will have provided for it officers; the Commission will have money provided for it to ensure that these officers are paid. So it will have a staff. Although provided by the Minister, it will be the sort of staff that I am sure will enable this Commission to function as satisfactorily, in my opinion, as did the old Assistance Board. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about this and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that what I have said has cleared a little of the doubt he has. However, I will do what I always do in this connection: I will study what the noble Lord has said and see whether, in regard to the Commission's powers in this connection, there is any difficulty to secure for itself adequate staff, with money to pay that staff, and to make sure that this staff should serve the Commission effectively.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful for the noble Lord's assurances in this matter. I am sure he will appreciate that, given the merging of National Assistance and National Insurance staffs in the branches, there was at least reason for some doubt, as a prac-
986
tical matter, whether they were going to remain as one single set of employees or be divided into Commission employees and Ministry of Social Security employees, or, if you like, Ministry of Social Security employees and Ministry of Social Security employees made available, or lent, to the Commission. I think there is still doubt about this. There is still some doubt in my mind as to how this is going to work out in practice and whether it is going to be an efficient arrangement.
As to the question of the expenses, I understand from what the noble Lord has said that, in effect, there will not be a separate accounting officer for the Commission; that all the money will be accounted for by the Ministry itself and the branches at the various levels. I take it that that is the purpose and, where it says:
"any expenses incurred by the Commission with the approval of the Minister",
it means this in the broadest terms, and merely gives general financial control by the Minister over the Commission. I can understand that, but I am still not quite satisfied as to the administration and its efficiency. Therefore I should be grateful if the noble Lord could make some reference to this matter, if he has an opportunity to do so, at a later stage.
LORD CHAMPION: I will look into this matter and if after I have had a word with him about it the noble Lord still feels that there is a doubt which I should clear up for the benefit of the House, I will take an opportunity to do so. Personally, I feel that there will be no difficulty about it. Indeed, in some cases all the Commission and the rest of the staff at the Ministry will not necessarily be in one office—it might not be possible to arrange this—and therefore there would be two offices until such time as eventually it was found possible, by the building of offices and so on, to get them under one roof. In that case they would operate separately as servants of the Minister or as servants of the Commission. I will carry out my undertaking which I have given to the noble Lord.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Social Research
" . With a view to discovering and meeting need and to promoting the welfare of those in need it shall be the duty of the Minister and the Commission to initiate, arrange, conduct, co-ordinate and participate in social research and in the exercise of this function the Minister and the Commission, as the case may be, may enter into arrangements with any Government Department, local authority, university or voluntary organisation."
The noble Lord said: In introducing this Amendment, I would say that I feel there is little between noble Lords opposite and ourselves on the need for continuing and systematically organised social research. In the debate on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, will recall—and I hope the words are not going to embarrass him this afternoon—that he said he personally thought it was inherent in the nature of the scheme that there should be a social research unit, on the lines envisaged in this Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord's personal view has prevailed and that, in the official explanation which will be given this afternoon, the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment. I trust that he has been successful and persuasive.
It is unnecessary, in the circumstances, to spell out once again the case in any detail for a social research unit. At the moment there is no continuing research. What happens is that from time to time agitation builds up, and a survey is launched. This has happened twice, and perhaps I may give two recent examples. The Report to which reference has been made several times, in the debate last week and to-day, The Report on the Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners, was rightly described by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, on Second Reading as" "a major social document of our time", and one that is "far from reassuring." This survey resulted from pressure for an inquiry on an Adjournment debate in another place on July 8, 1964, moved by a member of the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong. There was pressure and a survey was set up.
The second example of which I would remind your Lordships is the investigation into the circumstances of the
988
low wage-earners with large families which is being carried out at the moment. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite would deny that a major influence in the setting up of that investigation was the Report by Professors Abel-Smith and Townsend, The Poor and the Poorest, and the subsequent lobbying of the Prime Minister and others by the Child Poverty Action Group at the end of last year. So again there was agitation in a very good cause, and a survey was launched.
This sort of hand-to-mouth approach is extremely unsatisfactory, particularly in present conditions where the pattern of need and the shape of society are changing. It seems investigations are conducted only when people make such a fuss that it is embarrassing for the Government not to do anything about it. So what is needed—and this is the opportunity for it, when setting up a new Ministry—is a positive policy of seeking out and meeting need. I do not think that anyone would argue that it is a realistic approach just to follow on behind events. We believe that it should be the duty of the new Ministry to initiate research and to co-operate in research conducted by universities, local authorities and other bodies, and that it is only if this is done that the new Ministry will be able properly to fulfil its very important responsibilities.
I was struck by some words by one of the most distinguished of all students of welfare policy, Professor Richard Titmuss, in his foreword to one of the admirable series of Occasional Papers on Social Administration which have been published over the last few years under his editorship. Number 4, which bears the title The Economic Circumstances of Old People was a survey by the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, and what Professor Titmuss said was as follows:
"Each generation if it wishes to order its affairs more by reason than by emotion has the duty of defining afresh what it means by poverty and need. To do so it must study society and patiently assemble the facts. So far as the economic circumstances of old people are concerned, the present generation has been somewhat tardy in recognising its responsibilities both to society and to the advancement of knowledge."
I hope that, as a result of this Amendment, the new Ministry will recognise and fulfil that responsibility.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD ILFORD: This new clause deals with a matter which is very much more novel in its character than many noble Lords are inclined to think. Research is done in Government Departments in varying degrees. In some Departments a good deal of research is essential, but in other Departments very little research indeed is done. There are to-day great Departments of Central Government which are directly responsible for the administration of a major social service. There is, of course, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance; there is the National Assistance Board, and to a very large extent there is the Ministry of Health. That is a situation which did not exist before the war. The Departments of the Central Government were supervisory bodies; they did not themselves undertake the administration of major social services. The change came at the end of the war, when the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance was set up.
That development in our administrative machinery calls for a much wider engagement in research than has been thought necessary or practical in the past. It is not easy for any research to be undertaken in a Department where no research has ever been done. The necessary staff are not there, and the necessary experience is lacking. I am quite sure that it is a very necessary and essential thing that every Department of the Central Government which is directly responsible for the administration of a social service ought to have at its disposal means for conducting the research that is really essential for the success of the service which it has to administer. In the National Assistance Board we began a certain amount of research, and although, of course, we could not undertake research with the rapidity with which it was undertaken by the research students in the new universities, we did accomplish something.
For that reason, I hope that your Lordships are going to agree this afternoon to put this new clause into the Bill. I am quite certain that the success of the administration of these great services cannot be fully assured unless it is reinforced by research producing the sort
990
of results to which my noble friend referred, such as the report on the financial circumstances of elderly people which was published the other day. I believe that that sort of work is essential.
Of course, a good deal of research work is undertaken by the Central Office of Information. I do not desire to say any word which is disparaging of the Central Office of Information, as my experience of the work they do has certainly been most agreeable. But it is not right in principle that the research affecting a Department responsible for a major social service should be done outside that Department by an altogether different body. I am quite sure that successful research must necessarily be conducted inside the Department, and to some extent by officers who are concerned with the daily administration of the Department. For those reasons I would attach a good deal of importance to this new clause, and I hope that your Lordships will see fit to include it in the Bill.
4.53 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: I am sure that whenever we hear the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, speak from his vast experience we are all of us inevitably impressed by what he says. But I noticed that in the course of his remarks he recognised that within the Board, as it at present exists, a great deal of research has taken place and is taking place.
LORD ILFORD: May I say, "a certain amount of research"? I would not say that the Board would ever be able to undertake all the research that we desire.
LORD SORENSEN: Whether my term of "a great deal" or "some amount" is right, I will leave on one side. A great deal of research has been undertaken, and the view that we are now taking arose out of that research as well as the cumulative effect of the experience of great chairmen of the Board like the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and his very effective staff. So there is no dispute at all as to the need for research. The noble Lord opposite has drawn on the exploration and conclusions made by two very able and noted sociologists over the last few years. This objective study of facts, this attempt to find out the facts irrespective of our inclinations, is, of course, highly I desirable and a great many discoveries

991
have been made, some of them very disconcerting indeed, even though we now live in a Welfare State.
But the clause would place upon the Minister and the Commission wide-ranging duties in connection with social research, such as both noble Lords opposite desire. As well as engaging in social research, they would be required to take on an unlimited co-ordinating role irrespective of the Minister to whose sphere of action the research related, and would be empowered to enter into arrangements with other Government Departments, local authorities, universities and voluntary organisations.
The social research which is envisaged under this clause would be aimed at discovering and meeting need and promoting the welfare of those in need. The term "need" is not qualified in any way and could presumably include, for example, medical and dental needs which are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Security.
As the noble Lords will know, a new clause with broadly similar purposes was proposed when the Bill was being considered in Committee in another place. Although that proposed new clause does not now form part of the Bill which is before us, the Minister made it clear that she had no quarrel with the underlying purpose of the clause—quite the contrary—and that the need to undertake research into social problems was fully accepted by the Government; indeed, I am sure any Government would appreciate that necessity. I should like now to reiterate that such research is regarded by the Government as a matter of very great importance.
I must now turn to the clause proposed by the two noble Lords. The inclusion of a statutory requirement in the Bill cannot in itself do anything to further the ends which the noble Lords presumably had in mind in drafting the clause. The proposition that a better ascertainment of the facts will give a better direction to policy will, I am sure, command universal acceptance in this House. But the vigour and imagination with which research into social problems is undertaken must depend basically not on a statutory requirement, but on the vigour and imagination
992
displayed by the Minister and the Commission.
LORD ILFORD: I am sure that the noble Lord is not overlooking the need for statutory authority before this work can be undertaken.
LORD SORENSEN: Of course I appreciate that. We all do. But I have not quite finished, and perhaps part of the observation of the noble Lord will be covered by my supplementary remarks; if not, perhaps we can follow it up.
On a rather different note, it may be that one consideration which has weighed with the noble Lords is the fact that in both the National Insurance Act 1965, and the Industrial Injuries Act 1965, there is specific provision empowering the Minister to obtain statistics or arrange research. But this provision is for a technical reason to make it clear that payments for such purposes can be made out of the appropriate Insurance Fund. No such provision is required when the expenditure to be incurred will be carried on a Vote. The absence of a clause such as that now proposed does not in any way limit the Minister's powers to arrange for such research as may be desirable in relation to any of the responsibilities of the Ministry or the Commission.
As to the arrangements to be made for the actual undertaking of any particular research project, the Minister will not, if I may put it so, be acting in vacuo. Discussions will, of course, take place with other Government Departments and, where appropriate, with other bodies. It is obviously of the greatest importance that duplication and overlapping should be avoided. The setting up of the Social Science Research Council gives a clear indication of the Government's view in this matter. Their determination to use research as a tool in the framing of policy is well illustrated by this Bill itself, based as it is on a most extensive and thorough piece of research by officers of the new Ministry, and by the further decision to undertake a study of the circumstances of families with children, the field work for which has just been completed.
Although the Government resist this clause, I can give a firm assurance that research will be given a very high place in the priorities of both the Minister and the Commission.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I wonder whether the noble Lord could just give me a reply to the specific question which I put. He has referred again to these two surveys both of which resulted from outside pressure, and when that outside pressure built up the surveys were launched, were admirably conducted, and were most useful. But the whole point of this Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has said, is that there should be a continuing research unit within the new Ministry. Therefore, the last point that the noble Lord made does not seem to answer entirely the question I put in moving the Amendment.
LORD SORENSEN: I still fail to appreciate the point the noble Lord has put. Why should there not be this continuation, such as he desires? I see no difficulty in that respect at all. If he can enlighten me, I should be most grateful.
LORD WINDLESHAM: What the noble Lord has said is that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, but they accept that research is of very great importance, and I think the words used by the noble Lord were that the new Ministry would initiate or carry out such research "as is desirable". This suggests that it will be done by the Central Office of Information, or by some outside body, with the build-up and the delays involved, rather than by a unit actually in the middle of the Ministry with the responsibility of looking at the whole field of social policy.
5.2 p.m.
LORD SIMEY: What the noble Lord the mover of this Amendment has just said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said a minute or so ago, has now made it necessary for me to intervene, and in doing so I should make it plain to your Lordships that I am the head of a university department engaged in social research, in which work I am associated with my colleagues, Professor Titmuss, Professor Abel-Smith and Professor Townsend. When we legislate we must be extremely careful that we do not by accident deny people the opportunity of doing things.
I have been much perturbed on two scores. One is that a previous incarnation of mine as a practising lawyer has now been revived in my mind this after-
994
noon. I suffer from a great urge at this moment to go out of this Chamber and to go to a law library and lookup some law. Unfortunately, I have had to wait to take part in the debate, and have been unable to do that. I shall go to a law library at the earliest possible moment if this Amendment is passed; because the unfortunate thing is that, when you pass legislation empowering people to do this, that and the other, the people concerned get the powers, but what about other people, in exactly those situations, who have been doing these things for many years without any express powers? They then have to go to their legal advisers, the Law Officers of the Crown, and say, "Please, am I right in going on doing this?"
My department is now in receipt of grants from several Government Departments, and we are doing quite a lot of social research work. I should now like to see, if this Amendment is passed, whether those Departments have any power to commission that work. If not, I take it that it will have to stop, and that will be extremely embarrassing for us. Therefore, in the light of what the Minister has said, I trust we may not have to pass this Amendment this afternoon.
The second point is that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has said that we ought to have this research done within Ministries. Of course we need to have social research work done in Ministries, but I submit with great earnestness to the Committee that it is necessary to have this work done by people outside the Ministries as well; because, rightly or wrongly, nobody believes that the work done inside the Ministries is not done (shall I say?) without a little slant attached to it. I do not think that the work done by Professor Abel-Smith and Professor Townsend, which has been referred to several times this afternoon, was commissioned by Ministries. I think it was done entirely as a matter of private enterprise by individual universities, and I hope we shall continue to have such work done in the future.
Now we outside the Ministries have spent our time over the last, say, twenty years (speaking personally, that figure should be more than thirty) making submissions to Ministries that research work should be done by us with information and facilities supplied by those Ministries. In this matter, however, they have proved

