Sitting of 16 March 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Commonwealth Sugar Producers
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the Minister of Overseas Development what estimate he has made of the effects of possible entry of Great Britain to the European Economic Community on the economies of sterling area producers of sugar, and the consequent changes in need for economic assistance.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): If we enter the European Economic Community, the effects on Commonwealth sugar producing countries would depend on the precise terms negotiated at the time. We should, of course, have their interests very much in mind.
    Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the particular reliance of these territories on this single crop, which outweighs, for instance, the reliance of New Zealand on its exports to this country, and will he make sure that this is taken fully into account? Otherwise, they could be ruined.
    Mr. Oram: I agree that this is an important aspect of the sugar trade. For example, Barbados relies on sugar exports for 90 per cent. of its total exports, and there are others similarly placed. Certainly, this is a problem which will need careful consideration.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will conditions on matters such as this be settled before we join, or shall we have to wait till afterwards and then trust to luck?
    Mr. Oram: It is not for me to answer questions about the negotiations.

    Aid (Multilateral and Bilateral Programmes)
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Overseas Development what studies he is initiating on the relevance of overseas aid, development and trade policies to the economic wellbeing of Great Britain and on the relative merits of multilateral and bilateral programmes; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Oram: It is one of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities to keep under review all aspects of overseas development. In doing that, he, naturally, takes into account the economic effects of aid giving in this country as well as in the recipient countries.
    Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are a lot of misleading attitudes here about the cost of aid? Is it not a fact that we do quite well out of aid programmes, and ought we not to hear more about this? Second, if we are to avoid fragmentation of the economies of the developing countries, are not multilateral programmes of growing importance?
    Mr. Oram: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. There are mutual benefits, for both donors and recipients, in aid giving, and we are very keen on multilateral modes of aid giving.

    Non-European Rhodesians (Further Education)
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans he has made, together with other Commonwealth Governments, for an extensive programme of further education, technical and professional training for non-European Rhodesians; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Oram: In accordance with the decision taken by Commonwealth Prime Minister at their meeting in Lagos in January, 1966, the British Government

    685
    together with other Commonwealth Governments have agreed upon a special scheme for the education of Rhodesian Africans outside Rhodesia. Details of this scheme were announced by the Commonwealth Secretariat in July, 1966.
    The British Government have so far given awards to 47 non-European Rhodesians to continue their education in Britain.
    Mr. Judd: If we are serious in our endeavours to bring down the illegal Smith régime, ought we not to do contingency planning for a large-scale programme of education for Africans when the Smith Government falls?
    Mr. Oram: There is a large problem awaiting solution, and we have entered into the contingency planning accordingly; but it is not within our power to take any direct action while the present illegal régime in Rhodesia persists.

    Multilateral Aid
    Mr. Luardasked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of the British aid programme in the current financial year will be given through multilateral organisation; and what was the comparable figure for last year.
    Mr. Oram: A precise answer cannot be given until the year's accounts are completed. The figure for 1965–66 was 9·3 per cent.
    Mr. Luard: Have my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend noted the substantial increase in the United States aid programme that will in future be channelled through multilateral organisations of one kind or another, which I believe is an increase in the proportion to about 60 or 70 per cent.? Can he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will follow suit?
    Mr. Oram: I am not sure that my hon. Friend has his facts right about the United States programme. I have seen a report this morning about their ideas on replenishment of I.D.A., but I rather think that his figure of 60 per cent. is rather greater than is the case.
    Mr. Wood: Is the percentage of multilateral aid increasing or decreasing?
    Mr. Oram: It is increasing, as was indicated in the White Paper published recently.

    Aid (Loans and Grants)
    Mr. Luardasked the Minister of Overseas Development what proportion of the British aid programme during the current financial year will be given at reduced rates of interest, free of interest and as outright grants; and what were the comparable figures for last year.
    Mr. Oram: Figures for the current financial year are not complete. In the calendar year 1966, aid of the grant type—including, for example, technical assistance and contributions to multilateral agencies—constituted 52 per cent. of total disbursements, drawings from interest-free loans 20 per cent. and drawings on loans at reduced rates of interest amounted to less than 1 per cent. Comparable figures for 1965 were 57 per cent., 6 per cent. and less than 1 per cent. In addition, the value to the recipients of loans at full interest rates is frequently increased by the waiver of interest in the opening years.
    Mr. Luard: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that it is still the Government's intention to increase the proportion of aid given either in the form of outright grants or free of interest?
    Mr. Oram: Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance. The figures I have given mainly represent drawings of loans negotiated some years ago. The pattern of interest rates for loans being negotiated at the present time is very different; 90 per cent. of the new loans which we undertook in 1966 were on interest-free terms.

    Aid and Technical Assistance (Allocation)
    Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Overseas Development what criteria he proposes to apply in the allocation of aid and technical assistance to developing countries in future; and to what extent the economic or other interests of the United Kingdom will be factors in determining these allocations.
    Mr. Oram: The policies are described in Cmnd. 2736. We make our allocations primarily in order to help developing countries raise their living standards.

    687
    While that is the main motive we recognise that donors and recipients share mutual benefits from aid programmes and we pursue these mutual benefits whenever they are consistent with the major objective.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not altogether a bad thing that recipient countries should realise that British aid is often of advantage to the United Kingdom, and that that very often puts the relationship on a more realistic basis?
    Mr. Oram: I agree. I think that they know of the mutual effect of aid, and I think that it is a good thing that they know and that we know.
    Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that it is also often of disadvantage, and will he ask his Department to commission a study on the effects of aid in preventing necessary structural changes in this country as well as the possibility of tax reductions?
    Mr. Oram: That is a considerably wider question.

    International Development Association
    Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association.
    Mr. Oram: As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) on 25th January, Her Majesty's Government take the view that the funds of I.D.A. should be substantially replenished. Negotiations between the World Bank and the contributors on the size of contributions have yet to take place.—[Vol. 739, c. 313.]
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the aspects of aid which the United Kingdom has done remarkably well in the past? Can he say when he will be in a position to make a more definite statement?
    Mr. Oram: I cannot give a timetable, but I can assure the House that our con-
    688
    tributions to I.D.A. help our export promotion.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how much depends on Britain's lead in contributions to I.D.A.? Does he realise that contributions from other countries will depend on our lead both in our short-term and long-term guarantees for I.D.A.?
    Mr. Oram: We are not the major contributor—the United States is that. But we are an important contributor, and therefore our attitude is important in the reaching of a general international understanding on how I.D.A.'s funds should be replenished.

    Developing Countries (Private Capital)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the estimated transfer of private capital from the United Kingdom to developing countries during 1966; how this compares with the corresponding figure for 1965; and what proposals he has for encouraging a greater flow of private capital to the developing countries.
    Mr. Oram: An estimate for 1966 is not yet available. The Government recognise the importance of the flow of private capital to developing countries and have taken this into account in the measures adopted during the past 12 months to strengthen the balance of payments.
    Mr. Biffen: Whilst I appreciate that the figures for 1966 might not yet be available, surely the hon. Gentleman must have some idea of the significance of the flow of private capital investment and the effect that there has been upon it from the Corporation Tax?
    Mr. Oram: The hon. Member will recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that he would keep the Corporation Tax under constant review and consider what action would be taken if an adverse situation developed unexpectedly.

    Zambia
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Overseas Development to what extent it has now been arranged for aid to Zambia

    689
    to be tied to the purchase of British goods.
    Mr. Oram: All aid administered by the Department—that is, excluding defence aid and contingency planning assistance—is tied to British goods and services, except for the £1 million grant to the new university, of which I estimate that £400,000 will be spent on British goods and services.
    Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why all the major Zambian Government contracts since last summer have been placed with Italian, French, American, Japanese and Yugoslav firms—the Yugoslav contract, worth over £20 million, at a time when the British taxpayer was paying £15 million towards Zambia? Should we not have a quid pro quo?
    Mr. Oram: The question relates to the provision of British aid, and the contracts to which the hon. Member referred are not financed in that way.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that the contract placed by the Zambians with an Italian consortium for building an £11 million oil pipeline, for which British firms tendered on competitive terms, was indeed an item of specific aid by his Department? Is not his reply therefore totally misleading?
    Mr. Oram: No, Sir. I indicated in my original reply that our loans are completely tied to British contracts.

    Malawi (Lakeshore Road)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a financial contribution towards the construction of a national highway along the shore of Lake Malawi.
    Mr. Oram: The Malawi Government have asked for part of the British development aid promised for 1966–68 to be devoted to the reconstruction of a section of the lakeshore road between Benga and Nkota Kota. This request is under consideration.
    Mr. Fisher: I appreciate that our aid to Malawi is already very generous, but in considering this matter would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that internal road communications in Malawi are very poor and that therefore this project is of great importance to them and one which
    690
    we should assist in developing if we can? Does he agree that it is sometimes a good idea to help our friends rather than those opposed to British policies?
    Mr. Oram: We are looking most sympathetically and closely at this request, but it must be assessed in relation to the general economic benefits that will result from the road and its relation to the road system as a whole.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In considering this, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the responsible way in which the Government of Malawi are carrying on, and that for that reason, the country offers real opportunities for investment?
    Mr. Oram: We certainly have those points in mind.

    Libyan University Students (Grants)
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Minister of Overseas Development what he intends doing to assist those 39 Libyan students studying at British universities whose tuition and subsistence grants have been withheld by the Government of Libya.
    Mr. Oram: Nothing, Sir. I understand that the Libyan Government have restored the grants, which were only temporarily withheld.
    Mr. Davidson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have had a letter from a leading member of the group of Libyan students who failed to raise enough money by appeal to continue their studies and who were attempting to get temporary work permits in order to enable them to earn enough money to continue their studies. Perhaps he is also aware that they have also been in touch with a number of his colleagues.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must frame the question.
    Mr. Oram: We understand from the Libyan Embassy that the grants referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question have been restored. If he has other information, I will gladly look at it.

    Students and Apprentices
    Mr. Henry Clarkasked the Minister of Overseas Development how many students and apprentices from developing

    691
    countries are studying and being trained in this country; what percentage this is of the total number of overseas students and apprentices; and what is the real cost of their education to this country.
    Mr. Oram: In 1965–66, the latest year for which figures are available, the number of full-time students and practical trainees who were in this country for at least six months and who came from developing countries was about 53,700. Of these, about 7,100 were taking professional, industrial, or other practical courses. Some of these may have been apprentices. The total number of overseas students and practical trainees was about 71,400. About 75 per cent. therefore came from developing countries. The variety of courses, and of institutions both public and private, and the varying length of courses, make it impossible to estimate the real cost to this country.
    Mr. Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am sure that the House will agree that the country can be proud of these figures? Can he assure us that the full cost is being assessed by the Ministry and that, before the Secretary of State for Education and Science made his ill-judged announcement of 22nd December about raising fees, he was fully aware of the facts we have just been given?
    Mr. Oram: I am sure that my right hon. Friend was fully informed of these figures but, in estimating the cost, the difficulty lies in trying to reach an average figure over a great variety of circumstances.
    Mr. Molloy: Would not my hon. Friend agree that making it possible for students and apprentices to go from this country to developing countries to continue their studies and apprenticeships is also a very good way of assisting developing countries and of Britain receiving assistance from developing countries?
    Mr. Oram: I agree. I am shortly, I hope, to enter into discussions with representative bodies in this country to see how this kind of operation can be increased.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Does not my hon. Friend also agree that, in many developing countries, the need for competent craftsmen and artisans is much
    692
    more urgent than the need for university graduates? Will he look at the possibility of expanding such facilities, which are much less expensive than university education?
    Mr. Oram: I have indicated that I am taking action of this kind. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I would say that there is an enormous demand for both kinds of skill.

    Technical Colleges
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he will now take to increase aid to technical colleges in developing countries; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Oram: If we are to increase our aid in this field—and we certainly want to within the limits of our aid programme—the Governments of developing countries must give technical education appropriate priority. This is one of the main lessons of the very successful conference on the training and education of technicians in Commonwealth countries which was held at Huddersfield in October, the report of which has just been published. We shall be discussing further with Governments concerned at the fourth Commonwealth Education Conference, due to be held in November, how we can best help them.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in recent discussions with overseas students in this country who come from developing countries and whose fees are going up, it was said that more facilities ought to be provided in developing countries? Will he ask the Minister of Overseas Development to take what steps he can to try to offset these increases in fees by increasing aid to developing countries?
    Mr. Oram: It has always been our policy to help with the establishment of technical institutions in developing countries, and we are continuing to seek practical ways in which that policy can be furthered.
    Sir F. Bennett: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the concern expressed by his hon. Friends on this subject is shared on this side of the House? Does not he agree that the recent increase in fees has led to a moral and practical

    693
    obligation to do more for technical colleges and universities overseas and that the Government should not just talk about it but should take practical steps?
    Mr. Oram: We are not just talking about it. We are doing a great deal, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies the White Paper.

    Universities
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Overseas Development what assistance is being given by his Department to universities in developing countries; and what steps he will take to increase this assistance.
    Mr. Oram: Assistance is being given by way of capital grants and loans for buildings and equipment, help with the recruitment and payment of British staff and contributions towards the cost of links and other arrangements intended to increase co-operation between British universities and those in developing countries. As for ways in which we are trying to increase this assistance and its effectiveness, I would refer my hon. Friend to the recent White Paper on the work of the Ministry.
    Mr. Hamling: While appreciating the extent of the aid already given—publicity about which has been very slight—may I ask my hon. Friend whether he recalls that, in the recent debate about overseas students at British universities, it was said that, in many countries, there were not the university facilities available? Yet the fees have been increased for students here.
    Mr. Oram: It is well known that many developing countries lack all the facilities they need, but we are doing all that it is possible for us to do to help them fulfil this need.

    Nigeria
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Overseas Development what help he and his predecessor have been able to give to Nigeria during the last year.
    Mr. Oram: The value of British official economic aid to Nigeria disbursed in 1966 was £6·3 million. I will, with permission, publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Nigeria also benefited from aid provided by multilateral agen-
    694
    cies to which the United Kingdom contributed.
    Sir G. Sinclair: What has the Ministry been able to do to help the Nigerian transport system, particularly the railways, to get into operation again and to move groundnuts from Northern Nigeria down to the ports?
    Mr. Oram: I am circulating some information in the OFFICIAL REPORT but if it does not cover the particular points about transport that the hon. Gentleman has in mind I will ensure that he is fully informed.
    Following is the information:

    BRITISH OFFICIAL ECONOMIC AID TO NIGERIA

    £ million

    1965

    1966

    Financial Aid

    Grant—Education

    0·6

    0·9

    Loans—Development Plan

    4·4

    1·4

    Railway Equipment

    0·1

    —

    Niger Dam

    0·7

    0·9

    Telecommunications

    2·4

    1·0

    C.D.C. investment

    0·7

    0·4

    Cost of Technical Assistance*

    1·3

    1·7

    Total Economic Aid

    10·2

    6·3

    The number of Nigerian students and trainees on courses in Britain financed from British technical assistance schemes

    362†

    324‡

    The number of British advisory and operational personnel in Nigeria partially financed from British technical assistance schemes, including volunteers

    820†

    1,489‡

    * In addition to the cost of students and trainees and British advisory and operational personnel, £0·1 million and £0·2 million was spent in 1965 and 1966 respectively on topographical and other surveys.

    † Position as at 31st December, 1965.

    ‡ Position as at 30th June, 1966.

    Singapore Teachers' Training College
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Overseas Development what action he is taking to help the Singapore Teachers' Training College.
    Mr. Oram: We have agreed to provide, over the next three years, bursaries for the more advanced training in Britain of 47 members of its staff, about 12 experts in various educational disciplines

    695
    and a wide range of equipment including a language laboratory supplied by the British Council.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is an excellent reply and that such activity does far more to create political stability in South-East Asia than the presence of white troops?
    Mr. Oram: I am concerned with economic and social aid and I agree with my hon. Friend that this was an excellent reply, like the others.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: As the reason given for increasing overseas students' fees was to save money, and as the hon. Gentleman's Answers today show that his Ministry is spending more money, why go through the pain of all this disruption by increasing fees in the first place?
    Mr. Oram: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the disruption.

    Overseas Students (Fees)
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Overseas Development what representations he has had from Commonwealth Governments about the recent increase in overseas students' fees in relation to aid, technical assistance and other forms of assistance which are the concern of his Department.
    Mr. Oram: There have been certain indications of concern from Commonwealth countries concerning the effects of the increase of overseas students fees, but we have received no direct representations from Governments.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the lack of consultation with overseas Governments before this step was taken has dislocated their programmes of sending students to this country and has disrupted the plans of private families all over the world who had made arrangements to send their children to universities and technical colleges in Britain?
    Mr. Oram: That supplementary question would be more appropriately directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but the evidence so far received by my Ministry is that there is not the
    696
    degree of concern that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Minister of Overseas Development and his Department were fully consulted before the Secretary of State for Education and Science made his decision about increasing fees? Will he also tell us whether the hardship fund that is to be established will fall within the limit of overseas aid that has already been laid down by the Government?
    Mr. Oram: We were fully consulted and there will be additional funds to take account of the hardship.

    West Indies (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Woodasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement about his recent visit to the West Indies.
    The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House for my lengthy reply to this Question.
    The purpose of my visit was to hand over, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, the Constitutional Instruments to the five islands—St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia, Grenada—to which Parliament granted Associated Statehood at the end of February and the beginning of this month.
    I took the opportunity of paying a visit to three other countries, Barbados, Guyana and Colombia, which are receiving assistance under my Ministry's aid programme.
    I would like to tell the House how impressed I was by the dignity with which the flag-raising and ceremonies in the Assemblies were carried out. I was privileged to convey to these Assemblies the Instruments of Associated Statehood and the good wishes of Britain. In conveying those good wishes I feel confident I spoke for the whole of this House.
    I also carried with me a message from Her Majesty which the Governor of each new State conveyed to the Assemblies and to the peoples.
    It gave me great pleasure also to present to each of the five new States—
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Have you not already given a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that Answers of this sort should be given at the end of Question Time?
    Mr. Speaker: Not a Ruling. I have given only advice. I think that really long Answers should be taken at the end of Questions.
    Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order. I have only just arrived back from the West Indies and I would have liked to have given this Answer at the end of Question Time. The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) asked me to reply to his Question and I took the opportunity to do so now. However, I should still like the opportunity to reply at the end of Questions if that is your wish, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: It helps proceedings if long Answers are given at the end of Questions.
    Mr. Bottomley: May I give the Answer then?
    Mr. Speaker: I have no power to stop the right hon. Gentleman.

    Developing Countries (Aid)
    Mr. Woodasked the Minister of Overseas Development what percentage of national income, according to that criteria agreed at the 1964 United Nations Commission for Trade and Development conference, was devoted to aid to the developing countries in the calendar years 1964, 1965 and 1966.
    Mr. Bottomley: In respect of 1964 and 1965 I refer the right hon. Member to my reply of the 21st February. The figure for 1966 is not yet available. [Vol. 741: c. 262–3.]
    Mr. Wood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to answer these Questions so soon after his return to Britain. We shall look forward to his statement at the end of Questions of which we have been given a brief preview.
    Does he not agree that since the advent of the Socialist Government the percentage mentioned in this Question has consistently declined? Are we not right to entertain considerable doubts about whether the Prime Minister's very recent
    698
    undertaking about 1 per cent. being maintained will be carried out?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir, the 1 per cent. will be carried out. We have increased gross official aid from £191 million in 1964–65 to a target of £225 million in the current year. That is above that given by the previous Administration.

    Ghana
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Overseas Development what he estimates will be the total economic aid, net of amortisation and interest, to Ghana in the financial year 1966–67.
    Mr. Oram: British official economic aid is expected to amount to about £406,000 net.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is an encouraging sign and that there are those of us in the House who feel that now that we have a stable and sensible Government in Ghana, there is ample opportunity for increasing this aid, which in 1964–65 was as much as £2 million?
    Mr. Oram: There will be talks between the two Governments about possible increases in aid. At the moment, there is an undrawn balance of the loan for the Volta scheme which will now not be required for that purpose, but discussions between the two Governments will be necessary about alternative uses.

    Lesotho, Botswana and Malawi
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is his estimate of economic aid to Lesotho, Botswana and Malawi for the financial year 1966–67.
    Mr. Oram: The latest estimates are. respectively, £4·4 million, £5 million and £9·7 million.
    Sir F. Bennett: Are these figures accepted by the countries concerned as being reasonable? Secondly, what steps are being taken to correlate this aid with the aid which the Union of South Africa is giving, in view of the excellent relations which are now developing between the four countries concerned and the Union, relations which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admire as an example

    699
    of how not to let political differences interfere with economic co-operation?
    Mr. Oram: We habitually find that recipient countries would always wish for more than we are able to provide, but I think that they are reasonable about accepting that this is the maximum which we can manage. We regard the aid which they are receiving from South Africa as a matter which they have to undertake for themselves.

    Tanzania
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is his revised estimate of aid to Tanzania in 1967–68.
    Mr. Oram: In addition to the £69,000 shown in our recently published estimates, Tanzania is eligible to draw a balance of the 1964 loan under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Acts and to receive technical assistance under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme and other programmes, the value of which for particular countries cannot at this stage be estimated.
    Mr. Goodhart: As we have to cut down on our overseas aid because of the economic freeze, will the hon. Gentleman remember that the Government of Tanzania is both ludicrously inefficient and for years has followed a policy which is unremittingly hostile to this country?
    Mr. Oram: The figures which I have given will certainly be a marked reduction on this year's figures, but this does not arise out of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has asserted, but out of the fact that there have been administrative difficulties arising out of the breach of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
    Mr. Wall: What has happened to the loan of about £7 million granted to Tanzania before it broke off diplomatic relations with us? I gather it was then frozen. Is it still frozen, or has it been used?
    Mr. Oram: We were on the point of signing a further agreement for the withdrawal of the balance of the loan, but it was held up and is still held up.

    Uganda
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is his revised estimate of British aid to Uganda in 1967–68.
    Mr. Oram: In addition to the £2·74 million shown in our recently published estimates Uganda is eligible to draw a small balance of a loan under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Acts and to receive technical assistance under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme and other programmes the value of which for particular countries cannot at this stage be estimated.
    Mr. Goodhart: As we have to make economies in our overseas aid, will the hon. Gentleman remember that soldiers of the Uganda Army have recently threatened and beaten up British nationals? Does the amount of aid which we give to overseas countries depend in any way on their attitude to local British communities?
    Mr. Oram: We provide aid for economic and social development and it is not possible, nor, we believe, sensible to attempt to turn it off and on like a tap according to particular political developments within a country.

    Bilateral Aid
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Minister of Overseas Development what has been the level of bilateral overseas aid during each of the last five years; and how much has been received by this country during the same period in the form of interest repayments on loans.
    Mr. Bottomley: The figures for 1961 to 1965 are given in Tables 1 and 3 of the Ministry's publication "British Aid: Statistics of official economic aid to developing countries", which is available in the Library. Provisional figures for 1966 on the same basis are: bilateral aid £189·1 million, interest received £27·7 million.
    Mr. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this indicates that a substantial part of the aid which is being paid out by this country comes back in the form of interest payable on the loans made in the past, which indicates that the burden of overseas aid is very much

    701
    less than has been suggested in discussions about the balance of payments position?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that interest repayments can be expected to level off because of the loans which we are now making interest-free.
    Mr. Henry Clark: Do not the figures also reveal that the performance of the Labour Government on aid is considerably worse than forecast in both their election programmes?
    Mr. Bottomley: No. It is not considerably less. What has happened has been a slowing-down of the programme.

    Aid Programme
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will state the details of the cuts in overseas aid to developing countries which it is proposed to make in order to implement the decision to reduce overseas aid by £20 million.
    Mr. Bottomley: I refer my hon. Friend to replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 24th October and to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 22nd November last.—[Vol. 734, c. 118 and c. 270.]
    Mr. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes no kind of sense in the modern world to try to reduce our aid to developing countries where the tensions are so great and the dangers to world peace are so threatening and that this is a very short-sighted economy?
    Mr. Bottomley: We are doing what we can with available resources consistent with the economic difficulties confronting the country.
    Sir F. Bennett: In his Answer about this reduction of £20 million, has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account his Answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) about maintaining and improving the figure of 1 per cent.? Does he call this a slowing-down or a reduction?
    Mr. Bottomley: We have been increasing aid each year and while the forecast for next year, which we hoped
    702
    would be higher, will not reach our target, the increase goes on consistently and has been higher than that given by the previous Government.

  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

    Prices and Incomes Policy
    Mr. Biffenasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proposals he now has to amend the Prices and Incomes Act to limit and ultimately terminate Government control over individual prices and incomes.
    Mr. Winnickasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a statement on the Government's policy for incomes and prices after the period of severe restraint.
    Mr. Deanasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he proposes to remove the restraint on the payment of increases in occupational pensions.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government now have for a prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now state the Government's policy on prices and incomes after the period of severe restraint.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): My right hon. Friend will be making a statement about future prices and incomes policy before the Easter Recess.
    Mr. Biffen: Since the House will not have been consulted, unlike the C.B.I. and the TALC., before his right hon. Friend makes the statement, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the widespread and growing desire I suspect on both sides of the House, to see Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act repudiated?
    Mr. Lee: The Government will also be publishing a White Paper, and when that has been laid the House will know

    703
    what the opinions of the Government are, and will probably debate the matter.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that after the reports in the morning papers many Labour M.P.s and trade unionists are very concerned about what is likely to appear in this White Paper? Is he further aware that the Prices and Incomes Report on the drapery workers seems to be somewhat remote and arrogant in tone as applied to this section of lower-paid workers?
    Mr. Lee: I naturally bow to my hon. Friend's vast knowledge of the thinking of trade unionists—
    Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. As I have been a trade unionist for many years and an active trade unionist at that.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr. Lee.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Lee: I have nothing to withdraw. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting Question Time.
    Mr. Lee: Probably it would be better if the House waited until it saw the contents of the White Paper before commenting upon it.
    Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, referring to Question No. 31, that many people who have had their occupational pensions frozen regard the Government's attitude as extremely mean? Can he give an assurance that increases in occupational pensions will be allowed at a very early date?
    Mr. Lee: It would have been quite unfair to have allowed pensioners, who are getting far more than some wage earners, to be immune from this. Those with small incomes were not affected.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the longer that we retain the artificial or legal restraints on prices and incomes, the more difficult it will be to get rid of them? Is it the Government's intention ever to restore to the trade unions their full rights of free collective bargaining?
    Mr. Lee: In the discussions that we have had with the C.B.I. and T.U.C., we
    704
    have made it abundantly clear that we want to return to a voluntary system. There is nothing between us on that point. The period in question is the next 12 months, and that is the period to which the White Paper refers.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As a fully paid-Up track unionist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which union?"]—the N.U.J.—may I ask the Minister whether this statement will be only on criteria, or whether it will include the Government's proposals for future legislation?
    Mr. Lee: The statement will be on criteria. We hope shortly after Easter to be able to make another, on powers and matters relating to them.

    Severnside (New Town Study)
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if, in view of the persistently and excessively high unemployment in the industrial valleys of South Wales, he will withhold his approval from the building of a new large town on Severnside which would effect the complete economic ruin of these valleys.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): In view of the large increase anticipated in the country's population, a study of Severnside has just started to see whether that area might be one of several possible locations for large-scale population inflow. The implications for South Wales and other areas will be most carefully considered during the study and will be fully taken into account before any decision, in the light of the study, is reached.
    Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend inform his right hon. Friend that South Wales—particularly the old industrial valleys, with their heavy incidence of unemployment—has waited far too long for the Government to do something concrete to establish industry there? Is he aware that, as the Question implies, it would bring about the complete economic ruin of the area if this absurd plan were to go on?
    Mr. Shore: The question of the short-term unemployment problem in South Wales comes under the general policy of the Government for helping the development areas. As to the Severnside study,

    705
    this is covering an entirely different time-scale. It will be some time before we even get the preliminary report from the Central Planning Unit which we have established to carry out this study.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that to a very great extent, a problem in South Wales is also a problem not only in the east but, much more so in the west? Will very serious consideration be given to the necessity of placing industry westward in South Wales?
    Mr. Shore: I am ready to give that assurance to my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is considering this matter, both in the context of short-term policy and in terms of the long-term regional study of Wales.
    Mr. Davies: In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

  SECURITY PRACTICES
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission to review security practices.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.
  Mr. Winnick: Would the Prime Minister agree that there is concern over some security practices, such as telephone tapping in non-criminal cases and vetting of overseas cables—practices initiated by previous Governments? Is there not a possibility that the security service could become too large and a law unto itself?
  The Prime Minister: There is no such danger. Telephone tapping was very fully surveyed by a Committee of Privy Councillors. On the second point mentioned by my hon. Friend, the House will be aware of the inquiry now being undertaken by Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues.
  Mr. A. Royle: Would the Prime Minister tell the House why the Paymaster-General has an office in the Ministry of Defence?
  The Prime Minister: He has not.

  COTTON TEXTILES (IMPORTS)
  Mr. Boardmanasked the Prime Minister by what date he expects to implement his plans and undertakings given to textile employers and trade union representatives concerning low-priced textile imports.
  The Prime Minister: The Government have fully implemented the plans for the regulation of cotton textile imports referred to by my hon. Friend. Restrictions on the quantities and types of cotton textiles imported from a very large number of countries became effective on 1st January last year. The formation of the Textile Council Imports Commission announced this week by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will enable a watch to be kept on the operation of these restrictions.
  Mr. Boardman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Foreign Secretary addressed a meeting of textile manufacturers and trade unionists in Manchester, he established enormous confidence in the industry and in the ability of the Labour Government to look after the interests of the industry? Is the Prime Minister aware that nothing that the Government have so far done has satisfied this industry? Will he now, when confidence in the industry and in this Government in this respect is rapidly declining, implement the policy?
  The Prime Minister: The Imports Commission announced by my right hon. Friend will undertake all, and indeed more than all, of the advisory functions which my right hon. Friend had in mind in his speech at Manchester. The task of regulating imports is necessarily a function of Government, and I have referred to the action taken by the Government for the first time to regulate these imports.
  Mr. Barber: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what will be executive powers of the new Commission?
  The Prime Minister: This was dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade on Tuesday. It will advise the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I remember in the years of the deep textile depression—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—from 1957 onwards the Conservative Government did nothing at all

  707
  about regulation. The executive power must remain with the Government, and this Government have not only taken powers but are using them.
  Mr. Robert Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Defence and Education Departments to buy British textiles goods at all times?
  The Prime Minister: There is a general rule in all Government purchasing to give priority, where possible, to production from within this country, but there cannot be an absolute rule on this—where one does not get value for money this cannot be done.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would the Prime Minister ask the President of the Board of Trade to disclose the details of the arrangement which he alleges he has come to with the Portuguese Government, because until we know what it is about, what the details are, and what it amounts to, we cannot judge whether it has achieved any more than this rather feeble Commission of the Textile Council about which he boasts so much?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the arrangements made with the Portuguese Government about disclosing the details of the agreement. I will certainly take up that point with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Lancashire is only too well aware of how successive Governments have neglected the cotton textile industry for the greater part of this century? Will he also bear in mind that while the appointment of the Commission announced by the President of the Board of Trade the other day is a necessary, if belated, first step, its success will be judged only in accordance with the extent to which it is able to reduce cotton imports from countries like Portugal with which Lancashire cannot be expected to compete?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that it is a first step. The first step was the announcement made more than a year ago by my right hon. Friend to introduce the quota system to replace the voluntary quota system. That was a first and most effective step. I know that my hon. Friend recognises the difficulties about Portugal. This was the
  708
  policy of the previous Government, and it is the policy of the present Government. The removal of tariffs as part of the E.F.T.A. agreement has intensified Portuguese competition.
  Mr. Heath: Did not the Prime Minister contradict himself in his last remark? He said that nothing had been done by any previous Government. The Conservative Government negotiated the limitations on textile imports from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong and the voluntary limitations on imports from Portugal and other countries. The problem, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has always been to prevent the agreements being avoided by other countries. Action was taken. The real problem surely is to get a balance between the textile industry of Lancashire and the textile industries of the developing countries which the Government are pledged to help just as much as we were.
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On the first part, I answered a Question just now about Government regulation of imports by import restrictions. I sat through all the debates when we were on the benches opposite. After very many months of pressing by the then Opposition—[Interruption.] Certainly. I can remember the debates which we had at the beginning of March, 1957, and my own plan for cotton—action on voluntary regulation for which we had been pressing was not taken for at least 12 months afterwards.

  MR. RAPACKI (DISCUSSION)
  Mr. Hefferasked the Prime Minister what discussion he has had with Mr. Rapacki, the Polish Foreign Minister, during his recent visit; and if he will make a statement regarding the issues discussed.
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Rapacki and I had a very full and useful discussion on a number of important questions. The details of my talk and of those conducted by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are confidential.
  Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend indicate how far the idea of a

  709
  European security conference was explored? Was the Gomulka plan for reducing nuclear weapons and then gradual disarmament considered, or was the Gaitskell-Rapacki plan discussed, which I understand is still Labour Party policy?
  The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend could naturally assume from the reference to the question of a European security conference in the communiqué signed by Mr. Kosygin and myself that this would be a subject for discussion. On the other question, as always in talks with Mr. Rapacki, all aspects of European security, non-proliferation, disengagement and everything which comes within my hon. Friend's Question naturally would have been discussed by my right hon. Friend. In my own case, to which the Question refers, the discussion was mainly about Vietnam.

  EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will now define in greater detail his proposals for a European technological community.
  The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the information that has already been given to the House including that contained in my speech to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, a copy of which is in the Library.
  Mr. Ridley: Would the Prime Minister agree that to get a fair and true sharing of the immense costs of research and development in this field there must be a supra-national element of control? Can he say whether his proposals for a technological community contain a proposal for supra-national control of our technological research and development effort?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that in order to enable technological industries here and elsewhere in Europe to flourish, a much wider market is required. We stressed this in our visits to Europe. On the precise form of the community, this will be a matter for discussion with the Six, particularly if we were to start negotiations for entry. But since the present proposal is to merge all three communities
  710
  —the executives are currently being merged—it is very hard now to speculate about the exact nature of control.
  Mr. David Howellasked the Prime Minister whether he discussed his proposals for a European technology community during his recent visit to European capitals.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Howell: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that if this idea of a technology community is to have any real meaning it involves a very high degree of political and defence integration and co-ordination of purchasing policies? Would he reassure the House that he is converted to that kind of Europeanism?
  The Prime Minister: It is extremely difficult at this moment to forecast how it would be fitted into the new merged community. If the communities were not fully merged at the time of British entry, if we get the right conditions of entry, it might be right to expand Euratom. A lot of steam needs to be put into Euratom, as I think all Members will agree. It could be done in the existing Euratom form. But it could be that if the communities are merged we shall be able to get the right technological component within the merged community. But I cannot speculate at this time on what kind of political control would apply to the merged community.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the short term, can my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's enthusiasm for a European civilian air bus?
  The Prime Minister: There are due to be further talks about this in Europe. We are extremely interested in this project and have quite a big part in it. The British Government and other Governments would want to be quite certain that there would be an adequate market among the airlines of Europe for the ultimate product.
  Mr. Heath: In his Guildhall speech, the Prime Minister spoke of a drive to create a new technological community, but when he spoke to E.S.U. he said that he saw Europe as a technological community. In the House he said that we have a community of interest in technology, which means that he has moved

  711
  away from a new community to a general matter of common interest in technological development. Is it not true that interest in Europe is not in the creation of a new community as such, but in the opportunity of firms in a wider market to do technological development together? That is the thing on which we should concentrate.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of three possible meanings of the word "community". I agree with the last part of his supplementary question. I stressed in all our talks in Europe that, although technological co-operation between Britain and other European countries is possible in present circumstances, really effective technological collaboration, pooling and the creation of new technological products on a joint basis is possible only if we are in one market. I stressed that very strongly in my talks in Europe.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the political nature of Mr. Attorney-General's office, he will now, in line with recent Commonwealth practice, move to make the Director of Public Prosecutions independent of Mr. Attorney-General's control.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Fraser: Is the Prime Minister aware that it will disturb many people that he is not prepared to look at this subject, which is a difficult one? Surely he has noticed that since 1946 more and more of the work of the Director of Public Prosecutions has come under the control of the Attorney-General and that he is more and more involved in Government business and less and less as the prosecuting conscience of the people. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should ensure that the political safeguards afforded to the emergent peoples are available to people in this country?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this is and always has been a difficult question. If he thinks that it became more difficult after 1946, it was obviously difficult for
  712
  13 years. The then Prime Ministers took the same view of the matter which I have taken.

  FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (SPEECH)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs about economic policy at Cumbernauld on 24th February represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on this occasion, three weeks ago, his right hon. Friend is reported as saying that as of now a gradual reflation of the economy would start? Surely a statement of that sort and the statement made to the C.B.I. yesterday should be made in the first place to this House.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said on that occasion that reflation must be gradual, with the emphasis on investment, and must not be premature. That is exactly the position which has been stated repeatedly in the House. I have myself said repeatedly that, having released resources by the stern measures taken last year, they must be devoted first and foremost not to a restoration of consumer durable goods production but to certain investment projects, both in the public and the private sector.
  Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister say that the short-term rate of growth of which the Chancellor speaks constantly is consistent with the long-term rate of growth of which the First Secretary spoke and which he requires to carry out his plans?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the short term—and this has been true of the last two years and must be for a little time ahead—the first concentration must be on getting the balance of payments right. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have been overjoyed to see yesterday that as a result of the policies of this Government, on a comparable basis, the balance of payments deficit has been reduced from £822

  713
  million in 1964 to £189 million in 1966, and that the balance of payments surplus in the fourth quarter of last year was the highest since figures began to be collected.
  Mr. Heath: As the Prime Minister has given the House an assurance about the rate of growth, can he tell us what the rate of growth is?
  The Prime Minister: I have just said to the right hon. Gentleman that we must concentrate first, in the short-term, about which he asked, on getting the balance of payments right. The right hon. Gentleman's rate of growth over 13 years was very little higher—I am quoting his own figures of last weekend—than his estimate of what it will be under this Government for the next six years, despite a 28 per cent. windfall in the balance of payments. It resulted in an £800 million deficit, and it was our first duty to get rid of it.
  Mr. Bence: In view of the fact that this speech on reflating the economy was made in Cumbernauld, which is in my constituency, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that we can take it that the first steps in reflation will be taken in Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that the first steps taken in this kind of selective reflation—namely, the increase in the programme for advance factories—was biased very heavily in favour of Scotland and other development areas. This is continuing and will continue.
  Mr. Sandys: Will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Will he say what is the present rate of growth?
  The Prime Minister: In answer to the shadow Leader of the Opposition, I have already said that I am not in a position to make a forecast of the rate of growth for this year—[Interruption.] The House will understand the need to get the balance of payments into surplus. We are not content to get into an £800 million deficit—
  Sir G. Nabarro: You have got it all wrong.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) will see from the figures pub-
  714
  lished yesterday that we are getting it all right, despite the way the hon. Gentleman and others left in 1964—[Interruption.]
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much inflation at the moment. Mr. Bottomley.

WEST INDIES (MINISTER'S VISIT)
The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 18.
The purpose of my visit was to hand over, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, the Constitutional Instruments to the five islands—St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia, Grenada—to which Parliament granted Associated Statehood at the end of February and the beginning of this month.
I took the opportunity of paying a visit to three other countries, Barbados, Guyana and Colombia, which are receiving assistance under my Ministry's aid programme.
I would like to tell the House how impressed I was by the dignity with which the flag-raising and ceremonies in the Assemblies were carried out. I was privileged to convey to these Assemblies the Instruments of Associated Statehood and the good wishes of Britain. In conveying those good wishes I feel confident that I spoke for the whole of this House.
I also carried with me a message from Her Majesty which the Governor of each new State conveyed to the Assemblies and to the peoples.
It gave me great pleasure also to present to each of the five new States a gift from Her Majesty's Government of a suitably inscribed silver dish.
The Premiers of every one of the five States asked me to convey to Her Majesty their thanks for her gracious message and to Her Majesty's Government for the gift.
During the very short time I spent in these islands I was able to have useful talks on matters concerning my Ministry, including the work of my Development Division in the Caribbean.
Mr. Wood: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that long

715
statement, and ask him two questions? First, has he reached any conclusions about the need for continued aid to these islands after the reception of Associated Statehood? Secondly, can he say anything about his reception in the Island of Anguilla, about which we have seen disturbing reports? We should be very grateful if he can confirm or deny them.
Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. I was able to give an assurance that aid for the Associated States will continue at the current rate. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, when the House debated the matter of independence it was agreed that that rate should continue for the two succeeding years.
I am glad to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the reports which I read about the troubles in Anguilla were exaggerated. There certainly was a small demonstration, but, by way of a change, it was for Her Majesty's Government to continue to control Anguilla. However, it is quite clear that Anguilla is a part of St. Kitts and Nevis, and when I met the Deputy Premier, it was clear that the bulk of the people expressed that wish.
Mr. Chapman: Can my right hon. Friend say what progress he was able to make when he was in the West Indies on the completion of a real plan—a Colombo-type plan, as the Prime Minister has called it—under which Canada, the United States and Britain would join in making available the funds on which economic development can take place?
Mr. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend is aware, a tripartite survey is being carried out. I was able to assure the islands concerned that, if a Regional Development Organisation is established, Her Majesty's Government will make a contribution to the fund to keep that organisation in being.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Heath. Business Question.
Mr. Strauss: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we embark upon the business for next week, may I seek your guidance? On a number of occasions,
716
on recent Thursdays, an hon. Member has asked the Leader of the House a question and he has replied, and subsequently a large number of other hon. Members have risen and asked the same question. That, in my submission, has led to pointless and tiresome repetition and has resulted in a great waste of time.
I recall that previous Speakers have frowned on that practice and not allowed the repetition of questions which have been put and answered. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider adopting that practice, and may I suggest that, if you do, you will have the warm support of all sections of the House?
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. How else can back-bench Members make their position clear when the Executive are obviously working against the wish of the House?
Mr. James Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I raised this matter some time ago, when you intimated that it might be desirable for the Select Committee on Procedure to consider it. You said that the rule at present was that all hon. Members could ask questions on the Business Statement. May I ask whether any steps have been taken to instruct the Select Committee to look at the problem?
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport Sir W. Bromley-Davenport rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to be addressed on a point of order and attempt to deal with it if there are five or six supplementary points on the same point of order. Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) with regard to the constant repetition of questions by back-bench Members, we hope that you will not stop this, Mr. Speaker, as it is the only way in which we can try to get a straight answer.
Mr. Speaker: May I address myself to the problem raised in all the points of order? The Chair does not know what question is to be asked by an hon. Member until he has asked it. This is a simple statement of fact. The Chair could not rule on a repetitious question until the question had been asked. That is the first point.