995
to be remarkably timid, and frequently they have not been willing to give us the facilities we need. This debate has been a marvellous thing, so far as my Department is concerned, and also the other Departments that have been mentioned. To-morrow morning I shall send to my colleagues copies of the issue of the OFFICIAL REPORT containing the report of these debates, and my colleagues will act on the debate which has taken place in this Chamber this afternoon. We shall make further submissions to Ministries suggesting that more work of this kind should be done, and I think it will also be possible for us to make submissions that more grant-aid should be made available to us to make this research work possible.
In the past, the phrase frequently used inside Government Departments when research work was proposed (it was used inside one Government Department when I was a member of its staff during the war) was. "idle curiosity". I am completely wearied by the use of that expression, and I hope that, after this debate this afternoon by your Lordships' Committee, it will never be used again. I hope that we shall be able to demonstrate that we are public-spirited people, with a sense of responsibility, that we shall go ahead, that due note will he taken of the work we do and that action based upon the findings of our research work will be taken.
At the moment, there is a revolution going on in social research work dating from the appointment of the Social Science Research Council, and it should be possible for us to get grant-aid from that organisation—certainly, at the moment, so far as the employment of post-graduate students on social research is concerned. We hope that in the future that Council will have funds made available to it to enable research work of this kind to be facilitated. It will also be possible for us to go to the University Grants Committee, which is the source of most of the funds that my department uses on this work, and to finance research projects in that way.
In all these ways, I hope that enough work of this kind will be done; but I was overjoyed when the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, made the point that an
996
inadequate amount of research work is actually taking place now—and I should make it quite plain to noble Lords that I agree with him in that respect. My own view is that what he said was a very mild version of the truth. What we do not know in the matter of social research work in regard to poverty—in regard to the poverty of children, in regard to the poverty of the low wage-earners, and so on—is an enormous encyclopædic body of knowledge. I hope that we shall be able to remedy this lack of knowledge in the course of the years immediately ahead of us.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: May I just add a word in support of the new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Ilford? No such clause was put into the 1944 Education Act, and one of the results was that it was practically impossible for the Minister to do anything about research. I think your Lordships' Committee will agree that there is almost no large section of the public services so deficient in research as education. Now why does a Minister need a clause of this kind? I am afraid that it is for a very down-to-earth reason: it is simply that, when he is arguing his departmental budget with the Treasury, and the Treasury are going through the sub-heads of the Estimates, if there are no statutory powers he is in a very weak position to get money out of the Treasury in order to do exactly what the noble Lord who last spoke wants—namely, to commission universities.
LORD SIMEY: Might I intervene to say that the Ministry of Education have in fact grant-aided my department to conduct a large scheme of research?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Yes, but I think that if the noble Lord looks up the dates he will find that that was after a very long battle—a battle which would have been avoided if, in 1944, we had had some provision of this kind in the Education Act. That is all I am saying. It is one thing for Ministers to say—I may have said it myself in my time: "My intentions are perfectly good. I assure you that the Ministry will pay the greatest possible attention to this but I do not want it in the Bill." I am sure that I must have said that myself many times. The other thing is—and

997
the only reason I intervene is to say it from bitter experience—that when arguing one's Departmental Vote it matters very much whether one has statutory power or not.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Eccles has said; indeed, I think it accords with my experience. I should be very surprised if the Ministry, if left to themselves, were not wholly in favour of this clause. I do not think it would be the Ministry opposing it; it would be the Treasury. We want to get these powers into the Bill precisely to enable the Ministry to do this kind of continuous work for themselves, without necessarily having to wait for research staff from other departments to carry out that work; as has happened in the past. If they had their own research staff and were able to do outside field work themselves, this would help also in arranging surveys as a whole. I am sure that in this matter nobody wants to take the bread from the mouths of the universities, as the noble Lord, Lord Simey, suggested. I thought the Amendment made it clear that universities and the voluntary organisations would be brought into these arrangements. All one wants is that this kind of work should remain essentially within the control of the Ministry, so that they can carry out surveys, appropriately and timely, as and when they wish, and as and when they judge it to be necessary, without having to wait for outside organisations.
It is a fact, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, that surveys have been undertaken outside. Very often they were pilot surveys, of a very limited character. This has meant that the Ministry have been pressed—and, indeed, have desired—to carry out further surveys of a larger character. That is how we have the survey of financial and other circumstances of retirement pensioners. It is interesting that in this connection this particular phrase is used:
"Experience of interviewing persons about their incomes was also regarded as highly necessary as this is a subject on which it is particularly difficult to obtain accurate information. Detailed control of the field work was therefore placed in the hands of the regional offices of the National Assistance Board and special teams of interviewers were selected from among the staff of the Board and the Ministry."
This is what we are asking for, this kind of survey, which can in many cases be
998
carried out only by the Ministry. We are asking that there should be the facilities, the powers and, indeed, the duty to carry out such surveys. The noble Lord, Lord Simey, spoke about this clause calling in question the powers of other people who carry out surveys simply because the clause does not give powers but places a duty on the Ministry and the Commission to carry out such surveys. "Powers" may be exclusive; but I do not think "duties" are exclusive in the same way. So I should not have thought that he would have needed to worry on that score.
I am certain that my noble friend is right: that there is a good reason for placing a duty on the Minister and Commission to do all these things—not necessarily to carry out or to co-ordinate themselves (although that may be appropriate in some cases), but to arrange with these other bodies, other Government Departments or voluntary organisations, for such inquiries to be held and to participate in them as necessary. This, I think, would give the noble Lord, Lord Simey, what he wants. It would give that co-operation from outside surveys and outside organisations and the Ministry and the Commission in carrying out these surveys. I hope the Minister will reconsider this Amendment. I think the new clause would be a valuable addition to the Bill. I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to press it. No doubt he has more to say. But I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will reconsider this between now and the next stage.
LORD CHAMPION: May I say that this Amendment is rather pushing at an open door. The intentions of the Ministry in this matter have been made clear by my noble friend. I must put one rather technical point in this connection. If we include these words in the Bill we may, as a result, cast doubt on the powers of other Departments who also undertake research and enter into agreements with other people for this specific purpose and who have no such powers governing them in an Act. This is a technical point worthy of consideration in this connection. The inclusion of these words might have precisely that effect.
There is one other thing. The noble Lord challenged my noble friend.

999
Though he is capable for answering for himself, and I wanted to intervene merely to make the technical point, I feel that, having regard to the weight of opinion brought to bear on this matter to-day by this Committee and the authority of those who engaged in it, we must look at this question again. But I am sure my noble friend will not give any firm commitment for including it, because we have to consider it in the wide range of legislation as a whole.
LORD WINDLESHAM: All I should like to say is that we do appreciate what the noble Lord has just said, that this Amendment is pushing at an open door. What seems to be relevant to the technical point which the noble Lord has just raised, whether other Departments making grants might be put in a difficult position, is that this is a new Department of Government, and here is a considerable opportunity because new Departments are not set up by Statute every day. Here is an opportunity to create a new responsibility and, as my noble friend Lord Eccles, speaking from his enormous experience, said, to enable the new Ministry to perform more effectively the functions which it is to carry out. I think this clause would enable the Ministry to discharge its functions to the full; and the noble Lord, Lord Simey, and his friends will no doubt keep up the pressure to see that it does carry out its intentions. So, if this Amendment has produced nothing else, it has had the effect of encouraging professional social research workers in the universities to keep pressure on the new Ministry. With the assurance that I have been given, I should like to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Right to benefit]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.20 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Before leaving this clause, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to a point that I made during the Second Reading of this Bill. But, before doing that, may I, with so many other noble Lords, congratulate my noble friend Lord Popplewell on his maiden speech?
1000
For many years in the House of Commons he was a close associate of mine and I am sure that his timely reference to the type of case we are discussing this afternoon was well received by your Lordships. The point I made on Second Reading related to Clause 4, and the reference to:
"Every person in Great Britain on or over the age of 16."
I have felt for a long time that the age should be 15. I have been preoccupied with the problem created by physically and mentally handicapped children.
Let us consider the case of a man who is at work and who has a child not sufficiently handicapped to go to a hospital or a school but sufficiently handicapped to be unable to receive any kind of instruction at all. I know that some physically and mentally handicapped children go to school and are allowed to stay until they are 16; many go to occupational centres, and their circumstances are different from those of children unable to go either to hospital or to school. Such children are a burden on their parents. The parents are financially responsible, and when the child reaches the age of 15 there is the gap of a year, from 15 to 16, during which, because of this age barrier, a child is unable to claim assistance in its own right. I have seen many such cases, and I hope, therefore, that, even at this late stage, it will not be too late for the Government to reconsider this point in the interest of those parents who have had to bear quite a substantial burden for so many years and who, under the proposed legislation, will have to continue to do so for a further year.
One other point I should like to make concerns the case of families where there is more than one child. When one of the children reaches the age of 15, the family allowance in respect of him stops, unless he is an apprentice, or receiving full-time instruction at school. I know of many cases where a family's income has been reduced because of that, and the parents have to wait a year before a physically or mentally handicapped child can apply to the National Assistance Board. I am quite sure that great hardship results from this condition. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will be able to say that the age at which a person

1001
may apply to the Ministry of Social Security will be 15 instead of 16.
LORD CHAMPION: It is true that Clause 4(1) of the Bill states that no person under 16 who has left school and is unemployed or sick will be able to claim benefit in his own right. The fundamental point which we have to consider, and which the Minister had to consider before presenting the Bill, is at what time does the child cease to be a liability of the parent. At what point does the parent cease to feel that he has a liability to maintain his child? This Bill follows the National Assistance Act by providing that the parent's responsibility should continue until the child is 16. The Minister does not think that the age should be lower. She has given the point very careful consideration. If my right honourable friend is correct, that the parent's responsibility should continue until the child is 16, it must follow that it would not be right for the child to be able to claim benefit at 15 in his or her own right.
I would not agree with the implication of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield that this creates a serious problem. As your Lordships may know, the same rule applies in respect of National Assistance, and the Government have no evidence that this rule has given rise to any real difficulty. If the head of the family is out of work or unable to work on account of sickness, the needs of a dependent child of whatever age are taken into account in assessing any assistance allowance which may then be payable, and this will also be the position for noncontributory benefit purposes. Where the head of the family is in employment, it is unlikely that he will experience serious difficulty in maintaining one of his children who has left school but remains wholly dependent on him until attaining the age of 16, as the parent will have recently been supporting the child while he was at school. A child cannot leave school at the earliest until the end of the term in which he reaches the age of 15, and where the parents have to continue to support a child, the need for that support cannot last for more than a few months.
Such figures as are available to the Ministry support my argument that this creates but a minor problem. The Ministry of Labour's figures of unemployed school leavers—that is, from the age 15
1002
to 18—who have not obtained jobs since leaving school show that the numbers decline rapidly after reaching a peak at the end of the summer term. In 1965 the figures fell from 38,753 in mid-August to 1,683 in mid-December. I give these figures, although they have no direct relationship to the point made by my noble friend about youngsters who will be forever incapable of work, because I thought the Committee is entitled to the information.
Finally, I must say that it is the declared intention of the Government to raise the school-leaving age to 16 in 1970, and this seems hardly the time—unless there were very pressing reasons—to reduce the minimum age for claiming benefit under this Bill to 15. I have sympathy with the circumstances so cogently set out by my noble friend, but there are limits to the amount that the State can do. Indeed, there are limits to the extent to which the State may take away the responsibility of the parent for the upbringing and care of his child. We believe that the age of 16 previously decided on is still appropriate, and I am sorry that I cannot give my noble friend very much hope that between now and Report stage we may be convinced otherwise, and be prepared to put down an Amendment along the lines he suggests.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Determination of right to and amount of benefit.
5.—
(2) Regulations under this section may vary the provisions of Part II of the said Schedule 2, but not so as to reduce any amount specified therein.
5.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (2), after "Part II" to insert "or Part III". The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment, the purpose of which is to make it possible to amend by regulations Part III of Schedule 2 as well as Part II. Part III deals with the calculation of resources and, in particular, with the disregards. There are a number of provisions in the Schedule which are unlikely to be altered very often. On the other hand, there are some which have to be altered from time to