717
The second point is that the repetition at Business Question time of a question almost identical with a previous one is one of the ways in which the House and the Leader of the House and the Government become aware of the serious nature of the point being raised.
On the other hand, I understand that it was the practice of my predecessors, some time back—too far back for Mr. Speaker to alter the rules by autocratic methods—after a certain time to clamp down on business questions, as, after a time, he clamps down on other types of questions. This is the matter which the House must think about.
If I may put again the very serious point which I put to the House two or three weeks ago, it would be a very untenable position if, at Business Question time, every hon. Member used what seems at present to be his right to put a question and if every hon. Member used his right to put a repetitious question.
This is why I suggested some time ago that the Select Committee on Procedure might look at the matter. But this is a question to be solved, I think, by the good sense and tolerance of the House. The business question is a legitimate opportunity for the ventilation of matters about which hon. Members are keen. If it is abused, the House will have to make its own rules to protect itself against that abuse. Mr. Heath.
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH MARCH—In the morning—
A debate will be opened on the Land Commission Orders and Prayers.
In the afternoon—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY, 21ST MARCH—Lords Amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill.
Conclusion of the debate on the Land Commission Orders and Prayers.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND MARCH—In the morning—Completion of the debates on
718
the Post Office Accounts and on the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order.
Prayer relating to the University and Other Awards Amending Regulations.
In the afternoon—Second Reading of the Decimal Currency Bill.
Prayer on the Prices and Incomes Order relating to Press Employees.
THURSDAY, 23RD MARCH—It is expected that the House will meet at 11 a.m., that Questions will be taken until 12 noon and that the House will adjourn at 5 o'clock, until Tuesday, 4th April.
Mr. Heath: I would thank the right hon. Gentleman, first, for making an arrangement which, I think, will be convenient to everybody, for answering the Prayer on Wednesday on prices and incomes.
Second, is he aware that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will deplore the fact that the Government have now decided to steamroller their Decimal Currency Bill through the House next Wednesday without first giving the House an opportunity to discuss the merits of the £ and 10s. unit and give free expression to its views?
Third, he will, I am sure, recall that, on 14th December, when the House discussed procedure, he said, in relation to the morning sittings, that important or controversial statements would still be taken at 3.30. Why, only three months later, has he repudiated this firm undertaking to the House? Why did he, yesterday morning, take an important and controversial statement about the salaries for the National Steel Corporation? This was a repudiation of his undertaking to the House.
Mr. Crossman: I note the right hon. Gentleman's statement of opinion about decimal currency.
On the second matter, which does not really relate to the business for next week, the action to take would be to put a Question down to me on the subject of Ministerial statements at morning sittings, when I will, of course, reply to it.
Mr. Heath: Is it surprising, Mr. Speaker, that we have long sessions of business questions on Thursday afternoon if the Leader of the House behaves in this autocratic way and refuses to answer a

719
reasonable question from the Leader of the Opposition? What is in question is a firm undertaking given by the Leader of the House to the House that important statements would still be taken at 3.30. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that, yesterday morning, the statement on steel salaries was both important and controversial? Why was it taken then? Why has be repudiated his undertaking?
Mr. Crossman: The principle holds. I said that matters which were for the afternoon were matters of major importance—
Mr. Barber: No, no.
Mr. Crossman: In my view, what we did was to put forward the correct things for the morning sittings.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman's precise words, if I may be allowed to quote in this context, were:
"Let me emphasise that important or controversial statements"—
Mr. Willis: On a point of order. Could you, Mr. Speaker, tell the House how what happened yesterday morning comes under the heading of business for next week?
Mr. Speaker: I was about to intervene. I think that what the Leader of the Opposion was seeking was some assurance that what happened yesterday will not happen in future. That is the form in which his question should be put.
Mr. Heath: Then may I put it in this form, that the assurance of the Leader of the House was that important or controversial statements—that was his definition—will still be taken at 3.30. Will he give another assurance, to replace the one which he has already repudiated, that this will still go on?
Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman should not talk about repudiating assurances, because I have repudiated no assurance. I would suggest that, if we want to conduct our business reasonably—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we should discuss these matters reasonably with each other.
The right hon. Gentleman holds the view that the statements taken yesterday were not the kind suitable for the morning. If that is so, I will consider this
720
through the usual channels, because the question of what we should take in the morning and what in the afternoon is one which we shall have to solve in practice. I respect the view that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly that this is wrong. If that is put to me, I will consider it in considering which statements should be made in the morning and which in the afternoon.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the question—
Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, how many questions is he allowed to put for every one question from a back bencher?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must leave to Chair the control of business question time.
Mr. Heath Mr. Heath rose—
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. However many questions it may be right for the Leader of the Opposition to address to the Leader of the House, is it not a fact that, if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make objection to holding certain business in the morning sittings, which appears to be the foundation of his charge, he ought to put down a Motion for debate, so that it could be discussed in an orderly manner?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but a point of argument.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has said that, if we take exception to the two statements taken yesterday morning, we should discuss the matter through the usual channels. He must surely be aware that we made representations before yesterday morning against taking these two statements and that they were turned—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot hold an inquest now—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair needs no support from either side. We cannot hold an inquest on yesterday. What we can do is look forward to the future. This is Business Question Time.
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that

721
the Leader of the Opposition is trying to entice the Leader of the House into a debate on something quite different from the business for next week? Is that in order?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman should listen to what the Chair says.
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the representations which were turned down yesterday against taking these statements will not be turned down in future?
Mr. Crossman: Representations were made and we consulted the Department. The Department's view was that these were not major statements.
Hon. Members: Resign!
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is about enough noise.
Mr. Crossman: It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite shouting about this.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: On a point of order. It is impossible to hear what my right hon. Friend is saying in this quarter of the House, Mr. Speaker.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point. I am experiencing a little difficulty myself in hearing what is being said in certain parts of the House. This is something into which we must ask the engineers to look.
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. The last question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, as I understood it, was that my right hon. Friend should give an undertaking that in future certain representations made through the usual channels about statements would be considered. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that question is out of order at Business Question Time, and that it is more in the nature of a discussion about the general procedure of the House. Since it is not concerned with next week's business—I suggest that the rights of back benchers are being prejudiced.
If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to alter the procedure of the House to suit himself and some of his hon. Friends, he should table a Motion, like any other hon. Member, so that we can debate it.
722
But if he is not prepared to resort to that course, then he is usurping the rights of back benchers—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when he raises a point of order. It would be—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."] This is part of the acoustic trouble—of great convenience to the Chair if, at Business Question Time, the only questions that were asked were questions about the business for next week. That has by no means occurred for quite a long time in this Parliament. I think that that answers the first part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
To answer the second part, I understood the Leader of the Opposition to be asking a question about the kind of Motion or Order which should be taken at morning sittings. That seems to be a legitimate business question.
Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. The Leader of the House said that before deciding whether a statement was or was not controversial and, therefore, appropriate for the morning or afternoon, he had consulted a Government Department. Is it not an insult to this House to suggest—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter of argument, not a question about the business for next week.
Mr. Sandys: Further to my point of order. Is it not an insult to this House that the business of the House should be controlled by civil servants in Government Departments?
Mr. Crossman: There is really no question of business being controlled by civil servants in Government Departments. The question which we must decide is what time to make statement A or statement B, and this we are trying our best to do in practice—remembering, of course, that we are doing this for an experimental Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] We are doing it because we want as much as we can to be done in the mornings to prevent a delay in the starting of the main business in the afternoon. This is my major preoccupation. It is true that I gave the House an assurance that important statements would be made in the afternoon.

723
This is a matter of some difficulty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite have questioned me about it and have asked me what should be taken in the mornings and what should be taken in the afternoons. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for having made the position so clear. I gather that he thinks that a particular statement—on steel, I understand—should not have been made in the morning, but I gather that the other statement, about the railways, he thinks was suitable to have been made in the morning.
Mr. Heath: No.
Mr. Crossman: This illustrates the difficulty.
An Hon. Member: The Tories do not want to come here in the mornings.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Crossman: If all statements which arouse any interest must be made in the afternoon, then all statements will be taken then. However, I repeat that this is a matter on which we must consult with all parts of the House. I shall listen to the representations on this issue from hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is no question of our being dictated to by Government Departments. I said that I took the opinion of the Department but I took my own decision, and, therefore, I suggest that if we are to make a success, as we are determined to do, of our morning sittings, we should continue the practice of taking Ministerial statements then; but I agree that we should take those of first importance in the afternoon as long as it is the wish of the House that they should be taken then.
Mr. James Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the problem of the abuse that is taking place of the rules of the House, an abuse that is preventing the House from getting on with its normal business? Will he refer this matter to the Select Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Crossman: This is a matter which the Select Committee might well be asked to consider. There is a problem. After all, it arose out of the suggestion of the Select Committee for morning sittings. It is true that the idea of Ministerial statements was not in the Committee's Report
724
and that, therefore, the Committee did not express an opinion on the point. I did, and we put it forward, and if my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be a good idea, as it very well might be, to have an all-party Select Committee looking at the working of our system of making Ministerial statements, and to give us advice on it, then I find that a constructive suggestion.
Mr. Barber: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Transport, in her statement yesterday, said, and I quote—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared, at Business Question Time, to have an inquest on what happened yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman must link his remarks to the business for next week, or to a request for a debate some time ahead.
Mr. Barber: May I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that in future no fundamental change of policy will be announced in the mornings? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to a simple question? I want a "Yes" or "No" from him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does the right hon. Gentleman—I appreciate that there may have been a mistake; his answer will help us in the future—consider that yesterday's statement was—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is doing what I said should not be done at Business Question Time.
Mr. Barber: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—whether—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The only thing about which I am concerned is that Parliament does not hurt itself.
Mr. Barber: We can bring this matter to a simple conclusion if the Leader of the House will give an unqualified assurance that in future, as he said on 14th December last, no statement which is either important or controversial will be taken in the morning.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, my question is how far this nonsense is to be allowed to continue. There is not a vestige in these questions that has any

725
relevance to any matter in the least likely to be dealt with by the House next week. If hon. Members opposite are really determined to extend this Business Question Time every Thursday afternoon to three-quarters of an hour, or an hour, would it not be better to transfer Business Question Time itself to morning sittings?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) must let the Chair judge what is in order.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask when those on the back benches can join in the debate that is going on between those on the Front Benches both above and below the Gangway? Perhaps then some of those who attend the morning sittings may be included in the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the business of the moment.
Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) asked me whether I would give an assurance that a statement about a fundamental change of policy would not be made in the morning. Is that right?
Mr. Barber: I said an important or controversial statement.
Mr. Crossman: I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman asked three questions, and I am now taking the first one. He has forgotten, in his excitement, what he asked me.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would give an assurance that a statement made on a fundamental change of policy would not be made in the mornings. I can give him that assurance, because that would be to contravene the description I gave then. I would also give him an assurance that I shall seek to interpret a decision whether to put on a statement for the morning or the evening in accordance with what I said in the debate on 14th December. There will be disagreements about it, and in those disagreements I shall seek to consider the views not only of those on this side, but of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend take note, in relation to next week's business and the morning sittings, that
726
many of us foreshadowed that this difficulty would arise because the House had tried to distinguish between first-class and second-class business? We must not do that. Will not my right hon. Friend look seriously, if we are in favour of morning sittings at the idea of starting business properly then rolling it back to 10 o'clock and continuing it throughout the day?
Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend has put a very important point, which was put on a previous Business Statement, when hon. Members below the Gangway said, quite rightly, that this distinction we have made between what might be called important and secondary business would be extremely difficult to make, and possibly an untenable method of conducting business, because some hon. Members would regard it as an insult to call any business of the House as of secondary importance.
There is a genuine difficulty here. We are all aware that we are in an experimental Session and that we are trying to make the experiment work. I have been listening attentively to hon. Members opposite because there is obvious indignation about Wednesday's announcement. I am prepared to listen to all that may be said before making up my mind.
In the meantime, I can tell the House that a statement on prices and incomes will be made probably on Wednesday, and that it will not be made in the morning.
Mr. Blaker: If the Leader of the House will answer a question it may give us some guidance about future business. Is not the explanation of the whole matter that the Leader of the House considers that the statement that the deputy chairman of a nationalised industry will have a salary of £24,000 a year is non-controversial?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to have an inquiest on yesterday's business, and a mere repeating of it is a waste of Business Question Time.
Mr. Pannell: As we may have all this controversy over again, will you say, Sir, at what time of the clock this nonsense gets to the point of tedious repetition?
Mr. Turton: If the Leader of the House has no statement to make today on morning sittings, will he, next week,

727
repeat in the House the proposals he made to another Parliamentary gathering yesterday for the reform of morning sittings, which have never been considered by the Select Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Grossman: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a speech I made upstairs, I may say that I ventilated informally an idea which, I hope, will be considered by all hon. Members. It has also been ventilated by my hon. Friends. We are thinking informally, and trying to test the opinion informally of hon. Members as to what we should do in the morning sittings. This is one of the ideas.
Mr. Ogden: My right hon. Friend has said that the statement on prices and incomes may possibly be made in the House on Wednesday. Will he bear in mind that this is a matter of deep concern to many hon. Members, and that discussion about it afterwards, even if limited, would take a fair amount of time from our debate on decimal currency? Could he possible have the statement made on Tuesday rather than on Wednesday?
Mr. Crossman: This is something we had actually thought of. Negotiations and the document are not yet completed, so Wednesday is the earliest time we can safely say the statement can be made.
As my hon. Friend says, if we then have a longish question and answer period after the statement, it will eat time from the debate on the Second Reading of the Decimal Currency Bill. I should have thought that the time to discuss the statement would be after it has been made and after the White Paper has been studied, rather than before.
Mr. James Davidson: Is the Leader of the House aware that many Scottish Members are eagerly awaiting a statement on the work of the Highland Development Board and its future development projects? In view of recent speculation in the Press, can he give an assurance that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement on this matter before the Easter Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot give an assurance, but I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, in accordance with the hon. Member's wishes.
Mr. Dalyell: Has it been drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend that although we have had six days' debate on defence the Government, through no fault of their own, have had no opportunity to deploy their case on the Anglo-French variable geometry project? Can we have an early debate on the Ministry of Technology, since the agreement is likely to be signed before the end of the month?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear that suggestion in mind, but I cannot see how a debate could take place next week.
Mr. Alison: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the announcement in the Press today from the Electricity Council of what amounts to a sensational retrenchment in expenditure on electricity? Can he arrange for his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to make a statement, either in the morning or the afternoon, because the announcement is significant for many industries particularly coal and the railways?
Mr. Crossman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be rebuked by his Front Bench for suggesting using a morning sitting for such an important statement, but I will certainly bring his suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.
Mr. Heffer: Will the Leader of the House tell us when there is likely to be a statement from the Government about a possible application to join the E.E.C.?
Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. It certainly will not be before the Easter Recess.
Mr. Webster: If any statements are made next week by Ministers, will the Leader of the House prevail upon them not to withhold the essential documents until the statement is made in the House?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bring that matter to their attention. In the case of the statement on prices and incomes policy, I assume that the White Paper will be laid at the same time.
Mr. Bob Brown: Can the Leader of the House say when we may have an

729
Order laid before the House on the future pattern of local government on Tyneside?
Mr. Crossman: I will bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Sir J. Rodgers: Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's speech made yesterday, as he says, upstairs, is it his intention to take Government business on Fridays and thus deprive back benchers of their rights?
Mr. Crossman: This is a matter which no doubt the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss with me and his hon. Friends in our consideration of the future. What was put out was a suggestion—which I shall repeat, since the hon. Member has asked me—that we should consider the possibility of taking Private Members' time in principle—with details not yet worked out—and possibly use Friday for Government business? It is one of the things that we have in mind and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate that at this moment.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend agree to provide facilities for the quick passage into law of the Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing) Bill in view of the help which it would give to those who wish to arrest the trafficking in drugs? I apologise for intervening in the Thursday afternoon blood sports.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We want business questions without trimmings.
Mr. Crossman: This is an important Bill. I think that I answered during questions on the Business Statement last week that we have had a similar Bill in the House of Lords, now introduced here, or a Motion for leave to bring one in and that we shall see how that goes.
Mr. Stratton Mills: As fewer than a dozen hon. Members were present on Monday morning, has the Leader of the House any comment to make on Motion 464, requesting the Select Committee to discover how many hon. Members have to leave their homes on a Sunday evening or before 5 a.m. on Monday to be in their places by ten o'clock.
[That this House urges the Select Committee on Procedure to circulate all Members of Parliament to discover how many
730
Members cannot reach the House of Commons by 10 a.m. on a Monday morning without having to leave their main home on a Sunday or before 5 a.m. on a Monday morning.]
Mr. Crossman: I saw that Motion, but I should not have thought that an elaborate statistical analysis would be necessary to reach the facts on which to make a decision. The number of hon. Members present on Monday morning was not noticeably fewer than there would be at, say, midnight, when the matter discussed in the morning might have been discussed.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House, as I did last week, that there is important business ahead.
Mr. Goodhew: Is it not abundantly clear from the answers given by the Leader of the House to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that in arranging business the Leader of the House has been giving consideration first to the convenience of Government Departments instead of to the interests of back benchers?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is bad enough to have a long business question session, but the questions must be business questions.
Mr. Goodhew: I was about to seek the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that next week he will put the interests of back benchers before the interests of Government Departments.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a general statement of philosophy rather than a business question.
Mr. Crossman: Nevertheless, may I be allowed to answer it? If the suggestion is once again made that there is any question of breaking faith with back benchers on the subject of Ministerial statements made in the morning, it is totally untrue. We have to consider the balance of interests. I have considered throughout the interests of back benchers primarily in regard to these statements. I remind the hon. Member that in many cases these statements might well have been made by Written Answer if we had not had them in the morning.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting into the nature of an inquest on past events. I hope that we can move on.
Sir D. Glover: It is quite obvious from the questions and answers this afternoon that a debate on the procedure of the House is absolutely urgent. I appreciate that that cannot take place next week, but will the Leader of the House promise that we may have a debate on it as soon as we come back after Easter?
Mr. Crossman: I think we shall have to have a debate soon after Easter. We have already one Report from the Select Committee on Standing Order No. 9 and there is another coming out today on debates on the Finance Bill. These certainly will have to be dealt with and possibly these other subjects might be raised by hon. Members during the course of such a debate.
Dr. Gray: In view of the widespread concern about university affairs, of which the L.S.E. disturbances are possibly a symptom, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a debate on this subject after the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, but I cannot give an assurance that there will be an early debate on that subject.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Again I remind the House that there is an important debate ahead.
Mr. Biffen: Is the Leader of the House able to say that the statements which will be made next week on prices and incomes will not, in fact reveal the Government's intentions on Part II of the Act? Can he assure us that the House will have an opportunity to debate Part II before the Government have made up their mind on it and published the proposals in a White Paper?
Mr. Crossman: I think I said that the content will be concerned with criteria and norms and I repeat that statement. The hon. Member expects a statement early after the return from the Recess, but I cannot give an assurance on when we can have a debate. We had better wait and see what the statement is and discuss through the usual channels the kind of
732
discussion which the House should give to it.
Sir J. Eden: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet had an opportunity to consult the Foreign Secretary about having a debate at the earliest opportunity on the subject of Aden? May we have an assurance that we shall get this before Easter?
Mr. Crossman: I gathered that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is to raise the issue on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I appreciate that that will be in Private Members' time and that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) would like the debate to be in Government time. I give the assurance that shortly after the Recess we shall have a debate on foreign affairs. No doubt this could be one of the main subjects in that debate.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: May we have an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government before or after Easter to give time to facilitate the passage of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have negative questions on business.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: On a point of order. I hope that I shall not trespass beyond the boundaries which you have laid down, but as this affects, or may affect, the whole subject of Ministers' Answers to Questions, I hope that you will not rule me out of order, Sir.
For Thursday, 13th April, I put down a Question to the Prime Minister which asks:
"whether he will instruct Ministers…"
I am not concerned with the rest of the Question, but I received notice this afternoon that this Question has been transferred to the Lord President of the Council. Are we to take it that the Prime Minister is unable, or unwilling, to instruct Ministers, or—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Part of that is an argument and not a point of order. On the point of order the issue is simple. It is for Ministers to decide which Ministers answer Questions put to them by hon. Members.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and that if any Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall have been disposed of before Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the questions which he is directed to put at Ten o'clock by paragraphs (5) and (7) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Crossman.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.
  SUPPLY
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  PRIMARY EDUCATION (PLOWDEN REPORT)
  4.17 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: It is now two months since the publication of the Plowden Report on Primary Education. I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate Lady Plowden and the members of her Council on a Report of high merit and of real long-term significance for the development of the education service. I naturally have very special pleasure in saying that, since it was I as Minister who set up the Committee in August, 1963.
  This Report is not just an essay on the primary schools. It presents a coherent strategy for their improvement buttressed by an impressive weight of survey and research material, and recommendations whose costing has been projected right through to 1979. I am not sure whether, after what has happened this afternoon, it would be thought good taste from this side of the House to congratulate a civil servant, but I cannot resist doing so in view of the fact that Mr. Maurice Kogan was secretary to the Committee—in an earlier incarnation he was private secretary both to Lord Vosper and to myself. I should like to associate him with my congratulations to the Council as a whole.
  Two main themes run through this long Report. First, it proclaims the need for
  "a higher priority in the total educational budget to be given to primary education."
  This priority is justified in the Report on social grounds and on grounds of equity, but also on economic grounds. I quote one short passage:
  "Good primary education will help to equip children to live and work in a rapidly changing economy. Our present society requires a highly adaptable labour force, which is not only more skilled, but is better able to learn new

  735
  skills, to tackle new jobs and to face new problems."
  These last words seem to me to be extremely important. The best system of technical education in the world, as I am sure you would be the first to agree, Mr. Speaker, must be built on sound foundations in the work of the primary schools.
  Secondly, the Plowden Report is also an eloquent defence of the best of English primary education, as one of the most humane areas of our existing social provision. The views of pioneers of progressive education, like Susan Isaacs, are triumphantly vindicated in the Report, and it is good to read that
  "The gloomy forebodings of the decline of knowledge which would follow progressive methods have been discredited."
  In particular, I am glad that the Report conclusively refutes the lie, so often heard, that the schools are turning out pupils who cannot read. The great point which I learned at the Ministry of Education, and which this Report so clearly demonstrates, is that in the earliest stages of education there should not be too sharp a distinction between work and play. As the Report says:
  "In play, children gradually develop concepts of casual relationships, the power to discriminate, to make judgments, to analyse and to imagine."
  It is from this starting point that satisfactory development can take place, that a child can learn to acquire skills, and gradually to cope with the stresses of daily life. Indeed, the best of our primary schools are such delightful places that it is easy to become complacent about the state of primary education in Britain as a whole. The Report says:
  "Our review is a review of progress and a spur to man."
  It is very easy to forget the enormous expansion of the human, physical and financial reseources which have been put into the education service in Britain since 1950. I was struck by the figures quoted by Mr. Weaver, one of the deputy secretaries in the Department, in a lecture at Manchester University last month. In 1950, in England and Wales we had 5¼ million pupils in maintained schools, with 12½ per cent. of the age group staying on until 16. Now there are 7¼ million, with 23 per cent. staying on.
  In 1950, there were 250,000 teachers in the schools, colleges and universities.
  736
  Now there are 400,000. In 1950, there were 22,000 teachers in training, mostly on a two-year course. Now there are 84,000, on a three-year course. In 1950, there were 150,000 full-time students in higher education. Now there are 410,000.
  In 1950, public expenditure on education in the United Kingdom was £430 million. Now it is £1,780 million. In 1950, we were investing £61 million in educational buildings. In 1966, the figure was £187 million.
  I first became a Member of the House of Commons, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in 1950. Measured over a period of 16 years this represents an enormous expansion of human resources. It is one of the really significant developments in Britain during the post-war period.
  It is true that amid all this expansion the improvement of primary education has tended to lag behind in the race. Yet here, too, there has been progress. One of my few criticisms of the statistics in the Report concerns what I regard as a rather perplexing statement, in paragraph 1177, that
  "during the first half of the 1960s expenditure per child in primary schools was stagnant."
  According to my calculations—and I have done some work on this—expenditure per head in primary education went up from £52 in 1959 to £74 in 1964, and it is worth remembering that in the spring of 1964 no fewer than 270,000 new primary places were authorised, including over 100,000 to replace existing accommodation.
  However, let me make it clear that we on this side of the House would certainly not dispute the need to concentrate, during the coming years, on the improvement of primary education. That was my object in 1963 in setting up a Council under Lady Plowden's chairmanship to make the first full inquiry into primary education for over 30 years. It is two months since the Council reported, and we on this side of the House have used a Supply day to initiate this debate because we feel that the time has now come for the Secretary of State to tell us something of the Government's attitude towards the main recommendations in the Report. Also, we felt—and I hope that the whole House would agree—that the House of Commons should have the opportunity to debate this matter before

  737
  the teachers' conferences, which traditionally take place at Easter.
  I make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not pressing him this afternoon to say that he accepts all the Plowden recommendations. It would be quite unreal and irresponsible for us to do so, especially bearing in mind that they have a pretty hefty requirement in terms of additional money and physical resources—an extra £79 million a year for running costs by 1979 and a total of £250 million worth of extra capital expenditure. However, the Secretary of State ought to show himself forthcoming, at least, about a number of the recommendations.
  I would remind the House that in the recent past every Report of this kind has resulted in one or more important new developments in the Government's education policy. The Crowther Report, which appeared in 1959, was followed by a further large expansion of teacher-training facilities, and the very important White Paper entitled, "Better Opportunities in Technical Education". I very much doubt whether the expenditure on further education would be rising at from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. a year had not the Crowther Report appeared.
  The Newsom Report led directly to the announcement by myself of a date for the raising of the school-leaving age, an issue to which I shall refer later. The Robbins Report led to the acceptance by the Government of the principle that full-time higher education should be made available to those people able and willing to receive it. We now want to know how the Government will respond to Plowden, what new decisions they will take, following the publication of the Plowden Report, which they would not have taken otherwise.
  This leads me to some of the main recommendations contained in this long and important Report. First—and I shall devote most of my time to this—there is the genuinely radical proposal, to which the council itself attaches unequivocal top priority, for positive discrimination in favour of "educational priority areas". In principle, we on this side of the House acept this concept of positive discrimination. Indeed, we stated in our 1966 election manifesto that
  738
  "We shall give special help to areas where there is most need, for example, bad housing and oversized school classes."
  In fact, we did more than is often recognised to carry out this principle when in office. I recall that when, in the spring of 1963, I had to allocate the school-building programme for the following year, I deliberately gave the County of Durham, not one of the largest authorities, a school-building programme of over £2 million when unemployment was heavy in the North-East. But this Report, and the recommendation for education priority areas, is concerned with much wider issues.
  We have long been aware of the way in which home and environmental circumstances, whether material, intellectual or moral, can affect a child's development, and much talk, even today, about equality of opportunity can ring rather hollow. The Newsom Report underlined this point firmly, and now the Plowden Report has made a number of practical suggestions as to how the school can act as what I have sometimes called a "countervailing force" in our society, how it can make a greater contribution towards mitigating the effects of a bad material and cultural background.
  The Plowden Report does two things. It lists a number of useful criteria by which we can identify areas in which children are likely to have special problems. Secondly, it makes a number of precise financial proposals for giving extra help to the schools concerned. It is when one gets on to the detail of the Plowden proposals—the financial proposals—that we on this side of the House have some reservations. In the first place, while we agree wholeheartedly that the positive discrimination should be applied as a matter of national policy, I am not clear that there would be any great advantage in the idea of the educational priority areas being "formally designated" by the Department of Education and Science.
  Surely local education authorities can quite easily show that they have deprived areas in terms of the Plowden criteria, and the positive discrimination can be applied by the Department in framing and approving the relevant building programmes. Secondly, and here I suspect I speak for a large part of the House, we do not like the idea of a flat bonus of £120 to each teacher in a deprived school.

  739
  I think that the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, in another place, was justified in calling this proposal naïve.
  Our preference—because I think that one has to do something special about teachers—would be that teachers in these areas should enter schools on the ordinary salary scale, but that these schools should have a larger number of graded posts. I believe one of the highest priorities in education is not just to attract more teachers to the difficult areas, and the less favoured schools, but to keep them there. As Lord James, in another place, rightly said, stability is a key word in a child's education.
  I think that the most soul-searching experience that I had during my time at the Ministry was my experience of a secondary school in the extreme East End of London, which had 30 staff changes in a year. I wonder whether many people realise what education is like for children from deprived homes in areas where there is a regular turnover of teachers, and no point of stability at all in their lives, either at home or at school.
  Mr. Stan Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the system of special allowances often encourages teachers to move from school to school to seek promotion, and that this in itself is a factor which militates against stability in the schools, which I recognise to be very important for our children?
  Sir E. Boyle: I was thinking possibly of more graded posts of a particular kind. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there would be dangers in having too easy a ladder of promotion within educational priority areas. I was making a suggestion, and I hope that other hon. Members will think of other and better ones, for keeping a larger number of teachers in these schools, because the point is not merely to attract them but to keep them there.
  Thirdly, we think it is important that extra books and equipment should be provided for schools in priority areas. Sometimes older buildings, provided that they are redecorated, can be suitable for modern teaching methods, but more "software" and more "hardware" are essential to back up the efforts of the teachers. Here, I make a suggestion
  740
  which, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will take seriously. Surely the formula for the rate support grant could be altered and made more sophisticated to help the educational priority areas. I suggest, for instance, that areas of high density might get a specially favourable supplementary grant for education as a whole.
  It is true that this would not affect one or two individual authorities which are rather unexpectedly low density areas. It would be much more helpful, say, to Gateshead than to Merthyr Tydvil. Nevertheless, if one looks at the list of the authorities in the Rate Support Grant White Paper, of areas of high density which get special allowances, one sees that they include a large number of authorities which will have schools in priority areas.
  I have two or three other points to make on these educational priority areas before I turn to the next recommendation. First, I believe that if anything the Plowden Report underrates parental influence on achievement. Some of the most valuable paragraphs in the Report concern the need to strengthen the links between school and home, and we on this side have no truck with the school of thought which, on egalitarian grounds, wants to minimise parental influence on a child's school career. All the emphasis should be on levelling up and on strengthening the links between school and home.
  The part which can be played by Her Majesty's inspectors needs more thought. It may be that their primary loyalty should be to a particular group of schools, rather than to a particular local education authority.
  Lastly, much of the problem of educational priority areas is surely bound up with the need for a larger school building programme. Local education authorities are understandably reluctant to use minor works allocation on schools which they hope to rebuild soon, and what the Report shows so clearly is the need for positive discrimination, within the whole field of Government expenditure.
  We believe on this side that the Government must accord priority to those aspects of Government expenditure which aid growth and efficiency, and also to those objects where there is a clear social need which cannot be met by any other

  741
  agency. I think that we must hold firm to the principle once enunciated by Lord Keynes, that the proper purpose of government is not to do those things which people can do for themselves, and try to do them better, but to concentrate on those essential tasks which, if they are not carried out by Government, will not be carried out at all.
  As earnings rise, more families can contribute to the cost of school meals, and pay higher council house rents, but a deprived child in a priority area cannot himself overcome these handicaps which may affect his educability later. Therefore, let us endorse the Plowden principle of positive discrimination and recognise how widely it ought to apply throughout the range of public activity.
  The second Plowden recommendation concerns the recruitment of teachers' aides. The colleges of education have made tremendous efforts in recent years, and I say, in passing, that I do not believe many colleges can now be physically expanded much more. I think that we need to think of outposts of teacher colleges, rather than expanding the existing buildings still further. The great problem of teacher supply is that out of every 100 women teachers leaving the colleges, more than half will no longer be teaching in three years, and two-thirds will have gone within six years. Primary schools suffer by far the most.
  What can we do about this? We must press on with efforts to bring back married teachers. Having pressed the right hon. Gentleman over this matter for a long period, may I tell him that we welcome the news of the Bill to be brought in next Session to introduce optional superannuation for part-timers. We will give the right hon. Gentleman every facility for speedy progress with it to the Statute Book.
  Over and above that, I believe that the proposal for teacher aides as set out in Plowden is right in principle, and that this House should endorse it. Let us be quite clear—to use a distinction which once made certain Members feel much happier—these would be "ancillary helpers", both in the classroom and outside, rather than "auxiliary teachers". My only doubt is about how many girls will opt for two-year courses as teachers' aides, bearing in mind that the number of girls getting five O levels is going up
  742
  all the time. I believe that we are in an area where many jobs will be chasing a not very deep pool of womanpower, if I may put it that way.
  I suspect that the one-year training course for mature aides may prove more fruitful. There are many married women without the qualifications for teacher training who would like to work at least part-time with children as soon as their family circumstances permit, and I hope that either the right hon. Gentleman, or his hon. Friend, when she replies, will say something about this, because I believe that it is the married women, the mature entrants, as it were, who may provide most of the womanpower that we need for these teachers' aides. It is surely significant how so many of the day colleges of education are coping most successfully with mature students. We have one of the most successful of these colleges at Birmingham.
  The third recommendation is that the Government should announce a building programme of minor works designed to get rid of the worst defects in primary schools within seven years, at an annual cost of £7 million to £10 million. The Plowden Report also recommends greater flexibility between major and minor projects. I hope that the Secretary of State will have something encouraging to tell us this afternoon about the Government's response to this recommendation. We on this side believe that, as a start, local authorities should have their freedom restored in respect of mini-minor works. We always strongly opposed the removal of this freedom in 1965. We feel the same two years later. If one allows for the mini-minor decision, and for the increase in building costs, there has been virtually no increase in the real value of minor works allocations since we left office.
  If the Government wanted to take some modest action on this Report right away, surely they could at least have authorised a rather bigger minor works allocation for 1967–68 than for 1966–67. After all, the 1967–68 figure was not announced till 19th January, which was nearly three months after the Plowden Report was in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  It is also important to remember that, because there is no specific allocation for secondary reorganisation, many local education authorities are using a part of their minor works allocation to make

  743
  basic improvements in amenities where reorganisation is being carried out quickly. I am thinking, for example, of cases where single sex secondary schools are being converted to mixed schools.
  In the same month that the Newsom Report appeared, I announced an increase in the major school building programme from £60 million to £80 million. In view of what the Labour Party has said in the past about old primary schools and their sanitation, and the like, I believe that the Secretary of State ought to announce here and now some increase in the minor works programme for the following year.
  The fourth main recommendation—I am using the order of priorities in the Report itself—is the proposal for a large extension of nursery education as soon as staff and buildings make this possible. The Report recommends that this should be made available for five half-day sessions a week to all children over 3, with 15 per cent. attending both morning and afternoon. I am sure that the Council was right to take pre-school age education seriously, especially for children in the educational priority areas. I have been very struck by what experienced teachers of all political views have said to me about the desirability of nursery education for children from the less favoured homes. This subject is bound up, also, with the growing number of mothers who go out to work.
  Let me make my party's attitude clear on three points. First, we strongly support the minority Report, which advocates a parental contribution by all those who can afford to contribute towards the cost of nursery schooling. It is interesting to note that the signatories to the minority Report represent a pretty wide political band—Professor Ayer, Dr. Michael Young, Professor Donnison, no less than Mr. Tim Raison and Brigadier Thwaytes.
  I am told, I think correctly, that Dr. Michael Young drafted this minority Report himself, including the sentence:
  "Particular proposals for educational improvement should surely be considered to see if on their merits it would be right or not to ask parents to contribute."
  This is one of the very few moments in history when the orbit of Dr. Michael Young has come just within sight of the orbit of the Institute of Economic Affairs.
  744
  This particular minority Report is extremely well drafted, and I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he sees great merit in it.
  Secondly, some capital expenditure will certainly be needed, but we have at this point one of the less realistic proposals of the Council. We on this side do not think that the capital cost of the Plowden Council's proposals for nursery education—£110 million—is realistic. For all the belief we have that an expansion here is needed, we would not put the expenditure of £110 million on nursery education as high on the list of priorities as many other, increases in capital expenditure which we would contemplate.
  Thirdly, it is only in the priority areas that we think that we should look wholly, or even mainly, for State provision of nursery education. In the better-off areas we should encourage voluntary effort, guided by an adequate system of inspection. We think that the provision of nursery education—that is, education before the age of statutory schooling—ought to be a partnership between public and private bodies, on the lines that Mrs. Elspeth Howe suggested in her excellent pamphlet, published by the Conservative Political Centre. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) laughs, but this pamphlet was once commended by the Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Denis Howell) in answer to a Question by me.
  I have dealt with the four principal recommendations made by the Council. I come on now to the last recommendation concerning the structure of primary education. These nursery proposals are linked to the main Plowden recommendations on structure. The Council recommends that each child should start compulsory schooling in what is to be called a "first" school in the September term following his fifth birthday; then he has three years in the first school, four years in a "middle" school, followed by transfer to a secondary school at a median age of 12½.
  I want to make four comments on the proposals on structure. First, on the start of compulsory schooling, I think that the Report develops a very convincing case against the present arrangements, with their termly admission to infant school, coupled with annual promotion to junior school. This has meant

  745
  that children born between May and August have had two terms less in the infant school than those born between September and December.
  I know that Lady Plowden herself felt strongly on this issue. Her Majesty's inspectors always made it plain to me that they thought that this was a real flaw in our present arrangements. I have often had constituency questions about it. This was one of the many issues in my mind when I originally set up the Council.
  I also agree—I hope that there will be no unnecessary emotion generated over this—with the view that a parent should have the option of part-time attendance for his child for two terms before full-time entry. This is entirely reasonable and sensible.
  Is the Secretary of State prepared to accept interim recommendation 407(vii) that, for the time being, there should be two admission dates a year and staggered admissions over half a term? I think that if, instead of having termly admission to an infant school we could get even to two admissions within a year, this would be a notable improvement. I again assure the Secretary of State that we on this side would support the necessary legislation.
  So much for the start of compulsory schooling. Secondly, we consider that the paragraphs of the Report starting at 93 and headed, "The Need for a National Policy" are, by implication, very highly critical of the Government's decision to urge local authorities to undertake large and costly schemes of secondary reorganisation before the Plowden Council's recommendations on the age of transfer were known. The Report points out that nearly one-quarter of the children at the top of the junior schools covered by the Council's survey had changed schools because their families had moved to a different district. We can very easily underrate the amount of mobility there is today among children in Britain.
  The effect of the Government's policy on secondary reorganisation will be a patchwork of different ages of transfer. I agree with the Council that
  "The inconveniences it will cause will not be tolerated for long."
  746
  My belief is that the Government's decision to push ahead in advance of the Council's recommendations will bring about much more of a patchwork than we might otherwise have had.
  Thirdly, if the age of transfer is to be raised to 12 or 13 in any sizeable number of areas, then the raising of the school-leaving age to 16 at an early date is absolutely imperative, otherwise many children would have only two or three years of secondary education. There has been a certain amount of controversy on this subject recently. I still believe that my announcement in January, 1964, of a date for raising the school-leaving age was right both on social and economic grounds. It was a decision taken collectively by the Government of the day, and still supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends on this bench today. It is certainly not a curious plot concocted by the right hon. Gentleman and myself and inflicted on the rest of the educational world.
  It is now up to the Government to see that the necessary resources can be made available. It is much too gloomy to decide now that we cannot carry out this reform in 1971, 27 years after the passage of the 1944 Act. We legislated for it in 1944. The noble Lord, Lord Eccles, in 1960, promised an announcement at the end of the Parliament. In January, 1964,1 announced a date for this reform two years later than the Newsom Committee recommended. Ironically, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer criticised me for choosing the later date.
  Three years after that, in 1967, to say that we must now go back to an indefinite postponement and that we cannot do it in 1971, 27 years after the 1944 Act, seems to me unduly pessimistic. I must say that one of the troubles in Britain today is that there is rather too much talk about our not being able to do this or that or to afford something else.
  I come now to my last point, on the subject of structure. I apologise for having taken rather longer than I had intended. Although the Council welcomes the end of selection at 11, there are several observations in the Report which cast doubt on the wisdom of what Lord James has called the "unconditional abolition" of selective schools everywhere.

  747
  I notice, for instance, that it is said in paragraph 31:
  "… giving everybody the maximum educational opportunity may mean creating individual educational environments for different children ".
  I thought the chapter on gifted children just a shade weak. In our thinking about education, we ought always to pay attention to the special needs of the most able children, both at the primary and the secondary stage. It is interesting also to notice that the chapter on streaming is nothing like so definite in its conclusions as, I suspect, some members of the Council would privately have liked—and as some of those who gave evidence would have liked. Clearly, we cannot reach absolute conclusions on this subject, and I simply say that I think that the time has come when we need to think rather more, not only about the collective purposes of education, but about the individual and the type of education most suitable to his or her personal needs.
  In any case, it is our view that the main Plowden recommendations, which I have been considering, ought to be given a clear priority over resources for comprehensive reorganisation in those areas where there is already sufficient secondary provision available.
  I have dealt with the main recommendations in the Report, and I come now to a brief word on three other recommendations. I shall say little about religious education, partly because the Government spokesman in another place, while he said little else, dealt fairly thoroughly with this aspect of the Report, and partly because I do not think that either the majority Report or the minority Report was at its most convincing on this subject.
  There is fairly clear published evidence that the great majority of parents do not at present want a change in the law. I agree that parents should be specifically informed of children's rights of excusal, and I am even more convinced that agreed sylabuses today in primary schools, no less than in secondary schools, stand in need of pretty drastic revision. I think that this is fairly common ground today, between the Churches and a great many teachers in the schools.
  Now I pass to the slightly more difficult subject of corporal punishment, on
  748
  which, I confess, I find it very hard to reach absolutely firm conclusions. I start with a strong instinctive prejudice against beating. I think that it was Nietzche, whom I would not often quote with approval, who said:
  "Mistrust anyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful".
  That is a very wise remark. One has also to consider the effect of beating on children who come to school from a background of years of thoroughly unhappy home life. Surely, what is needed for these children is not the authoritarian teacher wielding the cane, but the mature teacher, able, in Ernest Jones's admirable phrase, "to give out love in greater measure than his need to receive it", and to stand the strain of a thoroughly insecure environment.
  Those seem to me to be important considerations. Yet, for the maintained schools, I think, on balance, that I am still in favour of leaving the issue of corporal punishment to the good sense of school managers. Furthermore, my hon. Friends would wish me to repudiate the recommendation that
  "The Secretary of State should be empowered to deny registration to any independent school in which the infliction of physical pain is a recognised form of punishment",
  and that,
  "no independent school in which this practice obtains should be recognised as efficient".
  To say that no independent school, however efficient in other ways, shall be granted recognition unless corporal punishment is forsworn seems to me unfair both to the teachers concerned and to a number of perfectly responsible parents.
  In another recommendation, the Council calls for a full inquiry into the system of teacher training. There is some rather damaging criticism of the secondary school background of many students in training. The Plowden Council says that
  "Too many have concentrated in the sixth form on English, history and geography, too few are qualified to take college main courses in mathematics, science or music.… The secondary schools with their specialist tradition in teaching are not sufficiently aware of the need of the primary schools … for teachers whose value lies in a marked degree in their versatility."
  I suspect that there is a good deal in those remarks. One feature which bothers

  749
  me today is how isolated much of the rest of our education system tends to be from the primary school. I put it that way on purpose. I can think of one university in particular, for the achievements of which I have a strong admiration, in which it is not at all common to find a member of the faculty who knows where the local primary schools are—let alone one who pays regular visits to them. The academic sixth forms in our schools, for all their fine achievements in many ways, have tended to be too cut off from primary education and the needs of the primary schools.
  I am not sure—I imagine that I shall have the Secretary of State's sympathy here—exactly what form this inquiry should take. Just as I have always recognised his difficulty regarding the composition of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers, I think that it will be very important to have the right sort of committee to inquire into teacher training. Yet I am convinced that there should be an inquiry, as Plowden suggests, just as I would like to see, very shortly, an inquiry into special schools—another part of our system about which we should know a good deal more than we do when we discuss these matters in the House.
  I do not wish to end in any way on a controversial note. I conclude by saying that this Report is all, and, indeed, more than, I had hoped for when I set up the Council under Lady Plowden's chairmanship. What I like best of all in it is its focusing on the needs of the children themselves and not on the goals which we may wish to impose on them. As the Report so rightly says:
  "Children need to be themselves, to live with other children and with grown-ups, to learn from their environment, to enjoy the present, to get ready for the future, to create and to love, to learn to face adversity, to behave responsibly—in a word, to be human beings ".
  Those are good words. Ever since the mid-1950s, education has rightly been receiving a growing share of a rising national product, and this valuable Report makes it more than ever plain that this process must continue.
  I ask the Secretary of State, therefore, to tell the House what action he and the Government propose to take to im-
  750
  plement at least some of the major recommendations contained in the Plowden Report.
  5.0 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I should like to begin by echoing the tribute which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) paid to the Plowden Council. I have already had an opportunity of thanking Lady Plowden and her collagues, both in person and in writing, for their tremendous labours. Their Report—in its thoroughness, breadth of vision and combination of practical wisdom with social idealism—is not surpassed in quality by any of its predecessors in the long line of reports on British education. I look forward to receiving the report of the Central Advisory Council for Wales, which has been making a similar inquiry under the chairmanship of Professor Gittins. The thanks which Lady Plowden and her colleagues would best like to receive, I am certain, is not words but action. This we shall try to supply.
  But it does no service to the Report to suggest that I should announce large numbers of detailed decisions on it this afternoon. The Report was published just two months ago. It is immensely long—well over 1,000 pages—closely argued and with a great deal of detailed documentation. It contains 197 recommendations, some controversial, many fundamental, and many looking ahead to the late 1970s. Some would involve legislation. Others would cost large sums of money. It is notable how carefully the Council have costed their proposals. But this does not alter the reality of the cost. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, if the Report were to be implemented in full, the eventual additional running cost by the end of the 1970s would be nearly £80 million a year at present-day prices; and the capital cost would be about £250 million spread over a period of 12 years. That does not include the possible cost of changes in the age of transfer. These are not negligible sums.
  Moreover, many of the recommendations are addressed to teachers and local authorities rather than to central government. Even where they concern central government, it would be quite wrong to

  751
  take decisions without hearing the views of our partners in the education service, on whom would fall the main burden of carrying out new policies. We must remember that the Central Advisory Council is not a representative body, even though it contains members from the teaching and local authority worlds. It was for this reason that I decided, as the House knows, to invite the teachers' and local authority organisations to give their views on the recommendations. The replies are, not surprisingly, only just beginning to come in, and some of them are only preliminary observations. The N.U.T.'s comments have just reached me and I believe that they are being made public this week. Under these circumstances it would be frivolous of me now to announce detailed decisions on the majority of the recommendations.
  The party opposite is in no position to criticise us for delay because we can recall what happened after previous Reports of the Central Advisory Council. The Crowther Report was not even debated in the House until seven months after publication. Even then Sir David Eccles, as he then was, the then Minister, announced exceedingly little in the way of decision. Indeed the central Crowther recommendation, to set a date for raising the school leaving age, was not accepted until another 4½ years had elapsed and another C.A.C. Report from Sir John Newsom had been received. Similarly, the Newsom Report was not even debated until five months after it had been published. I hope that we shall be less dilatory than that. But in the light of this it would be both disingenuous and irresponsible to ask for detailed decisions only two months after the publication of Plowden, which is incidentally, by far the longest of the three reports. What I shall do this afternoon is to offer certain general reflections which I hope will make it absolutely clear how seriously the Government take the Report, and how determined we are to follow it up with action.
  I should like to make one other preliminary point and take up something the right hon. Gentleman said. There is a certain tendency to set Plowden against comprehensive re-organisation, as though our decision on the latter prevented us from carrying out the Plowden Report. But I do not think that there is support
  752
  for this view in the Plowden Report itself, which roundly declares in paragraph 418 that:
  "Selection at 11 is coming to an end, a trend we welcome in view of the difficulty of making right decisions and the effect of selection on the curriculum in primary schools."
  I suppose that the fear that Plowden may suffer springs from a belief that comprehensive re-organisation involves additional school-building which might otherwise go to the primary schools. But I have made it clear time and time again, and indeed have been much criticised by some of my hon. Friends for doing so, that there is no additional allocation of money for going comprehensive, although of course authorities can and will use for the purpose the large amounts of Secondary school-building which they receive for basic needs and so on. So the abolition of selection is in no way a threat to the primary sector in terms of resources, and in every other way it is a positive boon. Indeed, I would say that the Plowden Report and the comprehensive re-organisation to a large extent share the same objective, which is to give every child an equal chance.
  The picture of English primary education which emerges from the Report is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, encouraging, on balance. The Report sums it up by saying:
  "English primary education at its best … is very good indeed. Only rarely is it very bad. The average is good."
  There has been a clear improvement in standards over the years. It appears in many forms—the better relationships between pupils and teachers, the superb art and craft work often to be seen, the evidence of exciting creative writing quoted in the Report, and above all, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the steady improvement in reading standards. These improvements reflect enormous credit on the teachers, who have done wonders despite the successive waves of increased pupil numbers which have broken over the schools.
  In the light of these facts, I do not think that there is justification for extreme statements of the kind which are quite often made, and which give the impression that nothing is happening in primary education and that all the money is going elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is an undoubted sense of neglect, and the Council was not satisfied with what it found. It

  753
  summed the matter up in Paragraph 1149:
  "Many of the points discussed in this chapter, however, reveal inequitable or even downright shoddy treatment. Primary education seems always to get the worst treatment—the largest classes, the oldest buildings, poor career prospects and the most restricted professional autonomy."
  We must try to decide the reason for this feeling of neglect. Fundamentally it is a lack of money, teachers and buildings. During the first half of the 1960s, expenditure per primary child in real terms scarcely rose—to be exact, it rose by only 3 per cent. over four years. And in 1963 there were fewer full-time teachers in the primary schools than there were in 1960.
  However, the Report points out that we can now envisage "a substantial improvement on the recent past". I would like to give the House a brief progress report on the improvement so far in the two crucial sectors of buildings and teachers. First, buildings. I need not point out to the House—all hon. Members know it from their constituency experience—what a deplorably large legacy we still have of slum or substandard schools. But we are making progress. The school-building programme, major and minor, has increased, at present-day prices, from £93 million in 1960–61 to £131 million this coming year. It will rise still further, to £150 million in 1969–70.
  Within this growing total, there has been a marked shift towards the primary schools. From 1960 to 1965 only 23 per cent. of the major school building programme was devoted to primary schools. Their share then rose to 38 per cent. in 1965–66, to 43 per cent. in 1966–67, and was levelling off in the first half of 1967–68 at 44 per cent. But in the second half of 1967–68, which was the first programme for which this Government was responsible, the share rose to no less than 53 per cent. I am glad to say that about one-third of these primary projects are for replacing sub-standard buildings.
  What matters to us in this context is precisely this element of improvement; it is this which gives the measure of our priorities. Taking the series of three building programmes up to 1969–70, I estimate that they will provide at least 250,000 new primary school places over and above those needed for extra num-
  754
  bers of children. But on the secondary side I estimate that the equivalent figure will be about 60,000 new places. In other words, over this three-year programme for which the present Government have been responsible, we shall replace more than four times as many substandard primary places as secondary places and 250,000 primary school children will be in new schools who would otherwise be in old schools. So a definite shift in priorities has already occurred.
  Teacher supply is also beginning to move in the right direction although, because of the rising numbers of children, we still have a hard slog ahead. Here the position is as follows. From 1960 to 1964, the number of qualified teachers in primary schools actually fell. But since then it has been rising quite rapidly. In 1964, it was 141,000. In 1965, it was 144,000. Last year, it was 148,000. This year, it is 153,000. Next year, I judge that it will be about 160,000 and the upward trend will continue strongly thereafter.
  Of course, these rising numbers of teachers have had in the last two or three years to cope with rapidly rising numbers of children. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth was lucky in this respect at least—and I do not begrudge his luck—in that, over the decade ending in 1964, the number of pupils in primary schools actually fell by over 200,000. In consequence, despite as I think a rather unimpressive performance in teacher supply, some dent was made in the problem of class size.
  We are in a completely different and much more difficult situation because of the rising birthrate in the late 1950s. Between 1963 and 1965, the primary school roll increased by over 150,000. It rose by another 95,000 last year and will continue to rise by perhaps as many as 150,000 a year for some years to come.
  Yet even in the face of this large increase in numbers, I believe that we shall continue to improve the staffing ratio and, for all that forecasts are hazardous, I stick to my belief that, by 1971, we shall be very near to eliminating completely primary classes of over 40.
  I turn now to some of the specific Plowden recommendations. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I will select only a few out of the 197 and those of the

  755
  most immediate interest. First, I will refer, as the right hon. Gentleman himself did first, to educational priority areas. I shall not summarise what the Report says about social and educational handicaps suffered by the children in these areas or the case for positive discrimination in their favour. I will only say that I find this, as the right hon. Gentleman did, a most radical recommendation, utterly convincing and a very striking illustration of what Professor Titmuss and others have recently been saying—that we cannot rely on economic growth alone to even out gross social inequalities.
  In the Department, we have already given a lot of thought to the problem of social handicap. Eighteen months ago, as I informed the House at the time, I set up a small standing group of Her Majesty's inspectors and officials to keep the whole subject under review and consider possible lines of action. We have published three in our series Reports on Education on the subject of education under social handicap.
  A year ago, we held a very notable conference in Roehampton, described in last July's issue of Trends in Education, so we have done a good deal of preparatory work. The Plowden Council now says, and I wholly agree, that we must make a further positive effort. I cannot pronounce on all its detailed recommendations today as some involve major decisions about future public expenditure and I want to have the views of the associations, whose co-operation in this will be crucial. But I can give some preliminary thoughts.
  First, the designation of educational priority areas. Although I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman and I wholly share the objective of defining the deprived or under-privileged schools, I see great difficulty in the particular administrative solution proposed for achieving it. I would doubt, even with the range of criteria which Plowden proposes, whether we could, working centrally from the Department, designate these areas in a way which would be truly objective, and moreover many people would object in principle to the Government intervening by fiat in the responsibilities of local government in this way.
  But I am not too disturbed about this because, even if central designation is not
  756
  practicable, every local authority knows which are its own E.P.A. schools and we can therefore achieve the results within the present administrative framework, so it is important to see what we can do within that framework.
  I propose to allocate about half of the 1968–69 major school building programme to primary projects and I shall give priority within this allocation, when basic needs for new places have been met, to the replacement of primary schools in E.P.A. areas. The programme for 1968–69 will include at least £3½ million worth of such projects. Looking ahead, I shall try to keep each year a special reserve in the school building programme for allocation specifically to E.P.A. areas.
  Secondly, I come to minor works which are obviously especially useful in relation to E.P.A. schools. Incidentally, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rather disingenuous in what he said, in referring to an article in the Birmingham Post, about "Mini-minor" works. He must know that we brought these under control because the amount spent on them in three successive years so far exceeded what he estimated that the account was hopelessly in the red, and they would have had to have been brought under control by any Government. In any case, what matters is the total spending on minor works, however described and however allocated. In the last full year of the Conservative Government, 1963–64, this total was £21 million, although only £16 million was authorised. It then rose progressively to £25 million in the current year and will I hope rise to nearly £28 million in 1968–69. So I hope that that will satisfy one point that the right hon. Gentleman made.
  I have great sympathy with the idea of a special allocation of minor works for E.P.A. areas. If the debate had come rather later in the Session, I might have had something to announce on the subject. As it is, I can only say that we take this recommendation very seriously and I hope to make an announcement in due course.
  The same applies to a possible relaxation for the E.P.A. areas of the present restriction on new nursery schools or classes. The difficulty here is partly the question of teacher supply and training, but partly of course money—and here

  757
  again I can only say at the moment that I intend to give priority to E.P.A. areas when we are in a position to make some further relaxation on the establishment of new nursery classes.
  The Report asks whether the quota arrangement might be used in any way to help the priority areas. The N.U.T. has suggested, in the comments on Plowden which it has just sent to me, that we should have a separate quota for primary schools. I should like to consider this along with any other promising ideas and in consultation with the associations. I therefore propose, if the other parties are agreeable, to call a special quota conference to see whether we can change the system in such a way as to help the E.P.A. areas.
  Plowden also raised—and the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this—the question of salary differentials to help these priority areas. Of course some authorities already do a great deal to attract teachers to their difficult areas—London, Birmingham and the West Riding of Yorkshire are three examples. They give travel allowances, help with housing, create additional posts of special responsibility, and in at least one case they have tried to build up a mobile force of teachers.
  But the question of an explicit national salary differential of course raises far more complications and would be a matter of great concern to both teachers' and local authority organisations. It is naturally a matter for the Burnham Committee, but I think that I can give an assurance that the general question of possible differentials for E.P.A. areas will be considered by Burnham this year. On the subject of Burnham, since it has been much mentioned in the House recently, I should add that I shall be meeting representatives of the associations on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee next Wednesday and I hope to be able to assure them that negotiations will shortly be possible.
  I turn now to the second major recommendation, which concerns co-operation between school and parent.
  Mr. John Wells: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the E.P.A. areas, I remind him that some rural schools in remote positions are in bad condition. He has mentioned
  758
  travel allowances. Will education authorities be allowed to pay travel allowances to teachers to go from a town to schools in the surrounding rural area or has a rural area no prospect of being designated an E.P.A. area?
  Mr. Crosland: In general, travel allowances are within the discretion of the authorities already and it is for them to decide. It is up to the authority in any area to decide what to do, and it will remain so.
  I now have to say something on the second recommendation about co-operation between school and parents. Here, again, I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. This was perhaps the most imaginative and perceptive part of the whole Plowden Report. We have known for a very long time the effect which home background and parental attitudes have on school performance, and the Report gives us a great deal of additional evidence. In the primary school especially the place of the parent needs to be made clear. Parents need to know what the school is trying to do for their children and the school needs to know how far it can rely on the encouragement of the parents, or how far it must make allowance for the lack of it. Generally, parents have a right to know what is going on in their children's schools.
  The Report describes a "minimum programme." I know that some teachers will feel that it goes rather far. As the Report itself says, it is hard enough to cope with 40 children without taking on 80 parents as well. I certainly do not underestimate the load on teachers' time and energies which a more open school policy will involve. But for all these difficulties—and there may be some financial difficulties as well—I am certain that it is right to pursue this policy. Some of the detailed proposals such as the appointment of two deputy head teachers for schools which are used for out-of-school activities, will obviously need a great deal of thought, but we must move ahead in the direction of linking the school and the community more closely. So I fully accept the recommendation that my Department should follow up this matter, by circular or some other means. To some extent, we have already done so.

  759
  Two of our Building Bulletins have drawn attention to some ways in which secondary school premises can play a part in the life of the community, particularly if community needs are taken into account at the design stage. The new Evelyn Lowe Primary School in Southwark, which I had the pleasure of opening recently, shows brilliantly how far suitable planning and imaginative staffing can help to make a school a welcoming place for parents to visit. The next issue of Trends in Education will describe how a comprehensive school in Bristol is making itself the centre of its community, providing for a common use of library facilities, for example, developing a whole range of evening activities on the school premises involving staff, pupils and parents in association with the youth service and further education. Up and down the country things are moving in the right direction, but we must encourage them still further.
  Next, there is the cluster of recommendations about "ages and stages", as they have come to be called. The Council recommends a new national pattern of schooling based on nursery education from the age of 3 for those children whose parents want it, a single date of entry to primary school, half-day attendance at the parents' request up to the age of 6, transfer to junior or middle school at 8 and transfer to secondary school at 12.
  These are essentially long-term recommendations. The Council does not envisage the new pattern operating nationally until the late 1970s. They would require decisions and legislation of a fundamental character. As the Council itself implies, they would cost an unknown sum of money and they would be extemely controversial both in the education world and, I would have thought, in the House. We shall therefore have to give them a great deal of study.
  Personally, I have great sympathy with some parts of the suggested new pattern. In particular, I share the general desire to move ahead with nursery provision, though we can do this only when we are sure that we shall not draw too many qualified teachers away from the primary schools; and that day is not yet.
  760
  I have more reservations about the proposal, even though it is not for early action, that we should move towards a new national age of transfer at 12. Here I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Opinion about the correct age of transfer is, as the Council admits, very evenly balanced. There is no overwhelming case for one age rather than another. We now have some authorities experimenting with 9 to 13 middle schools as well as 8 to 12 middle schools and this will give us a chance to test the viability of both types on the ground. Moreover, many authorities have geared their plans for comprehensive reorganisation, or for raising the school-leaving age, either to 11 or to 13 and it would be intolerable now to throw them into confusion by enforcing a transfer age of 12.
  Generally, it seems doubtful whether a single national age of transfer is so important once we abolish selection. What made the age of transfer so crucial was that it coincided with selection, but, with selection gone and given a reasonably uniform curriculum for the 10 to 13 age group as a whole, whatever the type of school—and the Schools Council is about to examine this—it is less certain that we need national uniformity on age of transfer. At any rate, no decision is called for in the immediate future and I hope that we shall have the widest possible expression of view.
  Sir E. Boyle: On the subject of ages and stages, the right hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the interim recommendation—not the long-term recommendation—for two entry dates a year into infants' school as compared with termly entry in the past. Can he make a statement on that?
  Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with a number of interim recommendations all concerning that part of the age group when she winds up the debate.
  The fourth group of recommendations concerns ancillary help and teachers' aides. We have to remember that the amount of ancillary help of various kinds has increased remarkably in recent years. It now amounts to about 16,000 full-time and 70,000 part-time helpers, and the matter has moved forward since the

  761
  Plowden Report was published. On 20th January, the local authorities and the teachers' associations published an agreed memorandum, which I greatly welcome, advocating the extended use of non-teaching staff. The sentence read:
  "We believe it is of the greatest importance, therefore, that Local Education Authorities should examine their arrangements for the employment of ancillary helpers in order that the qualified teaching staff shall be able to conserve their energies and time for those duties which they alone can undertake."
  Generally, this memorandum gives us all a reasonable formula to work on for the present, and I would not like to go beyond it without further discussions with both employers and teachers.
  Next, the Council makes a number of recommendations designed to improve the status of primary school teachers both in the education system and in the community at large. I sometimes doubt whether their status in Britain is in fact as low as they often say it is. Unlike many other countries, we have in Britain a uniform basic salary for all teachers. We have a common form and length of training for all teachers and, of course, teachers in Britain, without the constraints of a centralised curriculum, have much greater freedom to teach what they want. However, perhaps status is to some extent what the people concerned think it to be and in any case I agree with much of the Plowden argument on this matter.
  The Report suggests a number of measures. It proposes, for example, more generous provision of ancillary help—and I have already made it clear that I accept this. It proposes certain changes in respect of school management and the relationship between teachers and local authorities. I shall hope to say something about this on a future occasion. It proposes that the maximum size of primary classes should be the same as that in the first two or three years of secondary school.
  The Labour Party has long accepted this and I reaffirm it again today, though the Report has the honesty to admit that both that class size is becoming a less satisfactory measure of the staffing position as we develop new methods of team teaching and the like, and also that no formal change in maximum class-size would have any practical consequence,
  762
  since class-size depends not on regulations, but on the supply of teachers. Furthermore, some authorities are preparing to establish, as I have already said, middle schools which straddle the age range 8 to 12, or 9 to 13, and it would be unwise to amend the regulations in any inflexible way until we have more experience of these middle schools.
  There are only two other specific points in the Report which I want to mention. The first is religious education. I would judge from our debates last autumn on the Education Act, 1967, that the Plowden recommendations probably represent the consensus, though not the unanimous view, of the House. That is, we do not want now to disrupt the 1944 settlement, reached with such patience and difficulty, or to re-open the whole question which bedevilled English education, and distracted so many energies, over so many decades.
  But we should, on the other hand, make much clearer to parents their children's right to be excused from religious instruction and the act of worship. We should encourage more flexibility and freedom in interpretating the law on the act of worship, and we should do much more to familiarise teachers with modern thinking on religious education.
  On corporal punishment, I am wholly on the side of the Report. I do not believe in it and never have. My only doubt is whether the Report does not make altogether too much of an issue of it. What stands out is the steady change in the climate of opinion, and the steady diminution in the amount of such punishment which goes on. It was interesting that only 3 per cent. of teachers questioned by the Council said that it should be used as a regular means of punishment. The N.U.T. really sums the matter up in its comments on Plowden when it says that
  "…nearly all our members would deplore the necessity of using any form of corporal punishment, particularly in the primary schools."
  I am sure this problem is on the way out, and that both schools and authorities will note what Plowden has to say. I would certainly commend it, and I would think that hon. members generally would think it quite wrong that articles like the tawse should appear on local authorities' requisition lists.

  763
  Three things stand out from this Report. First, we have much to be proud of in our primary schools, and we must not write down their achievement by unnecessary self-criticism and denigration.
  Secondly, however—and I quote from the Report—
  "…there is a strong feeling that primary education, more than any other sector of education, is failing to secure its share of educational and of national expenditure."
  Since it takes a matter of years to switch priorities, this is essentially a judgment on the long period during which the Party opposite was in power.
  Thirdly, therefore, we have a long uphill task to do all that we want for the primary schools. I have shown how we are starting the task in terms of school buildings and teacher supply. It will not be an easy task, since it coincides with a period of quite exceptional increase in the numbers of primary school-children. These numbers were perhaps 3 million in 1938; they were about 4·1 million in 1961; today they are 4·4 million. By the early 1970s, they will be approaching 5 million.
  This shows the tremendous size of the task in front of us. But despite the difficulties, this Government accept the philosophy of the Plowden Report, and are determined to improve still further the standards of British primary education.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I hope that it will be thought a fair comment on the interesting speech to which we have just listened from the Secretary of State for Education if I say that he was speaking in a minor key. He was perfectly frank with the House in saying that there were a number of recommendations in his mind, and indeed he took what I might describe as the unprecedented course of giving us a very broad hint about two of them, clearly indicating that he was inhibited, for other reasons, from announcing them today.
  Those who are interested in this Report, and who hoped that this debate would produce major announcements will be disappointed. I must gently correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point. It is not a very important matter, but he
  764
  was seeking to chide previous governments about action taken on previous Reports by drawing upon the dates when those Reports were debated. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) made clear, the Minister has no responsibility and can take no credit for this debate. The fact that we are debating this Report reasonably quickly is entirely due to the Opposition. It does not lie in the mouth of the Secretary of State to take any credit whatever for the speed by which this matter has come to he discussed on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Since my hon. Friend has properly seen fit to put the Secretary of State in his place on that point, would he also point out that the figures he gave in his closing sentences absolutely cut from under his feet the grounds of his objection to the priorities which my right hon. Friends have given in terms of places, when the figures for children in primary education were quite different?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and will, I hope, catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be able to develop this matter in a much more vicious way than I would normally do. If one has once been associated, however humbly, and in my case it was extremely humbly, with what was in my day the Ministry and is now the Department of Education, one has a certain veneration for the Minister in charge, even if he sits on the other side of the House.
  Therefore my criticisms, and I have a number, will be phrased in an appropriately obsequious manner. If I had to answer the wholly unreasonable question, asking which of the varied sectors of education was of the greatest importance, I would plump for giving the highest priority to the infant and primary sectors, because it is my observation, and I have learned this from people very much better qualified than I, that a well prepared child has an infinitely better opportunity in later life. He has very much greater opportunities for benefiting from secondary education and beyond than the child whose ill-fortune it has been to have a very bad educational start.
  Many fine degree courses or awards can be traced back, like a pedigree, to

  765
  the comparative quiet of a primary or infant school which is outside the searchlight of publicity so often directed to the more exciting educational activities. Maybe primary school children do not sit down in the forecourt of their school in an organised fashion, but the activities in these schools is more important than those in the higher ranges of education.
  I have reservations about this Report, and I cannot give it the same warm welcome as did the two Front Bench speakers. I am conscious that in saying this I appear discourteous, which is the very last thing that I would want to be. I do not wish to be discourteous to very distinguished people and to a very distinguished chairman, all of whom have laboured with immense skill. If anyone casts any sort of doubt upon the value of what they have produced, it appears to be discourteous. But in contrast to some of the great Reports that we have had in the past, what does Plowden tell us that we did not know before? It is immensely valuable to have all the information in one place, and we shall draw constantly upon the statistics. It is helpful for us to be guided in certain ways, but to be quite honest, in contrast with, for example, Robbins or Newsom, this is not treading great and new ground.
  With an appropriate note of apology, I must set on the record my doubts as to whether this has been a useful exercise, taking up as it has the valuable time of exceedingly able people. I have a constructive suggestion to make. It always seems most unfortunate that in order to produce such a Report, and I do not refer only to Plowden, we gather together these distinguished people and, having produced the Report, they are dispersed. All of this expertise has been brought together; men and women of great distinction have lived with this problem, and then we disperse them to the four winds and, as far as I know, they never come together again. I wonder whether, when we ask such distinguished people to work like this, there is not something to be said for keeping them in being on a regular basis.
  I have to inject another note of criticism about the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth made the valid criticism that the Plowden Report is critical of the present priorities given to the rigid im-
  766
  position of comprehensive re-organisation at the secondary stage. The Secretary of State missed the point. He is perfectly fair in replying that he is, against a backcloth of considerable criticism, allocating no extra cash whatever. But the point of the criticism, certainly as I make it, is that this rigid comprehensive reorganisation has done two things: first, it has distracted from the primary sector a large part of the searchlight of public opinion; and, secondly, it has drawn quite unreasonably on the energies of the administrators.
  I sometimes wonder whether we realise the disproportionate amount of time of the administrators which is being taken up by the over-hasty imposition of rigid comprehensive reorganisation. I wish to illustrate the point from my experience as chairman of governors of an affected school in South London. I beg the Secretary of State to believe that I start with no rigid theological objections to comprehensive education. I find no basic conservative principle in selection at 11. I find no difficulty in exploring new concepts and ideas.
  However, as chairman of governors, I have had to devote hours of my time. which matters little, and administrators and the staff of the school have devoted hours of their time, which matters quite a lot, to discussing a proposed re-organisation scheme which was eventually shot down in flames and abandoned on strictly educational grounds. It does not even appear on the Secretary of State's desk, and rightly so. Hours of the time of administrators, district officers, inspectors, deputy education officers and other busy men have been taken up in this way. Men with fine minds have had to try to produce for the Secretary of State schemes which, on educational grounds, are dogs' breakfasts. That is the criticism. That is what clearly emerges from the Plowden Report.
  The emphasis on secondary reorganisation comprehensively has tended to swing public understanding away from the requirements of secondary education and has taken up a wholly disproportionate amount of the time of people who should be thinking about the problems contained in the Plowden Report. That is why this is such a valuable corrective to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will take the lesson to heart. I

  767
  see an hon. Member opposite shaking his head. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist pressure from below the Gangway, although it is of a different order.
  Mr. E. Rowlands: The reason why there is a searchlight on secondary education is that it is basically wrong. This is the view of hon. Members on this side of the House. There is no disagreement basically on the system of primary education, although we want to see it improved.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: If there is nothing wrong with the system of primary education, some people have been wasting a great deal of their time in compiling the Plowden Report. Perhaps I may move on to some of the recommendations which it makes about improving it and putting it right.
  My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State mentioned educational priority areas. We must not underestimate the effort which is necessary in terms of numbers of teachers if these E.P.A.'s are to be a reality, whether they are designated or not. One of the most interesting and useful things which has emerged from the debate is the repudiation by both Front Benches of the designation, at least by the Government, of formal E.P.A.s. If primary school classes are to be brought down to 40 children or less, we require, according to the figures, 400 extra teachers by next year and 1,000 in 1972.
  I wish to raise three points on that matter. First, I wish to put forward a revolutionary idea, although I suspect that I shall be repudiated by all my hon. Friends. There seems to be a certain measure of doubt about whether the £120 increment per teacher is a wise solution in an E.P.A. The alternative suggestion put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth is the strengthening of the special allowances. The concept of the £120 is quite good, but it should not be tied to a per capita payment.
  My modest observation is that the success of a school, particularly in a bad area as defined by the Plowden Report, will often depend to an overwhelming degree on the headmaster or headmistress or senior members of the staff. I should
  768
  be prepared to see a fund at the rate of this sum available to the local authority for such an area. In other words, I should be prepared to see a Beeching-type headmaster. [Interruption.] I use the phrase "Beeching-type headmaster" because it brings home to everybody what I mean. People of that sort tend, by virtue of their competence, to get drawn to the cushier areas which are nice areas in which to bring up their families. That is the plain fact.
  I do not believe that without some fairly major drastic step we shall bring back to the areas where they are needed the first class men and women that there are available as heads and senior members of staff. I have no doubt where my priority lies. Keen as I am to see buildings improve, it is the flesh and blood of the teacher which I believe should come first.
  Mr. John Wells: My hon. Friend may not realise it, but the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, was educated at Maidstone Grammar School and at the moment the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is busily murdering Maidstone Grammar School. Therefore, the Beeching-type headmaster will never be available.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: That is just one more sad commentary on the age in which we live, though I have the feeling that sheer brains will manage to overcome even the excesses of the present Government—at least until we can restore the balance in a few years' time.
  I do not believe that anything would do more good for a comparatively small sum than the restoration of the Mini-minor programme. The objection raised by the Secretary of State cannot just be shrugged off. But there is a strong sense of responsibility among local education authorities, on the whole. It is not outside the bounds of possibility for the right hon. Gentleman and the local education authorities to go forward together in this. There are few ways in which more efficacious work can be done for a small sum of money than in this programme. I hope that he will not close his mind wholly to it and merely base himself on the kind of difficulty which he raised.
  Part of the county which I represent is now the fastest of all English counties in growth. It is very easy for us to assume that because a high proportion of

  769
  the schools are necessarily new, by definition, such areas do not have desperate problems of their own. The fact is that the mere problem of growth alone puts immense strains on the local authorities, and there is something to be said for that being recognised at the other end of the spectrum. There is a problem in coping with sheer growth.
  The matter of teachers' aides is mentioned extensively in the Report. What came as a surprise to me, though doubtless other hon. Members were aware of it, was the high percentage of unqualified teachers which we have at present in our schools. It was estimated to be 6 per cent. in 1962, and the Committee is confident that it is now substantially higher. The second matter which I found fascinating was the high percentage of those answering the questionnaire who were in favour of teachers' aides. Forty-nine per cent. of heads and 37 per cent. of assistant teachers answering the questionnaire thought that there was a place for non-qualified assistant teachers in the class room.
  I am delighted to think that both Front Benches have taken a lead in this matter, but the House must also understand the genuinely felt fears of the teaching profession. Put in blunt language, they fear that it is the thin end of the wedge for the dilution of their professional standing. My answer to them has always been that they will be most unwise and will lose much public sympathy if they stand out firmly against the kind of proposals set out in the Plowden Report. But they must go on to build for themselves the essential defence against dilution, which is their own self-governing, self-disciplining professional body.
  Unless and until petty interests can be submerged and that can be achieved for the whole teaching profession, there is the risk of any Government playing them off one against the other, and there is, I suppose, a theoretical risk of dilution. On the principle, however, I am sure that this House has to say that it expresses public opinion in asking for the way forward.
  A little-noticed section of the Report which is of interest to so many hon. Members is that which deals with handicapped children. In view of the criticisms which I shall voice in a moment, it is import-
  770
  ant to make it clear that Plowden is not concerned with special schools for handicapped children, and I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend advocate an inquiry into these schools. I hope that the Minister of State will smile favourably upon the idea when she comes to reply to the debate.
  With that important reservation, I do not think that I have read more concentrated banality on this subject than I did in Plowden, which contains one banal recommendation after another. The Report says, for example:
  "No handicapped child should be sent to a special school who can be satisfactorily educated in an ordinary school."
  We have all known that, and, anyway, "satisfactorily educated" begs a number of questions.
  The only recommendation which is worthy of note is the very good one that there should be a special counselling service. Those of us who have had to try and advise the bewildered parents of a mentally handicapped child—and here I stray into the realms of the special school—will realise that this recommendation touches a very real chord. There is a need for the co-ordination of the many services available to such parents, many of whom have a deep sense of shame, have had to overcome a sense of shock, and, in the case for instance of autistic children are dealing with deficiencies which they do not understand. Yet our services are quite remarkable and sometimes are not used. However, since I have had some hard things to say about this section of the Report, let me say how wise that recommendation is.
  From the back benches on this side of the House, we recognise gratefully the part played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth in affording us this opportunity, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have this debate. I apologise again for the reservations which I have as to whether this is one of the great reports of the nation, but nothing can detract from one's admiration for the assiduous and skilful way in which so many able people have sought to bring together in two massive volumes the problems of educating perhaps the most important age sector of our children.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Coe: In the preface to its main recommendations, the Plowden Council draws on the wise remarks of one of the ancient Roman philosopher kings, who said:
  "To my grandfather I am debtor in that he taught me that on education we must spend with an open hand."
  The Report then goes on to demonstrate that, particularly in the case of the primary schools, this is not the case.
  I remind the House that the attitude of those who have worked in the primary sector of education in some respects symbolises the stoical attitude of the same philosopher king when he said:
  "Life is war, sojourning in a far country. Only one thing can see us through safely, philosophy, keeping the spirit within us unspoiled and undishonoured … taking what comes contentedly, all part of the process to which we owe our own being."
  One feels sometimes that primary school teachers have had to labour under that sort of stoical approach, but of course they have done much more than this. Much more than this, they have also had a zest for life; the Report clearly shows the great achievements of the primary schools, for which credit must go particularly to the teachers.
  It would also be right to pay credit to my right hon. Friend for his insistence, and that of this party, that the 11-plus examination should be abolished. Apart from the beneficial effects of such abolition on the reorganisation of secondary education, just as important is the way in which, with teachers and children released from the shackles of the examination the curriculum and work of the primary schools will be able to expand effectively and minister to all the talents of the children.
  For these reasons, the Report demonstrates that the primary stage is vital in a child's life. It questions basic assumptions which we have accepted for years without thinking particularly our assumption that for some reason because primary school children are smaller, we can pack more into a classroom—40, as compared with 30 in secondary schools.
  Perhaps we now recognise the greater resources which are needed. The Report recognises that foundations of learning in primary schools and the attitudes towards learning which children will have for the rest of their lives and the
  772
  wider social training within which children will be educated. Comparing the modern junior schools with those of our early days, we must appreciate the revolution which has taken place in learning.
  I wanted to take part in the debate, first, as an ex-primary school teacher, second, as a parent with three children in primary schools and a fourth who cannot wait to get there, and, third, as an administrator taking part in these discussions. And I should like to consider the Report in the light of this vital partnership among parents, teachers and administrators.
  First, the teachers. The Report is right to stress their importance. We must find a more satisfactory way of judging the work of a skilled teacher. At the moment, they are put in a small box with 30 or 40 children, and administrators do not know enough about their ability. Second, there is a real problem in ensuring that their status is not lower than that of their secondary school colleagues. With the present points system and the system of special responsibility allowances, they have a justifiable complaint, and I hope that this matter will be considered closely.
  To return to a point which I made in my maiden speech in the House, I should like to see many more skilled teachers, not necessarily highly qualified academically, in the colleges of education. This will be a weakness, until sufficient primary teachers of the right calibre can transmit their skill and ability to their students. The colleges are conscious of this problem and I know that further improvements will be carried forward. I hope that the Government will also be sympathetic towards the suggestion in the Report of a two-year course with a further year after a period of practical teaching.
  I also welcome the suggestion for longer teaching practice. I cannot believe, after my experience as a student in a training college, that anyone can do more, in three weeks, than show that he is good at gimmicks. A longer period is necessary to develop the teachers' worth. The Report also says that there should be more male teachers in primary schools.
  A delicate but important point in relation to training is that a teacher's progress from the grammar school—or, as I hope it will be in future, his comprehensive school—to the college of education and then

  773
  back into a school is a sheltered life for one who will have to expound to children life's values and experiences. I hope that the educational authorities will consider this problem closely.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about teachers' aides, for professional help for the teacher in the light of the recent agreed statement he has mentioned today. There is a place for teachers' aides, and I think that the Report is right to define what they can do in the classroom.
  There are understandable difficulties over teachers' attitudes to parents. All of us who have worked in schools know that the parents we usually saw were the ones we least needed to see, as their children were least trouble, and that the others came only to complain that we had done something we should not have done to their little Johnny. I appreciate teachers' difficulties. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) was right to suggest that they may sometimes feel that, if they have to cope with 40 children, they do not want to have to cope with 80 parents as well. But this is important in building up co-operation between teachers and parents.
  The section of the Report on parents was one of the most exciting, encouraging and satisfying. I hope that there will be a great extension of co-operation between parents and teachers; this is the right way forward. The old attitude that the parent brings the child up and the teacher educates him is no good. The Report and our own experience produce examples of the co-operation which is possible.
  I am glad that the Report mentioned areas where this can be done—the welcome to school, meetings with teachers, open days, information to parents, reports, and even visits to homes. These are all very important ways for parents and teachers to co-operate for the good of the children. Perhaps as important as anything, in the light of the economic situation, is that these things will cost nothing. All that is required is a different approach.
  I am glad that the Report stresses the representation of parents on boards of managers. I have argued for many years that the members of the board should care about the children in their school, and never mind whether they are on the
  774
  local council or important in some other sphere. The important thing is that they should be prepared to ensure that they are doing a useful job. The crucial point is that in both these cases we must achieve, by education outside this Chamber, a change in parental attitudes and a combined operation on the part of parents and teachers.
  While parents and teachers can together achieve great things, and while their cooperation can make a tremendous difference to the attitudes of their children, they need encouragement from those who provide the resources and take the major decisions on matters of fundamental policy. Thus my third group comprises the administrators, and I will consider some of the aspects of the Report affecting them.
  Most of my teaching service in primary schools and, later, in secondary schools was in what I would term educational priority areas. Knowing some of the difficulties of these areas—the problem of staffing, the problems caused by skilled teachers who had been in the areas for many years moving to other areas, difficulties arising through teachers coming straight out of training colleges, suddenly being drafted to these areas and having to face difficult conditions. I appreciate the importance of the points made on this subject in the Report.
  While I envisage difficulties arising over the Plowden recommendation of £120 to all teachers, one of the problems of most of the educational priority areas is that of housing. Many of the teachers we wish to attract to these areas must travel long distances, and this is an important matter to bear in mind. If we can get an influx of skilled teachers into the educational priority areas we shall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) pointed out in an intervention, get the stability that is necessary in these areas.
  The remarks about the age of transfer are of significance. The Secretary of State was right to say that there is not the same urgency which there would have been were there secondary selection of the old style. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the age of 12-plus is, broadly speaking, a good age at which to change, but I recognise that there can be a great deal of experimentation here.

  775
  I hope that there will be an increase in the amount of money spent on minor works. It is ironical in one sense to think that tonight in my constituency there is a meeting of parents who are troubled about conditions in the primary school. I will be meeting them tomorrow. This is a problem which must have our continuous attention.
  I have been concerned at the inflexible way in which administrators consider the problems that arise in new housing areas. The suggestion is often made that parents who move to new housing estates have only 1·5 children per family. In fact, families are much larger than that. The result is that where there are new housing estates one finds overcrowded schools and new schools being built which are inadequate to accommodate the local school population. I hope that this matter will receive the urgent attention of my right hon. Friend.
  I would also stress the importance of the Plowden recommendation that there should be a full report upon the training of teachers. Indeed, in my maiden speech I emphasised the importance of teachers. knowing their proper rôle. Teachers are uncertain about this at present and a full inquiry into the whole question of how teachers are trained would be of great help in deciding this rôle.
  One must ask whether we can meet the cost. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend tell the House of his proposed spending on primary education this year and in the future. We must find the money because we cannot afford not to spend money on the aspects mentioned by Plowden. If we follow through the better educational understanding that is beginning to exist between parents and teachers—and, further, among parents, teachers and administrators—we will be better equipped to appreciate the extent of the costs involved. It is up to people like us—M.P.s, chairmen of education committees and others in public life—to make the public face up to the necessity of finding the money to do this work.
  We must bear in mind that the children are the objective of all the co-operation about which I have been speaking. Plowden rightly begins with the child, and I recommend Chapters 2 and 3 of the Report as compulsory reading for all who care about children. The hon.
  776
  Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) asked, in effect, "What is the point of this Report"? The point is that it brings together the whole philosophy of education for young children, it stresses the development of the child, the importance of his environment and the great pool of ability which, up to now, has not been tapped.
  Plowden also stresses the fact that the school is a social unit. I was glad to note that in another place Lord Eccles pointed out that, in terms of the school being a social unit, he did not believe in the Government trying to achieve a saving in the provision of school meals. I agree, because I see school meals as part of the atmosphere in which a child grows up. I am equally glad to note the stress which Plowden places on coeducation and the fact that only 3 per cent, of primary schools are not mixed. I hope that this trend will flow over into the secondary schools. The comments about not having streaming and not making premature judgments about the achievements of children are equally important.
  The Plowden Report can be added to the list of other distinguished investigations into our education system. I rejoice that it puts the emphasis on learning rather than on teaching. I urge that it is not allowed to collect dust in the pigeon holes of the Secretary of State's Department, in the baskets in the offices of directors of education or on the shelves of public libraries and headmasters' rooms. It is a social document of first importance which demands action and indicates the lines on which we must proceed. It is by the active co-operation of teachers, parents and administrators that this Report will be made a reality and will ensure that our young people are able to develop their talents to the best of their ability.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe), as an ex-primary school teacher and as a parent of young children, brought a refreshing and sincere approach to our debate on this vital Report. The whole House will welcome the statement of the Secretary of State about his proposal to implement the recommendations of the Report and will rejoice in the fact that

  777
  substantial sums of money will be spent this year, next year and the year after on primary school extensions.
  Perhaps the greatest benefit that has come from the Plowden Report is that, for almost the first time, the spotlight is on what many of us consider to be a key part of our education system. For too long we have been bogged down with dogmatic arguments about the reorganisation of secondary education and we have concerned ourselves, and rightly so, with a massive expansion of higher education. But the linchpin on which those systems depend, the primary sector, has been very much the Cinderella of our education service. I would, however, pay a very warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for setting up the Central Advisory Council for Education; and to Lady Plowden and her colleagues for this very interesting and valuable Report and the recommendations it contains.
  Many hon. Members wish to speak so I shall be brief and, inevitably, I cannot comment on many important and sometimes controversial points that the Report makes.
  A fundamental factor in both primary and other education, which the Report properly highlights, is the attitude of the child's parents. If my mathematics are correct, the average primary school pupil in any given year, including holidays, spends six hours at home, or outside school, for every hour in school. Therefore, it follows that a child coming from a happy family background where reading is an established pattern of life, and where he is given every encouragement in his education, both academic and extramural, will be at an enormous advantage compared with the child whose home life is disturbed, where reading anything other than the tabloid Press is regarded as very odd, and where the parents' main aim is to leave the education to the teacher and then get the child earning as soon as possible. If this factor is important, as I believe it to be, neither Plowden, Newsom, the Government nor any other central authority will solve educational problems until parents cease to abdicate from their educational responsibilities.
  The three factors that are essential to the healthy development of a young child
  778
  are his family, his school and his church. These are the three pillars on which he can grow and mature into a responsible citizen. Some would argue that religion is "old hat" and can be dispensed with. There is certainly no doubt that the families of all too many children are a millstone rather than a pillar, and this leaves the school—and, in particular, the primary school—carrying an undue share of the load.
  Plowden rightly brings these strands together and I am glad that the majority of the Council recommended the continuance of religious instruction in schools. I am sure that they are right in looking much further into the way in which religion is presented to young children. Telling nursery stories from the Bible is fine, but let us not underestimate the capacity of young children to take in much more about religion and ethics than we perhaps give them credit for.
  If the children do not learn right from wrong at home, ought we not to see that at some time in the most formative years this vital quality is inculcated, and surely there is no better place than in our primary schools. After all, the thought of teaching a foreign language to primary school children would have been regarded as impossibly difficult not so many years ago, but the teaching of French by new methods to eight-year-olds is now a growing feature in primary schools all over the country.
  The solution of the problem of parental attitudes is still far from being achieved. There are many parts of the country where this is so, but rather more where it is not. The teachers themselves can help by making a determined effort to get the parents interested in the school activities and in the progress of their children. It seems to me to be unrealistic, however, to expect this to be very successful when the teachers are trying to cope with classes of 40 to 50, and Plowden's recommendations of a reduction in the educational priority areas of the size of classes to 30, coupled with the recruitment of teacher aides would give the fully-qualified teachers a much better chance of establishing a rapport with parents.
  I am less happy about the Report's recommendation that eventually there should be a national single date of intake

  779
  to the infant school in the September following the child's fifth birthday. This to me smacks of administrative convenience, and I think that it could lead to many anomalies. Presumably, a child whose birthday fell in October would have to wait nearly a whole additional year before going to school, and this would be unfair to both the child and its parents. Surely, what we want is flexibility according to local circumstances. There are some village schools with an abnormally low pupil-teacher ratio, and I see no reason why in these cases entry should not be permitted when the child is 4½. The only step that would make the proposed national uniform entry date fair would be a nation-wide provision of nursery schools, and I just cannot see this happening within the next few years.
  I turn now to the question of money. If this Report is to mean anything at all, this Government and succeeding Governments will have to devote much greater resources to primary education in the future than they have done in the past. The concomitant of this is much greater economic growth than we are now getting, or a reduction in other forms of Government spending, or higher rates of taxation. The third choice does not appeal to me. But there is already much that can be done within the existing framework and with existing resources that could help in the physical problem of improving the primary schools.
  This can be illustrated quite simply. The population of my own county of Hampshire is expanding, and expects 6,000 additional pupils each year. This means that considerable sums of money have to be provided for temporary classrooms, plus the money that is needed to expand and improve existing schools. All this comes out of minor capital allocation approved by the Ministry. At the same time, the education authority is providing new schools very economically, using prefabrication and industrialised methods of construction together with serial tendering. This forthcoming financial year the minor works allocation has been cut by £25,000.
  Is it unreasonable to ask that money saved on major projects might be spent on essential minor ones? Paragraph 1090 of the Report urges:
  780
  "There should be greater flexibility in expenditure as between major and minor building projects, and we hope that authorities will he allowed to spend the money saved in the completion of major projects on minor projects."
  This is a proposal that could be implemented virtually straight away, and it would, I am sure, have the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House and, indeed, of all educational authorities.
  My right hon. Friend today gave the House the most interesting statistics as to the school leaving age and the increased numbers now participating. With the present strained state of the economy, when we cannot permit necessary school extensions, should we not review the whole question of raising the school leaving age? Can it be wise to expend further finance on those who are wishing to start work at 15 rather than stay at school for a further year? Here would be a great saving, which I firmly believe would be in the country's interests and the interests of the many pupils who feel this extra year a waste of time.
  I urge on the Minister, as he implements these excellent recommendations of the Report, to bear fully in mind the needs of those counties that are developing at such a rate, such as the county of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), other counties in the south, and my own county of Hampshire.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: It is not my intention to follow closely upon the speeches made by hon. Members opposite. I was, however rather disturbed to note the reference to "Beeching-type headmasters" by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). That phrase "a Beeching-type" has a very sordid connotation for some hon. Members. I hope that in this debate we shall not seek to gain publicity for our views simply by borrowing phrases of that kind.
  One of the difficulties of hon. Members opposite—I sympathise with them in this—is that so many of them were educated at independent fee-paying schools. Anyone who has studied the biographies of hon. and right hon. Members will be deeply impressed by the preponderance of hon. Members opposite whose educational

  781
  background was that of the independent fee-paying school. I sympathise with them because this means that they have to approach the public sector of education more as observers than as practitioners and consumers. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe), and others on this side of the House, have been able to speak of the public sector of education from personal experience.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: Where does the Secretary of State fit into this pattern?
  Mr. Morris: I have referred to the preponderance of hon. Members opposite whose educational background was that of the independent fee-paying school. We do, of course, have people in the Labour movement who were educated at independent fee-paying schools, but they certainly do not predominate and what distinguishes the Parliamentary Labour Party from the party opposite is the more balanced educational experience of its members.
  I certainly would not hold it against any hon. Member that he was educated at an independent fee-paying school. My point is that I sympathise with him and hope that he will understand the reality of an educational priority area as we on this side of the House are able to do from personal experience. My primary school, although it was not called a primary school then, was Every Street School, Ancoats, one of the poorest districts in the City of Manchester. In the early thirties it was an educational priority area par excellence. I am certain that Stephen Wiseman, who prepared the Manchester survey in volume 2 of the Plowden Report, which refers to "black" areas and "white" areas, would agree that Every Street School, Ancoats, was not only black in the early 1930s but much blacker than black. My school was one of the poorest schools in the City of Manchester.
  I am very glad that the Plowden Committee placed such emphasis on the need for positive discrimination in favour of primary schools in designated educational priority areas. Would that the Report had come out much earlier. It is a monumental Report in comparison with which the Hadow Report is of little significance. If we are to improve
  782
  the general quality of education in this country we must, as the Plowden Report recognises, begin by identifying the areas which are in special need and whose children are specially deprived.
  There is much talk about the brain drain. In my experience there has been no greater brain drain than the least publicised one: the wanton wastage of the talents and abilities of poorer working-class children whose education is hampered and undermined by the unsatisfactory environment in which they have to live. I could approach this debate with some bitterness and speak of contemporaries of mine who were educated with me in Ancoats in the 1930s, of boys with high intelligence who lacked opportunity. I was fortunate in that I went afterwards to the University of Oxford by scholarship. But what impressed me in Oxford was that there were many people there who could not be compared in any way with those who were my contemporaries and whose opportunities were lost by living in such a place as Ancoats and being educated in a place such as Every Street School in the 1930s.
  These people missed opportunities which their intelligence gave them the right to expect. And I put it to all hon. and right hon. Members who, when they speak of the brain drain are referring to the people who take their education in this country and retail it abroad, that this problem is as nothing compared with the brain drain in the educational priority areas of the country. Wealthy parents can still buy their children the chance to develop their talents. I am certain that my right hon. Friend agrees that in the 1960s the purchase of extra opportunities, the purchase of educational privilege, can no longer be tolerated. Moreover, I hope that all hon. Members will give the lead by sending their children to schools in the public sector and begin to recognise that the private enterprise sector of education no longer has any right to exist.
  It has been argued that improvements in maintained primary schools will lead to the withdrawal of support given to independent schools. One often hears it argued that the way to remove the private sector is to improve the public sector. But there is no longer any reason to postulate this as a possibility. We know as a fact that this happens.