1003
time. For example, I would mention two in paragraph 24 (f) and (g):
"(f) 7s. 6d. of any of the payments mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph;
(g) 5s. 6d. of any of the payments mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph;"
It would seem that such provisions might reasonably be altered from time to time.
I know that experience has shown that the disregards are unlikely to be altered very often, but that is not a reason for not taking power to alter them, if necessary. I can testify to the handicaps and frustrations—in the past at any rate—of not being able to alter these when it seemed necessary to alter them, and the very fact that power to alter them has not been used shows that no Government are likely to be forced by pressure to make regulations. I should have thought that it would not do any harm to extend to Part III this power to make regulations, and it might well do good. Experience has shown that it would be relatively easy to resist pressure to make changes in the regulations. I would have thought that this power should remain, both for that reason and because it might be needed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, after ("Part II") insert ("or Part III").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BOWLES: Clause 5(2) enables the Minister, by regulations, which are subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, to vary the provisions of Part II of Schedule 2. Part II of this Schedule contains all the rules which will enable the Commission to determine the level of income requirements in each individual case, covering the rates of requirements themselves, the long-term addition and rent. The Minister will be given power by the Bill to vary these rules but not to decrease any of the amounts specified. In other words the Minister can prescribe higher levels of requirements or different levels for new categories, but cannot reduce any of the rates. The Amendment seeks to give the Minister exactly the same power to vary Part III of Schedule 2—that is, the rules for the calculation of resources.
The noble Lord has presented the case for the Amendment he proposes most persuasively, and his arguments in its favour cannot be lightly dismissed. On
1004
this particular issue—whether or not the Minister should have the power to vary the disregards, as well as the scale rates themselves, by regulation—it does not seem to me that there is any cut and dried answer available. There are merits on both sides, and the Government have had to weigh them carefully in the balance. In the Government's view, the balance of advantage lies in restricting the Minister's power to vary by regulations the rules governing assessment of need, to the rules in Part II of Schedule 2. I must explain to your Lordships why the Government have come to this conclusion.
The noble Lord has based his case on the fact that if the Amendment were accepted, the Minister would then have a more flexible instrument available. Periodically, though not of course on every occasion over the years that the rates of requirements might be raised, the disregards themselves could be improved, without the need for amending legislation. This is not a negligible consideration, of course, but I really do not think the noble Lord has given sufficient weight to the factors which must be put on the other side.
First, we are not now dealing with the National Assistance disregards, but with the entirely new structure of income and capital disregards set out in Part III of the Schedule. My noble friend Lord Sorensen devoted considerable time in the Second Reading debate to explaining the nature of these disregards, which dovetail into each other very closely—for instance, the provisions whereby more capital is to be ignored in the case of a person who has no income which falls to be disregarded than in the case of a person with, say, an occupational pension. It is not desirable, in the Government's view, that separate parts of this carefully balanced pattern should be varied without the most careful consideration being given to the effect of any particular change upon the structure as a whole.
Secondly, we must face the fact that there is simply no case for frequent changes in the rates of the disregards themselves. Over a period of 18 years, the National Assistance disregards were altered but once, in 1959. This was the only use made of the regulation-making power conferred by the Act of that year. The Government does not anticipate that

1005
there will be any stronger grounds in the future for frequent changes in the disregards in Schedule 2. And that being so, the arguments about legislative convenience do not carry so very much weight.
Thirdly—and most important of all—it is simply a fact that the matters dealt with in Part III of the Schedule are different in kind from those dealt with in Part II. Because Part III is concerned with disregards, it is selective in its effect. It creates a double standard whereby certain people, because of the way in which their resources are made up, will have the advantage of a higher total income than the majority. The Government are satisfied, and I think all noble Lords will agree, that despite this effect there is a case for preferential treatment for certain resources. As my noble friend said on the Second Reading, there are conflicting principles here, and the Government consider the new pattern of disregards represents as fair a balance between these principles as it is possible to achieve within our present resources. But this preferential treatment of some people, adds to cost, and must therefore mean that less is available for other purposes. It would be wrong, as the Government see it, to do anything in the future by way of enhancing this preference without giving Parliament the opportunity of considering the matter on the basis of amending the Statute itself.
It is on these grounds that the Government felt that they should not seek powers for the Minister to alter the disregards by a regulation, even though that regulation would be subject to the safeguards of Affirmative Resolutions. Accordingly, and although as I have said there are arguments cutting both ways, we do not feel that we can accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD BROCKWAY: I rise on a point of information and clarification. Later I have an Amendment dealing with the costs of blind persons and those who are suffering from tuberculosis. They were given a special allowance in regulations under the 1948 and 1964 Acts. The point I am asking now is whether, under the provisions the Government are making now, it will still be possible to make special allowances to those whose costs are greater because of those disabilities.
LORD BOWLES: May I point out to my noble friend that I am not in charge of that particular Amendment, but I gather that the answer is, "Yes".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his answer. As he rightly says, this is a question of pros and cons, and they are fairly evenly balanced. I think that the arrangements for treating capital resources are so tidy that it is extremely unlikely that they will he altered for a long time to come. But I have had experience in the past—I could give your Lordships a particular case—of the other disregards in income. There was a case in which it would have been desirable to alter (it was a question of application, with which I will deal later; it is a complicated matter), and simply because of the doctrine that it was so difficult to deal with the matter by regulations—if you were going to alter anything in the disregards you would have to look at the whole Schedule—nothing was done about it. It is now being done in the Bill.
This really cuts both ways. All I am saying is that if the necessity to make an alteration is so great, if something goes wrong and it shows up that the disregards are not working as they were intended to work, because of movements of one kind and another—wages and so forth—then it would clearly be reasonable to make an alteration, in spite of the fact that you could not look at the whole field of disregards but would only be altering a particular point by regulations. I still feel that this would be desirable. I think it is a pity to withdraw a power that was conferred in 1959, when there is absolutely no evidence that it has been abused—quite the contrary; it was not used enough. However, I am not prepared to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Medical requirements etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question on Clause 6. I wonder whether he would be good enough to say what the words "as may be appropriate", at the end

1007
of the clause, mean. Noble Lords will see that subsection (2) says:
"Benefit to meet the requirements mentioned in this section shall be such benefit or payment to or on behalf of the person receiving the appliances or services as may be appropriate."
This is not comparable with any of the other language used in the Bill. It seems to be exceedingly vague, and perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what is intended.
LORD CHAMPION: I had some little doubt about this myself until I was told that the words "as may be appropriate" refer to the payment and not to the appliances or services. There will be some payments for appliances or services, and clearly the responsible officers must decide whether they are approved. There is no question about the appliances and services, but, rather, the words "as may be appropriate" relate back to the payment or payments. I do not think there is any doubt about this. I hurriedly made an inquiry after the noble Lord was kind enough to intimate to me that he proposed to ask this question. Having consulted about this, I feel that the words are clear and relate back to payment, and have no or little relation to the words "appliances or services".
LORD DRUMALBYN: This means, therefore, that the payment will be of the particular amount, and will not be a discretionary payment.
LORD CHAMPION: It is of the amount.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Exclusion of persons in full-time employment]:
5.44 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (4), after "section 6" to insert: "or supplement under section—(Supplements to Family Allowances)". The noble Lord said: I regard this as an important Amendment. Its object is to empower the Minister by regulations to prescribe certain supplements to family allowances of those persons whose incomes fall short of the requirements prescribed in the Bill, whether or not those persons are in employment.
LORD BOWLES: Perhaps the noble Lord—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I am coming to the noble Lord's point. Lest anyone should question our right in this House to carry such an Amendment in a Division, let me say at once that I have no intention of trying to do so. I do not intend to press the Amendment to a Division, but I think that in a Bill which concerns need it is our right, and indeed our duty, to discuss the matter.
LORD BOWLES: That was not actually the point I had in mind, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining it. What I had in mind was to suggest to the noble Lord that he might take this Amendment and Amendments Nos. 9 and 15 together because they seem to be on the same point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, indeed. This Amendment, of course, is only a paving Amendment. The broad object of Clause 8 is to limit the scope of the Commission, just as that of the National Assistance Board is limited to persons not engaged in full-time work. So it excludes those whose incomes fall short of the requirements in the Bill if they are in remunerative full-time work. Then paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 provides for requirements to be "adjusted to normal earnings"; that is to say, a man's requirements when he is not working are deemed to be the same as when he was working, even though they fall short of the requirements laid down in the Bill. This so-called adjustment is commonly known as the wage-stop—and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in his place as I come to this Amendment.
As the noble Lord said, 15,000 or so are affected by this at present, a number which varies, I believe, as the total number of unemployed changes, but not necessarily in direct proportion. Most of us, I think, would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, said about this on Second Reading. The wage-stop, which provides an amount which a person not working is entitled to receive by way of National Assistance allowances and payments is limited to the amount which they would be earning if they were engaged in their normal occupation. As the noble Lord said at the time, it would be quite wrong that

1009
those who were not working should not be subject to this limitation, whereas those who were working would not be able to get any more than they would have been earning at the time. It would create a disparity between them.
The amount by which such people are docked by the wage-stop can be substantial. Under the Bill, according to my calculations the requirements of a man with a wife and five children, two between 11 and 15, and three between 5 and 10, and paying 35s. a week in rent and rates, would be assessed as £16 2s. a week. If his net earnings, including family allowances of £1 18s., were £14, he would get no more than that from the Ministry of Social Security under the Bill. His total net income, including family allowance, would still be £14, which would be two guineas less than his full requirements under the Bill. It is perhaps worth pointing out that if this man had had only three children his normal earnings would have been well above the requirements laid down in the Bill. It seems to follow that, generally speaking, the wage-stop catches mainly the large families. This seems clear enough without any inquiry.
The other aspect of this problem is that the wage-stop merely brings into the open the fact that many men and women who have large families and are working are not paid enough to keep them at the level thought proper under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, suggests that the answer is to pay them all more. But there are families of twelve, and it cannot be reasonably suggested that all married men should be paid enough to keep a family of twelve. The answer, surely, lies in higher family allowances for the larger families. The Amendment enables the Minister to prescribe by regulations such supplements for family allowances. For instance, she might provide in the family allowance for a supplement of 5s. for the third child, 10s. for the fourth, and 15s. for the fifth and subsequent children. This is the sort of thing that could be done under the Amendment. How much is needed for each child will no doubt be indicated by the inquiry which is at present being conducted.
The supplements envisaged in the Amendment would be paid only to those whose earnings, plus normal family
1010
allowances, fell short of social security requirements. They would not necessarily make the earnings up to the requirements. One way of doing it, of course, would be by deficiency payments, but that would be verging on the experiment to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, referred on Second Reading. On the other hand, the supplements would not be more than enough in any individual case to bring them up to the standard requirements. Clearly, this device would mean that the Commission would have to deal with an extra 200,000 to 300,000 cases—that is to say, it would add about 10 to 15 per cent. to their present case-load. That is formidable but, surely, not so formidable as to be totally impracticable.
What is the alternative? It is surely to pay higher family allowances without regard to income. This would be vastly more expensive, but it may, nevertheless, be the right solution—I do not know. Family allowances are very much higher, for example, in France. The question is, who is to pay for them? In France, the employer pays more for social security but less in wages. When I saw that the Government intended to increase the National Insurance stamp to pay for the selective employment tax I wondered whether they meant later to withdraw the selective employment tax and replace it by a social security payment towards family allowances, in this way accustoming employers to pay rather more on the National Insurance stamp in the future. But now it looks rather as though the selective employment tax is a forced loan to enable the Government to pay compensation to the owners of steel shares. So the net revenue from the selective employment tax is unlikely to be earmarked for higher social security payments.
This Amendment is designed to suggest to the Government a way in which they could provide supplements to people who are earning little and have to maintain large families and, at the same time, a way in which the Exchequer can mitigate the rigours of the wage-stop for those who are not working, are earning little when they are, and have large families. It will enable the Minister to take action as soon as she knows the results of the inquiry, without waiting in the legislative queue. I commend the Amendment for your Lordships' consideration, with very little hope that it

1011
will be accepted, though I believe it to be a subject worthy of the attention of the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 4, line 30, after ("section 6") insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SIMEY: I feel that there will be general agreement that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made a most important point here. The difficulty that has beset us in the past, however, has been that it has been hard to find any secure way ahead having regard to the fact that, if we are not careful, the floodgates may be opened. There is one thing which I think we could do in the immediate future which might pave the way to the action which the noble Lord wants, and which he suggested to us. If we could provide the Child Poverty Action Group with the information it needs, particularly the statistical information, we might be able to work out the exact cost of a scheme which would alleviate quite substantially the poverty of the people we have in mind. May I therefore suggest—and I hope that the Minister who is to reply will accept the idea—that this information might be made available to my colleagues? I think that the work they have done so far has been most impressive, and I should like to see them carry it one stage further.
May I add that reflection has caused me to conclude that I did less than justice to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in my remarks a few minutes ago. I am sorry to see that he is no longer in his place, but I think I ought to thank him publicly for the assistance he gave us in the research work in my Department, and to apologise to him for any seeming discourtesy this evening.
LORD MITCHISON: I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, for two reasons. I spoke about this matter at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I suggested that it would be a mistake to try to do what is denied by family allowances in connection with the number of children. But there is a second and, I think, more important point. When speaking about this matter earlier, I pointed out that there is a provision in subsection (2) of Clause 5 for following the provisions of Part II of Schedule 2 in which this particular adjustment
1012
occurs, but not so as to reduce any amount specified therein. That seems to me to be a very wide provision, and it would enable the Minister to do by regulation almost anything that can be imagined as suitable in this place. The Minister has said that she requires further information, and she is collecting it at the moment. I do not see how, in these circumstances, one can dispute a demand by a Minister to have time for collecting and applying further information, and I think it would be a great mistake if one tried to do so, particularly when there is a provision enabling her afterwards to act on that information. Therefore, I should have thought it would be a mistake to accept this Amendment, and that the right course would be to allow the Minister to collect the information she requires, and apply it as she thinks fit (there are no doubt provisions for questioning that, if necessary), and to use her powers under the subsection to which I have referred.
5.57 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking these three Amendments together. It makes for neater debate, and will also air a serious and difficult subject, namely, the question which the noble Lord himself has raised. I realised, as the noble Lord did, the proposals in the Amendment fall out with the scope of the Money Resolutions, and therefore it would be inappropriate to pass this Amendment and meet with the rebuff in the House of Commons that it was a matter of privilege.
This new clause would empower my right honourable friend the Minister to make regulations for the payment of a supplement to family allowances to persons whose incomes are below the noncontributory benefit scale. The supplement would be payable whether the person was in full-time employment or not. The amount of the supplement would be laid down in the regulations, but it would not be paid at a reduced rate in cases where payment at the full rate would raise the total income above the noncontributory benefit scale. As drafted, the new clause would apparently exclude one-child families (for whom, of course, no allowance is payable under the Family Allowance Act), of whom there will be a number, though only a small minority

1013
of the total, with incomes below the noncontributory benefit scale.
The noble Lord is quite right when he says that the problem arises where there are a large number of children. Where there is only one child it perhaps does not arise anything like so often. Ministers have repeatedly expressed the Government's grave concern about poverty among low-income families with children. My right honourable friend, the Minister Without Portfolio, said in a debate on the Welfare State in another place on February 23 of this year:
"We are now engaged on an urgent study of the whole problem, and have been for a long time. The study goes far beyond family allowances, and takes account of all forms of family support, including educational maintenance grant…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 725 (No. 54) col. 432; 23/2/66.]
My noble friend Lord Mitchison might notice that it is not only family allowances that my right honourable friend is considering, but also educational maintenance grants, school meals and welfare milk, and it may therefore be more in kind than in cash. Replying to the debate on a similar new clause in another place on June 13 my right honourable friend the Minister said:
"We have been doing a great deal of work trying to find ways and means of finding an equitable solution to this problem, and this work is going on at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, (Commons) Vol. 729 (No. 31), col. 1162, 13/6/66.]
As my noble friend Lord Mitchison said, the Ministry is at present carrying out a survey of family circumstances based on a nation-wide representative sample of about 2,750 families receiving family allowances. The interviewing of these families took place last week and the week before, so it is now over, and the processing of the information will be treated as a matter of urgency, though it is not yet possible to say when the results will be available, or when the Government may be ready to bring forward proposals.
A number of possible solutions to the problem of family poverty have been put forward. As my right honourable friend the Minister stated on 13th June:
"…until the results of the survey are available, and the Government have completed their study of the whole question of how best to relieve child poverty, it would be wrong to decide on, or indeed to rule out, any particular solution." [col. 1162.]
1014
The kind of solution proposed in this clause, however, poses problems which, while not necessarily insoluble, are extremely awkward. Apart from the purely administrative difficulties of ascertaining earnings which may vary from week to week, there is the problem of incentives. Many families would be placed in the position that any increase in earnings would result in a reduction of the supplement.
It might be suggested that, even if the best way of helping the low earner with a family cannot yet be decided, it could prove useful to take the power given in the new clause; but in the view of the Government it would in any case be wrong to introduce a radical and expensive new departure of this kind by regulations. When the Government are ready with proposals for relieving child poverty, those proposals will be presented to Parliament in the usual and proper way, with full opportunities for discussion and amendment of any legislative measures required. I am not going to give any figures at all, but the increase in family allowances would be tremendously expensive. I had better not mention any figures but I expect the noble Lord knows as well as I do.
The cost of the new scheme would depend upon the rates of supplement prescribed by the regulations. If the rates were high enough to bring the incomes of the great majority of poor families up to the non-contributory benefit scale, the cost would probably not be less than £20 million a year, and possibly nearer £30 million if all those eligible claimed. The information derived from the survey of family circumstances should enable more precise costings to be made than is now possible.
My noble friend Lord Simey made a suggestion which I am sure my right honourable friend will be pleased to take into consideration. I do not think there is any point in giving an answer to the two smaller Amendments, but if the noble Lord would like to know the answer I could give it. Otherwise I feel, in all the circumstances that I have mentioned, that I must ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think that what your Lordships would mainly like to

1015
know is that, in view of the obvious importance of this matter, steps to put it right will not be long deferred once the results of the inquiry are known and have been analysed and it has been possible to reach conclusions about them. It is obviously unfortunate, when a Bill of this character is introduced which affects the neediest in the land, that this particular gap should be left; and I can only express the hope, which I am sure all noble Lords will share, that means will be found to fill it at the earliest possible moment.
LORD BOWLES: Without actually recalling the words I used, I think the House will remember that I said that the Minister is pressing on with this with the greatest urgency. There is such a recognised anomaly and injustice that I am quite sure Parliamentary pressure will be such that as soon as proposals have been drafted the Government will treat it as a matter of urgency.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask whether it is the intention to publish the results of the inquiry as soon as they can be made available, or not until after the Government have made up their minds?
LORD BOWLES: I think I said that the analysis of the results will be made and the Government will then be in a position to know what to do. I am not in a position to commit the Government, but I should think, being broad-minded, that my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio and my right honourable friend the Minister of National Insurance might publish it in the form of a White Paper and have a national debate on it. I do not know, but it is an idea that occurred to me while the noble Lord was speaking.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for the information he has given and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I wonder if my noble friend could enlighten me on subsection (2). I know that this is a regulation-making clause, and I think I know what it means; but
1016
I am not absolutely certain. I am of the opinion that it refers to the man who has ceased to be in full-time employment or to the man who has recovered from sickness and has gone back to work. The position as I know it is this: that in most industries a person has to work two weeks before he receives his first week's wages, and of course, of necessity, he has to go to the National Assistance Board to tide him over until the end of the second week, when he draws one week's wages.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether, in the regulations it is proposed to make, it will be laid down that this man who has now gone back to full-time employment will be able to receive benefit under this particular subsection until he is paid his first wages after recommencing work, having been off work either through unemployment or through sickness. It has been my experience that many men have had to go to the employer for what we call a "sub". They have worked a full week, they might be given half a week's wages, and then at the end of the second week they have been given the other half. So that for two weeks the man and his family have had to live on one week's wages. If my noble friend could enlighten me on that point I should be grateful.
LORD CHAMPION: Subsection (2) of this clause to which my noble friend refers enables the Minister to make regulations deferring the application of subsection (1) for a period, thus enabling benefit to be paid for a time after the claimant has started full-time paid work, to cover his requirements until his first pay-day. Paragraph 22 of the Schedule to the Administration of Assistance Regulations prescribes a period of one week. This has been found sufficient in practice, and it is envisaged that a similar provision will be made in the new regulations. If the prescribed period expires before the person has received his wages the Commission will have power, in an urgent case under Clause 13, to award benefit in order to prevent hardship. This point, I think, is of tremendous importance. It is true they had it under the old National Assistance Act, as I understand it, and it has been administered with sympathy by the National Assistance Board. We take my noble friend's point, and I think the

1017
answer I have given will assure him that the regulations will in fact cover the point.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Persons affected by trade disputes
10.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, where by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment a person is without employment for any period during which the stoppage continues and he has not during that stoppage become bona fide employed elsewhere in the occupation which he usually follows or become regularly engaged in some other occupation, his requirements for that period shall be disregarded for the purposes of benefit except so far as they include the requirement to provide for any other person.
6.11 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not understand what the word bona fide means in this clause. What is bona fide and what is mala fide? Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("bona fide").—(Lord Drurnalbyn.)
LORD SORENSEN: I take it that bona fide is a synonym for genuine, but I am sure that this is a quite inadequate answer to the noble Lord and therefore I put these observations to him. A person involved in a trade dispute is disqualified under Clause 10 from receiving benefit unless he becomes "bona fide employed elsewhere" in his own occupation or some other occupation. This Amendment would alter the qualification words "bona fide employed elsewhere" to read simply "employed elsewhere". I am afraid this is an Amendment which the Government are not able to accept. The present wording in Clause 10 on this point follows the wording of Section 9(3) of the National Assistance Act 1948. Of course, that would not in itself be good cause for rejecting the Amendment: many provisions of the National Assistance Act have been amended by this Bill. But I make the point to emphasise that we have introduced nothing novel in the wording of this clause about the disqualification of the striker.
Both this clause and the equivalent section in the National Assistance Act
1018
are closely related to the National Insurance provisions. The term "trade dispute" is defined in Clause 36 of the Bill as having the same meaning as in Section 22 of the National Insurance Act 1965, and the phrase in Clause 10 which the noble Lord wishes to amend is in identical terms with that of Section 22 of the National Insurance Act, where the words "bona fide employed elsewhere" also appear. It will be seen also that Clause 18(2) of the Bill, which deals with appeals by a claimant against a decision that he is involved in a trade dispute, provides that such appeals are to be referred to the local National Insurance tribunal. The noble Lord will, I am sure, appreciate how important it is that there should be this close link between the contributory and the non-contributory schemes on this matter. Obvious difficulty could arise if, in the same case, where a man claimed he was not involved in a trade dispute and the question of whether or not he had become employed elsewhere was in issue, there were two different definitions to be considered—"bona fide employed" for unemployment benefit, and simply "employed" for non-contributory benefit.
I recognise that this does not directly answer the noble Lord's question as to what is the significance of the words "bona fide". I am advised that in fact they date back to the original National Insurance Act 1911, and that their purpose is to emphasise that it is only where a man has genuinely taken up other employment that he is, if he later becomes unemployed, to be regarded as no longer involved in the trade dispute. In other words, the intention of the words is to prevent a person from getting round the trade dispute disqualification by a subterfuge.
That may or may not satisfy the noble Lord. But he will, I think, appreciate that, unless we were to think of amending the corresponding National Insurance provision, we could not possibly agree to this Amendment. Noble Lords will not need me to tell them that consideration of the National Insurance Act is not our present purpose. More important, I ought to remind your Lordships that the trade dispute disqualification in the National Insurance Act 1965 is one of the matters under consideration by the Royal Commission on Trade Union and Employers'