  783
  In paragraph 1061 of the Report we are told:
  "In 1861 the Newcastle Commission—of dread memory for teachers—estimated that there were 860,000 pupils (of the whole school age range including secondary) in 'private venture' schools. In 1931 it was estimated that there were approximately 10,000 private schools containing 400.000 pupils. In January, 1965, there were 256,000 children under the age of 12…in 2.762 primary and secondary independent schools in England."
  This emphasises that, in proportion, as the public sector has improved the private sector has been going out of existence. May the job of ending the private sector soon be complete.
  I turn to the references in the debate in another place and in public discussion of this Report to expenditure on reorganising secondary education. It was argued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir. E. Boyle), who led for the Opposition, that he could not support large and costly schemes of secondary organisation, as this may mean that expenditure on Plowden would be put back. But in my view we should recognise the importance of looking at the problems of education as a totality. The Plowden Council has not looked at primary education in isolation. It has supported those of us who for years have rejected the 11-plus examination as something that was totally unacceptable. One of the main arguments against the 11-plus examination, and against the tripartite system of secondary education, was its backwash effect on primary schools.
  I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, who has now left the Chamber, was reading New Society. Perhaps that journal will lead him to agree with me that we cannot consider secondary schools in isolation from primary schools, nor primary schools in isolation from nursery education. It was the backwash effects of the 11-plus education on primary schools which led to unwarranted streaming—even streaming within streaming—and the cramming of children for an examination which distorted the curriculum of the schools. This is a very important matter.
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will not start setting off the expenditure that there will have to be to end the 11-plus examination, and the tripartite system of secondary education, against the expenditure which there will have to
  784
  be on Plowden. The two matters are closely inter-related.
  I should now like to refer to the matter of cost. Lord Plowden, in a debate in another place the day before yesterday, said that the question was whether we can afford the recommendations of the Report. I would say that, on the contrary, the question is whether we can afford not to apply the recommendations, quickly and in their entirety.
  We are told that the recommendations of the Committee would cost about £110 million. I should have thought, when looking at the whole of public expenditure, that this was a relatively small amount, and, when looking at the needs of children in the educational priority areas, that they have a social priority which exceeds most others. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will do all they can in this debate to support my right hon. Friend, and strengthen his position with his colleagues, by emphasising the high social priority of the educational priority areas.
  The fact is that today, in the poorer areas of our great cities, there are schools which are unfit for children to be educated in. There are still far too many schools that were built in the nineteenth century under the provisions of the Education Act of 1870. They are an insult to the ideal of social equality. I reject as cheap and ridiculous any suggestion from the Opposition benches that the problem dealt with by Plowden is of recent origin. The conditions of many of our primary schools today are a standing criticism of the failure of education administrators and Ministers of Education long before either my right hon. Friend or I was born.
  Perhaps I could now refer to the question of nursery school education. The House will be aware that the Education Act of 1944 promised nursery education for all children whose parents desired it. In 1967 only one child in 100 went to a nursery school. The lucky one in 100 at a nursery school is, in my view, a very fortunate child indeed. The pre-school years are vital for child development. They provide that basis for physical, emotional and intellectual development. Because of the lack of nursery education, children are already on unequal terms with others in their schools, at the age of five. And I must emphasise my view that

  785
  the provision of nursery classes is needed on a very wide scale.
  I see from the Report that it was argued by Professor A. J. Ayer and Dr. Michael Young, as well as by other people, that there should be a qualified means test for admission to a nursery school. They argue this as a minority view. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reject their view, not merely on the ground that fee-paying is no longer tolerable, but for the sake of the children. As I know from my own experience, the practice of a means test can lead to great tension in child relationships.
  I received free school meals and even free clothing in the 1930s because my father, a grievously war-disabled man, died in 1934 when I was seven. Children at school soon get to know each other's family circumstances and it often causes tension. The children who are paying their way in school even sometimes take pride in comparing themselves with children from poorer families who cannot do so.
  While I respect both Dr. Young and Professor Ayer, and the other six people who signed the minority viewpoint, I hope very much that we shall not revert to fee-paying within the public system of education. I hope, too, that we shall not seek to pay for these recommendations by interfering in any way with the money which is spent on school meals and school milk.
  There are those who suggest that we should meet some of this expenditure—which I have said is urgent, and which I am sure the whole House regards as urgent—by increasing the burden on poorer families. I was very pleased indeed to hear a statement made by Sir Ronald Gould, following publication of the Plowden Report. When it was suggested to him that one means of paying for the Council's recommendations would be to reduce expenditure on school meals and school milk, as I remember his reply, he said:
  "But this would hit the children from the very poorest families and I reject it on that ground."
  I hope that the House will also reject it. We must look for economies in other directions. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on this side of the House will feel that too much money is spent on the munitions of
  786
  war and too little on the munitions of peace. Opinion in the House reflects the great anxiety outside about the need to reduce expenditure on arms and to increase expenditure on matters of real social importance. I should have thought that none of us need look far in order to find where resources could be found for expenditure on a matter as important as the primary education of our children.
  I conclude by referring to what I regard as the most dedicated profession in our community: the teaching profession. Members of it work extremely hard and selflessly without the status which they deserve. Salary and conditions of employment are important parts of status and extremely important factors in recruitment. We know that an extra 40,000 teachers are needed before 1971, and that 160,000 teacher training places are needed by 1970. We know that many of the teachers in our schools today, the front line of schools in the educational priority areas, are dedicated people who are teaching oversized classes, in old buildings and with a complete lack of modern facilities.
  I hope that we shall not approach primary, secondary, or even nursery education without having regard to the need to improve the status of our teachers, and that we shall not conclude this debate without further tributes being paid to the remarkable service which they give to our society.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) is making a name for himself as an attacker of the fee-paying and independent sector of education. I do not know whether he is setting himself up as yet one more rebel against his Front Bench, because I think the Minister has confirmed that it is no part of Government policy to abolish the right of parents to choose the education which they deem most suitable for their children, even if they wish to pay for it. I think that the hon. Gentleman was much more convincing when he talked of his own experience.
  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—and I shall come back to this—on the question of fee-paying in nursery schools, but what I think is absolutely essential is that schools should devise a means by which it is not known which children are

  787
  receiving school meals, or nursery education, or whatever it may be, with a remission of fees.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest a method by which that can be done? Instead of asking other people to devise a method, can he suggest one? There was supposed to be such a method in the 'thirties, but everyone knew that I received public assistance and free school meals.
  Mr. Hill: This is the difficulty. It is a matter of wise administration. I happen to operate part of a charity by which people get a remission of fees, but most of the people who get the remission are not particularly sensitive about it. I hope that good administration will enable us to get over the difficulty.
  I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was likely to be flexible about the age of transfer, because in the County of Norfolk, in advance of Plowden, the provisional view was taken that 12 was a good age for transfer, and that the middle school should be from eight to 12. The other interesting proposal, again in advance of Plowden, was that the first period should be from four to eight. This could mean a revival of the village school, and it would result in a considerable saving of movement and money. It would have the advantage of enabling children to start school gradually, and a nursery group could be attached to the school.
  I propose to confine most of my remarks to nursery education, and I would like to quote a sentence from the Norfolk Education Committee's Bulletin for September 1966. It said:
  "Starting school should be seen by the parent and child as a transitional growth rather than a sharply differentiated stage."
  I think that this is best done through the medium of a nursery education, whether it is maintained or voluntary.
  The case against the extension of nursery education, except to release further trained teachers within the strict terms of the Ministry circular, seems convincing enough until one comes into contact with the children and hears the evidence of those who are working and researching into the problems of the under-fives.
  During the last year I have been trying to see something of what is happening,
  788
  and I was helped by the extremely able document "Under 5" published by the Conservative Political Centre, which blazed much of the Plowden trail. I have also become associated with the National Campaign for the Advancement of Nursery Education, the President of which is the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhapmton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short). The range of the membership and its sympathies show how widespread is concern over this problem.
  Through the kindness of various authorities and organisations I have seen something of what is being done, and I would like to mention three examples. First, a new purpose-built nursery school has been constructed by the Inner London Education Authority. It is a replacement, otherwise it could not have been built. It is strictly within the terms of the 1944 Education Act and represents a costly ideal, very fine, but impossible to build in great numbers in the foreseeable future.
  Secondly, I would mention a play group operating in part-time hired premises, a games pavilion, and financed by the parents themselves under the auspices of the National Association of Pre-School Play Groups.
  Thirdly, there is a play group, raised and maintained by the Save the Children Fund, which operates in requisitioned premises for the children of homeless families in London. Here one sees something of the great good which can be done for children who, by the very nature of their parents' misfortune, have an added sense of tension and insecurity.
  I have seen a number of other examples, and one comes to these main conclusions. First, the undoubted significance of the years under five for a child's subsequent educational and other development. Secondly, the growing extent both of need in the areas of disadvantage, what Plowden now calls the E.P.A.s, and the growth of desire by parents for children to take part in nursery education.
  The extent of need is probably much greater than is commonly supposed, because during the last few years there has been a sharp increase in child-minding for gain outside the nursery and play group movement. Whether it is registered or not, some are very unsatisfactory, but it

  789
  exists because parents either are compelled or want to find someone to take temporary care of their children by day.
  The difficulties and deprivations of many children under five go well beyond education. I have seen the Report of a Working Party of the Child Welfare Societies which I hope will soon be published. It will merit detailed examination and subsequent action by the various Government Departments concerned.
  The period up to 5 can be decisive in the mental and emotional development and the temperamental adjustment of a child to people and places outside its home. If, as is now believed, much intelligence is acquired and not immutably fixed by heredity, it becomes doubly important to identify and remove impediments which may prevent a child from realising his true potential. Modern research, whether in work in this country, as by the National Child Development Study, or abroad, as in Operation "Head Start" in the United States of America, emphasises that the nursery is the place to begin.
  Therefore, if it is accepted that the under-5 period may well be crucial to a child's later development, it follows that a course of action must he decided upon, despite the admitted load on educational resources and despite the admitted shortage of skilled personnel. Once it is recognised that too many children from educationally unsympathetic homes start with handicaps which will frustrate their normal progress, equality of opportunity can be achieved only by inequality of teaching.
  If the need for skilled manpower in education greatly exceeds the supply, it is better to admit an emergency and concentrate on how best to use fully and highly qualified staff. This can be done only by using the skilled to guide and supervise the relatively unskilled in nursery education, because there, after all it is not so much a matter of teaching as of sympathetic tutelage.
  Thus I welcome the Report for its salient recommendation about educational priority areas. It is a classic Conservative principle to concentrate help where it is most needed. I believe that the educational priority areas, or it may well be schools, because I take the Minister's point about the difficulty of definition, will need nursery education quite as
  790
  much as better primary education, since it is precisely in these areas or schools that the educational disadvantages which successful nursery experience can remove will be most prevalent.
  It is neither desirable nor practical to limit nursery provision to the educational priority areas. I believe that we should follow on with the Plowden recommendation in paragraph 343 for a progressive expansion of nursery education through groups of 20 children in the immediate charge of nursery assistants
  "under the…supervision of a qualified teacher in the ratio of one qualified teacher to 60 places."
  That is, if you like, the Plowden standard.
  Apart from cost, on Plowden's own figures for recruitment of nursery assistants—they are figures which critics might think incline towards optimism rather than gloom—such provision would not be achieved throughout the maintained sector until after 1980. Therefore, whatever decisions the Secretary of State may take about the Plowden long-term proposals, there is bound to be a long interim period. It is in that period that privately organised nursery education should be helped to expand.
  In the ordinary course of education budgeting, the cost of further nursery expansion would be a cogent, and perhaps decisive, argument for inaction, but both the present need and the demand for nursery education is out of the ordinary. Some areas need it more urgently than others, some children much more than others. Anywhere it must be voluntary for the parents' decision. But the total need remains formidable.
  Therefore, I am sure that the right way, indeed the only way, to bring costs within manageable limits is to accept the arguments in favour of a parental contribution, subject to remissions and subject also to the important safeguard of positive research to ensure that no child who ought to receive such education is deprived of it through his parents being unwilling to ask for a remission.
  The evidence on the whole is that fee-paying is acceptable. This is not merely true of the more affluent areas. In the poorer areas the Save the Children Fund makes charges of 6d. to 1s. 9d. a session, mostly in what would be E.P.As, and it

  791
  still has a waiting list. It is quite common for parents to pay up to 5s. or more a half-day session in groups belonging to the National Association of Pre-School Playgroups. Only in that way are they viable.
  One advantage of the fee-paying principle for the maintained sector is that it dovetails in with existing voluntary nursery activities during this long interim period. Whatever the decisions on the phasing of Plowden's main recommendations, the voluntary movement is bound to go on increasing rapidly. It should be encouraged and helped in such a way that, in partnership with the Department and local education authorities, it becomes the forerunner and the basis for nation-wide maintained provision.
  Therefore, I attach great importance to Recommendation (xi) in paragraph 343. It is true that the Department has provided £3,000 for three years for a national organiser for the National Association of Pre-School Playgroups. Some local education authorities, notably that of Inner London, have arranged training courses, made buildings available, and provided grants to bodies providing playgroups, particularly the Save the Children Fund. Much more on a wider scale needs to be done if this expansion is to follow desirable educational lines and avoid the pitfalls of less satisfactory child minding.
  I recognise that the voluntary movement is necessarily less openly professional than Plowden would eventually provide. But at a time of limited resources this can be a positive advantage, provided that suitable guidance, training and inspection are available. In nursery education the best is often the enemy of the good. Much of the work would be part-time. Therefore, training arrangements must be flexible. To insist on specific academic qualifications would defeat the purpose. Instead, we want to recruit well-intentioned people who are temperamentally suitable to work with children under supervision. Obviously the National Nursery Education Board is the basis for courses for Nursery Assistants. But I hope that there will be many shorter courses so that the willing mothers of children in the playgroups can be more effective helpers.
  792
  This can have valuable side-effects in getting parents interested and involved in the system of education. Often, the leaders of a playgroup go on to be the stalwarts of parent-teacher associations, to be school managers or, indeed, to take up a career in local public service. It is an excellent means, especially in a new community, of enabling families to get to know one another and to dispel the feeling of isolation and strangeness which sometimes afflicts the young mother who finds herself alone in a new small house or flat in which there is little space for a child to play.
  Buildings are important, and they are very expensive, as we have noted. It is essential to use school buildings wherever they are available, but much can be done by improvisation, by the part-time use of buildings which are wanted at other periods of the day. It is a question of the authorities and the owners making them available.
  Children need space, space not only to play but, for some of them, to learn to play. I have seen children who have never known what play is or means. I hope that all Government Departments, and local authorities, in approving plans, whether for educational or for residential purposes, will ensure that some sites are reserved for the use of children in future, giving this need the same degree of thought and priority as is given to the motor car.
  If we are to have a developing system which is mainly voluntary, it will be satisfactory only if there is good supervision and inspection. Supervision and inspection are difficult to cost in personnel or in money, partly because definite standards and methods have not yet been discussed or established. The important thing is to have the skilled advice of fully qualified teachers readily available when necessary. Therefore, any system must be flexible enough to be varied to meet local needs and resources. In this connection, I have been impressed by the ability of the area supervisors employed by the Save the Children Fund. I have met ladies, themselves highly qualified teachers, who successfully look after up to 15 groups of children without great difficulty and with good results.
  In this policy one must balance costs against gains. It is comparatively easy

  793
  to calculate the costs. It is extremely difficult to measure the gains. But the fact that they are hard to measure does not mean that the gains are not significantly greater.
  On the cost side, there is the cost of premises and equipment, of fees remitted, of the training of nursery assistants and helpers, of supervision and inspection. These are substantial sums, as can be seen from the Report. But the gains are likely to be greater. First, much latent potential should be realised. There will be better value from subsequent educational effort, of which at present so much just misfires, as a study of the Newsom Report shows. There will be less subsequent remedial work because there will befewerbackward children. It is clear from the high proportion of backward children who take up the primary teacher's time, as can be seen in the tables in the appendix to the Report, how much could be saved in this way, although, again, one cannot put a cost to it. Likewise, there will be better and earlier recognition of physical handicaps, speech difficulties, partial hearing and the like.
  The social gains will be very great. I have mentioned the desirability of involving parents in the education process and the effect it can have in building up a community and strengthening neighbourhood life. The younger generation as a whole would benefit, and so would society.
  Inevitably in this connection, one thinks of delinquency, not specifically of delinquent children as such because, after all, only 1 per cent. of young people are delinquents but rather of the tendency towards delinquency. Modern research shows that delinquency goes by areas rather than by families, and I think that research will show also that in those areas which have enjoyed a satisfactory provision of nursery education, whether in modern local authority nursery schools or by voluntary movements such as Save the Children Fund, there will be a drop in delinquency.
  The proposals which I should like to see accepted would result in unequal provision. I accept that. Some areas would go ahead rapidly, others more slowly. This is inevitable with a largely voluntary movement. But nothing could be more unequal than the present situation in which about 10 per cent. of the age-
  794
  group, or, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) put it, 1 per cent. of children, are in nursery schools or classes. That, surely, is a rigid inequality, almost an inequality of status. The nursery expansion which I want put in hand promises an inequality, but an inequality of movement and of progress, which is much to be preferred.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak. Reasonably brief speeches help.
  7.18 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: Earlier in the debate, one hon. Gentleman opposite said that he felt that Plow-den had said very little new. There is something in that, but one of the indictments of previous Governments is that in 1967, 23 years after the passage of the Education Act, 1944, Plowden has had to make the recommendations which it has made. This ought to give us cause for serious thought.
  Before coming to the two parts of the Report about which I wish to speak, I must comment on the rather reticent way in which both the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the question of corporal punishment. I am glad that both said that they were opposed to it, as many hon. Members are. It is rightly felt that the change should come from the climate in the school and not necessarily be imposed, but there is something in the thought that it is now time we brought our primary schools into line with our prisons and did away with corporal punishment. We ought to make this plain.
  I support the recommendations in the Report—I hope that we shall have a rather stronger statement on the subject from my hon. Friend when she winds up the debate—about the involvement of parents in school life, partly because those recommendations, like the one on corporal punishment, would not cost a great deal of money and so cannot be dismissed on that account, and partly because, if the Report has underlined anything, it has underlined that it is not necessarily the school which determines the success of the child but that it is the home and the environment which, if not actually determining it, certainly condition it.

  795
  I wholeheartedly support the section dealing with special provision for priority areas. I am mindful of what Mr. Speaker said about short speeches. I should like to spend most of my time on the section dealing with nursery schools and immigrant children. In the debate on increased fees for overseas students, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said:
  "Of course I have a responsibility to overseas students. But I have other responsibilities as well—to slum and handicapped children in Britain and, if we are talking of people from overseas, to immigrant children in Sparkbrook and Southall. I hope in this context that no hon. Member will argue that £2 million or £5 million is chicken feed or a trivial sum. It would build a host of new nursery or infant schools in Plowden areas.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 2001.]
  The hearts of most of us who are interested in the under-fives leapt with joy when we heard that. I was rather disappointed this afternoon not to get a further commitment from my right hon. Friend about the whole question of the under-fives.
  One of the biggest problems facing us is that more and more children are starting school later than they used to do. In many areas they are starting after their fifth birthday and many receive no preschool education and have no pre-school social activities with other children until much later in life than did children 10 or 15 years ago.
  I am firmly in favour of a flexible school starting age, but it must be tied up with greater provision for the under-fives. The interesting thing about the section dealing with nursery education is that that is about the only range of education where there has been no added provision since the 1944 Education Act. Whatever the Act said about nursery education, and it said it very well, the promise of further provision has remained pie-in-the-sky for the under-fives.
  The distribution of the provision is appalling; it bears no relation to the need of the particular areas. It is startling that 7 per cent. of all children received nursery education in the 1930s and in 1966 still only 7 per cent. received it. The quality of the service provided has risen, but not the amount.
  It is interesting that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should come out
  796
  so strongly in favour of nursery education because it was their circular that stopped the expansion of nursery education and the pamphlet referred to, which, incidentally, came after the blazing of the trail by the National Association of Pre-School Play Groups many years ago, makes reference to this. The curtailment and stopping of any provision for nursery education came from the opposite benches. Any flexibility or modification that has taken place recently has come from the present Government. But it has been totally inadequate, because to try to amend a circular by saying, "We shall provide nursery schools in areas where we can release teachers", is to do it in the interests of the teachers and not of the children. Although we are grateful for the £3,000 given to the National Association of Pre-School Play Groups, with which I am proud to be associated, it does little to meet the need and the problem we face.
  The problem of the mal-distribution of nursery education can be seen clearly in my constituency of Eton and Slough. It is odd that in the part of Slough that is in the constituency we have a greater provision of nursery education than in many other parts of the country. One child in five of our under-fives goes to a nursery school run by the County. But in Eton there are no nursery schools. We subsidise Eton college as a charity for people who do not live within the area and yet we are unable, because of the historical way in which nursery schools were provided after the day nurseries closed after the war, to make any provision for children in Eton. It is too far for them to go to Slough and so they are deprived, unless we get, as we are getting, the springing up of play groups in various parts of the constituency. Indeed, these are springing up in various parts of the country.
  The crux of the matter, to which I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, is that the play group movement is not the solution to the provision of nursery education. It is a sympton. The Save The Children Fund provision is also a sympton of the fact that there is a crying need for provision for the under-fives, and that we have failed to provide it.
  One of the most worrying things about the play group movement is that the

  797
  registered child-minder or play group is registered under the health authority and not the education authority. Children in State nursery schools are inspected by the Department of Education and Science, which can lay down certain provisions about equipment, teaching and so on. But in the play group movement the registered child-minder who may have 20 or 30 children in her care can be, and very often is, an unqualified person with no training, employing unqualified staff. There is never any inspection from the Department of Education and Science because it is not under its umbrella. That is a deplorable state of affairs.
  In some areas, although I do not want to overstate this, more of the under-fives come under the health authority than there are under the education authority and are threefore not inspected by the education authority. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that there must be a marrying of the two departments in dealing with the under-fives. As the National Association for Pre-School Play Groups has said again and again, we must establish standards in play groups; we must have educational inspection and insistence on and agreement about qualifications of those running them.
  I firmly believe that we should have an expansion of nursery education almost immediately. I hope that we shall, but I do not think that we are likely to. It is one of the greatest priorities to me. Because I do not think that we are likely to get it, and because it is needed for the five-year-olds and under-fives in the next year, not the next 10 to 15 years, I ask my hon. Friend to look again at some suggestions about the Department taking play groups, other organisations and individuals involved in that work under the umbrella of education, and demanding inspection and certain qualification in return for financial assistance.
  I do not think that it is essential—because I do not think that we shall get it—that we must always have fully-qualified teachers in establishments for the under-fives. There must be insistence on some sort of qualifications if the play group movement is to develop. The people running them should be qualified and some kind of course should be available to people assisting. The more the play groups involve parents the more they
  798
  are in line with Plowden and its recommendations on schools and the under-fives.
  I am completely against Plowden on the idea of fee-paying for nursery schools. We want to move away from fee-paying, not towards it. Although the Save the Children Fund has done a great deal of work in deprived areas, play groups are beginning to spring up in areas where parents can afford to pay for them, and we are not getting them in areas that desperately need them. Those responsible for the scale of charges for a play group or private nursery school must always make up their minds whether to sacrifice the equipment and keep the charges down, thus getting the children who need the service, or to put the charges up to provide the equipment but exclude the children that really need it. This is always the dilemma which exists for those who are and have been involved in trying to provide the services that Governments have so far not provided for our younger citizens.
  I want to tie this up with that section of the Report which deals with immigrant children. This is important to me in my constituency, which has a large immigrant population and where, throughout the school year, we get between 12 and 20 non-English-speaking children entering our schools, many of them 8, 9, 10 or 11 years of age. Presumably, this is something that will go on for some time and it presents considerable difficulties for the teachers.
  One thing, however, is obvious. In Eton and Slough, some individuals have had the foresight to try to provide preschool activities and are involving some of the immigrant children who are already of school age, because this is one way of dealing with any difficulty of language that is so hard to deal with when the children are already of school age and in school.
  I was very pleased, as most of us were who are interested in the question of immigrant children, to see that the Plowden Council did not fall into the trap of making colour a distinction. It made language and culture the distinction and this is enormously important. One of the things I would like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to comment on is that one of the difficulties of immigrant children and of our teachers is

  799
  that we have not trained our teachers to teach in a multiracial society, which is what Slough is.
  This is not just a case of teaching immigrant children but many types of children. Our educational system, particularly at primary level, has developed from the authoritarian towards the permissive. But some of the cultures from which immigrant children come are rather authoritarian and this presents enormous difficulties in the classroom. These children enter into a situation of permissiveness to which they are not used and this is one of the biggest problems that teachers face in dealing with them. It is not only a question of language but of a breakdown in appreciation of the sort of context we have in our schools.
  We could usefully look a little more closely at the provision of free play activities for the older immigrant children so that we could bridge some of the gaps which arise because they have not been in our educational system from the age of 5. It is a difficult situation for many teachers dealing with immigrant children who are non-English speaking, have been brought up in a different culture and have undergone part of their education in it. The teachers feel that this is one of the difficulties which could be overcome through the training of teachers. Our teachers are trained to teach in a certain atmosphere, yet in certain areas they are dealing with children who have not been able to benefit from our advanced ideas, particularly the freedom that we have in our primary schools.
  I am mindful that Mr. Speaker asked us not to speak for very long, and I shall shortly sit down. But there is one other thing I want to say about the Plowden Report. I think that Plowden has done an enormous service because it has touched on practically every aspect of primary education and pre-school education that anyone who has been a teacher or on the administrative side of education has been interested in and found to be a difficulty.
  Possibly the under-fives, the immigrant children and the deprived areas are the greatest priority because, in certain areas, we shall be building up a host of trouble for the future if we do not begin to tackle
  800
  these problems now. Plowden was right to point out that we have concentrated much of our attention and finance on other avenues of education, with the result that this aspect of education is, as it were, the Cinderella of the education service.
  Women will continue to go out to work. High flats will continue to be built without adequate play provision—and I take the point put by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth that we provide for the car but not for the child in these flats. Unless we expand our provision in this sector of education, we shall see more and more children being left to the unregistered, the unqualified, to the au pair girl to be looked after, and they will be denied the opportunities that we promised their parents for them in 1944.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) was pessimistic about the prospects of getting any large-scale expansion of nursery education in the near future. I would agree that this is so unless we are prepared to accept the principle of fee paying or parental contribution. I do not think that there is the slightest chance of a large-scale expansion of nursery education if we rely on its being provided free by the public sector.
  In my constituency, a first-class nursery school is operating. It has not proved to be socially divisive. The fees are moderate for mothers who go out to work. They can be well afforded by a very wide band of the social spectrum. All that is really required is for the local education authority or the local authority to have the power to give a grant and help those families who cannot afford to pay fees so that their children can also attend. In such a way, we could have the large-scale expansion of nursery education that we all say is required but which we have little chance of getting if we refuse to accept the principle of fee paying or parental contribution.
  I welcome the Plowden Report not only as one interested in education but also as a parent. To a parent, Chapter 2 in particular is interesting reading and will stand one in good stead. I want to mention a subject that has not previously been referred to in the debate and

  801
  I do so without disagreeing with the remarks my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) made.
  The Plowden Report gives the lie to the idea that reading standards as a whole have declined. Indeed, they have accelerated considerably in recent years. Yet a minority of children still slip behind early in their educational careers in reading and are thereby handicapped for the rest of their school days. In New Society last year, there was an article which said that there was a part of London where 38 per cent. of the 8 and 9 year olds had an appallingly low standard of reading ability.
  According to the report "Standards and Progress in Reading" in December last year, over half of those unable to read at the age of 8 remain semi-literate for the rest of their educational careers. It seems that a large proportion of children in primary education suffer in this way and this presents a real problem. It is shown up the more starkly by the general improvement in reading standards to which attention is drawn in the Plowden Report. In certain parts of big cities, I would say that as high a proportion as 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 of the children suffer in this way.
  There is also the difficulty that a smaller minority—perhaps 1 in 50—of the children suffer acute difficulty in learning to read. but Plowden suggests that the reasons for this are probably psychological and that much more research is needed into that aspect.
  Among the larger group, however, we can gain a thumbnail sketch of the type of child involved. He probably comes from the type of home background—again described in the Report—which applies to perhaps two-thirds of the unskilled workers, where there are five books or less in the house and no background of reading. Possibly he comes from a broken home or an unsatisfactory home background. This child starts in school behind its contemporaries, slips further behind, ends up semi-literate, leaves school and finds it difficult to get employment, develops a grudge against society, and delinquency and crime and other things all too often follow. What we have to do is to consider this problem to see how it can be tackled, and the first thing we need is early identification of
  802
  the child and then special attention to its problems.
  In so far as many of the children come from the educational priority areas, identification should be helped, and one is glad to see that the Government have, at least in general, committed themselves to this recommendation. However, I regret that the Inner London Education Authority refused to have a special survey designed to identify more closely the areas where these children are found and to provide some special attention for them, because one of the things which the Plowden Report clearly said was that these children needed special attention.
  The most successful infant teachers, as the Report said, choose methods and books to fit the age, interest and ability of individual pupils. Instead of relying on one reading scheme, many teachers use a range of schemes of different characteristics, selecting carefully for each child. It is only possible if the children are identified early and the classes are small enough for it to be possible for special attention to be given to the children, and it will be possible in the immediate future only if the teachers get the sort of support from teaching aides and teaching aids which they require in the classroom. I am sure that we need teachers' aides, but other hon. Members have argued the case and I do not intend to repeat it, because of the shortage of time.
  A teacher's aid programme of learning could be ideally tapered to backward children who can then work at their own pace and, given the right encouragement, catch up with their contemporaries when they fall behind, and although teaching aids become more important the further one goes in the education system, I am sure that there is scope for them in primary schools and I hope that the Government will consider ways of making money available for them.
  We also need smaller classes and more teachers, and, at the risk of injecting a party political note into the debate, I must say that it is a great pity that the Government have not been able to announce that the negotiations on Burnham will be restarted. Every week which goes by we hear of some section of the community which has suffered injustice because of the Government's prices and incomes policy, but the teachers have a special sense of grievance in that their

  803
  negotiations were not even allowed to start, and they feel that they have been singled out by the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) suggested a novel solution for attracting teachers to educational priority areas. We have the suggestion at first hand in the Report of a flat addition of £120 for the normal salary. My right hon. Friend suggested an increase in the number of graded posts and then from the back benches we had the Wokingham per capita scheme. Not only do we want to attract teachers to teach in these areas, but we want to give them some incentive to stay for some time. I wonder whether it is wholly out of court to consider giving an incentive to a teacher to stay in an area for, say, five years, giving him at the end of that time a lump sum. Why not make that lump sum tax free? After all, this is positive discrimination.
  If we could save up the small increase and give the teacher the prospect, if he is prepared to teach in such an area for five years, of a tax-free gratuity at the end of that time, a substantial sum of, say, £700 or £800, that would only be in line with the suggestion of the Plowden Council for a salary increase. This might be more effective than the other ideas, and it would also be attractive to the more mature teacher.
  If, as they obviously are, teachers are the basis for much of the progress which we need in primary education, buildings are also important, as the Secretary of State said. There are 595 schools in the Inner London Area which were built before 1900, many of them lacking what most of us would regard as basic amenities for primary schools. In this context I must congratulate the Minister of State on her decision about the proposal to build a primary school on the St. George's burial ground in my constituency, the half-baked idea put forward by the Inner London Education Authority to build a new primary school on the Hyde Park Estate in my constituency, not an area which by any flight of the imagination could be described as an educational priority area. The I.L.E.A. was proposing to buy a site for some £350,000, and on it to build a school for 280 children at a cost of probably £200,000 in an area already
  804
  over-provided with primary school places, another primary school for 280 children at a cost of more than £500,000.
  The only argument which I found to carry any weight was the dislike by the majority party of the Inner London Education Authority for sectarian education, and it is true that most primary schools in the area are Roman Catholic or Church of England schools. I have not heard any other case argued for the provision of this extra primary school.
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman denying humanist parents the right to choose a school for their children? Is he arguing that humanist parents in this area are satisfied?
  Mr. Scott: But the parents of children going to sectarian schools can withdraw the children from the religious part of the curriculum. Secondly, if we are talking about anything today we are talking about priorities, and I would have thought that the highest priority in my constituency, the City of Westminster and other Inner London Education Authority areas was not the building of a school at that cost on that site. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her decision.
  If the I.L.E.A. has this sense of priorities in education, I regret that both Front Benches seem to disagree with the idea in the Plowden Report that there should be national designation of educational priority areas. If we are to get urgent action on this subject and early implementation, national designation will be important.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough mentioned immigrant children. I was disappointed that this part of the Plowden Report was not fuller. The Council did not seem to come down firmly on one side or the other of the question of dispersal, and although I accept that the implementation of the principle of educational priority areas will give special treatment to most of those places where immigrants are concentrated most heavily, some dispersal may be necessary, particularly in those areas where language difficulties are at their height.
  I was grateful for the reference to the fact, which is too often overlooked, that although they speak English, West Indian

  805
  children in fact speak a dialect of English and suffer almost as great a difficulty in understanding the English which we speak in this country as do many immigrants from the Asian Commonwealth.
  The Plowden Report has set out the priorities in the primary sector of education admirably and correctly. I conclude with the hope that the Department and the local education authorities, upon whom most of the burden of implementation will fall, will show equal dedication and enthusiasm in implementing it.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. John Forrester: Like everyone else inside and outside this House interested in education, I welcome and support this Report. For many years now I have been a member of the National Union of Teachers, and for 17 years before I came into the House I was a teacher in a junior school. If I should express the thoughts, hopes and fears of the primary school teachers in the next few minutes, I make no apology for this. This Report has the great value of focusing the attention of practically the whole country on this rather long-suffering and neglected section of education.
  The good parts of the primary school educational system have been spotlighted, and the deficiencies exposed for the administrators and politicians to correct. Many excellent recommendations have been made but, as with every other report, there are so many of them that we must give them the most careful consideration before we adopt them. I hope that we will judge the practicality of the proposals and not just accept them on the grounds of emotion. Since the war, the primary school section has been allowed to drift along on a shoe string, while other sectors of education have been provided with the means to make the progress that we so much desire.
  The primary school has gone through a period of decline which has been countenanced, if not deliberately so, then unconsciously, by the local education authorities, and the Department of Education and Science. I am glad to see that the public conscience is being awakened to the folly of our past neglect of the primary school. At last it has been realised that the vast sums of money that we spend on secondary schools, technical
  806
  education and universities and so on will be very largely wasted unless we have a strong base on which to build.
  There has been a deliberate salary policy over the past 10 years or so by which local authorities have been allowed to pay extra to many teachers in secondary schools, with the declared objective, in 1956, of attracting people from the primary schools. This objective was achieved most successfully. Ever since, the primary schools have been paying the price for this terrible policy. Plowden says that we should attract more men into the primary schools. Before we can do this it will require a reversal of the salary structure which has been responsible for this movement. The test of whether local education authorities are sincere in attempts to stop this drift will come shortly when the new salary scales are negotiated.
  If this opportunity is not taken, then I am afraid that the primary school teachers will think that the honeyed words which they have heard in the last two months are no better than the words that they heard over the last 10 years. It is not often that an opportunity to prove one's sincerity comes at such an opportune time. The ball is now very definitely in the court of the Burnham Committee and the results will be studied very closely by all teachers in primary school staff rooms. Estimates vary as to what the removal of the differentials might cost; some say as much as £5 million. If this is the cost, then it would be a small price to pay for the loyalty and devotion which the primary school teachers have given to the educational school service, despite the provocation that they have had since 1956.
  Undoubtedly the most important section of this Report deals with educational priority areas. I prefer to talk in terms of educational priority schools rather than areas. An area is rather difficult to define and in some of our major cities, where primary schools are very close together, within 300 to 500 yards of each other it is difficult to distinguish between one part of an area and another. Often there can be the world of difference between one school and another in the same area.
  I hope that we might have a closer examination of the difficult conditions in schools. We may find that there are

  807
  classes within a school which could claim to be educational priority classes, whereas the school itself could not make such a claim. The sort of discrimination that has gone on against various schools in a locality is indefensible. Perhaps in a certain area one has two schools, fairly close to each other, with very much the same sort of children, but just because one school is smaller, it is denied the equipment, the books and the canteen service and so on which are enjoyed by the larger school. I hope that this is something which the Report will help to put right in the near future.
  I agree with all those who are opposed to paying the extra £120 per annum to teachers in particular schools in certain areas. There are too many anomalies in the salary structure already for us to add any more. One of the worst disservices to education was undoubtedly the introduction of differential scales in 1956. This created, as has been said before, a race from school to school in order to obtain a particular post of responsibility. Unfortunately some people now look on this activity as a commendable experience, exhibiting initiative on the part of the teacher. Who can blame people for going from school to school in search of extra money when the minimum scale for teachers was so low that an adult teacher of 21 may be taking home less than £12 a week?
  Some areas may have difficulty in recruiting teachers. To give them extra money is one way of achieving this end. One other result of our differentials was to destroy very largely the spirit of voluntary work which has gone on in our schools and to create resentment on staffs and between schools and this proposal would only add to these difficulties.
  The problem of an area to recruit teachers goes deeper than merely being a question of money. Plowden recognises the need for adequate housing, industry and culture in a given area. Stoke-on-Trent is not exactly the Costa Brava of the West Midlands conurbation, but we never have had problems in achieving our teacher quota. We would very much appreciate a raising of the quota, or of having no quota at all. However we would want more of those teachers in the primary schools. Any money which is to spare would be better spent in pro-
  808
  viding equipment, and the other effects, which go toward making a good school, rather than in this manner.
  The one thing which would attract people into difficult schools is a reduction in the teacher-pupil ratio. When one talks of giving more money one has to ask: who will be attracted? Will it be the ambitious, the needy, the devoted, the person with a sense of vocation? What would be the terms of reference to the teachers whom one is asking to go into priority schools? Would it be:
  "Hurry up and get on with the job so that we can bring this school up to scratch so that as soon as this has been done the £120 can be taken away."?
  If so, would these people be expected to remain after having suffered a wage cut of £2 a week? Children, particularly in a primary school need a stable staff. They need teachers who have served that particular school, and who feel part of it, and part of the neighbourhood of the school. We should not despise, as has been the case in some quarters for some time, long service and loyalty. This is something which we should applaud. The people who flit from school to school seeking a permanent position may do themselves a little good, but they are of very little good to the schools on which they briefly alight in their search for nectar. I am pleased that the Plowden Report puts this on record and acknowledges it in a positive manner.
  This is a problem of personal relationships between teachers and parents, between teachers and schools and between schools in the neighbourhood concerned. This is not the kind of world in which one gets a posse of Stakhanovites or Red Guards to follow the organisation and methods boys, blitz the place and then move on and then let others take over. The lasting effects of what we are proposing concerning educational priority areas will take a long time to show and we must recognise this. It will call for patience and understanding. It will call for skill and devotion on the part of people prepared to serve in them.
  However, coupled with this, suitable alterations to the fabric of the buildings and additions to the equipment are needed. Above all, we shall need a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio in those areas. All lasting and spectacular improvements will stem only from this. If

  809
  we do not have enough teachers, the only answer is to train more. To move them from one place to another is no solution. We must train them and give them a suitable remuneration, especially those at the bottom of the scale. We have to get our priorities right. We must examine Government expenditure in all spheres, if necessary, to get the money to provide the basic necessities.
  The Report advocates more contact between schools and parents. This is commendable and will appeal to all those interested in the matter. But much has already been done in parent-teacher associations, sports days, and so on. That we need more of the right kind of contact between teachers and parents is undeniable. The Department and local authorities should spend time on exploring the possibilities in this respect.
  It is, however, so easy to get the wrong kind of contact between parents and schools, which will disrupt school life and cause friction. This is something against which we should guard. But the Report goes further in suggesting that teachers should visit the children's homes. I wonder whether this is "on". One can almost imagine little notes being sent by Mrs. Smith saying, "Come up; I want to see you". We must recognise that the qualities required for being an excellent teacher are not necessarily the qualities which someone needs when going into people's homes. There are many very good politicians who are absolutely useless at knocking on doors and canvassing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a shame, but it is true.
  Teachers have qualities, but we must not expect those qualities to be elastic so that they can adapt themselves to every proposal which is made, no matter how beneficial it may appear to be. Perhaps we could call for an extension of the welfare services by means of a much closer liaison between the welfare services and the schools in their neighbourhood, or perhaps the Department would want to look again at the possibilities of the school councillor service and consider how it could be adapted to primary school as well as secondary school needs.
  It has long been assumed, at least by the unenlightened, that the lower down the education ladder one gets, the easier it is to spare would be better spent in pro-
  810
  die hard, and they are still prevalent in many people's minds. But each sector of education has its own problems. The ability to teach as opposed to academic attainment is an essential part of the make-up of a teacher in the primary schools. I have been convinced for a long time that the greatest skill in the education service is needed by the teacher in the infant's school who has the job of receiving children straight from home and trying to discipline them and get them in the habit of learning.
  It has long been recognised that the sooner we begin to learn, the easier it is. It has been said that unless we can learn certain things at a given age, we shall never learn them. This may be a rather broad generalisation, but in particular instances it may well be true. We have tried to introduce foreign languages into the junior schools. I am sure that there is a long story attached to that which I will not go into now, but the lesson is clear. The younger we are, the easier it is to learn. Yet we have so overcrowded our primary school classrooms that the time for individual work, the space for experimental work, and the possibility of teaching according to aptitude and ability have been curtailed to a criminal degree.
  It is a crazy education set-up which says, "When you are young and able and perhaps willing and eager to learn, we shall make it so difficult for you that you will find it almost impossible. But when you are older we will give you all the equipment you need and reduce the pupil-teacher ratio so that you have a chance to pick up the things which we should have taught you in primary school." History will forgive people for making mistakes if they correct them, even though it never understands why they made them in the first place.
  I wish to say a few words about the size of primary schools. This is an important matter. It is not easy to lay down rules and say that all our primary schools will be of this or that size. But we must guard against the danger of having primary schools which are too small. I would think that a three-form entry school, thinking in terms of 30 and not 40 in a class, was an ideal size. This would give the possibility of a staff of 12 or 14 with a range of ability and experience and

  811
  interest which would enable the school to take on most of the activities which junior schools would like to take on. It would give the school a flexibility which would be impossible in a smaller school. A school of such size would enable the staff to know virtually all the children in it.
  The Plowden Report has engendered in the country a tremendous amount of support, enthusiasm and good will, and a lot of curiosity about the primary schools. Primary school teachers are grateful that so many people are preaching the gospel of equality, which they have not heard before. But the least impressed people are the primary school teachers. They have a feeling that they have heard it all before, that this is where they came in. They have the feeling—I hope that it is wrong—that the only proposals which will be implemented are those which will not cost any money. If one has been closely connected with them, one can understand how they feel and their scepticism.
  With so many drawbacks and so little encouragement, it is nothing short of amazing that so much which is good, new and lasting has been achieved in our primary schools. It is now up to the Government and local authorities to grasp the opportunities which the Report has presented to them so that they can give to the primary school child and teacher the facilities and equipment, recognition and remuneration to which they are entitled. If we are to get the full benefit of the large sums of money which we spend on secondary education, we must ensure that our primary schools are dealt with in a proper manner.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: As a Liberal, I welcome wholeheartedly the Plowden proposals, partly because of their educational content and their social content and partly because they highlight the primary sector of education.
  The Report says a great deal. It is a very long document, containing more than 200 recommendations. There is hardly one which I should not want to see implemented at the earliest opportunity, and many of them will cost a good deal of money.
  I shall concentrate briefly on three areas this evening. The first is the major
  812
  proposal in the Report to set up these priority areas. I welcome the essence of positive discrimination in that. It is justified on grounds of liberty and equality. A child who is held back by an inadequate primary education is denied an essential freedom. However, if we are to set up these areas, what we have to know is what the areas are to be, how they are to be defined and who is to do the defining of them.
  In the chapter on teacher supply, the Report says that schools requiring higher teacher concentrations could have any of five different qualifications, and it refers to such matters as large numbers of retarded children, immigrants, or those from deprived areas, exceptional inexperience or weakness in several members of the staff, experimental work needing additional but temporary staff, unusually inadequate accommodation, and very large or very small schools.
  That is just in the chapter dealing with teacher supply, but I wonder if those same criteria will be applied eventually to the choosing of the areas of special priorities. Should we for instance, since the list mentions immigrant schools, concentrate resources largely upon immigrant schools, or should we spend the money on dispersing immigrants more widely among different schools? I know that many local authorities in urban areas look askance at the transport problems and costs of dispersal. They should come to Cornwall and see our problems.
  Recently, to see whether it was run in a proper manner, I travelled on a bus with some 50 children who had to travel six miles to school. That is a fairly common journey. Some children have to travel 15 miles to school. In the County, we spend £250,000 on school transport alone. The idea of shipping people from one end of London to the other is no problem in comparison. I should have thought that it would be better in this context to spend money on dispersal rather than on immigrant schools and leaving them heavily concentrated as immigrant schools.
  We should beware of regarding areas of special priority as being wholly urban areas. There has tended to be a feeling in the Press reviews of the Report that these inevitably would be urban areas. Broadly speaking, urban poverty is nearly always worse than rural poverty, but that

  813
  is not to say that poverty, slums and squalor do not exist in rural areas. There are slums in the rural areas of England, and there may be many areas with schools of that sort which need this special priority treatment.
  The Report says, for instance, that schools with an age range of 5 to 11 should have at least three classes, each covering two age groups. There are many primary schools in my constituency where that is not the case. I presume, therefore, that they would be regarded by the Plowden Council as being in need of special priority treatment.
  It is very important that we get right what these areas cover, because they will cover a substantial proportion of our child population. The Report says that they should cover about 2 per cent. of the primary child population in 1968, but that it will rise to 10 per cent. by 1972–73. Ten per cent. of our child population in these areas means that they are of immense importance.
  I turn now to teacher supply. The Report says clearly that to reduce classes in primary schools in the special areas to 40 by 1972 will take 1,000 extra teachers, and that to reduce them to 30 in these special areas will require 7,300 extra teachers. It says of the target of 30 that it is a reasonable aim, and most of us would hope that it was. Then we come up against the problem that 7,300 extra teachers by 1972, on top of what we know already about the teacher shortage by that year, is a considerable increase. The estimate is that, at the present rate of increase, classes of more than 40 will only be abolished by 1974–75.
  I noticed that the Secretary of State said today that he hoped that classes of more than 40 would be abolished by 1971. We have the Ninth Report, we have the right hon. Gentleman's statement today, and we have the Plowden Council's estimate. They are all different years. Presumably they are based on different birth rates, and the most recent birth rate has turned down. I hope that that was what the right hon. Gentleman was using today when he referred to the year 1971.
  I believe that both the Plowden Council and the Secretary of State are being over-optimistic about the teacher shortage
  814
  and the teacher supply position. It is quite likely that in primary schools we shall find ourselves by 1972 with a shortage of full-time teachers, leaving aside part-time teachers for the moment, of something over 20,000, and a total shortage in all schools of nearly 70,000 full-time teachers by that year.
  The figures which were given by the Secretary of State in his speech at Brighton in April of last year and more recently in his optimistic statements have been based on 40 as a standard number for classes in primary schools. Most of us would believe that that is not a figure at which we want to aim, because we want to aim at a higher target.
  Are we likely to close the teacher gap? I do not believe that it can be done unless we change the whole structure of teachers' pay. Many hon. Members have mentioned the Burnham Committee and getting negotiations going again. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) said that it was essential to improve the minimum rate I could not agree less. With the very large numbers of people coming forward and wanting to join the teaching profession, there is no problem. The real problem is keeping them in it. The teacher's basic salary is a very good one for a girl when compared with what she could get elsewhere with her qualifications. It is not even a bad salary when compared with training schemes in industry. It is when one gets four or five years further on that the real problem occurs.
  Mr. Newens: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the N.U.T. questionnaire, the average income per month of a teacher aged between 20 and 24 was £47 net, and that between the ages of 25 and 29 it was only £65 net? Does he think that that is an adequate salary? I can assure him that many teachers at the bottom end of the scale are extremely uncomfortable and that they find it difficult to make ends meet.
  Mr. Pardoe: Yes. I am quite convinced that they do, but when those figures are compared with average incomes in my constituency, they are laughable; yet everyone believes that they are underpaid. I am sure that most hon. Members believe that we are underpaid for the work that we do, but that

  815
  does not mean that we ought to get an increase.
  The fact is that the rate of pay has to be tied to the numbers coming in, and the teacher training colleges find no difficulty in getting recruits. Presumably those at the bottom end of the scale already have a sufficiently large carrot dangled before them to attract them into the profession. A large number of young girls may be attracted into the profession. None of us would oppose the principle of equal pay. The only way to overcome the shortage is to pay those who wish to make a long-term career of teaching. If we reopen negotiations in the Burnham Committee, this is where any money will go. I may have many young female members of the N.U.T. around my neck tomorrow for saying this, but it is right.
  Teaching aides are welcome to the younger generation, because most would welcome an extra pair of hands. We should decide where to draw the line and what jobs they will do, and teachers are right to insist on no dilution of the profession, but I hope that they will not insist on rigid demarcation, because public opinion would regard this as stupid. Even with the aides, there will still be a chronic teacher shortage.
  Therefore, can we honestly afford 20,000 extra teachers to raise the school leaving age? The Liberal Party, like the Conservative and Labour Parties, wholeheartedly favoured this move when it was announced, but it would be stupid if one could never change one's mind in our Parliamentary system. The situation has changed dramatically. When the move was announced, it was in terms of a 4 per cent. economic growth rate, which was widely expected to be in our pockets. But now we know that it will not increase by more than 2 or 3 per cent. in the next decade.
  We should also take into account the fact that, when we decided to raise the age, we had not committed ourselves to full-scale comprehensive reorganisation. Although the Secretary of State says that he is not pouring any money into this—I wish he would—it is nevertheless taking up some of our resources and has made a difference to the basis of the earlier decision.
  816
  My priorities are, first, primary and nursery education, second, secondary reorganisation, and third, raising the school leaving age. Perhaps we ought to adopt Fabian tactics and increase the age a term, rather than a year, at a time. That does not mean that I do not put a substantial—
  Sir E. Boyle: May we try to get some coherence into the Liberal policy on this? I see no merit in the term at a time idea. As it is, a considerable number of pupils stay on to the end of the summer following the April in which they are 15. Surely the worrying factor is the gap between that figure and those who stay on for a full fifth year. I have never believed that there is any merit in the halfway house of saying that, if people stay on one more term, that is going in the right direction.
  Mr. Pardoe: These figures vary greatly from one part of the country to another. There are schools in London where 80 per cent. of the children stay on, but the further north one goes, the less this applies. I am not running away from the principle of secondary reorganisation, which I support wholeheartedly and wish pushed through fairly and with enough cash to do it properly. We are hearing a good deal of the miserable words, "Can we afford Plowden?", and also warnings about the resources which are available. I wish that those who make these dismal sounds would make the same sounds about the bases in the Persian Gulf. The same people do not make the same sounds on these two matters. It is extraordinary to be told that we cannot afford these modest proposals until the 1970s. Can we avoid spending more money? We can run away and say that primary education should have a larger share or that education generally should have a larger share of social security spending, but this is ducking the issue.
  We need better secondary education, universities, houses and hospitals. One cannot run away in that way. No substantial cuts can be made in this sphere; more money has to be found. We might recognise that what we need is, unfortunately, yet another committee to investigate education financing. As long as we go on trying to finance the whole system out of general taxation, where it

  817
  is constantly competing against the east of Suez programme and other things, education will have a severe struggle to get its proper share.
  A good deal of money is available outside the general taxation system. We all know of the considerable sums which can be raised to build swimming pools or finance overseas trips. When I visited one of the new comprehensive schools in London last week, I was told about a trip to the United States of America which would cost £120 per child and that the parents would have to find the money. One child was late in paying but he eventually brought a cheque. His form master was surprised and made a joke about it being impossible that the boy's father was a school master. The boy said, "Don't worry. My two sisters have paid theirs too." That was £360 on one day. The master asked what his father did for a living and the boy said that he was a porter at Covent Garden. He may have won the pools; I do not know. But a considerable amount of money is available.
  We have seen that private education is prepared to spend £3,300,000 on the new St. Paul's School at Barnes, which works out at £3,300 per place, compared with £900 in the most modern comprehensive school in London. I do not criticise St. Paul's for spending this money. This is a standard of excellence which ought to be emulated in the public sector.
  I welcome the Report, because it recognises that education is an instrument of social revolution. We are always being told to take education out of politics. This phrase has a certain appeal to some people. I see no reason for doing so. If education does not serve social and political purposes, it serves none. As a Liberal, I want to participate in society and therefore welcome the greater participation of parents in school life. I abhor the idea of an élite. I dislike the meritocracy as much as I dislike the aristocracy. Although we should pursue a course which leads to a standard of excellence, about which we have heard a good deal from the Right wing in this country, it should not be pursued at the expense of everything else.
  I throw overboard the idea of education being designed to turn out busy and useful little worker bees. The purpose
  818
  of education is human happiness. Although the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) spoke of the need for more technicians—he used phrases of that type, as we all do nowadays; we talk about an investment in education, because we must sell education to the country, and about getting a return from our investment in the form of technicians and so on—the real values of our society would be improved by an improvement in the quality of life of the average child. Although the talent of the gifted child is important, it is the happiness of the average child that is essential—Plowden seems to carry us some way along the read to this ideal.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I welcome most of Plowden, although, like most hon. Members, I have certain criticisms to make about it. As the Secretary of State probably expects, I intend to concentrate on one section of Plowden—the proposals about nursery education.
  I agree to some extent with what is said about the imbalance that exists between primary education, secondary education and the universities. The fact that there are 6,580 primary schools about 100 years old and that three-quarters of our primary school children are being educated in them—as against only 349 secondary schools of the same age—indicates that there is an imbalance.
  I am a member of an education authority of a rapidly expanding county not far from London. We have had the experience of an enormous number of children being imported into the county, mostly from London. As the hon. Member for a highly industrialised constituency in the West Midlands, I assure the House that the problems of primary education in areas of this kind are greater than the problems of the expanding newer counties which have the benefit of new schools, as Plowden points out.
  We in Britain lag behind many countries which have done a great deal to provide nursery education. We lag behind them in spite of repeated promises—the Education Act, 1944, and numerous reports since then—that something would be done. I have had the privilege of looking at nursery education in the Soviet Union and Sweden. Far greater provision

  819
  has, for a considerable time, been made in those countries for the pre-school child. We should remember that children on the Continent and in those two countries start school at a later age than ours. Even so, comparatively speaking, they provide far more for their younger children than we do.
  In talking about nursery education, I wish to divorce this matter completely from the subject of pressure on mothers who go out to work. I approach the subject only from the standpoint of the benefit to the education and development of the child that comes from the provision of pre-school education. Mothers will go out to work whether or not nursery education is provided. The problem is that if mothers go out to work, the only way to provide the right kind of conditions, education and care for children under five is to provide them properly. If that is not done, rotten, makeshift and inadequate substitutes will be found, as they are being found today.
  I pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations that have been started because of this lack in the public sector. I pay tribute to the pre-school playgroups, the Save the Children Fund, the large number of co-operative societies which have started pre-school playgroups on their premises and the enormous number of mothers who have started these groups and other kinds of nursery classes to make up for what the public sector has not provided.
  Many local education authorities have done what they can and are anxious to make even more progress. Some, on the other hand, have lagged behind even the pressures which my right hon. Friend has placed on L.E.A.s to start pre-school classes for returning teachers. I do not want to see returning teachers as the only privileged section of the community allowed to put their children in nursery classes while they are working. Nor do I want to see returning married doctors and nurses being the only privileged group.
  I want to see nursery education expanded to include most children from the age of 3. Here I join issue with Plowden in its view of the number of children who should have nursery education. To say that we could expect 15 per cent. is an under-estimation of either
  820
  the need or of the parent's desires in this respect, and the expression of parents' opinion of parents ought to be taken into account. We could go a long way further than we do to support the voluntary groups I have mentioned.
  Nursery education should be available to any children at any time after the beginning of the school year from age 3 to the age of compulsory schooling. I would be utterly opposed to changing the age of entry to compulsory education in any way at all until such time as nursery education is available for most children between 3 and 5 years.
  I agree that more consideration should be given to the depressed areas or the deprived areas—the educationally needy areas—but we must bear in mind that if the whole group of children from age 3 to age 5 is to develop its own personality, skill and talent—and so provide the right foundation on which to build the house of our State system of education—it requires the stimulus of its peers and the extension of the child that can be made from the early age of 3 in these very vital ages of 3, 4 and 5.
  If we are building a house, it is absolutely essential that the foundations should be properly laid and built. If we are building a State system of education following through to primary school and comprehensive school up to the age of 18 or 19, it is absolutely essential to get the foundations right. I believe that, in the long run, we shall save far more money by getting the foundations right initially than by using patching-up methods and taking the remedial steps we have to take to make good deficiencies in the early stages of the system. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that there is very great concern about any suggestion that entry age into compulsory schooling should be changed until such time as proper nursery provision can be made.
  We are told in Plowden that:
  "Local education authorities should undertake local surveys at an appropriate time to assess the net cost and extra accommodation needed to establish nursery provision."
  I say that "an appropriate time" may be five or ten years away. The term is far too vague and indefinite. My right hon. Friend should now be asking local education authorities to investigate the matter in their own areas, estimate the

  821
  demand for nursery education and then submit their proposals to him. "At an appropriate time" is not urgent enough. This is an urgent problem and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take action on it.
  I hope, also, that in order to overcome the difficulties of buildings and places, he will institute a research project by the architectural section of his Department, or ask one of the progressive local education authorities—and some of them have done this before in connection with other spheres of educational building—to put in hand a research project into the kind of simple, prefabricated nursery unit that could be added to existing infant schools and so make an adequate but not expensive provision of these kind of places.
  The whole problem of the provision for young children stems not only from the present inadequacies of our education system and building—a legacy, of course, which we understand we have taken over from a previous Administration—but also from housing deficiencies. Many children who ought to have nursery education today, need it partly because of the circumstances of the whole family surroundings.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and local authorities could make a contribution fairly painlessly and inexpensively to the provision of nursery school accommodation by bearing in mind that in new developments in many towns and cities there are ever-increasing numbers of young children living in large blocks of flats with no play space attached to them such as there is in similar blocks in Sweden and the Soviet Union. There could be a joint approach by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to local authorities to earmark flats on new estates for nursery schools which could serve the young children on those estates. In this way provision could be made cheaply, at a cost of building a flat with slight modification and alterations to the lavatory accommodation and so on.
  An added advantage would be that the children would not have to travel out of the estate to get their pre-school education. If local authorities co-operated they could make a vital and valid contribution to nursery school education which could leapfrog some of the difficulties hon. Members have envisaged during the time
  822
  before we can go ahead with building the nursery schools we need. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and Science will make that approach to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government
  I am trying to rush through quickly what I want to say. I do not want to be controversial about the Plowden proposals concerning the number of children per trained nursery teacher, but I do not believe any forward-looking Government can seriously contemplate any dilution of present standards. We say that now the reasonable number laid down for one teacher is difficult to achieve because of the shortages of places and of teachers, but I do not think that one trained teacher for 60 children, with or without aids, is enough. The rather arbitrary grouping suggested by Plowden of three groups to one trained nursery teacher, is not good enough. We need to look at this again and also at the whole question of training for teachers of nursery schools.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at training for primary school teachers to see if it can be linked with training of nursery school teachers and make it all nursery-primary training. The N.N.E.B. courses are valuable. They could be supplemented with one year courses for mature women who know how to handle children. They could help trained nursery teachers without the necessity of having a two-year course. These courses should be based on colleges of further education so that the student would have two days a week release to continue with academic studies.
  In order to allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate I must conclude, but I must add a word to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for methods to find finance to extend nursery education and to deal with the whole primary sector. I hope that teachers, parents, all men and women of good will who are anxious to see our educational system improved, extended and upgraded, particularly those who are anxious about nursery education, will knock at my right hon. Friend's door and help him to knock even harder at the doors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Defence.

  823
  The way to find the money to do all those socially essential things we want to do in housing, education and many other fields of activity, is to cut our bloated, extravagant and over-burdening defence expenditure. I ask my right hon. Friend to think what he could do in the field of nursery education, or education generally, not with what was saved by raising the fees of overseas students, but with the cost of even one Polaris submarine.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: I hope the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) will forgive me if I do not comment fully on what she said. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay a good deal of attention to her comments, having regard for the persuasive way in which she put her case and the persuasive look which she gave him in the last moments of her speech.
  During the afternoon we have heard a great deal about costs and priorities. I was particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) stressed the fact that there are a great number of recommendations in the Report for which no expense is necessary. He said that all that would be necessary to implement them would be a change of opinion. However, that does not mean that the recommendations would be any easier to implement, because to change opinion is often more difficult than anything else, human nature being what it is.
  Opinions on education have changed in the past, very largely as a result of the Reports which preceded Plowden, such as Robbins, Newsom, and so on, and I have no doubt that this Report will continue to change opinion in the right direction. It certainly should, in the light of its very high standard—even by the standards that were established by earlier Committees.
  If primary education is to have a higher priority, then something else must have a lower priority. If that is not accepted, anything said by the Government or anyone else is meaningless. There must be changes in current educational priorities. If there is no change, it will be virtually impossible to implement any reasonable proportion of the Plowden recommendations.
  824
  I hope that the Secretary of State has carefully considered paragraph 1184 entitled "Priorities", which describes the criteria upon which the Committee assessed its own priorities. This paragraph poses the questions asked by the Committee about each proposal before recommending its priority.
  The criteria and the questions seem to be both forthright and sensible. One might ask to what extent the Secretary of State asked those question on any subject with regard to educational expenditure before coming to a decision. If this same criteria were used, and the same questions asked, a number of existing priorities for both current and future expenditure would take a very different place to that allocated to them.
  I wish briefly to comment on one or two points concerning the Committee's own priorities. First, on the subject of the educational priority areas, about which so much has been said during the debate, it would seem that the concept of the E.P.A. emphasises once again that in yet another sphere the day of the blanket benefit is over, that flat-rate Government aid for whatever purpose is outdated both by post-war achievement and by the more specific problems which today face a British Government. If, in education, we are to endeavour to provide more equal opportunity for all children, we should have to discriminate positively in favour of the less fortunate areas.
  Turning next to the question of inducements to teachers in these areas, I should like to add only one point to the many which have been made. Although recruiting is important, getting teachers to stay in these areas is even more so, and not only for educational reasons, for if more married teachers could be persuaded to establish their homes in these areas they would do a great deal to enrich and build up the community.
  My third point concerns building, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle). He referred to the recommendation in the Report that authorities saving money on individual major projects should be permitted to spend it on minor projects. I believe that the implementation of this recommendation would give local education authorities extra discretion, and at

  825
  the same time provide them with a powerful incentive both to look for ways of saving money and perhaps to introduce cost effective schemes on the American pattern with which to press builders for more efficiency and higher output. I know that more often than not it is very difficult for local education authorities to keep within the limits imposed on them for major school building schemes. Nevertheless, I believe that this would be a real incentive if it could be implemented.
  The Report will provide the guidelines, if not the blueprint, for primary education for several decades ahead, but I think that its importance lies not only in what it says but in what it does not say.
  Chapter 30 on Research, Innovation and Dissemination of Information puts together in its ultimate and penultimate paragraphs the many fields where further studies might fill gaps in existing knowledge. It is an extensive list of 19 subjects, plus a suggestion to set up a full-scale inquiry into teacher training. This was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). Clearly all 19 subjects must be tackled sooner or later by some committee either directly or indirectly.
  Although it might be invidious to do so, I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to one subject which earlier merited a chapter of its own. This concerns the education of gifted children, and the recommendation at the end of the chapter is that
  "Long-term studies should be made on the needs and achievements of gifted children."
  There is no section of children, from whatever background they come, who are of more overriding importance than these gifted children. It is from their numbers that the leaders of the community should emerge, but they will emerge only if their gifts and their ability are encouraged to the full. And if they do not emerge it will be less to their own disadvantage than to the nations'.
  These children must be provided with the right opportunities, but I fear that at present we may not always be setting our sights in the right direction. As the Report says:
  "There is, first of all, what may be described as an egalitarian suspicion of the whole concept of giftedness.… At the outset giftedness meets with an irrational obstacle."
  826
  Irrational obstacles and suspicion must be removed, and more knowledge and more research is needed.
  Of course the less gifted, whether in mental capacity or in the environment from which they spring, must be nurtured, but in our care and concern about their needs we must not forget the one continuing theme, the pursuit of excellence, which should run through all our educational debates. Only by providing the right opportunity for gifted children can the pace of advance towards the ever receding goal of the pursuit of excellence be hastened.
  At the beginning of my remarks I spoke of priorities. I intend to end in the same vein. According to the National Plan, expenditure on schools of all sorts is intended to rise by £224 million or 27 per cent. in the years covered by the plan. We now know that the plan is invalid. On the other hand, the Plow-den recommendations, if accepted completely, would add a great deal to the projected costs. It would be remarkable if the Government were prepared to accept all the Plowden recommendations in the time scale allowed; but, whatever is accepted, some reordering of priorities will be necessary.
  Lord Eccles said this in another place on Tuesday:
  "… the Secretary of State should stop pretending that he can do so many things at once and instead recast his priorities so that what is most worthwhile doing can be done well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords;
  14th March, 1967, c. 212.]
  Why have not the Government made a start? They have been sitting on the Report now for four and a half months. We are told that Socialism is meant to be the language of priorities. The Government must have some idea whether some of the priorities referred to come high on their list. The House will be disappointed that the Secretary of State has not used the opportunity afforded to him by the Opposition today to give some indication of in which direction the Government intend to move.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Newens: Some of the Plowden proposals would involve enormous expense, but others would not exert such a heavy pressure on the taxpayer. I am thinking of the proposals relating to improving relations between

  827
  parents and teachers. Relations could be much improved without outlay to the extent that some of the proposals would involve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) spoke of the need to change the composition of boards of managers and governors. I am in sympathy with the views my hon. Friend expressed. We should consider ways of enabling parents to serve on boards of managers or governors. It is an unpalatable fact that people who serve on local authorities appoint people to these boards on purely political considerations. This happens no matter what the political complexion of the local authority is. I know of a number of schools whose managers send their children to private schools outside the State sector. Such people should not be appointed to dominate boards dealing with the needs of those who do not have the means to send their children to private schools.
  If we did more to improve relations between parents and teachers, we should not make things more difficult for teachers but much easier, because it would be a two way traffic. Many parents could make useful suggestions and render a valuable contribution to school life. Improved relations with parents could enable teachers to let parents know what they seek to do. Many of the parents whom teachers most wish to contact are not the type of parents who normally come to school to discuss the problems of their children. It is important that teachers should come into contact with such parents and seek to exercise some influence on their behaviour.
  I have been amazed at the correlation—it is noted in the Plowden Report, and I have seen it in my own experience—between absenteeism and delinquency. In my view, teachers have an important job to do even in seeing that children attend school, because, when they are at school, they are quite often prevented from getting up to mischief which, sooner or later, would bring them before the courts. There is a marked connection, also, between unruliness at school in a particular pupil and disturbance in the home or an unsatisfactory home environment.
  828
  The Secretary of State could do much to help to encourage improved relations and improved communications between parents and teachers. It would not cost much, and a great deal of good could come from it.
  Mr. John Fraser: My hon. Friend says that it would not cost much to establish this better relationship, but will he go further and agree that, once we had parents interested on parent-teacher associations and boards of managers and going direct to the school, public opinion and public pressure for more expenditure so that we could have smaller classes and other improvements would become much greater? Would not this greater weight of public opinion make it easier for the Government to allocate more money to education so that there could be smaller classes, more teachers, and so on?
  Mr. Newens: I agree entirely. The more parents know about education, the more willing they are to have greater public expenditure on the promotion of education projects.
  There is also the need—this, too, is pointed to in the Plowden Report—to draw together the social and education services much more. I refer here to the vital rôle played by the education welfare officers. I applaud the efforts being made by the association representing education welfare officers to secure recognition of the important part which they have to play in education, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to support the efforts being made in this direction.
  Further, on the subject of drawing together the social and education services, we have seen recently how necessary it is to pay attention to the material needs of children, particularly certain deprived children. It would be most regrettable if we were in any way to undermine the school meals and school milk services, which have done a great deal to create the standard of health in the community at large which we have come to expect today.
  A word now about the age of transfer. I am delighted at the proposal for the introduction of nursery schools, but I do not consider that there is a case for raising the age of compulsory full-time or part-time attendance at school. If

  829
  there were time, I should like to develop the argument about that. In my view, it would be a most undesirable step. Moreover—I speak for no organisation in this but express a personal view—I doubt the desirability of raising the age of transfer from junior school, or middle school as it will become, to secondary school. The extra school year may not be well used in the middle school. In addition, one must bear in mind the pressure in secondary school for specialisation to begin early in preparation for examinations at the age of 14. A great deal of damage can be done. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said on this matter in his opening speech today.
  On the question of educational priority areas, I agree with discrimination in favour of the under-developed, but I utter a word of warning here along the lines of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester). The educational priorities should be related not to areas but to particular schools. Many slum schools still exist in good areas.
  In my constituency, which I imagine would be regarded as a good area, there is a primary school at Waltham Abbey with an appalling building and overcrowded conditions which are a great deterrent to teachers taking up employment there. Failure to designate my area as an educational priority area would be very unfair to the pioneer teachers who try to do excellent work in such bad conditions, because people have no incentive to go to teach at the bad school but will be attracted to the good schools which in many cases surround it.
  The emphasis must be on the educationally under-privileged in the schools and on minorities, not majorities. We must remember that there are people like the gipsies—I should like to say more on that subject if I had time—to whom the Report made an important reference.
  I want to say something about the question of the part played by teachers. There is necessity for better buildings, more equipment, aids and so on. But if I had to choose between having better buildings and so on, but with poor teachers, and bad buildings with good teachers, I should choose the latter.
  Plowden states that in 1963 there were fewer qualified teachers in the
  830
  primary schools than in 1960. Although the situation has been improved since then, we must keep our eyes on it. It is necessary to give teachers more attractive salary. I want to combat the nonsense which is talked, and which we heard a little while ago from the Liberal bench, about the pay being sufficient to increase the attractiveness of the plums at the top of the profession. It is only when we give teachers on the basic scale proper treatment that we shall get the sort of education we want.
  I want teachers to do considerably more to increase their contact with parents. But let us not forget that when a young teacher must support a family he is often obliged to do an out-of-school job to earn enough money. Something must be done to improve that situation.
  I very much welcome the proposals generally in the Report, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will seek to implement as many as possible when there has been an opportunity for general discussion. I also very much hope that he will be able to find the money to implement some of the important improvements which cannot be made without considerably more expenditure.
  I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhapton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) in that I hope that the Government as a whole will realise how important it is to cut down defence expenditure if we are to have the money we want to carry out the policies about which we have spoken today. Unless we can produce the money to do that job Plowden will, for the most part, remain merely what might be described as "a consignment of hot air". A great many of its proposals cannot be put into effect unless we put additional money into the educational services. I want to see that done on teachers' salaries.
  Many teachers have been seriously upset by the suspension of the Burnham negotiations. I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said today about his hopes of being able to announce a resumption of negotiations shortly. We shall only be faced with that struggle later on unless something is done to increase what we spend on education.
  Unless we determine to do something about what is said in the Report we shall be judged by later generations to

  831
  have had some of the vision but to have lacked the will. Education is investment in the future, and if we really believe in the future, as we must, we must also be able to find the drive and funds to carry out the sort of proposals put forward in the Report.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Hornby: Some of the later remarks of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) would perhaps have been better suited to a discussion of the Burnham Committee, although I have some sympathy with him because, sadly, the Committee has not been sitting when it should have been, so I understand his reasons for those comments. However, we are grateful for the better news about the Committee given by the Secretary of State today.
  We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate on an extremely important subject. It is no surprise that the debate has been wide-ranging, since we have a Report which covers 495 pages of text before getting to the appendices and statistics and 197 recommendations—the fruits of three years' hard work by a very distinguished Council. It is no surprise either that every speaker in the debate has regarded this as an important subject, because the children of the primary schools are our future—although we may sometimes find it hard to realise when we pass their school playgrounds that we are looking directly at what may or may not be the possibilities for economic growth and a happy society in a few years' time.
  This is an important subject because it touches on matters far wider than primary schools alone. In the Report, one looks at the problems of home life; at the relationship between the mother's work at home and her desire to earn money; at the question of whether she should or should not go out to work; at the problem of the depressed areas, where employment is less than elsewhere; at the links between primary and secondary schools; at many problems connected with the recruitment and training of teachers.
  This, indeed, is a wide canvas—much wider than just the education of children under the age of 11 or 12 or 13. We on this side of the House, with right hon. and hon Members opposite, are grateful
  832
  for this Report and I am sure that everyone is glad that there has been an opportunity on this Supply Day to debate it.
  I want to make one comment about the value or otherwise of Reports of this kind. This matter has been raised both outside the House and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) today. The suggestion has been made in some quarters that Reports of this kind are perhaps a mistake; that this will be the last of them; that they take too long to produce; that, as a result, some of the information is out of date by the time decisions are taken based on evidence given in such a Report; and that they provide the Government of the day with an excuse for doing nothing while the Report is being compiled According to my hon. Friend, this Report tells us nothing that we did not know already—in which case, I am bound to say to him that, having read laboriously through all the statistics, I am most impressed by his range of knowledge.
  In this case I disagree with the criticisms that have been made and the same goes, in my view, for the Robbins, Crowther and Newsom Reports. I believe that it has been valuable and will continue for a considerable period to be valuable to have had studies in this sort of depth covering the whole range of education. They have had to be studies in depth and breadth because education cannot easily be split up into separate compartments.
  Both for the Government of the day and for future Governments, for teachers and administrators and parents, this Report and others like it can have a major formative influence both in the schools and outside. The depth of the Report is worth waiting for on that account. I hope that parents, in increasing numbers, will be encouraged, through the parent-teacher associations and elsewhere, to spend the quite considerable sum in buying the Report.
  As for the suggestion that nothing happens while the Report is being compiled, this is not true, because a great deal has been going on with experiments in primary schools while the Report has been compiled. Nothing has been held up. Experiments in different practices and in different areas have been developed. Through its Report the Council has brought together the whole picture

  833
  and enabled us to see what is good, what is average and what is bad and it can help us to eradicate the had and bring the average as well as the bad up to the standards of the best.
  We have to recognise that the Report poses some difficult problems for the Secretary of State. He and his Department now cover a massive area of activity. The recommendations of the Report involve a great deal of consultation with local authorities and others, and although we would have liked to have heard more detail to-day, we understand why that has not been possible and, presumably will not be possible for some time. However, it is not fair of him to say that the Report has been available for only two months. I appreciate that the local authorities have had it for only two months, but the right hon. Gentleman had it for at least another two before that. We hope that the consultation will now proceed quickly and that action will follow.
  The right hon. Gentleman has further problems in the substantial range of expenditure with which he is concerned, some £1,700 million for his Department as a whole. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) said, this requires from him a most careful and difficult choice of priorities from which he cannot escape, much as he might like to. I am bound to say that I felt that he was wishing that he could escape during the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), who assured him that his door was going to be battered by the friends of the nursery schools, to which she would add the friends of the primary schools, and to which many of us would add the friends of the overseas students, the friends of harrassed directors of education struggling with secondary reorganisation and the friends of independent direct grant and grammar schools. It is getting quite a long list and I am almost sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, except that in some of these things he has the way out at the back door if he so wishes.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) said that in considering priorities we on this side of the House must not set up secondary reorganisation as being in conflict with primary proposals. I accept that the two problems cannot be separated
  834
  because of the effects on the curriculum and ages and problems of transfer, which we have recognised in our examination of the problems of selection at 11. But there are other aspects which reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.
  Public opinion has been riveted on something other than the primary schools where it most importantly belongs. The time of administrators has been taken up to a very heavy degree and, despite the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that no money is attached to the secondary reorganisation proposals, it must be a fact that there will be some diversion—anyhow of minor works money—of resources from the primary to the secondary sector.
  We on this side of the House have attached and do attach very great importance to the primary schools. Primary schools and teacher supply are the topics that we have mentioned again and again as being most deserving of attention. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was a slightly late conversion on our part. In saying that we had not given fair attention to the primary schools in the past, he was forgetting that one's priorities have to change, and his will, too, at different periods of time as different tasks come forward. I do not think that three, four or five years ago, or earlier, anyone would have seriously suggested that the elimination of the all-age school, with all that that meant for secondary school building programmes, was not right at the top of the priority list. His suggestion that we have not done as well as we might in teacher supply totally ignored the fact that we brought in the three-year period for teacher training, with precious little protest from the then Opposition.
  Again and again in speeches from both sides of the House in this debate the order of priorities in the Report has emerged as (1) education priority areas; (2) teachers' aids; (3) the improvement of the bad school and building problems and (4) the extension of nursery education. This is because these are the priorities laid down by Lady Plowden and her Council.
  One of the satisfying features of this Report is that the priorities are stated in time and money terms, the two being inseparable to some extent. As my right

  835
  hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has said, we accept the importance of the proposal for education priority areas. One must be willing to discriminate in order to work effectively in this area of social need. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe was quite right when he said that there was a brain drain among deprived children quite as important as the brain drain involved in people going overseas.
  Two criticisms which I have seen of this proposal in the Press should be specifically and firmly rejected. The first criticism made of the education priority area scheme is that this is not fair shares. It is precisely because there are not fair shares now between some types of school that this proposal has been made and should be supported. Secondly I have seen what I can only describe as a disgraceful suggestion, that this proposal should be rejected because it amounted to investing in failure. Who is prepared to talk of failure among children aged 5?
  On all scores this is a proposal which we ought to accept. I hope that it will be possible to separate the budget which is at the rate of £10 million a year over five years from the rest of the expenditure programme so that it can be seen that this is an additional commitment for this purpose rather than a redeployment of resources from other areas.
  Enough has been said about designation to indicate that there is a point at which the Minister should look seriously to see if it cannot be dealt with best through the normal machinery of contact with the L.E.A.s. Perhaps the L.E.A.s should have the opportunity to suggest the designation of schools, including sometimes a single bad school which merits consideration under Lady Plowden's terms but which may not necessarily lay in a wide bad area.
  Next, teachers' aides. One is aware of the anxieties and doubts among members of the teaching profession about teachers' aides. I am sure that it is right that this proposal should go ahead. I am equally sure that we have much to learn about the supply of people who will come forward into this type of work, about their training and about how they should be used in the schools. But those are not reasons for delaying the start of
  836
  what can be a very great help to teachers. I hope that the training methods will be kept as flexible as possible.
  In most cases, a course of two years is much too long. One might just as well do three years if one is competent to do two and go on to be a fully qualified teacher. I hope that something much shorter and simpler will be devised. It may well be that people who have been trained as aides in this way and have worked under the guidance and control of a trained teacher will become one of the right hon. Gentleman's most valuable pools of recruitment for the training colleges and ultimately for teaching. I believe that this is the right way to go ahead. I hope that the fullest use will be made of the H.M.I.s in seeing how aides can be best used in the schools.
  Thirdly, I want to say a few words about the improvement of bad schools. I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State said about the substantial provision made for more primary school building compared with secondary school building over the next three years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth said, we attach great importance to the relaxation of the minor works controls. I hope that the hon. Lady will say something about minor works. I am also very sympathetic to the proposal made to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. He referred to the advantages which might accrue from encouraging local authorities to spend on minor projects money which they are able to save on major projects. This is a valuable suggestion which could be of considerable help.
  Fourthly, I come to nursery education, which is perhaps the newest ground to be examined in considerable detail by a body like the Plowden Committee and by the House. The importance attached both socially and educationally to this matter is growing fast all the time. There is no doubt of the educational and social value of some form of nursery provision before the age of 5. My view, which is shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that the cost of providing this nation wide—£110 million is the estimate—is such that unless we accept the minority Report in favour of parental contributions or cut back on other parts of the education budget it is not likely to be possible to provide nursery facilities on

  837
  this scale. The good is very often in conflict with the ideal.
  For this reason, we put it to the Secretary of State that he should accept the closely reasoned arguments of the minority report, even though it involves some breach in the principles of hon. Members opposite about fee paying.
  With regard to teachers in the nursery sector, again I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep the arrangements flexible and let them develop. In addition, the presence of a highly-qualified adviser available to a great many schools run by relatively short-trained people will be a far more practicable proposition than a large number of long-term trained people.
  Those were the main points which I wished to make, and I turn briefly to one or two other matters. Points have been raised about the age of entry, and I would emphasise, with a vested interest as one who has three children born between the months of May and August, that there is a considerable disadvantage to children who cannot get a full three years' education before going on to the next stage, and some alteration would be welcomed.
  As several hon. Members have said, some of the most interesting passages in the Report concern the contact between school and home. In that connection, I would make one point which I have not heard mentioned so far in the debate. It concerns the rôle of school governors, about whom a number of wise comments were made in the Report. It is depressing that 30 per cent. of head teachers had to report, when questioned, that their governors were of no help to them. I am sure that it is as depressing to the head teachers as it is to the governors themselves. One would like to see considerable thought given by local authorities and others to the appointment of governors and to advice being given to governors and school managers on how best they can be helpful.
  In particular, they can be helpful as a link between the school and the environment in which it is set. As a way of making that link more effective, I hope that our school managers increasingly will include in their midst mothers or fathers of children who recently attended the school. In that way, we are most likely to get such links developing.
  838
  One or two comments were made on independent schools, and I only mention two of them. The first was the point made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe, and I would say to him that, at a time of scarce resources, it seems madness to be pressing for the elimination of independent schools. It must be the aim always of any Secretary of State for Education to seek to bring the whole of the maintained system up to the standard of the best schools in the country, whether they be in the independent or in the maintained sector. If he succeeds in doing that, it will mean probably that applications for places in independent schools will fall away. Until then, we must retain the right for parents to choose an independent school if they so wish.
  On the point mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth about corporal punishment, it seems a slightly excessive proposal that recognition of independent schools should be refused unless corporal punishment is specifically banned from them.
  As I said at the start, we have had an interesting debate. We have had before us what one newspaper described as
  "an encyclopaedia of primary education in a country of limited means."
  Lady Plowden and her colleagues have done their best to give us the priorities. Now we hope to hear from the hon. Lady anything she has to say in addition to what the Secretary of State was able to tell us and, in the weeks and months ahead, we look forward to hearing full and frequent action reports from them both.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I share the feeling of the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) that this has been a useful and valuable debate. It has shown how valuable is the presence here of hon. Members with professional knowledge of teaching.
  It would be less than frank to point out that it is a matter of some shame to us as a House that the attendance today has been so slight. We are, after all, talking about more than 4 million children in our primary schools. Many hon. Members have said that these are the foundation of most of what we wish to see in this country. Perhaps because this

  839
  is not a matter of profound dispute between the parties we do not fully recognise what we as a House have to contribute in constructive ideas to some of the most crucial issues in politics today.
  There was a moment when I wondered, in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) about "Beeching-type" salaries for headmasters, whether some of my hon. Friends were hinting that they would join the drain from the House to the places which they came from.
  I should like first to deal with the one issue which touches directly on political controversy. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who usually does not indulge in such things, was a little disingenuous in pointing to paragraph 31 and repeating the phrase used there about "creating individual educational environments" for different children. My impression of that phrase from reading the Report was that it was a hint not that selection should be retained, but rather that they support the practice which is already common in the best primary schools of trying to give individual attention to children in terms of their particular capacity and characteristics.
  The Committee has made its position clear on selection. It says:
  "When there is encouragement from local advisers and when refresher courses coincide with the disappearance of formal selection arrangements, the work of the junior schools is liberated."
  That is a wide-spreading phrase. Paragraph 410 says:
  "for the last 20 years, the 11-plus has shut off from grammar schools many who wanted to go there and whose subsequent careers have shown that they would have profited from the opportunity."
  My reading of the Report is that it clearly believes that selection, at least in the form which the right hon. Member for Handsworth does not support, has had a cramping effect on the work of the primary schools. This is a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) brought out clearly in a useful speech.
  The point which the right hon. Member for Handsworth made is one on which I am in sympathy with him and it was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member
  840
  for Middleton and Prestwich. This is the point about the nature of the training of teachers. The right hon. Gentleman made a fair point, that a narrow range of subjects was offered to many students going to colleges of education. It has been said that much may be lost in maturity in consequence of the fact that many teachers go straight from colleges to schools. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree, however, that this is, in part, a reflection of what is still often too narrow a range of subjects, particularly for girls in secondary schools. It reflects the shortage of science and mathematics teachers, above all in girls' schools, and more attention should be given to this.
  Another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich with which I have every sympathy was that about the need to get more experience of outside life before teaching. I believe that he was particularly thinking of the sort of experiments in in-service training of teachers to widen their experience and give them some knowledge of the industrial world. The hon. Member for Tonbridge referred to the link between primary schools and economic growth, but one thing which we need to do, perhaps even more in future, is to build bridges between the world of education and the world of industry, to which most of the children will go.
  The right hon. Member for Hands-worth asked a direct question about special schools and the possibility of an inquiry in them. The recommendations in Plowden will be referred to the Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children and his suggestion about a special inquiry into these schools will be very much borne in mind. With particular reference to what his hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said about counselling, this matter is likely to be referred to by the Seebohm Committee, as it obviously relates in some respects to the wider aspects of family welfare, in which handicapped children are greatly involved. Consequently, we will want to see what the Committee recommends, but we will take note of that suggestion.
  I will deal with some of the other subjects that have been raised in the debate. One issue which came up frequently was the whole question of whether primary schools have suffered as

  841
  the price of the development of secondary schools. I do not think the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth will disagree with me when I say that during the period 1960 and 1964 priority was given largely to the reorganisation of all-age schools and that this was bound to reflect in the division of the school building programme and matters of that kind.
  As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the balance is now being gradually redressed in favour of primary schools, and this debate has been useful at a time when the direction of interest in education is beginning to move the balance back to the primary schools.
  Sir E. Boyle: I would not quarrel with the hon. Lady's statement if she would generalise it and widen it somewhat and say that priority was given to secondary improvements at that time. I think that about half the money for secondary improvements between 1960 and 1964 went to the elimination of all-age schools, while the rest went to a considerable number of secondary replacements, not least of some of the older grammar schools; but I agree that secondary improvements had the bulk of the extra resources.
  Mrs. Williams: I do not want to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman and, equally, I think that he will not disagree with me when I say that one of the patterns which has been emerging is that the obsolete and inadequately equipped schools are now much more noticeable in the primary than in the secondary sphere.
  I come to the question of teacher supply, to which reference has been made by many hon. Members. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) was absolutely right in what he said about the staff-student or staff-pupil ratio being important basically in trying to improve primary school standards. His remarks reflected the views strongly held by Plowden, which stated:
  "On the teachers, on their skills and on their goodwill, far more than on organisation or buildings, the future of education depends."
  My right hon. Friend made out a good case to show the degree of priority that is being given to increasing teacher supply. Despite the fact that there has been
  842
  a rapid increase in the number of children attending primary schools—the number increased by 106,000 in 1966 and by 150,000 in the current year—the staff-pupil ratio has been held.
  It is interesting to consider the situation in just two years. In 1964–65, 24,300 students started training and in 1966–67, 33,400 students will start training. One can see from these figures the degree of effort—virtually an emergency programme—that is being put into this question of teacher training. This is crucial not only because of the rise in the number of boys and girls attending primary school but also because of the tendency, which showed up some years ago, for boys and girls to voluntarily stay on after the compulsory leaving age. As a direct result of this, the demand for teachers is extremely great.
  It is necessary to remember that the claim of the ever-rising demand—the hunger, one might say—for higher educational standards has also been pressing on the limited supply of qualified men and women. Nevertheless, within this total teaching force—and, more particularly, within the number of teachers who are now in training—the proportion of those who have taken primary and primary-secondary courses has shown a welcome improvement. The number has gone up from 72 per cent. of the total number of teachers in training—or, in absolute figures, 12,411 student teachers in 1962–63—to 80 per cent. of the total, or 26,015 student teachers now. In terms of numbers, this has been more than a doubling of the number of students taking primary and primary-secondary courses.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the need to get more men into our primary schools, and this point was made by Plowden. Despite the claims for the advantages of equal pay, which I share with the teachers, I accept the recommendation of Plowden on this matter, and my view was echoed by a number of hon. Members.
  Here, again, the position is not as encouraging as we would like, because it is still true that most men teachers choose secondary school—but there has been a slight improvement. In 1962–63, 817 men went into primary schools, and primary schools alone, while 1,902 men have done so in the current academic year. For all

  843
  students, the number has risen from 5,000 to 11,000; that is, an increase from 29 per cent. to 33½ per cent. of the total number of teachers in training now taking primary courses, and primary courses only.
  When one has said all that, it is still true as several hon. Members—and notably the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth—said, that there is a grave loss of teachers to the profession in the first 3–5 years after they leave the colleges of education. It is therefore all-important to attract as many mature teachers and as many married women returners as we can.
  Here, again, the position is, at least, mildly encouraging. Three years ago, 5,507 married women returned to the schools and 7,366 returned to the schools last year, of whom three-quarters went into primary schools.
  I still believe that there is more we can do, and I am still convinced that there is more that local education authorities can do, to try to make room for married women returners. Although I may be thought to have an axe to grind here, and perhaps I have, I believe that married women teachers have a great deal to contribute—at least as much as those fresh from colleges of education.
  The numbers of part-timers show a welcome improvement. There are now 41,000 part-time teachers and three years ago there were only 26,000, and half of the present number are employed in primary schools. We hope further to encourage that movement by reckoning part-time service for purposes of superannuation payment.
  Here, again, it is fair to mention another thing. Many part-time teachers, like many married women returners, by nature of their domestic responsibilities are not mobile, or at least are not very mobile between one education authority and another. We therefore hope and believe that many education authorities will follow the example given by some leading education authorities by making more room available for teachers who are immobile, and making sure that the stock of qualified immobile teachers is taken up early in filling the quota.
  In that respect, another encouraging movement is the introduction, so far in
  844
  only three places, of part-time training courses for married women. Married women wishing to take training on a part-time basis are showing a very welcome response and this, again, looks like an area of supply we are on the point of tackling, and tackling very usefully.
  I turn now to two or three other suggestions that are made in the Plowden Report. I was interested to find that there was support from all the three political parties in the House for the concept of the educational priority area. This is a very radical and important idea. I suspect that it is an idea that goes far beyond the bounds of education alone. It is the concept that environmental poverty, poverty in terms of schools, in terms of turnover of teachers, in terms of housing, in terms of amenities—in terms of the total environment in which children and parents live—can deeply affect educational achievement, and much of the most exciting research of recent years has pointed to this conclusion.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Tonbridge was quite right in making very short shrift indeed of those who talk in terms of wasting money on failures. These children are not failures or, in so far as they are, they represent the failure of the system, not of they themselves, and we need to put that right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) referred in this context to immigrant children. I am sure that she will have seen in the Plowden Report that the existence of children who cannot speak English, or who do not speak English as a first language, is one of the criteria that the Council itself puts forward in identifying educational priority areas, and I think that there is no doubt it will be taken very much further in the whole of our social thinking. With particular reference to education, it is worth noting what my right hon. Friend said, that there will be a quota conference shortly. As he pointed out, the building programme will take account of this concept, of educational priority areas so it is hoped that the quota conference will be able to take account of it as well.
  I turn to another issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked for a direct answer to the question of what consideration could be given to the possibility of children entering school compulsorily on two dates a year instead of

  845
  every term. I am sure that he will recognise that this is precisely the kind of subject on which my right hon. Friend would find it necessary to have the fullest possible consultations. Preliminary advice we have had indicates considerable division of opinion on this issue. It involves questions which would need to be considered by the teacher organisations as well as by local education authorities. I hope that with that assurance the right hon. Gentleman will allow us at a later stage to state our view on this matter.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry to insist on this, but it is mentioned by Plowden as an interim, not a long-term solution. Could not a further statement be made on it before the Summer Recess? I should be sorry if it were allowed to run into the sand and there were no further statement made in this House.
  Mrs. Williams: Obviously this is an extremely important matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to accept that in so far as there is delay it will be delay because of consultation itself. Clearly a change could not be made without full co-operation of all involved and it would be wrong to make the statement without taking them fully into consideration.
  I turn to the subject of nursery schools and issues raised with such force by my hon. Friends the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and others. It must be fairly accepted that this is a relatively neglected part of educational provision. I do not wish at this point to blame the right hon. Gentleman because he found it necessary in Circular 8/60 to discourage further expansion of nursery provision because he found the pressure on supply of qualified teachers so great. It was possible for him towards the end of the previous Administration to make exceptions for nursery classes or nursery provision which returned substantially more qualified teachers than were required to staff them. My right hon. Friend has found it possible to make another addendum to the circular and exception of that kind. It is fair to indicate that on a preliminary study we have been able to make on the effects of this second addendum we find that about one-tenth
  846
  of the local education authorities report that there has been an increase in the number of mothers returning to teaching of about 20 per cent., that is to say, mothers with children at nursery schools, compared with the situation before the further easing of the restrictions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough was quite right when she said that both addenda, that of the right hon. Gentleman and that of my right hon. Friend, were directed towards returning teachers to the schools. Of their very nature they were not measures which could greatly extend provision of teachers for nursery education itself. My right hon. Friend will bear very much in mind the suggestion that so far as easing can be made it should be in educational priority areas. There is a great deal of experience, not least in the United States, which shows that work done for children educationally deprived in their early years can make up for what they have lost. They are impoverished because their families are not able fully to support them or they are faced with difficulties in terms of their own councils.
  I refer to two things which have been done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough pointed out, the Department of Education has made a small grant to the Pre-School Play Groups Association by financing the salary of a full-time adviser and some of the office and administration costs. We are considering whether a grant can be made also to the Save the Children Fund to which 80 pre-school play groups are at present affiliated. Seven hundred are affiliated to the Play Groups Association. All this, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, is only a step towards the ideal of full nursery provision for all children. A great deal of the difficulty turns on the question of how these schools can be staffed. This is a matter which must be discussed at great length. We must bear in mind all the time that the first priority has to be for the infant and primary schools. Therefore, the question of staffing is at the centre of how much nursery provision can be made.
  I should now like to mention two facts very briefly before bringing the debate to an end. Many speakers have pointed to the need for greater contact between parents and teachers. I find very attractive in the Plowden Report the idea of a

  847
  brochure on the maintained primary schools, just as there are brochures on secondary schools and on some independent schools. This would give parents a sense of identification with the school.
  I also find attractive the idea of trying to explain the curriculum in primary schools to parents. Many of them do not fully understand the blending between work and play of a creative kind which is opening opportunities for their children, but which is so remote from their own experience. Many distrust this and do not fully understand what is being done.
  The Plowden Report is eminently worthy of the tradition of great educational Reports in Britain. It is infused with humanity, and with a kind of controlled passion that every child shall have the educational opportunities which the best of our primary schools can offer.
  It is not complacent. It wants to make the best still better. It makes demands on all of us concerned with education. It makes demands on local educational authorities, on teachers, professional associations, on head teachers, on administrators, and on Parliamentarians. In some cases, the demand it makes may conflict with our traditional approaches and habits. It is tempting for each one of us to tell the others to get on with their part of the necessary changes, and to reserve our own position.
  If the Plowden Report is to have the effect that we all want it to have, of opening still wider the opportunities for our children, to enrich their understanding of this fast changing world, we must each ask ourselves what we can contribute, and each of us must set about doing it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, forthwith to put the Questions which he had been directed to put by paragraphs (5) and (7) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), beginning with the Question in respect of which a Member had given notice that he wished to declare himself with the Noes.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1966–67
Question,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,916,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for expenditure in respect of the Supplementary Estimates set out in House of Commons Paper 335.
put and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with Standing Order No. 18, subsection (7), I am now entitled, if I have the assent of the House, in respect of the remaining Money Votes on the Order Paper to put a single Question on all Votes outstanding in respect of each financial year, that is to say, three Questions in all. In addition, I shall, of course, have to put separately the Question on Vote A of the Defence Navy Estimates.

CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1967–68
That a sum, not exceeding £2,907,627,800, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for Civil and Defence Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, as set out on the Order Paper.
Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1967–68

  VOTE A. NUMBERS
  That 100,500 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968.
  Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL AND DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1966–67
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £106,935,700, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for expenditure on Civil and Defence Services, as set out on the Order Paper.
Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1965–66
That a sum,(not exceeding £221,913 18s. 3d., be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services set out in House of Commons Paper 367 for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1966.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. MacDermot.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March, 1966, 1967
850
and 1968, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 210].

ESTIMATES
Leave given to the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee on Defence and Overseas Affairs to hold sittings in Europe and the Middle East.—[Mr. Robert Edwards.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles Morris.]
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Retired Persons)
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Retired Persons)
  Somalia (Departmental Officers)
  Somalia (Departmental Officers)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  National Board for Prices and Incomes
  National Board for Prices and Incomes
  South West Regional Economic Planning Council (Report)
  South West Regional Economic Planning Council (Report)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Wages and Salaries (Regional Differentials)
  Wages and Salaries (Regional Differentials)
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  West Midlands Economic Planning Council (Chairmanship)
  West Midlands Economic Planning Council (Chairmanship)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Concessionary Charges
  Concessionary Charges
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Breath Testing Devices
  Breath Testing Devices
  Pedal Car Race, Bristol
  Pedal Car Race, Bristol
  Svetlana Stalin
  Svetlana Stalin
  Private Security Firms
  Private Security Firms
  Au Pair Girls
  Au Pair Girls
  Criminal Appeal Act, 1966 (Extra Imprisonment)
  Criminal Appeal Act, 1966 (Extra Imprisonment)
  Quarter Sessions (Right of Appeal)
  Quarter Sessions (Right of Appeal)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments (Rhodesia)
  Balance of Payments (Rhodesia)
  National Plan (Copies)
  National Plan (Copies)
  Stamp Duty (House Purchase, Scotland)
  Stamp Duty (House Purchase, Scotland)
  Taxation (Research)
  Taxation (Research)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Government Proposals and Administrative Decisions
  Government Proposals and Administrative Decisions
  Official Documents (Classified Waste)
  Official Documents (Classified Waste)
  NUCLEAR DETERRENT
  NUCLEAR DETERRENT
  ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS
  ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS
  SOUTH ARABIA
  SOUTH ARABIA
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION)
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION)
  ADEN
  ADEN
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabbit Clearance Societies (Operators' Wages)
  Rabbit Clearance Societies (Operators' Wages)
BOARD OF TRADE
  South Wales (New Industries)
  South Wales (New Industries)
  National Incomes (E.F.T.A. and E.E.C.)
  National Incomes (E.F.T.A. and E.E.C.)
  Companies Act, 1948 (Auditors)
  Companies Act, 1948 (Auditors)
  Manufacturing Industry, Scotland (Capital Expenditure)
  Manufacturing Industry, Scotland (Capital Expenditure)
  Foreign Flag Vessels (Cargoes)
  Foreign Flag Vessels (Cargoes)
  Foreign Vessels (Charter)
  Foreign Vessels (Charter)
  Flags-of-Convenience Fleets
  Flags-of-Convenience Fleets
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Cost of Living Index (Increased Petrol Price)
  Cost of Living Index (Increased Petrol Price)
  Au Pair Agencies
  Au Pair Agencies
  Redundant Workers, Perth
  Redundant Workers, Perth
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zambia (Grants)
  Zambia (Grants)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Official Documents (Loss)
  Official Documents (Loss)
  Defence Establishments (Low-Paid Workers)
  Defence Establishments (Low-Paid Workers)
  Western Europe (Troops)
  Western Europe (Troops)
  Expenditure (Cost per Head of Population)
  Expenditure (Cost per Head of Population)
  Service Legal Officers (Grigg Award)
  Service Legal Officers (Grigg Award)
  Returning Forces (Accommodation)
  Returning Forces (Accommodation)
  LANCASHIRE MAYORS (DEPUTATION)
  LANCASHIRE MAYORS (DEPUTATION)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (DONORS)
  AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (DONORS)
  SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION (BRITISH FORCES)
  SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION (BRITISH FORCES)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)
  MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Science Research Council (Grants)
  Science Research Council (Grants)
  Secondary Education (Hillingdon)
  Secondary Education (Hillingdon)
  Universities (Salary Scales of Academic Staffs)
  Universities (Salary Scales of Academic Staffs)
  Overseas Students (Hardship Fund)
  Overseas Students (Hardship Fund)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Dental Decay in Children (Fruit Syrups)
  Dental Decay in Children (Fruit Syrups)
HOSPITALS
  Artificial Kidney Treatment (Statistics)
  Artificial Kidney Treatment (Statistics)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Land Commission Act (Betterment Levy)
  Land Commission Act (Betterment Levy)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Vessels (Fuel Cargoes)
  Vessels (Fuel Cargoes)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  National Library
  National Library
SCOTLAND
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Social Work and the Community (Proposals)
  Social Work and the Community (Proposals)
TRANSPORT
  Main International Traffic Artery (London-Palermo)
  Main International Traffic Artery (London-Palermo)
  Motor Vehicles (Noise)
  Motor Vehicles (Noise)
SHIPPING
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
TECHNOLOGY
  Concord Aircraft (Design Changes)
  Concord Aircraft (Design Changes)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

S.T.D. AND ALL-FIGURE DIALLING
3.5 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: 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 it is not easier to remember 01 Regent 1234, rather than 01–734 1234, especially since the name of the exchange has a known geographical connotation; and whether, since the dialling operation can be the same whether controlled by letters or numbers, the names of the old London telephone exchanges could not be retained.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while we all regret the disappearance of the old exchange names, this has become unavoidable because of the growth of the telephone system. Many London exchanges already have names which have no recognisable geographical connection, and from 1970 there will not be enough pronounceable three-letter codes left for further expansion. As a mixed numbering system would be confusing, it was decided two years ago to change completely to all-figure numbers: this will also assist the development of international subscriber dialling, since many foreign countries do not have letters on their dials. The all-figure numbering programme will be completed in London by September this year.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady for her reply. Would not the exigencies of S.T.D. or long-distance dialling be met by putting the numerical equivalent of the London telephone exchanges in the local directories? The noble Lady has also men-
418
tioned the difficulty of pronounceable combinations. Could not the number of names be increased by various mnemonic devices, even though they are not geographical? Is it not a fact that "W.D.O." is to be the new "number" of Whitehall? Is it not possible to think of making it "A.D.O." for Whitehall, where we make much ado about many things, including telephones? "A.D.O." is perhaps not a very good example of what I want to suggest—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, it gives me particular pain to interrupt the noble Lord, but could he ask a question, or leave the questions he has already asked where they stand?
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I have left them. Are not the interests of the million or so people who use the telephone daily in London more important than those of the handful of people who want to dial London from, say, San Francisco?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with great respect, I feel that the noble Lord has gone beyond the ordinary bounds of the House. May I suggest that he leaves the matter where it is?
LORD MOYNE: Would the noble Earl allow me to make a graceful quotation? I am at the mercy of the House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is not for me to allow, or not to allow, the noble Lord anything. It rests with the House. But my strong opinion is that the House feels that the noble Lord has gone far enough; indeed a little too far.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I have every sympathy with him. Perhaps a debate on an Unstarred Question might be useful in this matter. I should like to reply, but because of the enthusiasm of my own colleagues I found it a little difficult to follow the noble Lord's questions. On the question of combinations, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that already we have had to move away from purely geographical combinations—for example, in "Viking", "Vigilant" and even "Renown"; and the number combinations will enable one to dial Paris or New York far more easily. I do not

419
know whether the noble Lord is in the habit of dialling Paris, but when I visited the exchanges I saw how simple and straightforward numbering is. I am happy to tell him that the Post Office have evidence which suggests that numbers are actually easier to dial than letters.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, would the noble Lady give an assurance that the telephone user who continues to dial the name of an exchange when it has been changed to a number will not be told that the line is no longer operating but will be referred to the new number?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that will be the code of practice. He may be interested to know that a third of the telephone numbers in London will still be related to the letters, while the other two-thirds will be changed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, could the noble Lady assure me that this changeover to all-number combinations is not just a further manifestation of the egalitarianism of Her Majesty's Government?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think that I can safely say that it is not.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, while we all welcome the fact that it might be easier to dial New York or Paris, can my noble friend give me an assurance that it will be easier to dial from Tooting to Tottenham?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that I shall be accused by the noble Lord of being biased in this, but I would suggest that we have a very good telephone service. It is really second to none.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I stand on this. If wrong numbers are obtained through an automatic exchange, as noble Lords who have seen this in operation will know, this is not the fault of the automatic system but invariably the fault of the person dialling.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that if anybody telephones in the dark, as I happen
420
to do a great deal, it is much easier to dial numbers than letters?
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, is the noble Lady aware from her experience that the "jackpot" has already taken to numbers and given up the names?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. I often feel that we over-emphasise people's inability to remember numbers. I have watched people doing complicated football pool permutations which completely defeat me.
LORD PEDDLE: My Lords, in view of the difficulty the Post Office experience in regard to telephones, has consideration been given to the advisability of the City of Hull taking over the national telephone service?

DOMICILIARY CARE OF DISCHARGED PATIENTS
3.15 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the numer of patients discharged from hospital in any given area who still need nursing care, either in their own homes or in any other institution.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I regret that information is not available in the form requested by the noble Lord. I can, however, tell him that in England and Wales in 1965 domiciliary midwives visited in their homes 263,019 mothers discharged from hospital before the tenth day after delivery. In addition, health visitors visited 38,936 other patients discharged from hospitals other than psychiatric hospitals.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Could he tell me whether it would be possible for the Minister to start some such inquiry as I have in mind, to find out, not necessarily over the whole country, but in one of the areas, what these figures would be?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that our knowledge of this aspect of the Health Service is inadequate. Some little time ago there were experiments in five areas with unlimited home nursing services, but the results were inconclusive. I understand that the Queen's Institute of District Nursing have asked my right honourable friend if a research project could be sponsored by him in relation to the co-ordination of hospital and district nursing services. This he is considering, and I will see that the noble Lord's view, which is of great value, is taken into account.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful reply.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, in view of the fact that the future care service is basically within the province of the hospital almoner, would it be reasonable if I put down a Question to the noble Lord asking that investigations should be made at selected hospitals to find how far the almoner can follow discharged persons?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that it would be reasonable for the noble Lord to put down a Question. Whether I shall he able to give him all the information that he wants, we shall have to see; but certainly I suggest that he puts down a Question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, the next time we have these figures, he can give them in terms of percentages?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the figures that I have given are 100 per cent. of what we know. These are the absolute figures in this particular field. But the point is that they cannot be related particularly to the terms of reference which the noble Lord suggested.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, what I should like to know is what percentage of the number the noble Lord has given represents discharged patients who need this care; otherwise it does not convey much knowledge.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry. I now understand what my noble friend means. I think this is one aspect of the matter where our knowledge is in-
422
adequate, and it is the sort of thing which I should have thought would come out if we carried out some further research into it.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will introduce the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my noble friend Lord Rhodes on October 20 last, when he informed your Lordships that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade intends to introduce this legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which is very disappointing. I had hoped that Parliamentary time—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: — would have enabled him to answer my Question a little further. There is another new aspect. Does the noble Lord know that, while the abolition of resale price maintenance is in general of great benefit to consumers, one unfavourable aspect has been the great increase in the practice of marking down, or double marking, and that many retailers and manufacturers are anxious for this to stop? The only way to achieve this is by a Bill. Is it not possible, in view of the urgency of many matters in connection with this, that we could hear something more encouraging about Parliamentary time?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot he more encouraging than I have been in my Answer to the noble Lady, but I can assure her that the Government are quite aware of the need for this legislation. Although this

423
may appear to be a stalling reply, it is an honest reply, and the hopes and intentions are to introduce this legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits, which I hope will be, if not soon enough entirely to satisfy the noble Lady, at least soon enough to forestall her from coming back more often on this question.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, and are my Front Bench aware, that we really do find it rather irritating that this is treated as an amusing matter? Is the House aware that I am really speaking to my noble friend the Chief Whip? Is the noble Lord aware that many of us, I think on all sides of the House and outside, are concerned about this matter and deeply disturbed that, whatever Government is in power, we never can get a definite answer to this sort of question? Is the noble Lord further aware that it is just not good enough to get up and tell the House that this will be done when Parliamentary time permits? We have had this so many times in the past, and we should like a definite answer on this occasion.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend appreciates that it is impossible for me to anticipate the legislative programme before it is actually arranged and published. I would remind my noble friend that in fact legislation was introduced not so long ago, and unfortunately it fell by the wayside because of the last General Election. So it is not quite accurate to say that this is something which has been pressed on successive Governments without any result.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, there must presumably be some forward planning of these matters. Can the noble Lord therefore say whether this Bill will or will not be introduced during this Session? If not this Session, can it be introduced early next Session?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, before I reply to the noble Lord, if I may I should like to congratulate him on asking his first question from the exalted position which he occupies, and I am sure will continue to occupy, with such distinction.
I can give no promise as to when this legislation will be introduced. All I
424
can say is that the Government are conscious of the need for this, as was evidenced by the fact that it was in fact introduced some 15 months ago. So there is no reason to accuse the Government of treating this matter lightly and as something which can always be pushed to one side. It will be given a high degree of priority.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is a considerable and increasing volume of opinion that is favourable to the early introduction of this Bill, both on the part of the trade and of the consuming public?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am well aware of that fact, and it will undoubtedly play a large part in the allocation of time for consideration of the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they are using this long interval to try to get a Bill which will be better drafted than the one presented to the House in the last Parliament?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that when the Bill eventually appears—and when I say "eventually" that does not mean that I expect it to be a long time—it will undoubtedly benefit from the experience and views of all those who have interested themselves in its passage.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
3.25 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 what alternative government for South-West Africa can logically be contemplated in view of the declaration of the British representative at the United Nations that the Republic of South Africa had forfeited any right to administer that territory, having regard to the facts that:

(a) The Port of Walvis Bay through which 90 per cent. of the

425
outward and inward ocean bound traffic passes is in South African territory and never formed part of the original mandate, and no alternative port exists;

(b) All internal railway rolling stock is owned by the Republic of South Africa; and

(c) The risk of starvation amongst the black African population would arise.]

LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on South-West Africa is at present studying alternative forms of Government for South-West Africa. The report of this Committee is likely to be published in the near future.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, which appears to do little to alleviate the unfortunate effect of the statement made by the British representative at the United Nations, is the noble Lord not aware that the South African Government have gone quite clearly on record that they would only surrender their responsibility for the area by force? To reinforce that view, may I remind the noble Lord of the words attributed to the Prime Minister of South Africa, that any attempt to end his country's control over South-West Africa would be a war of aggression?
Is the noble Lord also aware that the South African Foreign Minister is reported in the Press as having said that:
"South Africa would resist with all the powers at its disposal any attempts which endanger the safety of peoples committed to our charge".
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am well aware of all the views expressed by the South African Government, and I would recommend the noble Lord to await the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for the special Session of the General Assembly in April.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could give me a reply to the first two points in my Question, because he is suggesting some action which is quite outside the realms of practical possibility.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I did not reply to the first two points of the noble Lord's Question because they were
426
not in fact questions but statements of fact of which I am well aware.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, then perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House will make some comment on this. I think it has been customary in our House to assume that in any Question where the facts mentioned must essentially form part of that Question, it has become habitual to so regard it.
THE, EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is appealing to me, but I will not venture to pass an opinion, except to say that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was rather straining the use of Question Time. I should not like to say more than that.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, it is merely a matter of procedure and again, with due respect, the noble Earl shied off the reply. May I ask him to deal with that aspect of it?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking me a question, and I do not think I can refuse to answer. I do not quite know what the question is, but I can only repeat that I thought the noble Lord was going rather further than is usual in Question Time.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is it not usual to find that Questions which are not palatable to Her Majesty's Government are considered to be straining the use of Question Time? I am bound to say that I do not see anything other than that in what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has just said.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, these things are very much a matter of judgment, but I think that if any Member of the House, and in particular an experienced Member like the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, reads what the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said in Question Time, he should ask himself whether Question Time would work if everybody asked questions in that form. I think he would agree that it would not.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, when I have taken the advice of the Table with regard to forming another Question on these points, will the noble Earl be willing to answer it?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the answer is, of course, that there is no restriction on Questions at all.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BATH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that, until the House adjourns for the Recess at Easter, Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended so far as is necessary to give Government Business, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day; and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended during the same period.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ISLE OF WIGHT AND PORTSMOUTH (SOLENT FORTS) ORDER 1967
3.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET) rose to move that the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are in the Solent between Portsmouth and Ryde four old forts, called St. Helen's Fort, No Man's Land Fort, Spitbank Fort and Horse Sand Fort. At the moment, so far as local government is concerned, all of them are in no-man's-land, and this Order brings each of them within the area of the nearest local authority on the mainland. The forts were built between 1861 and 1880, following a Royal Commission to consider the nation's defences. With the advances then being made in naval technology, and in particular the development of steam power, it was feared that the Navy might no longer be able to maintain mastery of the Channel;
428
and the forts were built to protect Portsmouth Harbour and the Solent.
I do not think that anybody, on either side of the House, will feel that mastery of the Channel against Her Majesty's possible enemies on the other side is of such immediate importance to-day as it was a hundred years ago, and for this reason the Defence Department wishes to dispose of the forts. They are deserted, but they represent a continuing liability of about £1,000 a year for upkeep. In 1963, accordingly, the Army Department decided to sell them, but three local authorities, the Isle of Wight County Council, the Hampshire County Council and the Portsmouth City Council, expressed the fear that when the forts ceased to be Crown property they might be used for advertising stations or some other purpose which ought to be subject to control. It might appear to many of us that they were right.
I remember sailing past these forts on a warm sunny day and one of my daughters, then aged 12, said "Let us buy one". I said, "I will see if we can raise the price. What shall we use it for?" She said "A restaurant, night club, coffee bar; I do not mind. Somewhere where I can give parties." Children grow up. The ambition seems to be not unreasonable, and I am sure all your Lordships would agree that restaurants, coffee bars and night clubs ought to be subject to the normal services and controls provided by local authorities even if they are standing in the middle of the water. The Army Department accordingly agreed to postpone the sale until the forts had been included in a local authority area.
This Order gives effect to proposals made to the Minister by the Isle of Wight Council County and Portsmouth Corporation under the relevant section of the Local Government Act 1933. The proposals were advertised last autumn and no objections were received. The forts are deserted and no private interests are affected, and the Minister decided, as it was within his power to do under the 1933 Act, that it was not necessary to hold a local inquiry. The Order will now enable the Army Department to put an end to their continuing liability for upkeep, and to dispose of these forts without any risk being run of their being

429
used in ways contrary to the ordinary plannings laws. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order 1967, be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think many of us know the Solent and many have sailed, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, past these forts. Those of us who know them are grateful to him for his careful explanation of the reasons behind this Order. We in this House will shortly be discussing defence. Many of us have some quarrel with aspects of the present Government's defence policy, but I think we have no quarrel with this particular decision. As the noble Lord has explained, these forts were built some hundred years ago to defend the anchorage of Spithead and Portsmouth Dockyard from distant bombardment from the East. I think we all agree they are not likely to serve that particular purpose very adequately in the future, and because of that, and because, as the noble Lord has explained, this Order is made with the full agreement of the local authorities concerned, I should like to add that we fully endorse it. I look forward to seeing what transpires at these forts in the future, and perhaps enjoying some of the facilities the noble Lord has foreshadowed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARKING PLACES (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) ORDER 1967
3.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order 1967, dated February 14, 1967, and laid before this House on February 23, 1967, be approved. The purpose of this Order is to transfer to local parking authorities in England, Wales and Scotland the Minister of Transport's powers under the Road Traffic Act 1960 to make orders creating or amending schemes which involve charging for street parking. At present, in England the Minister of Transport makes and amends designation orders for schemes which charge for street parking (except in Greater London, where the Greater London Council took over the
430
Minister's powers in 1963). In Scotland and Wales the respective Secretaries of State make these orders. The Minister concerned makes these orders on the application of local authorities.
These powers were first introduced under Section 19 of the 1956 Road Traffic Act. At that time parking meters were a novelty in this country, and their introduction aroused a good deal of opposition. It was therefore felt that they should be the Minister's responsibility and should be subject to the approval of both Houses. By 1960, however, when the powers were re-enacted in the Road Traffic Act, experience of the first parking meter schemes in London had begun to change the climate of opinion. Parliament felt that it was only a matter of time before local authorities which already made all other orders to control parking, both on and off the street, should make their own designation orders. A provision was therefore built into Section 5(7) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act of the same year to enable the Minister to make an Order transferring her functions at any time to local authorities.
The Minister considers that the time is now ripe for local authorities to make their own designation orders. Charging for street parking is now much more widespread. It has become a recognised means of controlled parking where demand is very high. Outside London 13 large towns already operate meter schemes and 4 more have applied to introduce them. The Minister therefore proposes to make use of Section 5(7) of the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Act 1960 to make this Order which transfers her powers to make orders creating or amending schemes involving charging for street parking to local parking authorities in England, Wales and Scotland. In England and Wales the local authorities to have this power would be county boroughs and county districts (that is, non-county boroughs and urban and rural districts) and in Scotland, county councils and town councils.
The Minister would, however, keep control of the essentials. She would retain her powers to approve the type and design of meters, to receive objections and to hold public inquiries where necessary. She would have new powers

431
to consent to orders before they are made and to vary or revoke orders. The Minister has retained the safeguard of consent because she still confirms general schemes of traffic and parking control (which give local authorities a certain amount of latitude in the matter of access to premises) under Section 11(8) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960. So long as she continues to confirm these schemes she considers it would be premature to relinquish all control over designation orders, because they also give local authorities greater discretion about the needs of access than they have under other parking regulation powers which they exercise without reference to the Minister. One other safeguard has been retained. Where the parking authority is not also a highway authority for a road to which an order relates, it must of course obtain the highway authority's consent before making the order.
This is a step towards getting a better balance between central and local government. Except for orders relating to trunk roads, these parking meter orders are the only ones actually made by the Minister. Local authorities already make all other orders dealing with parking and loading, including the provision of off-street parking places where charges are made. They are required only to submit orders to the Minister that affect a trunk road or if an objector claims that they deny reasonable access to premises. These safeguards will not be affected by this Order. The proposals should save a good deal of time and work for both central and local government without prejudicing individual rights. At the moment the Minister prepares the details of each scheme, advertises it, receives all objections, and finally lays the order before Parliament. All this takes a great deal of time and effort, to no real advantage to central or local government, or to those affected by the scheme. Indeed it is the remoteness of the present system from the individuals concerned that often gives rise to quite unnecessary difficulties; many objections could better be resolved locally by those who have a first-hand knowledge of local conditions.
Under the new proposals the local authority would prepare and advertise the scheme, and receive all objections in
432
the first instance. Only after it had considered these objections, and revised the scheme if necessary in the light of them, would it refer the order and any unresolved objections to the Minister. Having considered the objections—and held a public inquiry, if necessary—the Minister could then consent to the scheme, subject to any variations she might think fit. My Lords, I believe this Order raises no important questions of policy or principle but it is something which we can do within existing legislation which will be of benefit to both central and local government. I therefore hope the House will agree with me that it is high time that local authorities should be able to make their own designation orders, and will approve this Order.
Moved, That the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order 1967, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
3.41 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for kindly explaining to the House the purpose of this Order, and may I say that for myself I welcome it. This is a process of evolution, and to me, in particular, it is good news to hear that parking schemes have gone so well. I had the honour to introduce the first parking meter system in the country, in Grosvenor Square, and it was part of my honour to lend to a distinguished member of the Grosvenor family the necessary 6d. so that he could put 6d. in a meter. It cannot often be that that family is short of 6d. I am quite sure that in normal circumstances parking meters provide the best way of controlling parking. The parking attendants, who enforce the necessary parking regulations, are thus paid for, and it avoids the burden falling direct upon the ratepayer.
I understand that there is flexibility in these schemes, and that the Minister will, in circumstances which warrant it, allow other schemes, as indeed exist in my own home town of Guildford and in Cheltenham. On the whole, parking meters have served extremely well, and I am glad to hear that the Minister considers that the best plan is for local authorities to prepare their own schemes and take their own initiative. I think it would be interesting to hear whether the Minister retains any

433
power herself to take action if a local authority is unprogressive and does not produce a parking scheme when one is obviously needed in a town—whether she can herself take some action which would prod the local authority to do something. I should also be interested to know whether a county council could take the initiative to set up a charging parking scheme, in a county district or in a non-county borough which had not itself taken the initiative. Could the county council then take the initiative?
I am sure your Lordships were glad to hear that the proper safeguards are still maintained, that where objections are not overcome by local discussions and negotiations a local inquiry can still be held, at the Minister's direction, which would of course dispose of any objections that remained. I am sure that a safeguard of that kind is needed, and that the Minister should keep the ultimate consent in her own hands. With those few observations, I am pleased to give my support to this Order.
3.44 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I give a general welcome to this transfer of powers from the centre to local government. I think that this is a step in the right direction. But quite distinctively from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I would hope that parking meters are not going to be looked upon as a permanent solution to the parking problem. They are a necessity at the moment, but I sincerely hope that transferring this authority to local authorities will not in any way diminish the zeal of local authorities to clear our streets of parked cars and provide proper parking places near the periphery of business premises, shopping centres and so forth. I hope, too, that local authorities will ensure that the provision of decent, wide streets at vast expense is not offset by cluttering them up with cars as is the case at the moment.
One realises, of course, that this is a most vexed question and quite a lot
434
can be said in connection with it. In my opinion, parking meters have to be provided at a reasonable charge. There must be a differential between the long-term and the short-term parker. But while I wholeheartedly agree with the transfer of these powers, I also hope that it will in no way diminish the zeal of local authorities to provide completely adequate and proper off-street parking.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as this Order applies to Scotland, and the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, have referred to the Minister in feminine gender, may I ask whether, in regard to Scotland, the Minister concerned is the Secretary of State?
3.46 p.m.
LORD W1NTERBOTTOM: My Lords, working backwards, I presume that what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has suggested must be the case, because this Order is tabled before this House jointly between the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I am afraid that in both cases my answer must be in the negative. The county councils have no power at present to take initiative in this matter; and, again, the Minister has no default power to act where local authorities have themselves not acted. But the Minister can revoke or vary orders that local authorities have made. As the noble Lord knows, Ministers of Transport are most persuasive people, and I am sure that no local authority would voluntarily argue with them on a subject of this type.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Popplewell, the point he raised is, of course, outside the scope of the Order. But I am certain that we all recognise the fact that parking meters are but one aspet of solving the traffic problem as a whole.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TELEVISING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to. In moving the approval of this Report, I must start by apologising to your Lordships for two printer's errors. Correction slips have been issued, and are available in the Printed Paper Office. Before I refer to the contents of the Report, I should like to take this early opportunity of expressing the gratitude of the Committee to the British Broadcasting Corporation and to Independent Television for the great help they have given us throughout our deliberations. They gave us a great deal of their valuable time both in preparing memoranda and in submitting oral evidence, and we are very sensible of the debt we owe to them.
I should like now to turn briefly to the Report. The House will have noted that the entire Report, including the recommendation for a three-day closed-circuit experiment, was agreed unanimously by the Committee. But your Lordships are probably aware that a number of members of the Committee, are like some other noble Lords, opposed to the public televising of the proceedings of the House. Those noble Lords on the Committee of this view have asked me to say that, while they have not changed their opinion about the undesirability of having any public televising of your Lordships' proceedings, they are nevertheless in full agreement with the particular proposals the House is considering this afternoon. They have come to this conclusion because they think that a closed-circuit experiment will assist the House to form a judgment about the nature and the value of public broadcasting.
436
We are asking your Lordships in this First Report to agree to two proposals. First, to a three-day closed-circuit experiment early in 1968, the results of which will he seen by your Lordships; and, secondly, to widen the Committee's present terms of reference so as to include sound broadcasting. I should like to start by dealing with our main recommendation which is in favour of a private closed-circuit experiment. The Committee interpreted their terms of reference as meaning that the House desired a public television experiment. The evidence we heard, however, convinced us that such an experiment should take place only after a closed-circuit experiment had been conducted.
The value of such an experiment would, I think, be twofold. It would show Members how the House would appear when televised, and it would also provide them with some idea of the use of our proceedings which the broadcasters at present intend to make in edited programmes. It would also help the broadcasting authorities to judge for themselves the value of their present ideas about broadcasting the proceedings of the House. Your Lordships will observe from pages 30 and 31 of the Report that the broadcasters attached the greatest importance to a closed-circuit experiment. Indeed, in answer to a question I put—namely, whether it would be difficult for public broadcasting to take place without a previous closed-circuit experiment—the answers were, and I quote: "Most inadvisable", and: "We would want an experiment even if your Lordships were not wanting one". These were the two reasons why the Committee felt that such an experiment would be of value.
I should like at the same time to emphasise to the House the warning contained in paragraph (8) of the Report. In this paragraph we pointed out that, however useful and necessary the closed-circuit experiment might be, your Lordships will not receive an accurate impression of the physical conditions in this Chamber that are likely to prevail when public broadcasting takes place. The reason is this. It is because, in order to keep down the cost of a closed-circuit experiment, we shall have to use conventional television cameras, and they will take up a certain amount of space

437
in the Chamber itself, and will require a higher degree of lighting than your Lordships are at present accustomed to. There is no doubt, therefore, that the closed-circuit experiment will cause some slight inconvenience, but I am sure that in any experiment at a later date in public broadcasting, if miniature remote control and concealed cameras are used, your Lordships would scarcely be aware of the existence of any equipment in the Chamber, or, indeed, that televising was actually taking place.
The Committee considered carefully the question of how long such an experiment should last. While we recognise that the cost of a one-day experiment could be nearly £6,000 less than the proposed three-day experiment, we considered that only by taking a period of three days would it be possible to obtain a typical cross-section of the main types of proceedings in your Lordships' House. I should hope that during these three days it would be possible to cover Question Time, the Second Reading of a Public Bill, the Committee stage of another Public Bill, and, of course, one of the general debates which normally takes place on a Wednesday afternoon, and which are such a characteristic and outstanding feature of our proceedings.
So, after one day of rehearsals, which will take place on the Monday, in the proposed programmes the remaining three days will be televised continuously. The resulting signal will be shown on monitor television sets placed in various Committee Rooms. This will enable noble Lords to see how the continuous live coverage of our debates will appear. In the week following the experiment, your Lordships will have an opportunity of seeing, again on closed-circuit monitors, "dummy" edited programmes of various types, representing the uses which the B.B.C. and Independent Television might make of our proceedings. The Committee recommend that it should be left to the House to decide whether the broadcasters should be allowed to broadcast publicly any part of the closed-circuit experiment. If the broadcasters express the wish to use this material, the House should be asked as soon as possible after the experiment whether to allow it.
The provisional estimate of the cost of this three-day experiment is £16,650, and to this must be added the sum of £1,050
438
for the construction of a sound-proof commentary box, bringing the total cost up to £17,700. The Leader of the House has informed the Committee that there is no reason to suppose that the Government will alter their previous decision to make available, early in 1968, the sum of £18,000 for the purpose of a closed-circuit experiment in this House. I very much hope that the Leader will be able to confirm this to your Lordships this afternoon. But, of course, the ultimate decision to vote this money will rest with the House of Commons.
The second recommendation for which we seek the approval of your Lordships to-day seeks to widen the Committee's terms of reference to include sound broadcasting. The Committee recommend this extension of their terms of reference because at the moment they have no power to consider whether the B.B.C. should be allowed to make use of sound extracts from any television recording in its radio broadcasts. Obviously, such extracts would find a place in current affairs programmes, schools broadcasting, news bulletins, and so on. Indeed, the B.B.C. have already indicated to the Committee their interest in sound broadcasting of our proceedings, and provision of technical facilities for this would be both easy and inexpensive. Already, as your Lordships are aware, tape recorders are in use in order to help Hansard. and it may be that only very small technical improvements would be necessary in order to provide the B.B.C. with a continuous recording of the daily proceedings of the House. If your Lordships agree that our terms of reference should be so widened, I believe that the Committee would, in a subsequent Report, be able to put before the House some interesting suggestions about sound broadcasting.
If your Lordships approve this Report, and authorise the Committee to continue their work, I should like to say something about the future programme we have in mind. We shall, of course, go on preparing the ground for the closed-circuit experiment in 1968, and also examine the question of sound broadcasting. But we shall also then pursue our inquiry into several other matters closely connected with the televising of Parliamentary proceedings. These will include privilege, copyright, the repercussions of Parliamentary television on the Press, and

439
archives—that is to say, the question of whether the proceedings of Parliament should be preserved for posterity, and communicated to the young, by sound and vision as well as by the printed word. In some of these fields we shall be breaking fresh ground, and we may—I hope we shall—be able to perform a service that will be useful not only to your Lordships, but to Parliament as a whole. I trust that I have succeeded in making clear to the House the principal considerations that have led the Committee to make the recommendations in this Interim Report, and I hope that they will be acceptable. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, approving the Report from the Select Committee. If I may say so, they appear to have done an excellent job and to deserve our sincere gratitude. I am sure the House will not wish me to enter this afternoon into the general question of the wisdom or unwisdom of televising our proceedings here, although it is a question in which I personally happen to be particularly interested. We gather from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that all members of the Select Committee, whatever their views on the general question, were unanimously in favour of these proposals for a limited experiment. I certainly feel that in this they have all acted in complete accord with the Resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, which was carried last year.
My main purpose in speaking, apart from generally supporting the Report, is to answer a question which the noble Earl put to me and which will readily occur to anyone who reads the Report. The noble Earl has pointed out that, on being approached by the Committee, I informed them that in my view there was no reason to suppose that the Government would alter their previous decision to make available, early in 1968, a sum of up to £18,000 for the purpose of a closed-circuit experiment. I can now confirm that this is, in fact, the attitude of the Government.
I think that that is all I can usefully say this afternoon. I repeat that it gives
440
me great pleasure to support the noble Earl's Motion, and to express on behalf of the House, if I may, our deep appreciation to the members of the Committee for their hard and successful work, and to include in that reference the various officials who gave them such invaluable assistance. I beg to support the noble Earl.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I too should like to support the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, in what he has said. I think that the Committee's Report and the general attitude of your Lordships show once again how much more adventurous we are in these matters than the House of Commons, and how much more receptive to new ideas. Who knows?—we may even encourage our rather timid colleagues in another place to follow our example.
If I may say so, I think that the Committee have come to a very sensible conclusion. The experiment will enable us to see how televising of the House works out, yet we shall not be finally committed to anything until we have seen it on the television screens: we can leave the final decision until then. I would only say, on behalf I imagine of everybody in this House, how grateful we are to the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, and to all his colleagues who gave up such a lot of time to sitting on this Committee and making, their Report.
LORD EGREMONT: My Lords, I feel that I must say just a few words, as the man who is at the bottom of all this. First of all, I think that the Select Committee Report is a good one, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Carrington have said; and it is all the better for being as short and terse as it is. I think that we shall all agree that the Committee deserve our congratulations. They have handled a difficult subject in a most careful, sensitive and sensible way, and it is an able Report.
All this comes from a Motion of mine suggesting that we should try this television experiment. We had a Division. and it turned out that we should; and that is what we are going to do. I have in the past moved various Motions in this House—indeed, I once got a Bill through this House—but I sometimes

441
think that the next worse thing to getting a Motion negatived is to get it accepted. I once moved in this House that speeches here should be shorter. This was agreed to without a vote. But it did not make the slightest difference, except to me. If I make a speech in your Lordships House now I have to be careful. I am hoist by my own petard; hobbled like a horse, as it were. So I shall be brief to-day, and, I hope, always.
I have no misgivings, no reservations whatsoever, about backing this television experiment as proposed in this Report. I cannot think that this experiment will do any harm, and it may do some good. But I am bound to confess to your Lordships that when I was talking the other day to an elderly nobleman to whom I am devoted, and with whom I am closely connected, he asked me what was "all this damn nonsense" about televising the proceedings of your Lordships' House, and who was at the bottom of it. I had to own up, and I said to him what the infant George Washington said about the cherry tree: "Father, I cannot tell a lie. I did it with my little hatchet". I am afraid that he was a bit shocked. But he—naturally enough—belongs to a different generation from myself. I am sure that I personally shall never regret the original Motion which got this thing going, and, thanks to the able handling of this subject by the Select Committee, I am sure that none of us will.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it only remains for me, on behalf of the Committee, to thank all three noble Lords who have spoken for their friendly support for the recommendations in our Report. I should like, in particular, to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for confirming the Government's offer of a sum of money towards the television experiment. I feel that the fact that both the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition have spoken in this short debate is an indication of the importance which the House attaches to the subject of television, and this is a welcome encouragement to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

TEACHERS OF NURSING BILL
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I have been invited to pilot the Teachers of Nursing Bill through your Lordships' House, following its passage without Amendment through another place. This is a limited measure, designed to amend the prescribed practice, in the interests of the nursing profession. I am quite sure that none of your Lordships will object in any major way to any of its provisions, for it is welcomed by the whole nursing profession as it will undoubtedly improve the nursing service by increasing the numbers of teachers of nursing.
At present the General Nursing Councils for England and Wales, and Scotland, have powers to make rules granting certificates to teachers of nurses who have undergone a prescribed training, but in institutions approved for the purpose by the Councils. The powers do not, however, permit either of the Councils to grant a certificate to a person who has not undergone training in an institution approved for the purpose, even though the Councils regard the person as qualified to teach nurses. The number of such nurses is not known for certain, but it has been estimated that about thirty could he granted certificates if suitable changes in legislation were made, and that perhaps up to ten more would be granted certificates each year. The numbers are not great, but they would make a most welcome addition to the ranks of qualified tutors who are in very short supply.