1019
Organisations. So far, therefore, as concerns the wider issues raised by this Amendment, which indeed are implicit in it, these must of course defer to the Royal Commission's consideration of the problem as a whole. For these reasons I must, therefore, ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I will certainly not press the Amendment in view of the very cogent reply the noble Lord has given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Appeals
18.—(1) A person claiming or in receipt of benefit may appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against any determination of the Commission, or a refusal by the Commission to review a determination, with respect to any of the following matters:—
LORD DRUMALBYN: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we took this Amendment and the next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, together, if he is willing. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that an appeal may be made to the Tribunal where a man goes to a re-establishment centre or some comparable centre run by a voluntary organisation, against decisions on the payments to be made to meet his personal requirements or the requirements of his family. This does not seem to be covered by the Bill as it stands at the present time, and it seems to me obvious that it should be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) the provision of or failure to provide any payments for meeting a person's personal requirements or the requirements of any dependant of his under section 12 (3);".—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BOWLES: The Amendment provides for a specific right of appeal to the Appeal Tribunal by a person who is being maintained in a re-establishment centre against any decision as to the amount of payments he receives for his personal requirements or for those of his dependants. The noble Lord, Lord
1020
Drumalbyn, has explained the purpose of the Amendment, and as he is aware, the Government accept that an Amendment to achieve that purpose is desirable. As the Bill now stands it is open to doubt whether a payment made under Clause 12, subsection (3), is a payment of benefit. It follows from this that it is also open to doubt not only whether the individual has a right of appeal against the Commission's decision on the amount of any payment, because Clause 18(1)(a) speaks of appeals being against the right to or amount of any benefit, but also whether such payments are benefit for other purposes. For instance, exemption from stamp duty under Clause 19, and the provisions about inalienability in Clause 20, are written in terms of benefit.
Because of these wider implications it is necessary that any Amendment should cover not only the appeal point but the more general one of treating payment under Clause 12, subsection (3), as benefit for all purposes. The noble Lord knows from the Order Paper that I am moving a relevant Amendment later. In fact, as soon as the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I will move mine.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I thank him and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Legal proceedings]:
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: In regard to this clause I want merely to ask why there is a difference between the procedure in England and Wales as compared with that in Scotland: why it is that there is no limit of time in regard to the commission of the offence before proceedings can be brought in the case of Scotland.
LORD BOWLES: The noble Lord will realise that we on this side of the Committee have divided our labours. My noble friend Lord Champion has gone to get some information, and no doubt in due course he will communicate it to the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36:
Interpretation
36.—(1) In this Act—
"benefit", except where the context otherwise requires, means benefit under this Act;
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved to add to the interpretation of "benefit":
"and includes any payments under Section 12(3) of this Act".
The noble Lord said: This is a Government Amendment to put it beyond doubt that payments made under Clause 12(3) to men in re-establishment centres for their personal requirements, or for their dependants' requirements, are payments of benefit. The Amendment meets the point made by Lord Drumalbyn in his proposed Amendment to Clause 18. This Amendment includes payments made under Clause 12(3) to men in re-establishment centres, either for their own personal requirements or for the requirements of their dependants, within the definition of the word "benefit". This puts it beyond doubt that the individual has a right of appeal against the Commission's decision as to whether or not such payments should be made, and against the amount of any such payments, and therefore covers the very relevant point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to whom we are grateful.
I believe that the Minister has personally communicated with the noble Lord and said how grateful the Ministry and she are to him for raising this point. It also ensures that such payments are treated as benefit for all other purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 36. at end insert the said words.—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the Amendment that he has moved, and also to thank the Department for having written to me to let me know that an Amendment was being put down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
LORD SORENSEN LORD SORENSEN moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"(2) The provisions of this Act shall come into operation as follows, that is to say,—

(a) this section and section 38 on the passing of this Act;

(b) sections 1 to 3, Schedule 1, paragraphs 15 and 18 of Schedule 6 and so much of Schedule 8 as relates to Schedule 2 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, the Ministers of the Crown Act 1964 and the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965 on 6th August 1966; and

(c)the other provisions on such day as the Minister may by order appoint."

The noble Lord said: This is a Government Amendment, the purpose of which is to enable the parallel legislation to this Bill which is now before the Parliament of Northern Ireland to be passed as soon as the Bill now before your Lordships receives the Royal Assent. As your Lordships will know, in social security matters the Northern Ireland legislation has closely followed that of the Westminster Parliament and there is now before the Parliament of Northern Ireland a Bill entitled the "Supplementary Benefits etc. Bill (Northern Ireland)". The Northern Ireland Bill will not establish a Ministry of Social Security for Northern Ireland because a composite Department already exists there. But so far as concerns the new benefits and the Commission the Northern Ireland Bill is in most material respects the same, both in form and content, as the Bill now before this Committee.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the Northern Ireland Parliament cannot complete its legislation until the Westminster Parliament has given it the necessary powers under head (c) of Clause 38. This Amendment will give those powers at the earliest possible date by bringing Clause 38 into force on Royal Assent without waiting for the Commencement Order which the Bill at present provides for. This is the only change effected by the Amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 40. For clarity, however, the whole of subsection (2) is replaced and its component parts broken down into the three heads (a), (b) and (c), but there

1023
is no other change of substance. This is a technical matter and I assume that there is not likely to be any serious disputation on it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert the new subsection.—(Lord Sorensen.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions for determining right to and amount of benefit]:
6.26 p.m.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved, after paragraph 2, to insert:
"( ) Where the person claiming or in receipt of benefit is entitled to such other payments as may be specified for the purposes of this paragraph by regulations made by the Minister, the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, have effect as if sub-paragraph (1) were omitted and for the references in sub-paragraph (2) to the amount of any benefit there were substituted references to the aggregate of that amount and of the amount of the payments so specified."
The noble Lord said: This is the Government Amendment to the rule in paragraph 2 governing the actual amount payable after the calculation of resources and requirements has been completed, to which I referred during our Second Reading debate. The effect of the Amendment is that where a person is entitled to both non-contributory benefit and some other payment specified by the Minister, regulations may provide that it is the aggregate of the two payments which is to be rounded to the nearest shilling and not simply the noncontributory benefit itself. This Amendment is required particularly for dealing with those cases where a supplementary allowance will be made to unemployed persons registering at the employment exchange.
As your Lordships may know, the situation at present in these cases is that unemployment benefit and National Assistance are normally paid together at the employment exchange as one sum. This is obviously sensible, but the system does not work as smoothly as it could because during the early weeks of un-
1024
employment it often happens that there is a change, or a succession of changes, in the amount of unemployment benefit—because, for example, of the effect of waiting days and supplementary claims for dependants. When the amount of unemployment benefit changes like this, the National Assistance allowance (and, in due course, the supplementary allowance to be paid under this Bill) has to be adjusted so as to continue to meet the man's requirements. As paragraph 2 stands, however, and indeed under the present National Assistance rules, the effect of such changes could be that a person's total payment—that is, from National Assistance or non-contributory benefit and unemployment benefit together—went up or down by up to 6d., although there had been no change at all in his circumstances. This can, of course, be irritating to the claimant, to say the least. Perhaps I may quote a hypothetical example to show what I mean.
A man's total requirements are, say, £9 19s. 8d. a week. If he has no unemployment benefit due, he receives a supplementary allowance of £10, the 8d. being rounded up to the nearest shilling. Benefit then becomes due at, say, £6 19s. 6d. the next week, and is deducted from his requirements of £9 19s. 8d., leaving a balance due of £3 0s. 2d. But, under paragraph 2, this would then be rounded down to £3, and the total payment the man received that week would therefore be not £10 but £9 19s. 6d. So he has lost 6d. The Amendment will enable this anomaly to be avoided by permitting the rounding rule to be applied to the total of both contributory benefit and non-contributory benefit. In the example I quoted the man would receive £10 in the second week, just as he had received £10 in the first week. Your Lordships will see that where this rule is applied sub-paragraph (1), of paragraph 2, which prescribes that the minimum payment is to be 2s., does not apply. This is simply because the situation in which the total of insurance benefit and non-contributory benefit was less than 2s. could not in practice arise.
Your Lordships will see that the Amendment has been drafted in terms which do not relate it specifically to the problem of the man with changing rates of unemployment benefit. It has deliberately been put in terms which will

1025
enable the Minister to apply it in other situations of the kind which may arise when non-contributory and contributory benefits are paid as one sum. We already know that it is intended to pay retirement pensions and supplementary pensions together in due course. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 9, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: We welcome this Amendment as a move in the right direction, particularly since it follows on a discussion initiated on the Committee stage in another place by my honourable friends. Nevertheless, it is still a matter for regret that the organisation of the new Ministry of Social Security will not be sufficiently sophisticated to pay people what they are actually entitled to. The practice of rounding off, although now applied, quite correctly, in this Amendment to the combined figure rather than to the single amount, shows something of an old-fashioned attitude towards accounting. With computers a unit is a unit, it does not matter whether it is 2s. 0d. or 5s. 7d. Clearing-banks can make millions of payments, and do so every day, to the nearest penny. Wages and salaries paid by employers are paid to the nearest penny; or, if there is any rounding off, it is always rounded "up", never rounded "down".
As to small amounts of under two shillings, I should regard the description of "negligible payments" or "negligible amounts" in the Bill as rather unfortunate wording to use from the point of view of some of the people who are awarded these sums. The right honourable lady, the Minister, in another place said that these small awards of ls. 0d. and up to 2s. 0d. caused resentment. One can understand that might be the case. But if so, why make awards of very small amounts and then refuse to pay them because of a rule of administrative convenience? It seems an odd way round the problem. Therefore, while welcoming this Amendment, we hope that the Government will watch these two practices of rounding off and negligible payments and see whether improved administrative methods do not make it possible to eliminate them and in the future pay people what they are entitled to, to the penny.
LORD BOWLES: I would thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I am sure my right honourable friend will read his speech with interest to-morrow.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Will the noble Lord bear in mind the possible switch to decimal currency?
LORD BOWLES: I had that in my mind when the noble Lord was speaking.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in paragraph 10, after the second "persons", to insert:
"or any other persons incapacitated by any such disease or disability as the Minister may from time to time prescribe by order".
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I suggest that Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 should be discussed at the same time as Amendment No. 16. The purpose of these Amendments is to enable the Minister to prescribe diseases or disabilities so that those incapacitated by them should be entitled to the higher level of requirements on the same terms as the blind. This procedure will be much the same as applies in the case of industrial diseases under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, although rather less complicated.
The general principle implied by the Amendment is that those whose disabilities by their nature involve the need for special care in the person's own home should receive a higher level of benefit. I do not propose to give examples as I do not wish to pre-judge the diseases and disabilities which the Minister may consider warrant this special treatment. We can all think of cases which might well qualify. On Second Reading I expressed disappointment that there was nothing in the Bill which dealt specially with the chronic sick. I am well aware of the difficulty of definition, but it seems reasonably clear that there are diseases which are, at least in the present state of medical knowledge, incurable, diseases which are known to grow progressively worse and which may require a high degree of home attention. This is in the nature of a constant attendance allowance, and is rather different from the proposal in line 23 which is designed merely to deal with the period between the time when earnings-related benefit ceases and the time when

1027
the supplementary allowance for persons who have been out of the employment field for two years begins. This sets the requirements at the same rate as for the blind, which is, as I understand it, 15s. 6d. higher than the supplementary allowance and £1 4s. 6d. higher than the basic requirements. I think this is a power which the Minister might well wish to use. Of course, the Amendment does not make it mandatory for the Minister to use such a power, but, as I have said, one can think of many cases where it might well be justified, and I would suggest that this would be a power which it would be worth while for the Minister to take. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SORENSEN: Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are consequential on No. 16, as the noble Lord says, and my remarks are addressed in particular to No. 16. Some of my remarks will have a certain relevance to the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, though I shall speak more fully to that Amendment later on.
Paragraph 10 of the Schedule lays down higher rates for the normal weekly requirements of blind persons. The Amendment would permit the Minister, by regulations, to extend these special rates to such other persons suffering from diseases or disabilities as the regulations prescribed. I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. With one exception—which is the category of blind persons—the Government are convinced that there should be under the Bill no preferential rates for different classes of beneficiaries apart from the necessary distinctions based on household status and children's ages. The Bill confers a preference only on one group, the blind. The blind have traditionally been given this kind of preference, first in the Blind Domiciliary Assistance paid by Public Assistance Authorities, and in the field of non-contributory pensions (under the Old Age Pensions Act 1936), and later by means of the special scales of allowances under the National Assistance scheme. This preference has been retained because it is the Government's view that the special needs of blindness do not vary
1028
much individually, and that the common needs of blind people can be easily recognised, and can best be provided for by means of a special rate common to all blind people.
To extend the special provision to other classes entitled to non-contributory benefit would immediately lead to difficulty and the drawing of distinctions between cases; and this, whatever the noble Lord opposite may say, must in practice be invidious and cause much discontent. This is why my right honourable friend the Minister resisted the Amendments put forward, when the Bill was considered in Committee in another place, to give the preference to certain categories of disabled person. The noble Lords who have put down these Amendments must I think have been impressed by the arguments my right honourable friend then used and possibly have decided that drawing distinctions and defining the other preferred categories is too much for them. Instead, the Amendment takes refuge in the not unfamiliar device of passing the problem back to the Minister, who is to be given a free hand in the matter so that she can by order define the relevant categories. (There is, of course, a more vulgar phrase or synonym than the words I have mentioned.) This is a power which my right honourable friend does not need (because she already has the power under Clause 5, subsection (2), to vary the provisions of Part II of this Schedule) and a power she could not use without producing exactly the same problems of definition and of invidious distinctions as I have already mentioned.
No one would for a moment deny that there are many other groups of disabled people, and people suffering from serious diseases, who deserve the utmost consideration. There is nothing between the noble Lord and myself so far as this goes. But is the right answer in such cases to provide that the same special scale rates as for the blind shall apply? The Government are sure that it is not, simply because the special needs of such people can vary so very widely from one individual to another. What is required is not a special scale but individual attention to ensure that the amount allowed on top of the basic scale rate including, in long-term cases, the 9s. addition, is adequate to meet whatever special needs there may be. Under paragraph 4 of the Schedule,