443
The desirability of the measure, as I have said, is not in question. The nursing Press has advocated legislation and has welcomed the Bill, and the General Nursing Councils support it. The main purpose, therefore, is to remove the obstacle to giving certificates to a group of nurses by adding to the existing provisions, in Section 17 of the Nurses Act 1957 and Section 6(1)(f) of the Nurses (Scotland) Act 1951, powers enabling the Councils to make rules prescribing qualifications. They would then, of course, regard the possession of these qualifications as justifying the granting of a certificate.
Powers are also taken to permit the granting of certificates to persons who appear to the Councils and to the Secretary of State or the Minister, whichever is appropriate, to be qualified for the teaching of nursing, but whose qualifications do not conform to those prescribed elsewhere in the rules made under these sections. This will permit flexibility in dealing with unusual or new qualifications. For simplicity of drafting, Clause 1 of the Bill substitutes a new Section 17 for the existing Section 17 of the Nurses Act 1957; and in Clause 2 a similar substitution for Section 6, subsection (1)(f), of the Nurses (Scotland) Act 1951 is made.
In reframing the sections giving powers to the General Nursing Councils to grant certificates to teachers of nurses, opportunities have been taken, in the opening sentence of each of the new sections as set out in Clauses 1 and 2, to place beyond doubt the Councils' powers to limit the certificates to certain classes or descriptions of persons; namely, registered or, in England and Wales, listed nurses. Both Councils' rules already do this, but may be ultra vires. The opportunity has also been taken to make it clear that Councils can prescribe qualifications as to experience as well as formal qualifications. This provision is made in the final sentence of Clause 1 and of Clause 2.
The Scottish rules already prescribe experience, and the English rule did so until 1965, when new rules removed the prescribing of experience as this was thought to be ultra vires. It is necessary to be able to prescribe experience, however, as in the effort to increase the number of qualified tutors courses are being arranged, in theory and practice of educa-
444
tion, which do not include nursing subjects. Therefore, the Councils should be able to prescribe the minimum experience and responsibility in the practice of nursing which they consider necessary when the formal qualification does not cover nursing subjects.
I apologise, my Lords, if I have been a little technical, but it is necessary to explain very clearly what provisions are being made so that the various nursing authorities, when they come to read Hansard, will fully understand the position. I think I have covered the main provisions of this useful little Bill, and I hope the House will approve it and give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
4.13 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is a fairly rare pleasure for those of us on this side of the House to be able to applaud and agree to everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, says. I am very happy that it falls to me to express it this afternoon, because I am sure that those of us on this side of the House also welcome this very useful though small Bill. It is a small Bill, and it affects only a small number of people in a rather narrow sector, but I think I can safely predict that there will be more people grateful for the benefits that accrue to patients in hospital through the working of it than there will be citizens who are grateful for the benefits of some of the other rather weightier measures that we have been handling in this House in the last few weeks. I think it will confer tremendous benefits in time. There is a great need for more teachers of nursing, and any Bill or measure which increases their number will be very welcome.
I have no points to make on the Bill itself, either in outline or in detail for the Committee stage. There is only one point that I should like to make before I sit down, and that is that by and large the teachers of nursing, and those who have the job of administering hospitals as matrons, all come from the same profession. A ward sister at the age of about 35 has to choose between going to the teaching side or the administration side. Apart from her own sense of vocation, I think she is bound to be influenced by the fact that the maximum salary for a matron is £2,100 and that for

445
a principal tutor £1,500. While welcoming the measures in this Bill, I would draw attention to this point and invite the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to comment, if he is able to do so.
4.15 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness for the introduction of this Private Member's Bill in this House. As one who for some years was chairman of a hospital management committee and a member of a Regional Hospital Board, as well as being involved with the Queen's Institute of District Nursing, I know how important it is that we should have a sufficient number of sister tutors. In addition to this, for the last 12 months I have been a member of a small working party set up at the request of the Royal College of Nursing—a request which went to the King Edward Hospital Fund—to work on this very problem of the shortage of sister tutors available in the field. We came to some extremely interesting conclusions, with which I will not bother the House this afternoon, but I am glad that, as a result of this Bill, we may hope to have even the small increase in the number of sister tutors, or teachers of nursing as this Bill calls them, that are to be available in the future.
I notice that this Bill was before another place some eight and a half months ago, and that it will take six months from the moment it reaches the Statute Book before we can get the benefit of the measure to which we are hoping to give a Second Reading this afternoon. On that occasion in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said that the Government supported the Bill in its entirety and that it was hoped, as a result of the Bill, to get about thirty teachers immediately—that fact we have heard this afternoon—and possibly ten additional teachers each year thereafter.
We have not yet got the thirty teachers immediately, because it is now eight and a half months since the Bill came forward; and, grateful as we are to the noble Lady for introducing it to-day, it is a pity we did not have it perhaps a little sooner. We are also having to wait another six months before we have the advantage of these potential thirty sister
446
tutors who are waiting to be authorised to teach. But I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will come into force as soon as possible so that the time-lag of the future will be shorter than it has been in the past.
4.18 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I, too, like the other noble Lords who have spoken, welcome this Bill. It is an extremely valuable Bill from the point of view of the profession—a profession which we ought to honour and recognise in its fulness, as we do now with some reluctance. We have always accepted the benefits of the nursing profession, but we have never given it the dignity which it deserved. Here, at least in one form of improved standards and recognition of improved standards, we are trying to give that kind of recognition.
It is also very important that we are here setting standards which not only will be of value in this country but are desperately needed throughout the whole world. I speak bearing in mind the great deal of work which is being done in creating sister tutors for the World Health Organisation and elsewhere throughout the world. The training of the teachers to teach the nurses has been one of the difficulties of many of the projects which have been undertaken by the World Health Organisation.
I feel rather sanctimonious, coming from Scotland, because as usual Scotland has in this case used a great deal of foresight and has moved well ahead of even this admirable Bill. We have in the University of Edinburgh the only Department of Graduate Nurses in Britain; and the graduate nurses we are teaching there for both their B.Sc. or M.A. degree, or for a one-year diploma or a two-year diploma, are in fact being produced not only for ourselves but for overseas. We have something like ten post-graduate nurses under training under World Health Organisation scholarships and fellowships at Edinburgh. The work being done there, the standard we have been able to establish, and the recognition we have been able to acquire, will reflect itself in terms of the registered nurses whom we are also going to encourage under this Bill. I think that the development of this advanced education for nurses is going to raise the status of appreciation of nursing. We do

447
not have to raise it in the public esteem; but we ought to raise it in the profession itself. I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply what the Nursing Council foresee as the kind of people and quality of people we are going to produce with the help of this Bill.
4.23 p.m
LORD BESWICK: I should like, first of all, to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, in expressing my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for being to ready to accept responsibility for the introduction of this Bill to this House. The Government support the Bill, and very briefly I propose to say why. All of us are conscious of the importance of the nursing profession in our national life, and all of us are ready to pay tribute, as did my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, to the individual members of that profession. There are times more than others, but to almost all of us there is some time, when we have particular and personal reason for realising our indebtedness to them. Yet few of us pause to consider how the standards of service and efficiency of the profession are maintained. Undoubtedly proper training is the starting point. The training of nurses has received more serious attention recently than for a long time past. Good training requires close integration of theory and practice. But training carried out in schools of nursing closely associated with hospitals poses special problems. It is necessary, for example, to ensure that service to patients does not prevent the student from receiving a properly planned training. This is particularly true under the syllabus introduced experimentally by the General Nursing Council in 1962, which is thought to be a great improvement on the previous syllabus and is being widely adopted. Discussions have taken place recently with the General Nursing Council about experimental schemes of training, and measures which can be taken by hospitals to help the student nurse to take full advantage of a planned training. Suggestions will be made shortly to hospital authorities which we hope will bring improvements.
Clearly, however, the quality of training is primarily dependent on the quality of those who control the courses and do
448
the teaching. It is important, therefore, that there should be an adequate number of qualified tutors. The introduction of the 1962 syllabus, which makes more demands of the tutor, has emphasised the need for more qualified tutors. At present this need is being met by employing more unqualified tutors who already form a large part of the tutorial force.
The General Nursing Council are very concerned with the question of increasing the numbers of nurse tutors. Current courses mostly take two years to complete, and many nurses are unwilling or unable to leave home to undertake them. An experimental one-year course is running at a technical teachers' training college, which is also starting a special experimental "sandwich" course. Some expansion of existing courses is possible, and the Council have also been considering with other bodies the possibility of organising further courses. But none of these measures—except the one-year course—can bring qualified tutors to the nurse training schools sufficiently quickly. It is against this background that the Government find in this Bill a means by which the General Nursing Council may register as qualified nurse tutors any nurses who wish to do this work, and whom the Council are satisfied have the requisite skills. I share the noble Lady's disappointment that it was not found possible to bring the Bill to this House earlier; but there have been Parliamentary reasons for that.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder asked about the sort of person whom the Council have in mind as possessing the requisite skills to become a tutor. All potential tutors, of course, must have nursing qualifications and experience. That is the prime qualification. But, additionally, there may be persons with such qualifications and experience who have degrees which suggest their suitability as teachers. Others may have had experience of teaching in some other discipline. For example, I was told of one case of a teacher of physiotherapy in a teaching hospital, as well as another who has completed a two-year course at a teachers' training college and holds a diploma in advanced biology and psychology. At present the General Nursing Council are prevented by Statute from accepting such persons as qualified because they have not taken the course

449
prescribed by the 1957 Act. if the Council did take them (this is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said) their pay would be less than that of a qualified nurse tutor.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, also drew a comparison between the salary to be earned by a hospital matron, on the one hand, and a successful nurse tutor, on the other. I am not sure that this is a fair comparison, since, after all, the matron is, strictly, responsible for the school attached to her hospital, as well as for all other matters which one normally associated with her duties. However, I understand that it is a fact that, generally speaking, the salary of a principal nurse tutor is equal to, or similar to, that of a deputy matron. I am glad to remind the House that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health announced last week that he accepted the proposals of the Salmon Committee which provide for higher-paid posts in the tutorial service. The Nurses Act 1957, as amended by this Bill, will give the General Nursing Council, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill has said, greater flexibility and a wider discretion, while at the same time safeguarding the standards. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible speedily to pass this Bill through all its stages in your Lordships' House.
4.28 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSK1LL: My Lords, I should like to thank speakers from both sides of the House for the unanimous support they have given this Bill. May I ask my noble friend just one question? It can be a rhetorical one, and he can give me the answer afterwards. Will he use his powers to expedite the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book? So many Private Members' Bills embodying important provisions affecting the social life of the community are held up. If my noble friend consults the Hansard of another place he will see that last Friday 11 Bills were obstructed. This Bill has now received the support of both this House and the other place. Therefore I should be grateful if he could do everything in his power to expedite it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my power is limited; but it will certainly be used.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT BILL [H.L.]
4.29 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Signification of Royal Assent]:
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY moved to add to subsection (1):
"( ) Her Majesty's Assent shall, so far as practicable, be pronounced in the form and manner customary before the passing of this Act at least once in each Session of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The purposes of this Amendment is to write into the Bill a view, which was expressed on both sides of the House during Second Reading, that our procedure of giving the Royal Assent by Royal Commission should be preserved at least once in a Session. I should like to make clear that this Amendment is not intended to cast any reflection upon the intention which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated during the Second Reading, that this old procedure would take place at least once in every Session. But, of course, the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that he will not be in Office forever. For myself, and I am sure I speak for all your Lordships, so long as the noble and learned Lord is in office we are quite happy that this procedure will be carried out once a Session, but after that there will be nothing in the Bill to provide that that should be done; and it would be quite easy for the procedure under subsection (1)(b) to come to be used entirely and for the procedure under subsection (1)(a) to fall into desuetude. As your Lordships know, once something has been abandoned it becomes a precedent that it is abandoned, and it may never be used again. As I say, the purpose of this Amendment is to see that, that shall not happen in this case.
I think that, before coming to the terms of the Amendment, I should first remind your Lordships of the position with regard to the prerogative, because if your Lordships will refer to column 1181 of Hansard of March 2, you will note that at the commencement of the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said this:
"My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Royal Assent Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill."
Of course this Bill is entirely concerned with the prerogative, and Her Majesty sent that Message which was read out by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the commencement of the proceedings of the Second Reading debate.
Now I turn to the actual terms of the Amendment. Your Lordships will see that it reads:
"Her Majesty's Assent shall, so far as is practicable…".
I have put in those words because it is conceivable that there could arise a situation in which it was not possible to comply with the Amendment without the addition of those words. Perhaps I can best illustrate that by quoting a hypothetical case. The Government of the day might decide, at short notice, either to ask for a Dissolution or to prorogue. It might be that at that moment there were no Bills awaiting the Royal Assent. In such a case the Statute could not be complied with, and I think it will be agreed on both sides of the Committee that we must not put something on the Statute Book which, in certain events, could become a nonsense. That is the reason for the insertion of those words: to cover a hypothetical case, possibly a case such as I have quoted, which might never occur but could occur.
There is another matter which I think I should mention. During the Second Reading debate the hope was expressed that perhaps Her Majesty might, again at her pleasure, come to your Lordships' House and give the Royal Assent in person. The hope was generally expressed that perhaps she would do that on some occasion. That position of course is
452
safeguarded in the Bill already by the provisions of Clause 1(2) and nothing in the present Amendment would affect it. On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would consider whether something of this sort to preserve the procedure under paragraph (a) could be put into the Bill. This Amendment is an attempt to do that. It might not be the right way to do it, but I very much hope that it is. It is an attempt to preserve in the Statute, as the Bill will become, a ceremony which, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, is full of history. I believe it is the wish of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee that that should be done, and therefore, in the hope that this Amendment may do what I intend, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Grimston of Westbury.)
4.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): This is an Amendment which I think the Committee will receive with sympathy. I said on Second Reading that all Parties had agreed that the present intention was that we should have several Royal Commissions in the first year after the Bill was passed, and afterwards at least one every Session and, I think they also agree, at every Prorogation. I think we are all united in not wanting to lose this ceremony and that that intention should be carried out. Therefore it is natural that we should all sympathetically receive an Amendment designed to ensure that that is so.
There are, however, one or two considerations, none of them being of a Party political nature at all, to which I think I ought to draw the attention of the Committee. In the first place, such an Amendment would be very unusual. We do not ordinarily legislate in a matter which does, or even may, affect the prerogative without first asking Her Majesty. This was done on this occasion, and, as the noble Lord has said, the House is on such occasions informed by a Minister, who must be a Privy Counsellor, that that has been done. The proposals to which Her Majesty's Assent has been invited are proposals which do not in fact infringe the prerogative in any way at all. The

453
Bill, as the Committee will understand, leaves the prerogative exactly as it is; it leaves the Royal Assent in person exactly as it is and it leaves the Royal Commision exactly as it is. All it does is to provide a third and simpler method, not strictly of giving the Royal Assent, but of declaring it to both Houses; and it leaves Her Majesty free to decide which method is to be used at which time.
This Amendment, however, limits the prerogative. It is saying, "You must employ this particular method on these particular occasions". The noble Lord has not told us whether he has asked Her Majesty whether she has any objection to that; and if not, this would, I venture to think, be somewhat irregular. I am not quite clear what the effect of it is. The words are, "so far as practicable", whatever they may exactly mean. But who is to decide whether it is practicable or not? Is it Her Majesty or is it the Government, is it this House or Parliament? What happens if there is a disagreement as to whether it is practicable or not? I am sure that the Committee would agree that when we are dealing with anything so fundamental as the legality of legislation we must be certain.
I am not even clear about the legal effect. Suppose that three weeks before the end of a Session a number of Bills were ready, the Government wanted them to pass into law at once and there was a Royal Assent by the new method, and then the usual channels agreed that there was another Bill which would have to receive the Royal Assent before the end of the Session and they intended that that Bill should receive the Royal Assent by a Royal Commission. If that Bill did not in fact receive a Third Reading and there was therefore no Bill for the Royal Commission, without anybody intending it the Session would end without there being a Royal Commission. Is the effect of that that the previous Royal Assent is invalidated? Though it was praticable to have a Royal Commission for the Bills taken together, because the usual channels believed there to be another Bill to come, there was in fact no Commission. Is the effect of this that the Royal Assent is invalidated because it should have been by Royal Commission? Does it mean that all the Bills which purported to receive the Royal Assent on that occasion are invalidated,
454
although people had been relying on them as an Acts of Parliament? When dealing with the power to legislate we should be quite certain of the effect of the legislation which we are passing.
There is also this consideration—and I hope the noble Lord will not regard me as too old-fashioned or conservative, stuffy or reactionary, if I say that I think that nearly everybody in this country is glad that we do not have a Written Constitution. We have a Constitutional Monarchy, and that must mean, must it not, that there are conventions which it is important to observe? There are a great many things in law which only the Sovereign can do or decide, but it is the convention that the Sovereign, in acting or deciding, will heed the advice of his or her Ministers. Somebody may say that that is all very conventional; that it would be better to take all these legal powers away from the Sovereign and give them to the Government of the day. But if that were done, we should no longer have a constitutional Monarchy.
Let me take a simple and perhaps apposite example. If the Government have a number of Bills which have passed through both Houses and want them to receive the Royal Assent, they do not say to the Queen, "On March 22 we are going to have a Royal Commission." Not at all. Every time the Government want a Royal Commission, I write to the Queen and I say:
"The Lord Chancellor with his humble duty to your Majesty submits for Your Majesty's signature, if you shall so please, a Commission for giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills, the Titles of which are herewith enclosed."
Then Her Majesty graciously agrees, and we proceed from there.
Here is a Bill about which it is possible to take the view (I say it is possible because I myself take this view) that it is of a kind which ought not to be introduced at all, except after proper discussions and after it has received the approval of the Leaders of all Parties, in both Houses, and of Her Majesty. It does not infringe the prerogative at all, but it is accepted, with the agreement of all Parties that the present intention—because I agree that nobody can bind the future—is that there shall be several Royal Commissions in the first year, and after that at least one a Session, and one at each Prorogation. I suggest that this

455
is the right way to do it. This Amendment, however, says that it must be done in a certain way. If, for some reason, Her Majesty thought it more convenient to use the new method, this Amendment says that she cannot do it; that it has to be done in this particular way. I respectfully suggest that this is not the right way of doing it.
I am sure that a number of these considerations would not naturally have presented themselves to the noble Lord's mind when he put down this Amendment. I can quite understand that. But I hope that he will not divide the House on it—and I say "divide the House", because I cannot accept the Amendment as I am bound by the agreement which has been made, after long discussion and with Her Majesty's approval. The noble Lord may remember that I read to your Lordships on Second Reading not only the terms of the Royal Warrant, which is in the Bill, but also the terms of the Certificate which is to be given by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to Mr. Speaker, and even what the two Speakers are to say. In these circumstances, I would invite the noble Lord to consider whether this is not a matter which ought to be dealt with by common consent; and I suggest that it would be unfortunate if on a Bill of this kind the House were to be divided.
4.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I listened with interest to the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He has deployed a number of reasons, some cogent and some less cogent, for non-acceptance of this Amendment. One of his reasons I should like to answer, if I may, because, with great respect, it did not seem to me in the least degree right or convincing. He said that we must be quite certain about the effect of this Amendment; and I agree. I should have thought that it was certain that this Amendment imposed a duty on someone to secure that there should be a Royal Commission at least once in every Session of Parliament. I was surprised to hear it suggested that the imposition of that duty on someone could possibly have the effect of invalidating the Royal Assent to Bills previously given, by whatever method that was given. I do not think that the effect of
456
this Amendment could conceivably be understood as having that result.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made clear what the process is for securing a Royal Commission for giving Assent to Bills. He writes to Her Majesty. It is Her Majesty's decision. I think it is clear that the effect of this Amendment would be to impose a duty on Her Majesty in relation to a matter which is entirely within Her Majesty's Prerogative. I sympathise to a great degree with what my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury said, but I think that it would be quite wrong to insert this Amendment into the Bill and in that way seek to fetter the exercise by Her Majesty of Her discretion and Her Prerogative.
I think that everything that has been said shows that we all agree that we want to see this old ceremony continued, and I would suggest to my noble friend that he should not press his Amendment, but should withdraw it. Then, should this Bill pass through all its stages, he should consider tabling a humble Address, which we could all support, with the view to acquainting Her Majesty of the views of this House that if possible—I would use the word "possible", and not "practicable"—the Royal Commission procedure should be used.
Such an Address does not seem to me in any way an infringement of the Royal Prerogative, or in any way seek to interfere in matters which are not properly within the province of this House. Therefore, I would support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the whole way, except for one of the reasons he advanced, in saying that this Amendment ought not to be made. I hope that my noble friend will not press it. If he does, I shall feel constrained to vote in the opposite Lobby. On the other hand, if he feels that it would be right to table such an Address, then I should certainly give my support to it.
LORD CARRINGTON: It is for my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury to decide what he is going to do, but I must say that I was impressed by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, and what my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has said, and particularly with the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend in the

457
latter part of his remarks. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury would consider doing something on the lines suggested.
However, I rise primarily to ask one question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Either I misunderstood him, or he has inadvertently misled me. I understood him to say that there was to be a Royal Commission at the end of each Session, as well as one at Prorogation. Surely, the ceremony of the Prorogation does not come under the terms of the Bill. Therefore, there must in any event, regardless of what is laid down in the Bill, be a ceremony at Prorogation. I think that, perhaps inadvertently, the Lord Chancellor may have misled the House in this respect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely accept what the noble Lord has said.
LORD CONESFORD: In common with many of my noble friends I have the greatest sympathy with the object which I am sure prompted the noble Lord to put down the Amendment, but I think, for the reasons which have been so amply given, it would be unfortunate for these words to appear in the Bill. Although there would be alternative ways of drafting what is in the Bill, the Bill as it now stands reads in a straightforward and dignified way that does not appear to cast any particular duty regarding the way in which the prerogative should be exercised. I think that is right. I think that what my noble friend intends to insert would have an unfortunate effect, and for that reason, as one who supports him in his object, I would add my word in support of the advice that has been given that he should withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I may say that I had no intention at any time of dividing the House on this matter. However, I think this debate has produced a reaffirmation of the general desire that this ceremony should not disappear. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, an ex-Lord Chancellor, has answered the present Lord Chancellor, and I will not attempt to do so. However, before I withdraw the Amendment I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chan-
458
cellor could say a word in relation to the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne about the possibility of an humble Address to Her Majesty, which I understand should be done at the same time as the Bill is passed. It would, perhaps, be a little unfair to ask him to give a Yes or No at this moment, but perhaps he can say whether the Government would facilitate a procedure of this sort, in order that, in a proper way, we may make it known that we should like the old procedure to be continued every so often in order to preserve the old historical system.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not had an opportunity of considering this point, but I will certainly do so. It is, I think, always open to noble Lords to move such a Motion. I should like to consider it; and perhaps noble Lords would consider whether it would or would not be a good thing for one House to express their view to Her Majesty. One would have to see, I suppose, what the position was in the other place. This is a matter for consideration, and I will certainly consider it.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I wish to raise a point with regard to Clause 1. It really links up with a point that I wish to raise on Clause 2; the two go together. A few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, perfectly accurately, that the Bill leaves the Royal Commission as it is, and indeed provides a third method of notifying a Royal Assent to Bills. I agree that that is the object. But if that is so, I should like an explanation of the inclusion of paragraph (a). I can see no need for those words in the paragraph if the purpose of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord said, is merely to provide for a third method of giving the Royal Assent.
The provision for giving the Royal Assent by Royal Commission is contained in a Bill of Attainder of Catherine

459
Howard, and I think the Short Title of that Act is:
"The Royal Assent by Commission Act, 1541."
So that if one left that Act in force, there would be no need to say anything in the Bill about the holding of a Royal Commission; this Bill need only be confined to adding the third method. But, for some reason which I do not understand, we find in subsection (2) of Clause 2 that an Act of 1541 is to be repealed; and instead of the Royal Commission procedure depending upon statutory authority it will in future, if I understand this Bill aright, depend upon what is the form and manner now customary at this time. I find it difficult to understand why that change should be made. Presumably, there is some object.
So far as I can see, the purpose of the Bill would be completely achieved if paragraph (a) of subsection (1) in Clause 1, and subsection (2) of Clause 2, were omitted. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (and I think I wrote to him about this matter, in the belief that I might not be able to be present when it was coming up at an earlier stage) will be able to satisfy my anxieties about this. It seems to me undesirable that we should replace a statutory provision for a Royal Commission, made, it is true, by a very old Act of 1541, by a reliance on custom, which is provided for in paragraph (a), unless there is very good reason for it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is, of course, the sort of point which Parliamentary draftsmen consider most carefully, and in this case, in view of the importance of the Bill, it was done by the chief Parliamentary draftsman, who drafted the Bill himself. One could, I suppose, in principle, have left the old Act and dealt only with the new method in this Bill, though I suppose there might then be some question as to whether this Bill was intended to replace the old method by a new one, or whether the old Act had impliedly been repealed. The reason why I understand the draftsman did it in this way was, first, because we all know to-day, from the ample records, what the present procedure of a Royal
460
Commission is. One of the draftsmen is going steadily through the Statute Book chronologically from the point of view of Statute Law revision. He has now got up to about the Reformation—that is to say, about this period—and I am told that the old Act would in any event have been in the next Statute Law Revision Bill, as something which it was no longer necessary to keep on the Statute Book. Of course, it will remain so far as historians are concerned. But we all know to-day exactly what happens when there is a Royal Commission.
The old Act, in fact, does not really describe it. It provides that the Royal Assent is made by letters patent, declared and notified to the House. But its title was:
"The Bill of Atteynder of Mestres Katherin Hawarde late Quene of England, and divers other psonnes her complices."
It contains no actual reference to the Royal Commission at all, and it was nor until 1948, when Bills were given Short Titles, that it was given the short title of the "Royal Assent by Commission Act". In fact, all it does is to provide for a Royal Assent to be lawful if given by Letters Patent signed by the Queen's own hand, and for this to be declared and notified to the two Houses in the Upper House. As I say, it does not actually refer to the Royal Commission, so there is really no point in keeping it on the Statute Book. It was for those reasons that it was drafted in this way.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of matters which, to say the least, were not clear on the face of this Bill. Of course it could have been made clear, as a matter of drafting, that this new procedure was additional to the old procedure; but, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I think perhaps there are advantages to be derived from the inclusion in this Bill of the subsections to which I have referred.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, without amendment: Report received.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
5.1 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It is a Bill which, as your Lordships know, has been the subject of careful and rather lengthy debate in another place, but we have also given it a careful examination here, even though our debates were less prolonged. One thing on which I think we would all agree is that the debates we have had here on this Bill have been both expeditious and free from acrimony. At the end of the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, who I understand unfortunately has been unable to come to-day, said how agreeable it had all been. That was a strange thing to say about a major Bill for nationalisation, but I think this is a word we should apply to all stages of the Bill, and possibly it is a little late in the day for me to introduce acrimony—although I have some up my sleeve should this be necessary when I come to reply.
This does not mean, of course, that there have not been genuine and indeed strongly-held differences of opinion. Nor does it mean that the debates have not been constructive and useful. I freely admit, and indeed I welcome the fact, that the Bill has been improved by its passage through this House.
It might be helpful if I were to summarise the changes we have made in the Bill, because they help to illustrate the way in which our thinking has gone and the willingness of the Government to meet genuine, constructive criticism. All the changes tend towards increasing the flow of information reaching Parliament about the steel industry and the activities of the National Steel Corporation. There were, for example, the Amendments originally put down on Committee in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, requiring the Minister to define by Orders subject to Parliamentary procedure those private sector development projects in the basic field of iron and steel making, which required his consent. There was also the Amendment
462
put down by the same noble Lords extending the scope of the Corporation's annual report to cover all subsidiaries and not just the publicly-owned companies. Therefore, the Amendment required the Minister to inform Parliament whenever he decided not to take action on a representation made to him by the Consumer's Council, which is an important protection in certain areas of industry.
Moreover, I suggest that the Amendments were not the only useful result of our discussions. There were, what I think it is fair to say—even though I made some of them myself—some really important statements of Government policy. For example, there was the important statement made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Shepherd about arm's-length trading. He then said that the Corporation, in providing the information required by Clause 25, would inevitably have to explain a good deal of the basis of trading inside the public sector, and in this he also promised that the Minister of Power would discuss with the Corporation the possibility of including in its first report to the Minister, which he has to put before Parliament, a statement about the principles of this trading. In either case, Parliament would be well informed about the public sector's trading practices, and this information would—and I should like now to take the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on Report—cover book sales. I hope this assurance meets the concern expressed by the noble Lord.
There was also the statement which I made on Report about the publication of information in the Corporation's accounts about loans by the Corporation to publicly-owned companies engaged in diversified activities. Finally, and appropriately, in view of the main concern of these Amendments and assurances, there was the statement which I made on Report about the Government's answerability to Parliament for the operations of the nationalised steel industry.
I think that all these Amendments and statements reflect substantial agreement on all sides about the way in which the Corporation should be treated. They illustrate the two principles on which we are all agreed. I am not suggesting, of course, that the Opposition agree with the fundamental question of nationalisation, but granting that, I think we are

463
all agreed that the Corporation must act as a tough commercial body and that accordingly it must have reasonable freedom to take its own commercial decisions. The second principle, however, is that Parliament must, wherever appropriate, be kept fully informed so that where the Minister and, through him, the Corporation are answerable to it Parliament can exercise its power effectively. Partly as a result of your Lordships' Amendments, I think we have now got the balance between these two principles about right.
Another fairly constant theme in our discussions has been the need to maintain a strong and healthy private sector. Here again, although there has been suspicion on this subject, I think we have reached a measure of general agreement. Members of the Government in both Houses have given assurances that they want to see a strong private sector, and these assurances I am glad to repeat now. Indeed, we want a strong private sector not only for its own sake but because we think some of the competition which it will be able to provide will itself be a valuable stimulus to the public sector.
During the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House various Amendments were incorporated and assurances given which demonstrated the Government's desire to have a competitive private sector, and in particular there was the new clause, now Clause 30, which establishes a formal procedure under which private sector steel producers can complain to the Minister about what they think are unfair trading practices by the Corporation. There were also the very comprehensive undertakings I gave on Report about the disclosure of information received by the Minister from the private sector under the Bill. I hope that these provisions to protect the private sector will help to refute the charge that this Bill opens the way to "back-door nationalisation".
There is no provision at all in this Bill which empowers the Corporation, once the act of nationalisation is completed, to buy up other companies except by mutual agreement with those concerned. The suggestion which we met and dealt with at an earlier stage, that the Corporation could start buying up the rest of British industry wholesale, is totally un-
464
realistic. If noble Lords wish me later to say something more on the subject of diversification and the protections that exist, in particular that the Corporation will not be able to extend its interests without the Minister's approval, for which he is answerable to Parliament, I shall be willing to go into this further.
The House might like me to refer to the only Amendments on which disagreement was pressed to a Division—the Amendments excluding the debentures of the Schedule 1 companies from the scope of nationalisation. It was made plain from this debate that there were strong differences of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, although we were not able to satisfy him, will, I am sure, agree that we did not dodge the issue, and, as I said on that occasion, we were not nationalising the debentures in a fit of either pique or absent-mindedness. But the Government have again gone into this question very carefully in the light of what has been said, and I must tell your Lordships that the Government still find it impossible to accept these Amendments, and that my right honourable friend the Minister of Power will advise their removal when the Bill is sent back to another place.
I think perhaps I should also mention that the question of Commons Privilege may arise on these Amendments, although this is of course something entirely for consideration in another place. I think it is very likely that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will achieve what was the minimum of what he set out to do, which was to ensure that this matter was further discussed on the Floor of another place.
I should like to say a word about an aspect of the Bill which has received little attention in this House, perhaps because there is general agreement. This is the aspect of industrial relations. I very much welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Citrine raised the point in connection with industrial training, which has drawn my attention to the fact that this tremendously important side of the steel industry has not come under much consideration by us here. As I say, this is because I believe there was no real conflict. As your Lordships know, Amendments were incorporated in another place which mark an important advance in the development of joint consultative and

465
conciliation machinery in the nationalised industries.
These Amendments resulted from the Government's anxiety that workers in the steel industry should have a real and lively sense of participation in the most important decisions affecting the industry. They also reflect the Government's conviction, now increasingly held by both unions and employers, that the old conception of industrial relations as an arena where two independent, and indeed hostile, powers, management and labour, negotiate or disagree is out of date and dangerous.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, has made as great a contribution as anyone in this country to that improvement, both in the fights that he made on behalf of the workers in harder times, and in the approach to this wiser, as I am sure he will agree, attitude of mind that is prevailing to-day. We are anxious to encourage the growth of a feeling that management and labour must cooperate positively and regard themselves as jointly responsible for the industry in which they work. It is vital for the country that the two sides of industry should develop, where it is not already in existence, this way of looking at their problems. I am very hopeful that the provisions of the Steel Bill will mark a real step forward in this direction.
This co-operation will be all the more fruitful if management and unions can each play their own distinctive part in the working of the industry. The Bill leaves with management the ultimate responsibility to manage, and therefore with the unions the ultimate right to take appropriate action to protect their members' interests. But the new provisions should ensure that the workers in the industry have a real and effective opportunity to make their views heard before decisions affecting their livelihood are taken.
One of the spheres to which the Corporation, both as a good employer and as an efficient business, will have to devote a lot of attention is that of training and education. In Committee my noble friend Lord Citrine asked why the usual references to training and education were omitted from this Bill. The reason is that there is already an Iron and Steel Industry Training Board in the iron and steel industry, set up by
466
the Minister of Labour under the Industrial Training Act 1964, and it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Power also to have statutory functions in this field similar to those of parent Ministers under other nationalisation Acts.
However, this will not affect the fact, it goes without saying, that adequate training and education for its employees will be one of the Corporation's most important responsibilities, in consultation with the Training Board. Indeed, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, that I have considered whether even at this late stage it might be worth while putting something relating to this in the Bill. But we have moved on since the earlier days of nationalisation, and from my own experience of industry I am sure that any progressive organisation, as I believe the National Steel Corporation will be, is bound to regard this as a major function, quite apart from the statutory obligations that may be laid by the Industrial Training Act.
I could also have said a few words about research, but I will only comment that in 1963 the Iron and Steel Board said that
"a substantial increase is called for in the research effort of all branches of the industry".
In their last Annual Report they said there had been an improvement. But clearly this is a very important field, and it is clearly a field in which the two sectors of industry must co-operate, and that is why my right honourable friend proposes to set up an advisory council on research and development covering both sectors.
I have put some emphasis on the importance of good industrial relations and training because of the difficulties the industry is now going through, difficulties which, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Power warned in another place, are likely to continue in the immediate future. These difficulties are not connected with ownership. For several years the return on capital employed has been lower than in manufacturing industry generally, and a mere glance at the interesting diagram in the Benson Report shows the sudden tumble of profits in relation to capital employed which occurred in 1961. Although there have been certain recoveries, it has never reached the 1960 peak.

467
As I say, this position of profits is not connected with the question of ownership, but it will, I think, be agreed by your Lordships that this problem arises from the world of surplus capacity, which has increased from 12½ million tons in 1955 to 74 million tons in 1965. Again, there are the profit figures for 1965–66 of eight major steel companies which showed a drop in profits from the previous year, from £67 million to £40 million. Since then figures for two more companies—Park Gate and Round Oak—have been announced, and they do nothing to change this picture.
There may be arguments in relation to the pricing policy that exists at the moment, but I think all this, in the round, is a striking confirmation of the worldwide nature of the difficulties that have come about; and these are shown again in the decision of Krupps to go public. There has also recently been further confirmation of the difficulties faced by the European steel industry in the debates on steel in the European Parliament on January 31 and February 1, when fear was expressed that the situation, already bad enough, would grow still worse. All this makes it more urgent than ever that the British steel industry should be rationalised and put into a posture in which it can compete the most effectively, and although I agree that there is disagreement as to the way to proceed there can be no disagreement as to the urgency.
There is a basic structural weakness, which is peculiar to Great Britain, among the major steel producing countries, and this must be put right quickly. Nobody, and certainly not the British Iron and Steel Federation, disputes the need to establish larger companies or units to help us catch up with our competitors abroad, and to ensure that we enjoy the advantages of scale of which we hear so much on so many occasions and which are so valid in the modern steel industry. It is clear that there have been differences of opinion about how this should best be achieved. The Government's view has been that public ownership of the major part of the industry is necessary. This view, and the Bill based upon it, has now been accepted in principle by both Houses of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that in view of the admitted urgency of putting
468
the industry right we shall be able to seek to put the arguments of principle behind us, and that everybody connected with the industry, whatever his feelings on the question of ownership, will work together for its future under nationalisation.
I think the constructive discussions we have had show how, despite these big differences of view on ownership, it is possible to co-operate to achieve the success of the steel industry, and that this will be the spirit in which managers and men in the industry are approaching nationalisation; and that, working together in collaboration with the Government, they will succeed in overcoming the problems which face the industry, and thus will enable it to play its full part in securing and sustaining the health of the British economy as a whole. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Shackleton.)
5.25 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, with this debate we come near the end of the consideration of the Iron and Steel Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said on Second Reading, however distasteful this measure has been to us on this side of the House, it is one in which we have reluctantly acquiesced, and we have set ourselves to improve the Bill. In this we have met with the cooperation and the courtesy of the Government, and I should like to express the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, and myself to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and other Ministers who have been concerned. I should also record the apologies of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, who is unable to be present in the House for this final stage this evening.
In the course of the five days, or part days, which have been spent on this Bill, 84 Amendments have been tabled from this side of the House, and the Government have tabled 29 Amendments of their own. Out of the total of 113 Amendments, 43 have been accepted. Therefore, I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said. The extent to which, on a major controversial Bill of this sort, the Government have been willing to make some fairly substantial changes, both in the content of the Bill and in the assurances which

469
have been given in your Lordships' House, has been gratifying.
In the earlier part of his speech, Lord Shackleton listed a number of the more important changes, and with his list in general I agree. For myself I would put the emphasis rather more sharply on three legislative changes, alterations in the Bill itself, which are of particular importance. The first is the removal of the representatives of the National Steel Corporation from the Consumers' Council, in the interests of greater independence. The second is the substitution of an Order, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, instead of a notice setting the level above which the private sector will require ministerial consent for the installation of extra production facilities. The third is the addition of the new Clause 30 by the Government, following Opposition pressure in another place, establishing a formal complaints procedure for the private sector in the steel industry.
In addition to these concessions, there have been a number of smaller but still important changes: the information on subsidiary companies, for example, which is now to be included in the annual report; and certain ambiguities of wording which have been removed, both as a result of Government Amendments and of Opposition Amendments. I would agree, likewise, with what the noble Lord said about the number of assurances that have been given. Indeed, he has just used the words, "really important statements of Government policy", which is a stronger term even than the word "assurance". These are undoubtedly important. They have been noted by Members of this House and of another place and, most important of all, by people active in the steel industry itself. Finally, we have had on Third Reading the first comprehensive statement in either House of Parliament of ministerial accountability to Parliament for the steel industry after nationalisation. All this is to the good.
I would summarise by saying that the Bill leaves this House a better Bill in a number of respects than it was when it arrived, even after its marathon progress through the House of Commons. But we take no pride in it. On these Benches we are to-day, as we have been for twenty years, resolutely opposed to steel nationa-
470
lisation. The irony of this particular Bill, at this particular time in the development of the steel industry, is that it is so irrelevant. Nationalisation alone will solve no problems. Indeed, as Mr. A. J. Peech, the President of the British Iron and Steel Federation, said at the annual general meeting of the Federation yesterday:
"nationalisation may delay rather than speed progress".
Present-day trading conditions, as Lord Shackleton himself has said, call for rationalisation of the steel industry in Britain and of the steel industries in many other countries as well. What has been happening in Germany over the last year or so is perhaps the most effective emphasis one can give to that statement. Resources need to be regrouped, and all this is accepted by the steel industry. The pattern for the future which was so clearly set out in the Benson Committee's Report is already being followed. There has been the merger between Stewarts and Lloyds, Dorman Long and South Durham, which has been discussed at various stages during the Bill. There is also the very forward-looking "Anchor" project of the United Steel Companies, a £78 million development at Scunthorpe and Immingham, using the deep-water access at Immingham to import cheap foreign ores. These are instances of where the steel industry has already begun to move in the direction charted by the Benson Report.
The only consolation I see in this Bill is that I believe it will be the last of the old-style nationalisation measures we shall see in Parliament. A new generation has grown up, inside the Labour Party as well as outside it, who want to see Clause IV returned to the museum shelf. They want to see the attention of the Labour Party, and of the country, addressed to the real issues of what is the most appropriate form of organisation and control in each particular instance. Let us hope there will be no more cases where the solution will precede the appreciation of the problem.
Many noble Lords, on both sides of the House, will agree that relationships between Government and industry are now so vast and so complex that there is seldom a straight choice between private enterprise on the one hand and public control on the other. Things are

471
not that simple. There is an infinite variety of ways in which Government can, and does, influence industry and industrialists in what they believe to be the public interest. There are dangers, which we discussed in the Committee stage and again on Report, in this phrase "the public interest", but none the less it is undeniable that many ways do exist for Government to influence industry. Similarly, there are an infinite number of ways in which industry and industrialists can respond to these pressures. The interplay between these two forces is crucial, both to the management of the economy and to economic growth.
I believe that the Government already have at their disposal, or can acquire, all the powers they need to make their interpretation of national policy prevail over private economic interests if they wish to use them. I believe that nationalisation is both too costly and too rigid an instrument for the Government to continue to look to public ownership, in the Clause IV sense, as the most desirable means of making particular industries accountable to the community for those services which can properly be expected of them. But what a price to pay! As in some doomed pagan society, the steel industry is to be the last great ritual sacrifice. After that is out of the way, this modernminded Government will no doubt move on to other and more flexible ways of achieving public accountability. The aircraft industry, road haulage, telecommunications, ports, water supply, are all subjects which are being currently discussed, and in which old-style nationalisation remedies seem to play a surprisingly small part. But for steel, no. Basic industries call for basic measures. Reason has to take second place to the traditional generations-old canons of the Labour Party Constitution. That is why, in our view, this is a bad Bill and an irrelevant Bill. That is why we on this side of the House deplore it.
5.35 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I rise for a few moments for I feel that a Back Bencher from this side of the House should say a few words about this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I do not approve of it at all, but like some of my noble friends I have done my best, since it was approved in principle on
472
Second Reading, and since the Government had a mandate for it at the last Election, to try to improve it. We have only been a small team on our side, but we have had the great advantage of having some extremely good advice given to us, and during the Second Reading debate we had some excellent speeches by Members of this House who are directors of steel companies. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and all noble Lords who have contributed so much to this Bill. In the 33 years that I have had the honour of serving this House I do not think I have ever heard a better "second leader" than the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, in helping with a most complicated Bill. His mastery of the Bill was extremely good, and he has been most tolerant throughout. I should also like to thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his courtesy in helping us with many difficult points in the Bill.
My view is that rationalisation could have been achieved without nationalisation. However, the Government have decided to do this, and we can do nothing more. I am pleased that with the cooperation of the Government we have been able to make some Amendments in this House. I have sometimes despaired on recent occasions, when we have been very careful in the number of Amendments that we have sent down to another place, that every single one on which we have not been able to reach agreement in this House has been rejected in another place. Therefore, on this occasion I feel that we have done something to make this Bill a more workable proposition. With those few words, I will now resume my seat.
5.38 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I think my first words must be to disagree briefly, but firmly, with the description of this as a "bad Bill". Noble Lords opposite seem to be more and more inclined to the view that, when a matter of principle has been decided in another place, this House should accept that principle although preserving its right to amend. This Bill happens to be a Bill in which the principle of nationalisation of iron and steel was specifically put to the Electorate in the programme of the Labour Party. The industry was nationalised in 1949, and if chaos was

473
subsequently created in the industry the members of the Conservative Party must bear responsibility for the reckless way in which they de-nationalised it. I hope they will not be encouraged to make another attempt at de-nationalisation in respect of the present Bill. I believe that it is a good Bill and well drafted. It is a Bill which attempts to nationalise the industry, while at the same time having full regard to the need to preserve a strong private sector.
On February 28 when the Bill was in Committee, I expressed some concern at the omission of any reference to industrial training and education. The Minister gave me an answer "off the cuff", as he put it, and I must congratulate him on his accuracy of recollection, because in the letter he was good enough to send me afterwards I noticed that what he said came very near to the exact wording of the Industrial Training Act 1964. I was very surprised that I could not discover in the original Act of 1949 any specific reference to education and training. I could not understand that, because in earlier legislation, in respect of coal, gas and electricity, there were specific references to the responsibility of these public corporations to provide for adequate education and training and for the improvement in the general skill of the employees concerned. I wonder whether—I will not put it any stronger than that—in paraphrasing certain parts of the Acts covering the three industries which I have mentioned in respect of conditions of employment, there might have been some slip-up, because it so happens that in reference to the conditions of employment in the Bill itself the phraseology runs very close to that of the other nationalised industries.
Education and training were put in a separate part and given separate emphasis by reason of doing that, and I wonder whether it has been fully appreciated that education and training are as vital to the success of the industry as any other wording could be. All the other nationalised industries which I can recall have it as an obligation to carry out effective education and training in consultation with the trade unions and representatives of the employees.
I do not in the least suspect the intentions of the Minister in charge of this phase of the work, whether it is the
474
Minister of Labour or, by connection, the Minister of Power, but it happens that Ministers change and Governments change, and it could easily be argued that the very absence of these words affecting education and training, and the explanations which have been given, could furnish a reason why the important work of education and training was not pressed with, perhaps, quite the same emphasis as it would otherwise have been had the words appeared in the Bill itself. I know that it poses a dilemma for the Government, having got the Bill this far. to alter it in any way, but I really feel that there is all the difference in the world between a public corporation which has an obligation to the community as a whole, and private companies, or public companies, to put it more accurately, who are affected by the Bill. I say that because I cannot escape the feeling that, although the Industrial Training Act and the board which it subsequently set up for the iron and steel industry put a responsibility on all of the organisations, there is always a danger of the minimum being done under, as it were, such composite bodies.
I make no bones about it. I think there is an obligation on the public boards to set examples in these matters, and to go in for a considerably extended amount of provision for education and training, as well as other items of welfare and that sort of thing, to raise the status of industry itself. It cannot be denied that industry has been negligent in this matter, and while there are some splendid examples of private companies who have spent a great deal of money, and devoted much time and skilled attention to establishing effective measures of education and training, and also to provisions for thorough consultation, to my knowledge no industry has ever gone so far to make the provisions which now exist, for example, under the Electricity Act. I would say, I hope without boastfulness—and I thank the Minister for his personal references to myself—that the extent to which training and education, and joint consultation and analogous matters, have been carried on in the nationalised industries, is far beyond the average that can be found in any industry in the country and, indeed, it can be cited as an example to the world itself.
If the obligation were put in the Bill, with a duty on the boards, it would be

475
discussed at all the various levels with a sense of participation by the employees, and I regard that as extremely important. I do not care whether organisations are of a public character or a private character. I have no doubt whatever that in the years to come there will be more and more need for keeping employees in the closest possible association with the industries in which they are employed. If that is not done, I cannot see any real future for British industry. We are long past the stage of autocracy in industry, as in society generally, and I feel convinced that it is a good thing for employees at all levels, the works level, the district level and the national level, to have their machinery not prescribed by a training board, although that is a very useful thing, but so that they themselves, apart from any question of instruction which they may get from a training board can engage in the spirit of the Act in these very important functions.
I regard the Bill as a very considerable improvement on anything which has preceded it in regard to iron and steel. If one refers to the Schedule 4, Part V, on page 81 of the Bill, one will see how closely in all respects, except education and training, the Bill is trying to follow well-established precedents, showing a modern outlook and an approach to labour problems which I wish were more generally followed by private employers. I repeat that if, even for psychological reasons, this reference to education and training, with the insertion of only three words, had been included, I feel convinced that it would have given the employees a greater sense of belonging than they will have by leaving the matter entirely to an industrial training board.
I do not say these words in any sense of grievance, or anything of that kind. I feel that, if only there were to be a bigger moral obligation—which would be a continuing one and not varying in interpretation by changes of Ministers, sometimes with hostile views of the problems and certainly very often not in any sort of concordance about it all—the employees would regard it as conforming to the kind of principles to which employees in electricity, gas and coal have become accustomed.
5.49 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I venture to ask your Lordships to allow me to intervene at this moment. The Bill which is now in its closing stages, so far as your Lordships are concerned, has taken a very long time to reach this stage; in fact, it is a matter of years. It is curious—and this is something which I raised on Second Reading here—that the right honourable gentleman the Minister, in introducing the Bill on Second Reading in another place, said that if he had only known how many people could have been included he might have introduced a separate Bill. We realise that the Minister has every intention of making things as easy as possible in the industry which now comes under his surveillance. But I cannot help repeating what I said before: that I have a good deal of sympathy with the Government for the position in which they are. It has taken, as I said, a matter of years to get this Bill through. The amount of literature which Hansard has had to prepare is enormous—and a great deal of it has nothing whatever to do with the manufacture of steel—because so many points have been raised about how it is all to be worked.
There is one thing that I should like to emphasise—and it has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. He quoted the speech of the President of the Iron and Steel Federation at the annual meeting yesterday, but I will read the next sentence, which, if I am right, my noble friend did not quote. Having said how unnecessary the Bill is, the President continued:
"However that may be, Parliament has made its decision and steel-makers will do everything in their power to make the new system work as well as possible".
That is to say, those who are engaged in this great and important industry are more determined to continue to make it successful than they are swayed by political considerations, whatever they may be. The Minister is already saying that he is anxious to do everything to help that part of the industry which has not been nationalised but I am sure he realises that it is one industry.
In moving the Third Reading the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made on remark with which I wish to disagree. It was rather suggested, if I understood

477
him aright, that the nationalisation of the industry will help to improve relations between those engaged in it. I hope I may be pardoned for saying that I have a great deal of experience about this matter. I was for many years in the industry, and I was always in touch with those feeding the furnaces, or whatever it was. I was always told, "This is the way things should work. If it is nationalised, it is all right, so long as we have the same management". There is a tendency, not only in this great industry but all through, to talk of "sides" of industry. I will never accept that. I say that we are all one. We are all one team; we all have the same determination to do the best we can for the job we are doing. It does not need an Act of Parliament to bring friends together.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, turned towards my old and very dear friend Lord Citrine, and said something about this. I am sure that he would support me in saying that those relations will not be disturbed by anything, and that we look forward to continuing our great industry, in spite of the fact that we have lost a great deal of time. It would have been quite easy for the Government, instead of getting together a very large sum of money and putting before Parliament a most elaborate Bill, which has taken years to come through, to ignore this dreadful dogma of nationalisation and to encourage rationalisation. In fact rationalisation was held up because it was known that the industry was going to be nationalised, and that those in the industry would have to take orders from somebody else at some time.
My Lords, that is all I have to say about it. We have improved the Bill; and I say again that those in the industry will do everything in their power to continue to make their industry something to be proud of and something which is of great value to the nation.
5.55 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if the noble Marquess will not mind my saying so, I found his a very attractive speech. He will not expect me to agree with every word of it, but the spirit of a man who wants this industry to work for the best, and who wants all the people in it to play their full part and to serve their country and the world through their knowledge and their skill, is something that I find
478
very feeling and very attractive. I say this to the noble Marquess. I sat for 19 years for a constituency which included a large steel works. They were an extremely skilful and knowledgeable collection of people. They were bitterly opposed to nationalisation—and I mean the word "bitterly"—at any rate for some time. I have every confidence that they will now accept what is, after all, on any view of the matter, a democratic decision, and will do their best to serve their country and the world in this particular matter.
My Lords, this is the third Iron and Steel Bill that I personally have seen and spoken about. I think it is a better one than the first, and that the second one was an unworkable compromise which had much too much politics and much too little sense in it. But, be that as it may, the point is that, as I see it, we are now going to get the steel industry under public ownership. This is said to be a ritual sacrifice. That is not right. It is not a ritual sacrifice. It is an attempt to combine two things. One is the technical progress and management of the industry, including questions of research and the like, and including, too, questions of the relationship between labour and management, upon which my noble friend Lord Citrine spoke so eloquently just now. That is one side.
The other is that this is an industry of vital importance to this country; and what seems to me to be very important is that it is an industry which is changing itself in a changing country. We are not living in a world in which broad political generalisations that were valid, say, ten or twenty years ago are necessarily, or even probably, valid in the same sense to-day. It is all very well to talk about decisions of principle. I am afraid that all too often they are decisions of prejudice—and prejudice, as I see it, so bemused by some apparently simple notion as to forget that you have to change your institutions and change them in accordance with the changes among the men and women who are living in this country, who are finding new things, who are applying new things and who are developing new things.
If I had to find a fault with the technical side of the steel industry, it would be that I think it has been slow to adapt