1029
the Commission will have just those powers. That is one reason for giving them. And there is no limit to the amount which can be provided by way of discretionary allowances.
In the really sad case of chronic illness or crippling disablement where there are substantial expenses as a result, the Commission will be able to make completely adequate provision, as indeed the National Assistance Board have done in the past. It may interest your Lordships to know in this connection that last December the Board were making discretionary additions of over £1 a week in no fewer than 71,000 cases. Many of these will be in the kind of case and for the kind of expense which the noble Lord has in mind, and we are sure that this discretionary provision by the Commission in the individual case is much better than prescribing a fixed sum for categories of cases which must, in the end, be arbitrarily defined. I must, therefore, ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD BROCKWAY: Without wishing to anticipate the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper, may I ask my noble friend this question? He has stated that this special allowance has been limited to the blind. Is it not the case that, both in the 1948 Act and in the 1964 Act, this special allowance was also provided for people suffering from tuberculosis? If that is the case, what is the reason for not including such persons within the provisions of this Bill?
LORD SORENSEN: I think my noble friend is correct in regard to tuberculosis, and if I erred in not making that clear certainly I take the blame for it. But obviously the arguments that I have adduced to-day apply both to those categories and to other categories. It is felt that it is better to leave it to the Commission generously to exercise their powers, rather than to lay down scales in the way that has been suggested, which I think is open to very serious objection.
LORD SOMERS: I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, but I am still puzzled as to why exactly blindness has been chosen as the one disability to receive consideration. There are many other even more disabling disabilities. There are polio and other muscular diseases; there is rheumatoid arthritis which is progressive. There are those
1030
who, either in the course of their work or in the service of their country, have lost both arms or both legs. Surely there are other cases worse than blindness.
LORD SORENSEN: All I would say in reply to the noble Lord who has just spoken is that it was precisely the points that he himself expressed that were in the mind of the Minister. That is why it is felt that the exercise of the powers of the Commission is likely to be much more intimate and personal, and able to assist the various categories of disabilities, than would be the case if we laid down scales for any particular class of case.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord again for the full explanation of the Government's point of view which he has given in this case. Perhaps he was, uncharacteristically, rather ungenerous in saying that we were merely "passing the buck" in this case.
LORD SORENSEN: I did not say so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: But I think he would recognise that we are not expert in judging the kind of cases which might be caught by this, and we thought it right that the matter should be left—in the same way as it is left under the Industrial Injuries Act—to expert assessment. To the extent—and I am quite prepared to take the noble Lord's assurance on this—that the special needs are met, there will be very much less need for the kind of provision which this Amendment proposes.
I was a little concerned that the noble Lord was only talking in terms of the special needs—and special needs would still exist despite this provision—of cases of this kind. I should have thought that some needed much more special assistance than the £1 mentioned. The noble Lord was talking about a figure of 71,000. I do not know whether he is able to give us any idea of the highest amounts which the National Assistance Board grants by way of special allowances. This would give us some idea of what is required in the most difficult cases. It is a little difficult to argue this without such information, and I quite understand that the problem has not been analysed out in this way. In view of what the noble Lord has said, we have no option but to rely on the good judgment of the new Commission—as I

1031
think we can well do—as we have done in the case of the National Assistance Board.
As my noble friend Lord Somers has said, it is a little difficult to justify in human terms the selection of one particular category. One is bound to observe that the noble Lord really relied on the administrative argument for doing so; that here were people who, viewed in industrial injuries terms, are by definition 100 per cent. disabled, who can therefore be treated separately; that blindness is blindness within the definition, and that is that, with a few gradations. That argument one must accept, but there is also the human argument and one is bound to agree that blindness is not necessarily the worst and most difficult affliction. If one measures them out in terms of human handicap and suffering, one finds that there are others much worse. This was the point of the Amendment. But if what we ask is administratively impossible, then one must accept that. I only hope that in due course something more positive can be done for the chronic sick. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.50 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved to add to paragraph 11 ("Persons in receipt of supplementary pension"):
"(b) Additional requirements of person eligible for supplementary pension, being a person aged 75 or more… …14s. 0d."
The noble Lord said: It is late, but I think that this is one of the most important aspects of the Bill to which we would seek to draw the attention of the noble Lords opposite, and I should therefore like to go through the argument in a little more detail, as we did not have an opportunity to do so on Second Reading. We have suggested, as noble Lords will see, the single age of 75 for both men and women rather than what had previously been debated—that is ten years after retirement age, which would have meant 70 for women and 75 for men. This is to make a further higher level of additional supplementary payment easier to administer, and also to reduce the cost to the Treasury; because, as noble Lords opposite will know, there is a very large category of women between the ages of 70 and 75.
1032
So the proposal is that after the age of 75 both men and women should receive, as of right, an additional payment of 5s., which would increase the 9s. addition to a total of 14s.
When we discussed this point on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, replying for the Government, questioned a proposition that I, speaking immediately before him, put forward—namely, that needs increased with age. I was speaking in general terms. I believe that in general terms and in lay language, that proposition is true; but it is only true if the word "needs" is not too narrowly defined. I think it is therefore something of an over-simplification, and I should like to present a rather more refined argument to the noble Lord now. The proposition should be rephrased as follows: the balance between total financial requirements and total resources of old people becomes less favourable as age increases.
It is possible to point to strong evidence that this is so. The Tables on page 10 and on page 12 of the Report on the Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners show, in Table II.2 on page 10, that total income decreases sharply with age. On page 12, Table II.4 shows that approximately one-third of all old people over 75 have no income from any source other than retirement pensions or supplementary assistance. These people are, therefore, less well off than they were in their early retirement, because they no longer have any savings or other sources of income. When we come to look, as the survey does, at net available resources of retirement pensioners, which means the income reckonable for National Assistance purposes, and when we examine that in relation to their needs—and here is the narrow use of the word "need", meaning assessed requirements by the Board, which is not the same thing, of course, generally speaking, as overall total requirements—we see from page 23 of the Report that needs exceed net available resources by an increasing amount as pensioners get older.
Here, I would refer noble Lords to Table III.4(2). In passing, I might comment that it is unfortunate that in printing these Tables some rather simpler titling could not have been found than, "Table III.4(2)". If these had been

1033
numbered from 1 to, say, 120,from start to finish, we should have had a rather easier job when referring to them. On page 23, the Report concludes that younger pensioners are better off on the whole; and later Tables in the same Report show that the state of health decreases with age; that older retirement pensioners after 75 are more chair-bound and are more bedridden. The Tables on pages 65 to 67 establish this as a trend.
Therefore, it can be argued that if "needs" are looked at from the point of view of the total resources of older retirement pensioners, and from the point of view of the state of health of older retirement pensioners, and the lack of mobility and decreasing convenience, there is a strong argument for the over-75s receiving a higher rate of addition, as of right, without any further qualifying test of means. It is worth noting that in the Report by the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics, to which I referred a little earlier, The Economic Circumstances of Old People, by Dorothy Cole with John Utting, the authors concluded there was a case for higher pensions over 70 and proposed an increase. This appears at pages 105 and 106. So I hope that the Government will agree that if the case is argued from the point of view of total resources and state of health and convenience (which, after all, are the factors that matter: the condition in which the old person is living), rather than from the much narrower standpoint of needs in the sense of assessed requirements in accordance with the practice and rules of the National Assistance Board—or the Commission in the future—there is something which should be seriously considered here as a matter requiring the attention of the Government in setting up this new Ministry.
There is one final point. I accept that the requirements of the very old are extremely difficult to quantify in money terms, which is of course what this Amendment seeks to do, because there are a number of things—visits to relatives, people coming in to see old people in their own homes—which may be just as important in the lives of people over 75, who are often very lonely. But the argument can be maintained that from the point of view of resources an addition as of right—extending the Government's
1034
own argument for the 9s. addition—up to a higher level of 14s. at 75, would be an opportunity to allow the very old to spend the last years of their lives in dignity and in comfort. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 17, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Windlesham.)
6.57 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: We have listened to a most interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I am sure we shall all read it very carefully in the morning. Paragraph 11 of the Schedule provides for a long-term addition of 9s. a week to the requirements of those eligible for supplementary pensions—that is, for people of pension age. The Amendment would increase this addition to 14s. a week where the claimant was aged 75 or over. I had better say straight away that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment. The noble Lord opposite has put his case very ably, but unfortunately it is based on a false premise.
His argument, in essence, has been that the older pensioner, the person aged 75 or over, has greater special needs than the younger pensioner. If this were true of these pensioners as a whole, and as an identifiable group, there might be a case for the Amendment; because, as I explained on Second Reading, the purpose of the long-term addition is to cover the great bulk of the special needs now met by discretionary allowances under National Assistance. But as my noble friend Lord Sorensen pointed out to your Lordships last week, there is no evidence at all that this is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made the point on Second Reading that a higher percentage of retirement pensioners who are receiving discretionary grants from the National Assistance Board are in the higher age groups above 70 or 75. Certainly a high proportion are the older pensioners, but the evidence does not suggest that they have higher special needs—I emphasise those words, "higher special needs". This is the real point. Indeed, among retirement pensioners receiving discretionary additions the proportion receiving substantial additions of more than 10s. a week is lower than it is among persons in receipt of National Assistance to supplement their sickness benefit.

1035
As my noble friend mentioned on Second Reading, what is known is that, for example, among non-contributory old age pensioners getting assistance, all of whom are now at least 74 years old, the average addition is well below the 9s. to be provided for by way of a long-term addition under the Bill. It is also known from a small sample of cases that as regards the proportion of pensioners getting additions there is nothing specially significant about the age of 75. In each of the five-year age ranges either side of 75, about three-quarters are getting discretionary additions.
I submit that the conclusion which must be drawn from such evidence is that the long-term addition does not need to be at any higher rate for the over-75s as a whole than for the younger pensioners or the chronic sick. Of course, it is true that some of them will need extra help over and above the 9s., on the ground of ill health, just as some younger pensioners will require such help. The Bill enables the Commission to make such discretionary allowances for this purpose where they are needed and to do this when the need arises, whatever the age. There is therefore no question of any special needs which the individual older pensioner may have being inadequately dealt with.
The Government's case against this Amendment is that it fails on merit, and I would not therefore argue against it on grounds of cost. But the Committee should be aware that it would, in fact, cost some £6½ million in a full year. No responsible Government can undertake unlimited financial commitments. Resources have to be allocated with a sense of priority, and it follows that to give an extra £6½ million here would be denying it elsewhere. The proposal for a long-term addition of 9s. on top of a basic level of income requirements of £4 1s. 0d. a week for a single householder and £6 13s. 0d. for a married couple is well balanced. To go further than this for the very old would upset this balance and would really be wrong, because it could not be justified as equitable. I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is one point I should like to raise with the
1036
Minister, and I think this is possibly the appropriate time to do it. I think the Committee has welcomed the idea of fixing higher requirements for those of pensionable age with the 9s. addition. It seems to me that everything has its advantages and disadvantages; this, obviously, has great advantages in saving administrative costs as well as embarrassment and trouble to the individual pensioner in having his individual needs up to that level examined. The trouble is that pensioners may be likely to assume that they have already had their special needs examined within this 9s. and will not get any more, and they will be likely not to apply when further special needs arise. I do not know how you get over this, except, again, by full information; and this may prove a little difficult. It may well happen that somebody who is receiving 9s. (and who would, let us say, have received only 5s., if his special needs had been examined) will have a further need arise which would perhaps amount to 10s. or 15s., and will not think of applying for assistance to meet that future additional need.
One of the reasons why our Amendment appeals to me is because it would ease this particular problem in the case of the very old. I can see this happening more often in the case of the old. In the nature of the case, it is probably very difficult to get evidence of this; but one can see it happening more often in the case of old than of younger people. With younger people, where there are higher special needs they are pretty constant and run on for some time. This may not be so with the older people, who may have constant basic needs and discretionary needs from time to time which ought to be met. This is a problem which needs consideration. I should have thought that the Amendment proposed would help in the case of older people, although I can see the force of the noble Lord's argument. But perhaps he will be good enough to have this point looked at and let us know the answer in some form or another.
LORD BOWLES: I thank the noble Lord. It is a very interesting though difficult problem. As I said, I shall read the whole of this debate to-morrow. I am sure that the Minister and her advisers in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance will do the same. I

1037
shall consider in what way I can communicate my answer to the House, because it might be something to raise on Third Reading. I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to have this in secret. Probably the best way is to make some reference on Third Reading. In the light of this, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I would not wish to press this Amendment, in the light of what the noble Lord has said. I must, however, confess to some disappointment, because the noble Lord replied in detail to my Second Reading speech and did not, in fact, follow the reasoning I have just advanced to the Committee. It is possible to rebut the Amendment flatly on the basis of "needs". The noble Lord based his reply on the argument I previously advanced on Second Reading. He says the needs of retirement pensioners do not increase by age, if measured by the amount of discretionary additions paid by the National Assistance Board. The whole point I am making is that "needs" are a very narrow definition of what people actually want in their lives. Needs are only the assessed requirements according to the rules of the Board. The argument must be presented at the level of total resources; and the decline in total resources which can be shown. I have been at some pains to deploy these arguments. The Government's own Report shows that total resources decline as age increases. These are not assessable needs. My ground has therefore changed to that extent.
LORD BOWLES: I started my speech by saying how interesting I thought the noble Lord's speech, and that I would read it very carefully because he raised one or two points that were, I confess, new to me. But in view of what he has said perhaps we can now proceed with the next Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps we could come back to this on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.8 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in paragraph 12, at beginning of sub-paragraph (b), to insert:
1038
"except in the case of such classes of persons and subject to such rules as the Minister may from time to time prescribe by regulations."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one to which I have already referred. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 provides that the additional requirements of people in receipt of supplementary allowances at the rate of 9s. are payable only where that person has been receiving the supplementary allowance for a continuous period of at least two years and he has not been in the employment field during that period. It seems to me that there could be cases where a man appeared to be eligible to re-enter the employment field, and was perhaps registered in the disabled persons' register, but did not get a job or was not fit enough to take a job, and then he got worse and did not get a job at all. This can arise for a person with sclerosis, which is progressive. Someone can be disabled with it and lose his job. Then the disease seems to go; but after a time it appears to get better and he is on the verge of getting another job when he has another attack which makes him worse so that he may not get another job at all.
This is the kind of case I had in mind which might be a special case. Therefore, the purpose of the Amendment is to allow the Minister to designate classes of persons and make rules in relation to them to whom the conditions in paragraph 12 will not necessarily apply. In other words, although they have entered the employment field, in certain cases they would still be entitled to supplementary allowances within the two years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 23, at beginning insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SORENSEN: I appreciate the genuine concern of the noble Lord for this category of sufferers. May I formally interpret, as I see it, this Amendment, for the purposes of the record, before passing on to other observations?
The effect of this Amendment would be to enable the Minister, by regulations, to prescribe that in certain classes of cases the fact that a person had been required to register for employment as a condition of receiving a supplementary allowance should not be a bar to his receiving

1039
the benefit of the long-term addition at the end of two years. That is more or less a prosaic paraphrase of what the noble Lord said.
The noble Lord has cited instances where it would be inequitable if a person was denied the benefit of the long-term addition simply because during a long period of sickness in receipt of a supplementary allowance he had, for a short period in the past two years, been required to register for employment. These are the facts with which we are familiar and on which there is major agreement. We entirely agree that there will be circumstances where the rule in paragraph 12, which does not itself permit of any exceptions, would apparently result in some hard cases. The noble Lord's intention is to deal with these circumstances by giving the Minister power to modify the rule where it seems proper to do so in order to avoid anomalies or unreasonable result. It seems to me that the Minister already has the power to do just this by the power conferred under Clause 5, subsection (2) to vary the provisions of Part II of Schedule 2, and the noble Lord's Amendment is, therefore, superfluous. But since it is not at present the intention to exercise this power on the lines desired by the noble Lord, I will go on, if I may, to deal with the substance of his argument.
We were aware of these possible situations and had decided that further rules on the lines proposed in the Amendment were simply not the best way of dealing with them. It is, first of all, unnecessary for the practical purposes of administration to have a power of the kind which the noble Lord proposes. This is because the Bill already has a provision whereby, not the Minister but the Commission, as the authority responsible for determining the amount of benefit to be paid, can award benefit at an amount exceeding that which is calculated under the other provisions in Schedule 2 where there are exceptional circumstances, so as to take account of these circumstances. I am, of course, referring to the provision in paragraph 4 of the Schedule.
The important question to ask, therefore, is whether the modification of the rules to deal with these cases is best done by the Minister laying down further rules on the matter in regulations, or whether
1040
it should be left to the Commission. We are quite clear on this. However detailed these regulations were, there would always be some case not covered, and the Commission would have to deal with that by its powers under paragraph 4 of the Schedule. It has that flexibility. Since the Commission is responsible under this Bill for dealing with exceptional situations of all kinds under its general discretionary powers, it seems right to leave them to deal with all of these particular situations as well. It is for these reasons that the Government do not consider the Amendment to be either necessary or desirable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. There is obviously an argument for some degree of uniformity, even though you cannot get complete uniformity. Nevertheless, I am quite happy with the noble Lord's reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.16 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved at end of paragraph 12, to insert:
"( ) Additional requirements of blind persons and persons who have suffered a loss of income in order to undergo treatment for tuberculosis of the respiratory system shall be the special scale rates provided by the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations 1948 as amended by the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations 1964 increased proportionately to the cost of living since 1948."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that blind persons and persons suffering from tuberculosis who had the benefit of the special scale under the 1948 and 1964 Acts shall to-day receive allowances proportionate to the increase in the cost of living since those times. Certainly in the case of the blind, and I am not sure, but I think also in the case of those suffering from tuberculosis, the scale decided in 1948 was 15s. a week. That sum over eighteen years has been increased by only 9s. 6d. Had it been increased according to the rise in the cost of living it would now be at 28s. 6d., because the cost of living within that period has increased by 90 per cent. Under this Bill the "disregards" have been raised in their payments by £1, and we all welcome that. In 1948 they received 10s. 6d., so that their payment has been advanced by the increased cost of living. I submit that if this is accepted in the case of the "disregards", why not

1041
the blind and those who are suffering from tuberculosis?
I raised this matter more than once in the House of Commons, as my colleagues will remember. That is why I am raising it again to-day. I raised it because I was in very close touch with blind persons in my constituency when I was a Member of Parliament. From them I learned about the difficulties from which the blind suffer because of their disability. I knew of a blind couple who were unable to do the repairs and decorations in their house which would normally be done by a couple with sight. They had to meet the cost of employing others to do it. I remember a blind woman who was unable to mend or repair damage to her husband's garments. Others had to do it. I was interested to find, too, that, because they are blind, they are kicking out the toes of their shoes in ordinary walking more rapidly than the person with sight. I am glad to say that many local authorities have now given concessions to the blind upon their buses, but some have not. And I am pleading that the allowance that is made to the blind under this Bill and under the regulations which will later be introduced shall represent the increased cost of living which they have to bear.
My Amendment also refers to persons undergoing treatment for tuberculosis of the respiratory system. I include this because they were also in the special scale in the 1948 and 1964 Acts. I want to say frankly, arising from the discussions on previous Amendments, that I regret the fact that others who are suffering from incurable diseases—it may be polio; it may be sclerosis—are not included within the terms of this Bill equally with those suffering from tuberculosis, for nearly all the reasons which I have put forward for increasing, in proportion to the cost of living, the allowances of the blind apply also to them.
I ask my noble friend who will reply, first, whether he will consider this question again before Report stage and Third Reading to be able then to make a definite answer on this matter; and, secondly, since these scales were provided under regulations under the 1948 and 1964 Acts, whether he can give us a promise to-night that under the new Act there will be regulations which will allow blind persons to have an allowance to-day
1042
proportionate to the increase in the cost of living, and whether that also will be extended to tubercular patients? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 25, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Brockway.)
LORD SORENSEN: We are all grateful, I am sure, to my noble friend Lord Brockway for raising this question. Like him, I am a one-time Member of Parliament in the Lower House and became acquainted with many categories of sufferers in my constituency, as my noble friend did in his own. Before I pass on, may I say that I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord who said that, grievous as is the disability of blindness, there are other categories of sufferers in which the suffering and limitations of those who are afflicted are as serious as those of the blind. Be that as it may, the intention of this Amendment is to increase the differentials between the higher rates of requirements for blind persons and the other rates so as to compensate for rises in the cost of living; and to continue the higher rate for certain tuberculous persons which exists under National Assistance but is not provided for in the Bill at present.
My noble friend, in moving the Amendment, made a characteristically eloquent appeal to us to do more for the blind and tuberculous. The basis of his case for the blind was that the margin by which the National Assistance blind scale rate exceeds the normal scale rate is at present 24s. 6d. for a single householder, that it remains at 24s. 6d. in the Bill, and that it ought to be higher because in the years since 1948 it has gone up by only 9s. 6d., from 15s. to 24s. 6d., which is less than the increase in the cost of living. I personally can give no promise to my noble friend, but I am perfectly certain that his plea will be noted by the Minister herself. I will see that this is brought to her attention, though I am sure that she reads avidly all the remarks made in your Lordships' House on this Bill, of which she was in charge in another place.
It is true that in money terms the blind are receiving the same increase in their scale rate as sighted persons, and that the differential between the blind and the ordinary rates is not being in-

1043
creased, creased, though there is still a differential. I can assure my noble friend that the Government gave very full consideration to this difficult question, but we decided against increasing the differential for these reasons. I am sure that my noble friend will carefully consider these reasons between now and Report stage. First, the fact that there is a differential is historical in origin. It originally preserved the preferential blind domiciliary assistance rate paid by Public Assistance authorities. It has been retained until now, and will be retained, because of sympathy with the general disability of blind people, but in fact the Commission would in any case have ample discretionary powers to deal with the individual special expenses of this relatively small group in just the same way as they can deal with the special expenses of other groups of disabled people. Secondly, the blind who are over pension age, or who have been receiving assistance or non-contributory benefit for two years, will qualify, like others, for the new long-term addition of 9s. a week. This addition is to replace small discretionary allowances. But the important point here is that the differential of 24s. 6d. is itself for special expenses arising out of blindness, so that the blind will continue to be at a very considerable advantage. Most of them will gain the full 9s., in addition to the basic increase, because they do not have any discretionary allowances at present to be set against the long-term addition. Perhaps I should also remind your Lordships that blind householders who have non-dependants living with them will retain the advantage they at present have over sighted persons in that their rent allowance will never be reduced by the non-dependant's share of the rent—regardless of how much the non-dependant may be earning. This is a very important factor.
All told, therefore, the Government consider that the blind have been treated very fairly under the provisions of the Bill, and that it would not be justifiable to increase the preference they receive over the sighted person. Of course the blind often have special expenses, as my noble friend has pointed out. But the 24s. 6d. provided for this purpose, together with the long-term addition of 9s.,
1044
which will be payable in the great majority of cases, gives a margin of no less than 33s. 6d. a week for this purpose. Even in these days this is a considerable sum, and in what must be the minority of cases where 33s. 6d. a week extra is not enough, the Commission will be able to make extra provision on top of this sum for the balance of any special expenses.
Though my noble friend, quite naturally, concentrated upon the position of the blind, his Amendment would also continue, in effect, the special rate for certain persons suffering from respiratory tuberculosis which exists under National Assistance. I should, therefore, explain why the Government have decided not to retain the special rate for the tuberculous in the new scheme. There are three reasons.
First, the number of tuberculous persons receiving the special assistance rate has steadily declined as the incidence of the disease has declined. From a peak of 36,000 in 1952 and 1953, the number has dropped every year and at the end of 1965 stood at only 7,000—an amazing and encouraging decline—of whom only about 1,000 had applied for assistance during the previous twelve months. Secondly, because of the comparative rarity of the disease, there is now no call for a special incentive to encourage people to give up work in order to take treatment which, some of your Lordships will recall, was the reason why the special scale was introduced in the first place in the 1940s. Thirdly, it is by no means the case nowadays that all those who have the disease need something expensive by way of special diet and, in so far as they do, the Commission will be able to use their discretionary powers, in consultation with local chest clinics, to ensure that the rates are increased to provide all that is required in exceptional cases.
I should perhaps add that the 7,000 cases now receiving the special higher rate will, of course, not suffer a reduction in their total income from the loss of the differential, but will be protected by the transitional provision contained in paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 to the Bill. I hope I have not detained your Lordships too long with my explanation, but the issues very properly raised by my noble friend are important ones which deserve a full reply. After what I have

1045
had to say, however, my noble friend will not be surprised that I have to tell him that the Government are not able to accept his Amendment.
LORD BROCKWAY: My noble friend has not convinced me, but at least he has given me the assurance that the Minister will consider the points I have raised. I have great confidence in her, and therefore I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I apologise for detaining your Lordships further on this Schedule, but there are two points I should like to make. First of all, I am glad to see the provision in paragraph 24(1)(a), which seems to me to require explicitly any income from wounds and disability pensions, or any part of retirement pay of ex-Service men and women or members of the nursing services, to be disregarded up to 40s. It has been the practice for the National Assistance Board to disregard such payments, I am not certain up to what level, but I think up to 30s.; but as there was no mandatory provision in the National Assistance Act some local authorities did not feel bound to disregard them when assessing contributions of war pensioners residing in Part III accommodation. In view of this provision, taken in conjunction with Section 22(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948, may I ask the noble Lord to confirm that local authorities will now have to do this? This is, after all, an award to compensate for loss and suffering, and is not quite on the same basis as most of the other provisions in the disregards.
LORD CHAMPION: Could the noble Lord tell me to which paragraph he is referring?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am afraid that I never know what these headings are called. It is paragraph 24(1)(a), and it says:
"Any retired pay or pension to which section 380(1) of the Income Tax Act 1952 applies…"
I think I have correctly interpreted what that subsection relates to. I am glad to see this. Incidentally, it illustrates one good reason for allowing the regulation
1046
making power to remain for changing the resources.
I should now like to turn to another point. Section 22(5) of the National Assistance Act means, as I understand it, that the new disregards of capital resources will apply in the case of residence in Part III accommodation as they do for old folk who are living on their own or with relatives, and so on. I need not remind your Lordships of the provisions of Section 21(1) of the National Assistance Act. The noble Lord will know that the County Councils Association and the Association of Counties of Cities in Scotland are worried about the effect of Part III of this Schedule on their receipts from residents of Part III accommodation. They doubt whether, in view of the changes made in Part III, Section 22 of the National Assistance Act is any longer appropriate. They believe that it would be proper to prescribe special rules for income and capital disregards for such residents. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord that Section 22 in effect provides that local authorities should work on the same disregards in assessing contributions to Part III accommodation as the National Assistance Board work on.
The standard charges are fixed by local authorities for such accommodation. I do not know what they run at, but it has been suggested that many of them are around £8 per week and, of course, the residents are liable to pay them if they can afford them. The retirement pensioner without other resources will normally hand his weekly pension to the superintendent and will receive a weekly sum, fixed by the Minstry of Health or by the Secretary of State for Scotland, for personal needs. I believe this is the procedure. If the retirement pensioner has other income, he will be expected to pay the remainder of the charge, subject to the normal income disregards and to paragraph 22 of the Schedule, which deals with the treatment of capital.
The Association point out that in a letter dated June, 1963, the Ministry of Health recognised the principle that:
"the circumstances of people living at home and people in residential accommodation are not comparable, since the former have to pay for everything they need out of their own resources, whereas the latter have everything found for them, are normally heavily subsidised and receive pocket money as well."

1047
Indeed, nobody in their senses could fail to recognise this fact. However, although no doubt all the Ministers concerned—and there are several—do recognise it, their recognition is not reflected in the Schedule.
As things are at present, a resident can be called on to contribute to his upkeep in Part III accommodation out of any capital resources he has in excess of £600. To keep his £600 intact he might have to pay 10s. a week out of his pocket money. But he could keep it intact. Under the new provisions, assuming that his money is invested, he will pay little or nothing. Nobody complains about that. But now, if his capital is £1,000 (and this is assuming still £600), he will only have to pay £1 over and above his pension for his maintenance, and he will not have to pay for his full keep of £8 a week unless his capital exceeds £1,600.
Considering that for old people in Part III accommodation the rainy day has come and they are well and truly sheltered, I think there seems little point in not encouraging them to be self-supporting up to the point where their capital has fallen to £800: in other words, they could always keep the £800 intact. It is no doubt very nice for their heirs and assigns, but it is, after all, at the expense of the ratepayer. As the Bill stands, they cannot even be self-supporting if they want to be. The local authority must apply the disregards; it has no option.
I recognise that this is a very delicate matter, but it surely is odd to treat old people who have to fend for themselves in exactly the same way as old people for whom everything is provided and everything done. It seems to me that when the National Assistance Act was drawn up, the Government, in determining the disregards of capital resources, had their minds fixed particularly on those living in Part III accommodation. This time the Government have had their minds fixed rather on the rest of the old folks, and I think that for them the provisions are sound, sensible and indeed sensitive. I am not quite so sure that, for people in Part III accommodation, they are in fact sound. Of course, I do not underestimate the difficulty of differentiating between these two cases.
1048
Politically, it may be invidious to do so; politically it may even be invidious to suggest that it be considered, as I am now doing. But what is politically invidious may nevertheless be right and fair.
I am not yet convinced that it would be fair to those who fend for themselves to be treated in the matter of capital resources in the same way as those who are fully provided for. Nor am I yet convinced that those who manifestly can afford to pay for their own maintenance should have up to half of their maintenance paid for by the ratepayers, as seems would be the case under the new provisions. By all means let them keep their £800 nest-egg intact. There can be no doubt that for the local authorities to apply the capital disregards under the Bill to these people would be both expensive and administratively cumbersome. I am quite prepared to listen to the case for doing so, and for accepting it if it is convincing. All I ask is that the matter should be considered. I think that this is a very difficult case. It is a case which one is obliged to present so that we can hear the Government's view upon it. It is a case which has been exercising the county councils who are responsible for the provision of Part III accommodation, and I hope the noble Lord will be good enough to deal with it.
LORD CHAMPION: This is a somewhat difficult point, and we recognise this straightaway. Schedule 6, paragraph 6(2), of the Bill amends Section 22(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide that in future local authorities will apply the new rules for the treatment of resources proposed in Part III of Schedule 2 of the Bill in place of the rules in Schedule 2 of the 1948 Act.
The effect of the change has been described to us by the noble Lord. For example, the effect of the change is that by the discontinuance of the fixed limit of capital imposed by the 1948 Act the local authorities will recover less by way of charges from some residents. The overall additional cost involved for local authorities has been estimated at £1 million. I am not sure whether the noble Lord gave that figure, but that is the estimate I have, although part of this would be recoverable from the Exchequer by the local authorities. Just about half of that sum would be recoverable, but it

1049
would still leave the local authorities to find £500,000. This is very considerable.
The Ministers concerned thought it necessary to advise the local authorities of the changes to be proposed in the Bill, and this was done at the earliest possible moment, as was right. It was done in January of this year. There were two meetings of officials with representatives of the associations whose views were subsequently put to the Minister of Health. I may say that not all the local authority associations were prepared to apply the new rules in full. At least two were, but the majority felt that there were some points they had to put to the Minister in this connection. There were started negotiations, exchanges of letters, and so on.
This eventually resulted in the Minister of Health's meeting representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, on May 25. He then took the view that he would not be justified in altering the principle that had been firmly established by the National Assistance Act, namely, that the same basis of calculating resources should be applied to residents in assessing charges as applies to others in assessing cash allowances, and asked the Associations to accept that the right course was not to try, in this Bill, to introduce new principles. He made it clear to the Associations that, although he had considered their arguments carefully, he could not hold out any hope of a change in the Government's attitude. So we were aware of the view of the local authority associations and their reservations in this matter.
As I have said, what the Bill does is to maintain the present identity in the assessment rules for those persons living in their own homes and those in residential accommodation provided by local authorities under their powers, and I am advised that it would have been outside the scope of this Bill to have done anything else. Whether it would be desirable to have divorced the two sets of assessment rules is a matter primarily for my right honourable friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. As I have mentioned, the Minister of Health has received a deputation from the Associations on this matter. His firm view is that he would not be
1050
justified in altering the principle that was so firmly established in the 1948 Act—that is, that the same basis of calculating resources should be applied to residents in assessing charges as applies to persons living at home in assessing cash benefits. In our view, it would be quite wrong, when we are liberalising the disregards in the new scheme mainly for the benefit of old people, to introduce a new principle of different disregards for people in residential accommodation which would be less generous than for those living at home.
I can quite see the noble Lord's point of view; I can understand it. I can understand the local authority's point of view. But the Minister, as I said, has carefully considered this matter, and thinks it would be quite wrong in this Bill, or by some other immediate means which he would have to take, to be less generous than is the present position in relation to this matter. I hope the noble Lord will accept this explanation, because careful consideration has been given to the point on representations from the responsible associations.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasons why the Government have reached this decision, and I fully understand them. Perhaps he put rather a different interpretation on what I said when he remarked that these were my views. I thought I had made it clear that these are the views that were put forward to me by the county councils. I felt there was a great deal in them, and I think the noble Lord agrees. I thought I should therefore ventilate them and request that the Government should keep this matter under examination. Obviously, it is quite impossible to do anything, even if the Government wish to do so. It would be virtually impossible to do so at this stage, because it would require very complicated Amendments indeed. At the same time, I know that the county councils would wish their point of view to be brought to the attention of the Government. I think it would be only right, when a charge of this kind is made—and I think I have interpreted what has really happened correctly. I believe that in 1948 the Government were necessarily thinking largely in terms of the capital resources of those in Part III accommodation, and that is why there is

1051
the cut-off which, I say with respect, should never have existed, at any rate for people outside. It may have been appropriate in accommodation. I think it would be desirable to keep this subject under careful consideration. It may be that some compromise will be appropriate in these circumstances. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.
LORD CHAMPION: There is one further thing I should have said. The noble Lord asked a question on a clause when I was not here to reply to it. I was called out, and I sincerely apologise for the fact that I was unable to be in my place at that moment to reply. I will, of course, look at what he said and communicate with the noble Lord. I ought to have made that apology at the beginning of my last speech.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I assure him that I did not put the question only to find him out.
LORD CHAMPION: Thank you.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

OVERSEAS AID BILL
7.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of Minister of Overseas Development to provide assistance to, or for the benefit of, overseas countries
1.—
(4) The last foregoing subsection shall not prevent the Minister from making from time to time grants under subsection (1) above to any of the following governments, that is to say, the government of Aden and any government established for any part or parts of the Protectorate of South Arabia, for the purpose of
1052
enabling the government to defray any amount by which it appears to him that their resources are or will be insufficient to enable them to defray their administrative expenses; and the power to make such grants shall be in addition to the power to make grants under a scheme under the said Act of 1959.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK) moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "government of Aden and any" and insert:
"governments of the Federation of South Arabia, Aden, the Island of Perim, the Kuria Muria Islands and Kamaran, and any government (other than that of the said Federation)".
The noble Lord said: I mentioned on Second Reading that it would be necessary to submit an Amendment relating to the power of the Minister of Overseas Development to give budgetary assistance to the various Governments in Aden and South Arabia. As I then explained, the necessity for this reference to particular areas arises because of the transfer of responsibility for our relations with Aden and South Arabia from the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office. Before that transfer, the Colonial Secretary would have had the necessary power in this Bill and would have continued to give such budgetary assistance as was decided from year to year. But as neither the Colonial Secretary nor the Foreign Secretary now has statutory power to give budgetary aid to these dependent territories, it is proposed to vest the power in my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development.
The original form of words in the Bill, although well designed for their purpose from a legal point of view, stimulated a certain amount of controversy because they did not specifically mention the Federal Government of South Arabia. Criticism in the other place was couched, I think, in very extreme terms, but it reflected, I understand, the feelings made known by the Foreign Minister of the Federation. It is not for me here to comment on the strength of the feelings which were made known, but as I said in the Second Reading debate there was absolutely no intention of offending anyone, and again, to use words from the Standing Orders of this House, as no offence was intended, no ill should have been taken. However, in order to meet

1053
the point raised in the other place, and also here (I must say in much more reasonable terms), by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I am pleased to move the Amendment which makes specific reference to the Government of the Federation of South Arabia.
At the same time, in order to make absolutely certain from a legal point of view that the Minister of Overseas Development is empowered to give budgetary assistance to these outlying islands, we have also taken the opportunity to include a specific reference to the Islands of Perim, the Kuria Murias and Kamaran. The necessity for mentioning them separately is wholly and solely due to a desire to satisfy the legal complexities of the constitutional position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out from ("the") to ("established") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Beswick.)
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment and for the great trouble to which he has gone in trying to meet the point which was made by my right honourable friend in another place and also by myself on Second Reading in your Lordships' House. It was certainly, I think, a mistake to omit from subsection (4) of Clause I of the Bill the Government of the Federation of South Arabia, which, as I said on Second Reading, is the most important Government in the area; and, as we know, there was certainly some feeling among the South Arabians about this. Whether, as the noble Lord implies, their fears were groundless, or whether they were not, is no doubt a matter of opinion, but I am glad the noble Lord has now included the Federation, responsibility for which has, of course, been transferred from the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office. I also agree fully with him that the Islands of Perim, the Kuria Murias and Kamaran should be treated as distinct and separate island territories.
I am glad that the Government have seen the light on this and in view of our debate yesterday I am happy to know that the Opposition, in consultation with the Government, still has a role to play in revising and improving Bills which have been sent to your Lordships' House
1054
from another place. I thank the noble Lord for this. For once I am reasonably pleased with what the Government have done, and I judge that the South Arabians, who have perhaps not been happy about all aspects of the Government's policy in that part of the world, will also be pleased. I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

  DRUG ADDICTION
  DRUG ADDICTION
  ROAD A.31 IMPROVEMENTS
  ROAD A.31 IMPROVEMENTS
  COMPLAINTS AGAINST PROFESSIONAL BODIES
  COMPLAINTS AGAINST PROFESSIONAL BODIES