479
itself to change in this country; but I am not going to deal with that now. I think, too, that one of the hindrances in its path has been the very curious capital structure—a structure of companies, if you like—which has grown up in a very different state of affairs and which has not been adapted with sufficient speed. We are told that Stewart and Lloyds are now going to amalgamate with South Durham. Well, they might have thought of that a long time ago and not at the moment when a steel nationalisation Bill was going through Parliament. And all the attacks which have been made since 1963, which was rather a landmark in this respect, have been a little halfhearted and a little cramped by the financial and company structure of the industry.
My Lords, why I was so pleased, if the noble Marquess will not mind my saying so, with what he said was because of the public spirit of it. This Bill is going through now. There may be what is comparatively a minor point raised about what to do with debentures, but it is clearly going through. As I see it, it is not going to be altered by a succeeding Government; I do not think the history of the industry would encourage any such alteration. It seems to me that it is our duty as citizens to do all we can here and in public and in anything we say—not to suppress our differences of opinion; I would not ask for that to be done—to see that the industry as now constituted gets through its impending difficulties. It is certainly going to have them. This is a hard world for the iron and steel industry and the reason why it is a hard world is because of the question of capacity. There is too much capacity in the world at the moment. This has always been the difficulty of the steel industry, and will continue to be the difficulty of the steel industry.
In my view, the first reason for public ownership of the steel industry is partly that you have to relate the capacity of the industry and what it is doing by way of developing or restraining that capacity—because there are such things as outdated plants—to the general economic state and progress of the country as a whole. This is so vitally important that it is right, not only that the industry should be in public hands, but that it
480
should be in hands of persons who are fully answerable to Parliament—and I welcome the changes that have been made in this respect—representing the people of the country. It has a certain uniqueness about it. The second reason is the question of power. It is really related to the other reason.
An industry as vital as this one—which not only employs a large number of men but plays an essential part in our industrial life—should not be left in the hands of any men but those who can be brought to book and made to answer by the people as a whole.
My Lords, if this is poisonous Socialism, then it seems to me that those who think that have really not kept up with the march of events in the world at large and in this country. I trust that those who have objected—whether we call it an objection on principle or for reasons of prejudice—are now going to rise to the occasion and to say, "Well, when all is said and done, we may have been wrong." Certainly, a large number of Members on this side disagreed with us. The lights of democracy in the world are a trifle faint nowadays, but here is a matter of vital importance which has been discussed for twenty years which has excited the attention of the electorate as a whole and particularly of those men who have been working in the industry, in whatever capacity. It has been discussed fully; it has been debated fully; every possible point has been taken.
I would not suppose we have got it dead right; but as a legislative Assembly we have had a remarkably good try. I hope that what democracy has decided is not going to be confused by clouds of prejudice or by the inability of any of us to recognise—as I myself fully recognise—that we are not always wrong, though we may often be wrong, when we have an unanswerable principle behind us.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to take up the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, on a point he made at the beginning of his speech. He appeared to give the impression that, because the Government had a mandate from the people at the last General Election, this House ought not to have amended the Steel Bill at all. If we

481
are not here to amend Bills, why are we here? Is it for our beauty? I hardly think so!
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Viscount has it completely wrong. I have said in this House time and time again that when a matter of principle has been decided in the House of Commons we have no right, on that major question of principle, to reject the decision of the Commons. I have been asked specifically on at least one occasion by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition whether I took the stand that there was no right on the part of this House to amend legislation which came from the Commons. Of course I answered, No.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the impression the noble Lord gave me was different; but if he meant otherwise, I apologise.
I should like to say that I heartily agree with my noble friends on the Front Bench that this is a bad Bill. There is no commercial reason for it at all. It is Party dogma; it is the desire for power that goes with the control of the steel industry. I only hope that the Government, having now captured the goose that lays the golden egg, do not strangle it. But if they do not strangle it, it will not be to their credit; it will be to the credit of the people in the steel industry. As my noble friend Lord Aberdeen and Temair said, everyone in this great national industry will obviously try to make it a great success. But whether they will be able to do so, with the dead hand of nationalisation on it, is a moot point. I only hope that they will be successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, spoke a great deal about prejudice. But so far as I am concerned there is no prejudice. The only things I am worried about are the facts. Some £1,200 million was written-off on the railways and in other nationalised industries. It all comes out of the taxpayers' pockets; it all lowers the general standard of living in this country. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that we are prejudiced; but it is a matter of hard economic facts.
6.9 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I, in these final few minutes, try to restore the spirit of harmony which has prevailed throughout the greater part
482
of these debates? The noble Viscount may know something about strangling geese with dead hands; but I would rather come back to the real issues that are before the House. I think we ought to be conscious of the fact—though it is rather hard to realise it in this placid atmosphere, with fewer than two dozen noble Lords present—that really history is being made to-night. One of the great basic industries of this country is being taken into public ownership. All I have to say ranges around the question of compensation; and because of that I perhaps ought to declare an indirect interest. I possess no steel shares myself, but I am one of a committee of two public men which is responsible for the investment of a £10 million pension fund, and in our investments we probably hold three-quarters of a million pounds worth of steel shares. So to that extent I have perhaps an indirect interest.
What I want to say is this—that no debate upon the nationalisation of an industry would be complete unless something was said about the widows and pensioners and orphans who hold equity shares in that industry. We have had them trotted out from time immemorial. In this case I think they may be congratulated on the good fortune that is bestowed on them by the compensation clauses of this Bill. Those clauses are really generous. They have placed the compensation basis of shares at a level slightly higher—in some cases considerably higher—than the value which the City, through the Stock Exchange and the merchant bankers, placed upon them. And the alternative, if the shareholders had not been compensated in that way, was a rather grim prospect, because we know that many steel plants are now working at only 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. capacity. We know that our share of the world export market is going down. We know that competition from all quarters is stiffening. We know that every other main steel-producing country in the world has plants bigger than ours, more attuned to the needs of the mass production of to-day.
In Japan they have a plant turning out 7 million tons a year—twice as big as our biggest plant. In France they are reorganising the whole of their steel industry into three massive plants, each

483
turning out 7 million tons. In America they have nine plants which are bigger than the biggest plant that we have in this country. A similar state of affairs exists in Germany. If the industry were left as it is to-day, my Lords, the outlook for the equity shareholders would be very poor indeed. I think that they may congratulate themselves on the basis of the compensation which is being handed out to them. If I should happen to be wrong in that diagnosis, I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that the chairman of the Conservative Party organisation announced that he was a big buyer of steel shares for his unit trust at the time of the General Election, and only a few days ago one of our City editors said that Mr. du Cann, who was buying steel shares for his unit trust at the General Election, is still buying them now.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how many of those great companies abroad are nationalised?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not know—the noble Marquess probably knows. But he really supports the indictment against the steel industry of to-day. Whereas in other countries privately-owned steelworks have seen the desirability—nay, the necessity—of merging and amalgamating and building up gigantic plants, the steel industry in this country, under its private leaders, has not seen fit to do so. One of the main reasons for this Bill is not to carry out the provisions of Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution, transference of ownership, but to amalgamate these private companies into bigger units so that they can meet their competitors abroad on equal terms.
My Lords, the noble Marquess has lured me away from the one simple thing I wanted to say, which is that compensation in the case of this Bill is very generous indeed. Because of this I can support it with an absolutely clear conscience.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I had not necessarily expected to speak again, but there are certain points which call for a reply. I should first like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and to the noble
484
Lord, Lord Windlesham, for their remarks. Although in the latter stages we returned to an earlier type of disagreement, I think we have managed together pretty well on this matter. I listened with the greatest attention to everything which the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, had to say. No one has a wider or more remarkable experience of industry. I recommend any of your Lordships who have not done so to look at the career of the noble Marquess as recorded in Who's Who, which shows the depth of his industrial experience. I think that perhaps the noble Marquess read more into my remarks on the subject of relations within industry than I would have wished him to.
I did not, in fact, suggest that industrial relations in the steel industry were bad; I merely said they could be made better. I must say that not all the steel firms have records equal to those of the leading firms in the steel industry. I do not want to go further into this, and to suggest that industrial relations in the steel industry are other than good, but there are some forms of industrial relations which are even better.
The important part about this Bill in this respect is that it represents a further advance in association in a way which has an element of almost revolutionary quality in relation to the trade unions. The unions have always supported joint consultation, and at the same time—I am almost nervous to speak on this matter in front of the noble Lord, Lord Citrine—they have always recognised that the responsibility for management lies with management. There is a further recognition, in the appointments to the Corporation, and indeed in the Bill and in the negotiations, that trade unions and representatives of the workers will carry a greater degree of responsibility. In this respect I would say to the noble Marquess that he may wish there were not two sides of industry, but the fact remains that the great achievement (if that is the right word) of capitalism was to divide the country into two sides of industry.
If we are now advancing in the direction in which the good heart and experience of the noble Marquess suggests that we should, this is something to be welcomed. I have no doubt at all as to

485
his own feelings, and indeed anyone with industrial experience knows it is possible to identify the worker much more deeply with the welfare of his particular undertaking. Nor is this identification something which is necessarily given more willingly to publicly-owned industry than to privately-owned industry. I fully concede that. It is a function of management. It is perfectly possible that a publicly-owned industry, if not conducted well, might not have as good relations as the best of privately-owned industry. But, as is indicated by the advances made possible by this Bill, and by the organisation of the industry, it is very much our purpose that there shall be even greater identification and greater co-operation. This in no way reflects on what the noble Marquess and his friends may have achieved in the firms with which they have been associated, but I felt that his remarks called for that further explanation which I hope will be welcome to him.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess. If I may turn to my noble friend Lord Citrine, I would say that the points he had in mind were carefully considered, particularly in relation to industrial training, during the drafting of this Bill. I was not quite sure whether my noble friend was comparing this Bill with the 1949 Act, or rather with the other Acts of Parliament, such as those concerning electricity about which he knows so much, but it is true that in the 1949 Act the responsibility laid on the Minister in the appropriate section (I think it was Section 4) was that there should be consultation and some degree of power to ensure that training was provided; but there was nothing in the 1949 Act comparable to the provision in the Electricity Act. The provisions in Clause 31 for promoting efficiency and welfare must cover training, but it would be in the hands of the Corporation. As the result of the Industrial Training Act the statutory responsibility no longer rests with the Minister of Power but with the Minister of Labour.
I will see that my noble friend's views are brought to the notice of the Corporation. Indeed, his earlier remarks on this
486
question gave me some slight pause, and I considered this further. I will give him a definite undertaking that the Minister will take steps to ensure that the Corporation will pay full attention to education and training, and that the experience of other nationalised industries is made fully available to them. In giving that assurance, let me say that I have no doubt that the Corporation will recognise their responsibility in this matter.
I was interested to hear the forthright speeches of my noble friends Lord Mitchison and Lord Leatherland. My noble friend Lord Mitchison has played a significant part in this Bill. He succeeded in ensuring that the Committee stage lasted nearly a reasonable length and he certainly helped the Government by his knowledge. I welcomed part I of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, but I did not particularly welcome part II. I do not intend to enter into a discussion of the merits of nationalisation either with him or with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard—who I must say produced the "Saying of the Week" when he said that there was no prejudice on his part. I should like to ask him whether he has even read the Benson Report.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have not read the whole Report; I have glanced at it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Viscount has participated so actively in our discussions, particularly on the question of profit, without having read a Report which clearly establishes a certain area of argument. We are agreed that a fundamental reorganisation of the iron and steel industry is absolutely necessary. This has been agreed by the Federation and by the Benson Committee. There has been no free competition in the steel industry for more than thirty years and during nearly all that time the industry has been in private ownership. We must settle the uncertainty about the future of the industry.
What I cannot yet see is how noble Lords opposite anticipate that the necessary reconstruction, which so notably failed to be carried out in the past, can be carried out urgently enough without

487
a single owner. This means to us inevitably public ownership. I do not believe that noble Lords on the other side would welcome a single, private monopolistic owner. They are caught in a dilemma on this. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was good enough to suggest that the Government were showing a degree of flexibility in other fields of ownership. It is true that the aircraft industry is not to be nationalised. It is not even to have the Government majority holding that the Plowden Committee recommended. The aircraft industry does not occupy anything like the crucial position in the economy that the steel industry occupies. Furthermore, it is subject to a degree of control by the simple fact that the Government are their largest customer. But we believe that there is a fundamental case for reorganising iron and steel as a basic industry.
If all that noble Lords want to do is to make modest improvements in efficiency to the structure of an industry which they believe is basically right, they are correct in opposing nationalisation, but we believe that it is not possible to make the fundamental changes on the scale and at the pace required without public ownership. I would remind noble Lords that there are well over 200 companies involved, each with its own special interest to look after, and each legitimately concerned with protecting the interests of its shareholders. Some will have to suffer from rationalisation on the scale required, and all will have to put the interests of the industry as a whole before their own.
Nothing has shaken my belief that nationalisation is the only possible operation. I do not believe that it is reasonable to ask privately owned companies who have an obligation to their shareholders to sacrifice those interests in a way that might be disastrous to the proper position of the company without proper compensation; and the only way they can be compensated and a structure set up which will ensure the reorganisation of the industry at a speed and to the depth we need is by bringing the industry at one stroke under a single management. This is the only right solution. It has the great merit of being the simplest solution. It has also the merit of giving almost complete freedom
488
within the terms of control exercised by the Minister to reorganise on whatever scale and at whatever speed is necessary. The iron and steel industry is basic to our economy as a whole, and in our view such a basic industry must be owned, not by private shareholders, but by the nation as a whole.
As a tailpiece, may I say to noble Lords who have been prophesying doom that there have been reports in the Press that anxiety has been expressed recently by the European steel industry about the power of the competition they will get from a unified steel industry in Britain. May I also offer the comforting thought to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that on the day when we pass this Bill through its final stages, sterling is standing higher than it has for a long time past.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, but probably we shall not get into the Common Market because we are breaking all the rules.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BOY SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES
6.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the nature of the commitment required for boy-service in the Armed Forces at the age of fifteen years and for those who accept man-service at the ages of seventeen and eighteen years. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I express some apology to the House for taking attention away from this quite historic occasion through which we have just passed, to ask leave to put the Question which is in my name on the Order Paper. Some years ago, I happened to be travelling in the same railway carriage as three boys who had been for several years at an orphanage, and who were then being transferred to the Navy. They were 15 years of age. I asked the officer who was accompanying them for how long they were to be committed to the Navy, and, to my astonishment, he said: "For 15 years". This meant that those boys of 15 would be 30 years of age before that commitment would be concluded. I was startled.
In another place on more than one occasion I have taken up individual cases; but I am a little ashamed that not until to-day have I taken up the bigger issue which is underlying this situation.
I want to be very accurate in my description of what I understand to be the present position, and therefore I am going to ask the House to excuse me if I follow my notes more closely than I usually do. I should like to ask the Minister who will be replying if the statement of the existing position which I am about to make is accurate. The minimum age of enlistment without the consent of a parent or guardian is 17 years and 6 months, though in certain cases it is 17 years. Under that age, a person may be enlisted with the written consent of the parents, or a parent, or the consent of any person, where the boy is not living with either parent, who has parental rights and powers in respect of him, or, if no such person exists, with the consent of any person in whose care, whether in law or in fact, the person enlisting may be.
In the case of a boy under the minimum age, the term for which he may be enlisted must not exceed 12 years, but this term will not begin to run until his 18th birthday. Except at times whereby a Proclamation of National Emergency has been declared, an enlisted person may within three months of enlistment claim his discharge on payment of a sum not exceeding £20. Thereafter there is no right to claim a discharge on payment of any sum, but discharge may be granted, within the discretion of the Army Council, on payment of a sum of money. This privilege is often refused, and such refusal appears, on the material before us, not to consider at all the best interests of the infant. It follows from what I have said that a boy of 15 may be enlisted and may be compelled to serve, subject to the right to terminate within the three months of enlistment that I have mentioned, until he is 27 or 30 years old.
I have been led to initiate this debate to-night on the advice of the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Continuing Committed of the Board for Conscientious Objectors. They have sent me cases of boys, teenagers, from the Army who for the last two years have sought to leave the Armed Forces and
490
who have gone down in despair and frustration because they have not the opportunity to do so. There are 42 such cases, in great detail, in my hands at this moment. They have been forwarded to the Minister of Defence, and therefore I need not detail them. But I say this. I have rarely read such tragic human documents, showing deep unhappiness and utter frustration; leading, ultimately to some of these men becoming deformed characters as a result of what they have gone through.
There is one case here of a boy desiring to undertake a university career, refused even discharge by purchase. Even within the Navy he has continued his studies, passing his "A" level examinations, accepted by the Bristol University to go to that university, who has been turned down again and again, even when his parents were ready to purchase his discharge. I admit that sometimes ruses are adopted to get out: feigning sickness, deliberately failing examinations and deserting. These boys have been committed for 15 years to a life when they are 15 or 17 years old, too young to understand what it means; too young to have formed their lives; too young to have had a sense of what their future should be: and they become deteriorated. I say that these documents are epics of personal tragedy. Some of these men and boys have become conscientious objectors. There are instances which leave no doubt about their sincerity. The Peace Pledge Union have provided a number of cases.
I want, first, to make a suggestion to the Minister. It is that, in view of the circumstances in which these boys are committed to long terms in the Army, and their youthfulness, there should be a provision by which they can go to a tribunal when they claim to their commanding officer that they are conscientious objectors. At present, the procedure is this. First, they must refuse to obey orders; and if they have refused to obey orders, they are court-martialled. If at the court-martial they get a sentence of three months or over, then they are allowed to go to a tribunal. But these cases indicate that in many instances—and I have no doubt it is done quite deliberately—sentences of less than three months are given, for offences which otherwise would have required three months, simply

491
in order that they may not have the opportunity to go to a tribunal.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Would be tell me the basis for his view, of which he has no doubt, that sentences are deliberately pitched lower than three months so as to prevent these cases from going to a tribunal? The noble Lord is quite correct: I am very against the legal procedure, and I think he should substantiate it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I shall be glad to do so, and the noble Lord will find the substantiation in the cases which have been forwarded to the Ministry. There are cases of long desertion. There is a case of 14 months' desertion, and at the end of that period a sentence was passed which was just inadequate, from the point of view of military law, for the offence which had been committed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt again, to ask the noble Lord on what basis he says that the sentence was inadequate? The noble Lord may be familiar with courts, but in their sentencing policy they take into account a large number of considerations, and he has made a most serious accusation against the administration of military law.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct, I am very familiar with these procedures. On several occasions I have been sentenced by courts-martial: so I know something about them. I have been the chairman of the Central Board for Conscientious Objectors, and I have followed these matters in great detail. At the moment when my noble friend interrupts me I find it difficult to turn to the actual page in the document which I have, but that document is going to the Ministry of Defence, and I say that in these cases sentences have been given which are out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. There seems to be little doubt that the purpose is to retain these men in the Army. Indeed, there is evidence of pressure to get them to apply for discharge on monetary payment, rather than as conscientious objectors. There has just been
492
put into my hand the case of John Mayhew, with which my noble friend is probably familiar. This boy deserted for 14 months, he was sentenced to 42 days' detention and immediately flown out to the Far East. In all military experience that is a minor sentence for the offence of deserting for 14 months.
What I was seeking to do was to urge upon the Minister that these conscientious objectors should have the right to go immediately to a tribunal; and, secondly, that they should be provided with information about their own rights. Again, in these cases it is repeatedly said that they go to their commanding officers but are not given any information with regard to their rights. They do not even know that if they are sentenced to three months they have the right to go to an advisory tribunal. I am urging that at least they should be informed of these rights.
I do not want to raise this issue solely on the question of conscientious objectors. I suggest that it is wrong to impose long-term commitments on boys of 15, and even of 17 or 18. These are years in which decisions are being formed. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would disagree with me when I urge that 15 years is too young an age at which to allow a boy to pledge himself to a way of life until he is 30 years of age. As one reads these cases one often finds that the decision to join the Armed Forces at the age of 15 is due to temporary circumstances. It is often due to an unhappy home, to differences of opinions, or to divisions between parents. I often wonder how many Members of this House had mapped their future at 15 years of age, and would then have been prepared to decide what the pattern of their life should be until they were 30 years old.
I am approaching this subject with some optimism to-night, because there was a debate on this matter in another place before the General Election which brought a Labour Government to power. In that debate Mr. Michael Stewart urged strongly that there should be a reconsideration of the attitude towards these boys and that it was wrong even to ask that they should buy their discharges; wrong to keep them within the Armed Forces when they had joined at 15 years of age and had come to a different conclusion

493
later on. I was impressed not only by Mr. Michael Stewart's speech, but also by the speech in which Sir Fitzroy Maclean, answering on behalf of a Conservative Government, said that it was not desired to keep any of these boys or young men in the Armed Forces against their will.
Even the possibility of getting out of the Armed Forces by monetary payment is becoming less. The Minister of Defence will see, when he receives details of these cases, that applications to leave the Army, even by purchase, are continually being rejected, even when the commanding officer of the regiment has recommended that they should be accepted. In addition, the period which these boys have to serve before they can get discharge by payment is increased. In 1959, four and a half years' service was required before discharge by purchase could be obtained. Now the period is seven years; and what strikes me as being particularly wrong is that when the period of four and a half or seven years is being considered the early part of that period, between the ages of 15 and 18, is not taken into account. In other words, if a boy joins at 15 years of age he has to serve a term of 10 years before he can even purchase his discharge from the Army.
The second point is that of cost, which varies from £150 to £200. Poor parents cannot afford that amount. It is a discrimination against those who are poor. What is the Ministry's defence of this? It is that this sum is to reimburse the costs which these boys have caused in the Armed Forces. Do we consider this in other matters? Do we apply it to other forms of training? Do we apply it when we give university grants? Do we say that the students must follow certain courses until they are 30 years of age? Can they not become doctors? Can they not become scientists? Cannot they go to America and be participants in the "brain drain"? Are we to say, here and now, in the military sphere, that if they have been trained as apprentices in the Army the cost of this training must all be reimbursed, or else they must follow that life until they are 27 or 30 years of age?
I want to follow that up by putting this consideration. I want to challenge the view of the moral legitimacy of these long-term commitments of minors. It is not accepted in civilian life. The trend of British law is moving away from the idea
494
of restrictions of service, even for adults If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor were here, I would remind him of the case with which he was closely associated where the rules of the Football Association and the regulations of the Football League as to the retention of players were held to be unreasonable and invalid, although they had been acted upon for many years. I am referring to the case of Eastham v.Newcastle United Football Club, in 1963. What I am saying to the Minister is that the same trend which is taking place in our civilian law ought to find some expression in these long-term commitments in the Armed Forces, particularly when they are for boys of 15 and teenagers.
I wonder whether the Minister would deny the fact that these commitments would not be legally acceptable to-day in the civilian sphere. I have taken the trouble to get counsel's opinion on this matter. This is what he writes:
"Both with regard to boy soldiers and also with regard to those who have attained the minimum age but are still under 21 I have no doubt that if this was a contract to which the Infants Relief Act, 1874, applied such a contract, by reason of the length of time that the infant binds himself to one master and by reason of the fact that the master can vary the terms of service at will, and also its general unilateral character, would be held to be unenforceable against the infant. Furthermore, the infant would have the opportunity of repudiating the contract within a reasonable time of attaining his majority.
"Both at common law and by the statutory provisions of the Infants Relief Act, 1874, the principle is well established ' that an infant is of immature intelligence and discretion '(Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition. Vol. 21, p. 138) and must be protected. Under all the terms by which infants as young as 15 are committed to serve in the Forces there is no vestige of protection for the infant. The terms of enlistment of infants as they stand at the moment are in complete contradiction with the long-standing principles concerned with the protection of infants."
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I intervene to ask the noble Lord this? In all these cases he has been quoting, is the parent not present? Is he not available to give his infant advice as to the best career for him?
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, very many of these letters, very many indeed, are from parents describing their frustration in approaching the Ministry of Defence and getting the refusal of the Ministry

495
of Defence of the discharges for which they have been asked.
My Lords, I want to conclude by making a series of constructive proposals.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am following the noble Lord with great interest. On the question of legality, is he saying that what is now being done is actually illegal, or is he merely saying it is repugnant in a legal sense?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I would have hoped the noble Lord followed me. I am not saying it is illegal. The Army Act and the other Acts which cover it make what is happening now absolutely legal. What I am asking is that the same principles which now apply in civilian law shall be extended to military law; the same principles which say it is wrong that a boy of 15 should be committed for 15 years, that teenagers of 17 and 18 should be committed until they are 30 years of age. If they were civilian contracts there is not a court in this country which would be prepared to enforce them. I am asking that the same principles should be applied in the military sphere.
I conclude with some quite positive proposals. First—and this is what I have been saying—the principles of law relating to civilians should be applied in the military sphere. Second, boys of 15 should have the opportunity annually to obtain discharge, and without monetary payment. Third, they should not be committed to long-term service until they are at least 18 years of age. Fourth, they should have the opportunity to choose civilian life when they become adults at 21. Fifth, any Serviceman who claims conscientious objection should be able to go direct to a tribunal and at least should be informed of his rights. Sixth, the decision in individual cases should be with the commanding officer of the regiment, subject to appeal, rather than a decision by the Ministry. Seventh, the establishment of a military ombudsman to whom appeals could go, and unobstructed access of Members of Parliament to submit cases to him. Above all, I am asking for a full inquiry into the present discharge machinery, possibly by reference to the Committee on the Age
496
of Majority, under Mr. Justice Latey, whose terms of reference include examination of teenage contracts.
My Lords, I have raised this matter because I believe it is a matter of freedom and of democracy. We pride ourselves on our record in this country as a free and democratic society. We are proud of it. But this freedom is refuted by this denial to the path of life by these boys even before they have taken their first unattended steps on it. Democracy will be denied unless the Government will reconsider a tradition in the military sphere which is outlived in the civilian sphere.
6.58 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I was stirred to take part in this debate this afternoon by the same pamphlet issued by the National Council for Civil Liberties as I think stirred my noble friend to initiate the debate. My reaction to it was absolutely immediate. I wanted to do the same thing as he has done, to raise a Question in this House. I am bound to say if I had done so my Question would have been more aggressive than that which stands in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Shackleton, when he replies, not only will tell us what the conditions are, but, answering in the spirit of my noble friend's speech, will say whether he agrees that urgent consideration needs to be given to the reform of these conditions.
In making a protest against these conditions to-day, I do not speak out of any hostility or any desire to hit at the Armed Forces, for I am quite sure—indeed it is part of my case—that the Armed Forces provide a thoroughly satisfying career to the vast majority of young men who are recruited into them. In the same way, I do not claim, as has been claimed, that the conditions are withheld or concealed from young boys enlisting, or from their parents. I do not claim that there is misrepresentation in the advertisements issued by the Services because, like any other employer, they have the right to lure prospective employees. I speak because I think it is absolutely wrong for a young man to be bound until the age of 27 by a decision which he has made at 15.
It is quite easy to imagine hundreds of cases of young boys joining the Forces

497
because they are attracted by the publicity, the adventure, the open air life and the security which the Services offer, or because may be they are dissatisfied with their home life and want to get away from it. I think it is equally obvious that hundreds of parents—and I mean hundreds—will consent most willingly and thankfully to their sons entering the Services. They may have been in the Services themselves. They may be worried about their son's future; they may just want to get rid of him because they are fed up with seeing him around the house. It is equally obvious, and is borne out in the cases which have come to light, that of those hundreds a few and only a few of the boys who join will want to change their minds, for perfectly good reasons.
The Services' life is a peculiarly communal, institutional one. After a few years some boys may find that they have had enough of it, that they do not like it. Like the conscientious objectors of whom my noble friend spoke, they may change their moral and political views. They may, quite simply, want to get out; they feel that they have made the wrong decision, and they want to go somewhere where their talents can be used and where opportunities are better. I myself worked for several years in jobs where I could travel. I got married, and I no longer wished to travel. So I changed completely and took a completely different job, one that I found much more congenial, and one which kept me in this country. Why should this freedom which I had, and which every other citizen of the country has, be denied to Servicemen in time of peace?
My noble friend has underlined the fact that these conditions are repugnant to principles of the Common Law. He has also underlined the fact that they are unique; that no other walk of life, no other career, imposes any remotely similar obligations. Kindred topics, such as the emigration of young scientists and young doctors in search of better opportunities, are quite relevant and topical at the moment. My noble friend Lord Shackleton will remember saying in the House on December 20 last, in the debate on the brain drain, that the last thing we want to consider is to put any form of restriction on movement, and that certainly the Government had no inten-
498
tion of doing so. He said that it was even doubtful whether it is desirable to discourage this practice beyond a certain point. If this is the policy—and quite rightly it is the policy—of the Government with regard to trained young men who go abroad to work in other countries, how much more should it be the policy when we are concerned with young men most of whom will continue to work in this country, and who will give their training and talents to this country!
When I considered this situation, I thought that perhaps there was something unique in Service life around the world which in some way made these conditions acceptable. So I rang up a few military attaches around London. Without exception they found our conditions unacceptable. The United States enlists Servicemen at 18 years and not before, and for a maximum initial period of four years. The French allow a junior apprentice to opt out after two years' training, and, if he continues service, they require him to sign on for five years. The Canadians, who in a way come closest to us because they require a boy to sign on for five years from the age of 18, have one significant difference in their system, that is, that there is a constitutional right for any Serviceman to purchase his discharge at any time for a maximum of 250 dollars. Compare that sum even with the £175 or the £200 that is required from boys who have grounds for compassionate discharge, or even from boys or young men who have served the greater part of their term. I should point out that I do not agree with purchase, and I support what my noble friend has said about it. It bears no relation to the cost of training, and it penalises the poor. I find it almost as anachronistic and as absurd as the system of purchasing a commission.
As one might expect with a system which is repugnant to legal principles, and which no other profession and no other country has thought it right or necessary to adopt, I find the arguments in its favour have but little substance. It is said that the Forces are in grave need of recruits. I have no doubt that they are. But are the Services really saying that the career that they offer, and the life within their ranks, is so unpleasant that they have to compel the people that they have

499
to stay in? I do not think so. Furthermore, I believe that if the terms are changed you will get more recruits. I know full well that I would not advise any friend or son of mine to enlist on such onerous terms.
Then it is said, as my noble friend has pointed out, that the Army has a right to expect a return on its investment. My noble friend has made the point that this is not expected by any other employer or prospective employer, who takes the risk of training a man and spending a lot of money on him. But the argument is full of many more holes than that. First of all, as I think my noble friend Lord Shackleton will agree, it is only a minority who are crying to get out. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would agree that life in the Services is satisfying and will continue to attract people and continue to keep them. But what kind of soldiers are some of these frustrated young men going to make? Many of them are driven to depression, desertion and moral deterioration. The country needs to make full use of all the trained men it possesses, and if a man feels that his talents can be better employed elsewhere than in the Services, then let him go elsewhere. I find it a most parochial attitude on the part of the Services to say that they have spent so much money, and therefore they should have the benefit. If a man leaves the Royal Air Force and goes into B.O.A.C., or if he leaves the Army and goes into Marconi, his training is not wasted. What will be a loss to the Services will be a gain to some other employer, whether it is public industry or private industry. But the country is not the loser.
The obvious reply to the economic argument is that even if it would cost millions of pounds to change the regulations, then that price must be paid because it is the liberty of the individual which is at stake. Just as private industry, the Health Service, the police, and everybody else take the risk of losing their trainees, so the Services must do the same. Surely what has happened is that these conditions exist because they have always existed—they have existed ever since the day of Farquhar's play, The Recruiting Officer. Now, perhaps for the first time, the hard-
500
ship which can be caused is becoming fully known and appreciated. When grievances such as this come to light, the Government—or perhaps not the Government, but the mandarins in the Ministry of Defence—drag up arguments why no change should be made.
I expect a positive answer from my noble friend to-day. My noble friend Lord Brockway has made his suggestions in regard to this matter. I consider that an initial period of two or three years, or may be four at the maximum, is what we want to aim at. As I say, I expect a positive answer, because why do we elect a reforming Government, and a new Government, if not to reform this kind of grievance when it comes to light? I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brockway will join me in saying that we will not allow this matter to rest, because even though there may not be many noble Lords in the House this evening, I feel that there will be many who will welcome a Private Member's Bill to amend the Armed Services Acts.
7.14 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, this occasion requires only a few words from me. Party differences are certainly not involved in any way, and I do not expect to find myself in any sort of conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is to reply. I think we are at one in considering that at all times, and especially now, whatever may be the future pattern of the Forces, recruiting requirements are of the greatest importance and that junior servicemen are a very valuable source of recruits. The ability to recruit healthy, intelligent boys attracted to the idea of Service life is one that is greatly valued by all three Armed Services. Indeed, it plays an essential part, particularly as technical service requires more and more technical training to-day, and this is bound to get more, rather than less, complicated in the future.
I agree that for a teenage boy to commit himself at the age of fifteen to fifteen years' service is not right. So far as I know, I think that this has applied to the Navy, and is being looked at, but that it has not occurred in the other two Services. I think that I am right in that. On the other hand, as a matter of principle, public interest must be taken into account when large sums have been expended on training young servicemen. I have had very considerable experience

501
of training young soldiers in my 32 years' service. The Service establishments for the training of boys are of the very highest standard, and I am most recently familiar with one of the very big Army apprentice schools which was formed under my own command and which I saw for the first three years of its life. These establishments provide a quite remarkable technical education, as well as taking immense care in the welfare of the boys. The parents are frequently welcomed; they can inquire into all aspects of the boy's life, and they are given the same consideration by the Service officers as if they were paying for an expensive school education. Incidentally, the costs of these apprentice schools are considerably more than the most expensive public schools in England. Junior leaders' units produce young men who invariably obtain a grounding which enables them to achieve rapid promotion when they come on to man's service, and they often obtain commissions which their education before they joined would not otherwise have made possible.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He said that he thought the extension to thirty years applied only to the Navy and not to the other two Services. I now have in my hands the official Army and Air Force documents. In the case of the Army, apprentices may choose between enlisting for a period of twelve years full-time Regular service up to the age of 30 and enlisting for nine years full-time Regular service up to 27, followed by a further three years' service in the Reserve. I beg your Lordships' pardon, my first remarks should have related to the Air Force, and I will now deal with the Army. In the case of the Army, all boys are required to enlist to serve until they are eighteen, and thereafter to serve for either nine years with the Colours and three years in the Regular Reserve or six years with the Colours and six years in the Regular Reserve. It applies not only to the Army, but to the Air Force.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I shall come on to this a little later, and I shall be as interested as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to hear the comments of the Minister on this matter when he comes to wind up.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Brockway helped the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because I think he got his sentences transposed. I wonder if I might try to clarify the area of argument on this point. There are, in fact, no initial engagements in the Army to the age of 30—I think the noble Lord did correct that. Technician apprentices in the R.A.F. may choose engagements to ages 27 or 30, and the Navy has some apprentice entries to age 30. I interrupt only to establish the facts. I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I mentioned the R.A.F. when I should have said the Army, and the Army when I should have said the R.A.F.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, that was a word or two about the apprentice schools and the junior leaders. There are also, of course, the junior soldiers' units, of which the Junior Guardsmen's battalion at Pirbright is an example. There are about 300 boys there, ranging from 15 to 17, and 80 per cent. of them continue to become Guardsmen. The remainder are those who, for reasons of health or temperament, show themselves or feel themselves unsuitable for one reason or another.
I think it is this minority of whom the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is speaking to-day. I think it is a great pity that the noble Lord did not send to the Minister this large number of cases which he talked about, so that we could hear from the Minister the details of them, because I am very surprised that such a very large number of disgruntled servicemen should have approached the noble Lord. I should be extremely interested, when these cases are examined, to know what the Service Ministries have to say, because I have very strong suspicions from my long military experience that there is usually quite a lot behind these disgruntled applications, and all sorts of things come to light.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I again interrupt to say that these cases were sent to the Minister of Defence 10 days ago, and are in the hands of the Minister of Defence? They were not cases sent to me. They were cases sent

503
to the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Continuing Committee of the Board for Conscientious Objectors.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I shall be interested to know what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has to say about that, although I do not suppose he will have had time to go into the details of cases. Ten days is not a very long time, and they have to be examined by a great many authorities.
When the Army is faced with the problem of a junior recruit who does not fit in, it is usually the Army—or, indeed, either of the other two Services—which takes the initiative in releasing him, and it is seldom that a boy recruit and his seniors will disagree as to his suitability or unsuitability. Before he is released, in virtually every case, the company commander will have been in touch with the parents, and the problem is worked out in a humane, kindly and convincing way. It is worth stressing that all the officers and N.C.O.s sent to service units which deal with the training of juniors are most carefully selected. I know that every confidential report form in the Army contains a paragraph saying, "Is this officer suitable for training boys?" If he is, then he can be considered. It is a very great honour to be selected to go to one of these units. These officers give up very many of their evenings to assist the boys in their hobbies, and in getting to know them.
I am not going to try to explain the special arrangements made for boys; we have the Minister to do that. But it seems to me quite reasonable that a young soldier may purchase his discharge at any time during his first three months' service for £20, after which the rates vary in accordance with the Pay Warrant. If there is a case for re-examining the Pay Warrant, that might be a very good thing. I know that there are compassionate cases where such restrictions as exist on purchasing discharge are waived; but where the grounds do not justify free discharge the General Officer Commanding can authorise a partial reduction of 50 per cent. of the purchase, or a still greater percentage if he gets the agreement of the Command Secretary. As a former General Officer Commanding, I myself
504
have adopted both of these procedures in the past.
There are perfectly clear reasons why a free discharge cannot be given in all cases, and every case must be examined most carefully. A very great deal of public money is spent on the training of these young men, and they are given a remarkable education. Some firms are so well aware of this that they are not above trying to bribe boys to get out of the service, even offering to buy them out, because they have been so well trained. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will agree that when the taxpayer has paid a great deal of money it is only fair to get value out of this training. I wonder whether some of these cases which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has talked about relate to disgruntled youths who have had a most valuable and expensive training, and who see a good way of getting a lot more money in civil life for what the Services have done for them. I know of cases in the Army where boys have tried to get out, and when they were investigated that was found to be the reason.
I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I am sure that there should be reasonable and humane arrangements—and I believe there are—for misfits to get out of the Services. But I am sure that the Services must be protected when they have given these boys what is, in fact, a remarkably good start in life. In these days of so much juvenile crime and degeneracy and drug-taking, I must say that I wish there were more opportunities of such admirable training for our youth to-day.
7.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, this is the second time this week that I have had to ask for your Lordships' indulgence, in intervening without having asked for my name to be placed on the list of speakers. I hope I may nevertheless have that indulgence, although I should perhaps say that it is not my intention to make this a regular practice. The subject under debate on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, concerns the balance between the necessary enforcement of discipline in a Service to which a boy of 15½ or a young man of 18 has committed himself, and the terms under which he may be released if, subsequent

505
to his enlistment, he should for some reason wish to be.
I wish to raise just one quite limited but important aspect of this matter, and I shall do so briefly—I understand that this matter is already under review so far as the Army is concerned—namely, what happens if during his service a recruit becomes, or alleges that he has become, a conscientious objector. At the beginning of the last war the treatment of conscientious objectors was extremely just and fair. Great care, great understanding, was shown by most tribunals for those who wished to register as conscientious objectors. I myself attended several tribunals as a witness in the early months of the war, and was immensely impressed by the way the tribunals were conducted. The attitude of respect and fairness shown by the judge to those who appeared before him in itself helped to discriminate between the hypocrite and the man of genuine conviction.
The circumstance of a man who has volunteered for Service discipline, and who thereafter wishes to register as a conscientious objector, is different in character from that of a man coming before a tribunal when he is liable for call-up in war time. But one must recognise that a change of conviction in such a matter can, and sometimes does, arise among young people. After all, 15½ is a pretty young age at which to have cleared your mind upon an issue of this character. The change of conviction may be genuine, whether we agree with it or whether we do not.
One must also recognise how very difficult it is to test whether it be genuine. The commitment already entered into cannot be lightly disregarded, either for the man's sake or for the sake of the Service of which he is a member. This would be treating the man's sense of obligation and integrity too lightly, and I think it is very wrong to treat a young man's sense of obligation and integrity lightly. After all, he has had much done for him during his period of Service training. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in this respect. But I understand that, as things are at present, the procedure in the Army is that the man must prove his conscientious objection by refusing to obey orders; a military charge follows, and only after serving
506
some initial sentence can a tribunal be convened.
I find it very difficult to believe that this is really right. Clearly the tribunal's inquiry must be a searching one. I believe that the applicant may wish—indeed, may be expected—to provide some proof that he is ready in some way to make a form of recompense for an undertaking made voluntarily by him which he now feels bound to break. Not to require some such earnest of his sincerity would. I think, be doing less than justice to the young man's sense of responsible obligation. But I cannot think that the initial process of being treated as a criminal—for, in a sense, this is what it amounts to—is the right way to do it. I understand that this very matter is now under review at the War Office. Perhaps the Minister answering this debate will be able to confirm this. If this is the case, I would only ask: has the question of an option to transfer to some non-combatant form of service, at least for a period of time, been considered as at all events an initial resolution in some of the cases?
7.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I understand my noble friend's Question and complaint aright, it is not that he casts any reflection as such on military service and the training of these young apprentices—and I may say that I do not wish to involve myself or worry the noble Lord in regard to his personal conscience about military service—but that he is concerned about that minority of young people who, for one reason or another, have entered the Service and have subsequently changed their minds. I do not think, therefore, that there is any suggestion that these young soldiers, sailors and airmen get anything other than an admirable training, or that they are themselves—and this certainly has been my experience—other than very fine young men, the great majority of whom are in fact happy to continue in the Service. I should just like to make sure that we are agreed so far. I think my noble friend Lord Brockway agrees with me so far.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords. That is not the issue I raised. The issue I raised was the long-term commitment, which would not be accepted in civil life.
LORD SHACKLETON: That is not inconsistent with what I am saying. I am merely trying to establish the area in which there is agreement, not the area in which there may be either disagreement or difficulty.
I have listened very closely indeed to both what my noble friend Lord Brockway said and indeed to what my noble friend Lord Gifford said. Having listened to them, I am bound to say that there is a real area of difficulty here—and I will try to set out as clearly as I can the nature of the dilemma. In addition, there is the particular issue which he raised, as did the right reverend Prelate, in relation to conscientious objectors. I should like to deal with that very quickly, because I am not in a posito say very much about it. I have listened very carefully, and I have myself noted the procedure that is followed in these cases. I hope both the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate will excuse me from commenting on that procedure, beyond saying that what they had to say will be taken very carefully into account. This was a subsidiary point, but certainly a very important one. I acknowledge that.
The only point in regard to conscientious objectors with which I really must disagree most strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—and it may well be that he inadvertently fell into error in this—is in regard to his suggestion that in certain cases courts-martial were deliberately sentencing deserters to a penalty less than that which would bring them within the scope of the conscientious objection appeal procedure. Regardless of what may have happened in the past—and I fully acknowledge the noble Lord's personal experience and, indeed, the courage he has shown in upholding his views in the past—I simply cannot accept that courts-martial have to-day deliberately given men lower sentences than those which would bring them within the field of this particular procedure. Indeed, he quoted the case of Mayhew, who, he said, was given a very low sentence bearing in mind the severity of the offence of desertion which he had committed. But, of course, Mayhew—and this is why I think my noble friend must have fallen into error—never claimed to be a conscientious objector.
LORD BROCKWAY: I admit the error at once. If my noble friend will remember, I had a look at some papers, and I then referred to the case of Mayhew when I ought to have referred to another case. I admit that mistake; but I can refer to other cases.
LORD SHACKLETON: I fully accept that my noble friend did not intend to mislead the House. But it proves my point that the sentences which are imposed for desertion are not as severe as my noble friend clearly thinks they should be, though he has suggested that courts-martial have been avoiding what would seem to be the appropriate sentence simply in order to prevent an individual going before the court-martial appeal court. Although it is perhaps dangerous for me to comment on courts-martial and how they operate, perhaps I may be permitted to express a view. I should have thought that, if anything, if there was any bias, it would have been towards enabling the young man in question to take advantage of that procedure; and I hope that my noble friend, in the absence of any definite evidence to the contrary, will accept that. I may say that all the cases to which reference has been made have been examined, and nothing has been found to suggest that there is any foundation for such an accusation, which I know did not emanate from the noble Lord. After all, he has to rely on information which other people give him. The courts-martial cases which have been made known to us, and which have been examined in detail, provide no evidence to support this particular allegation.
Perhaps at this point I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that I am not able to comment on these particular cases because we have so far been unable to trace the great majority of them. The Army can trace none of the cases quoted, because in only one case is a name given; and in that case the name only is given and no regiment or regimental number. Indeed, there is quite an aura of anonymity. There may be reasons why people who send up these cases wish to keep them anonymous, but it makes it rather difficult to meet the charges. Nearly all the R.A.F. cases are anonymous. The Navy has certainly been able to trace some cases, but there again most of those are anonymous. I do not

509
make these points—although in a sense this could be argued—in order to make a tactical score. I grant that the noble Lord has presented a case which raises real difficulties and one which must give us all grounds to search our hearts and consciences. I will try to meet the noble Lord by setting out as fairly as I can the procedure followed in the circumstances and why hitherto, and certainly at present, this procedure is followed.
I should like first to explain how we have come to the present position and the present law governing enlistment in the Services, of which the enlistment of boys forms part. Originally, all persons entering the service of the Crown, in the Army and in a civilian capacity, entered that service for life. The Royal Navy was an exception in that seamen were engaged for the period of a ship's commission. Parliament, however, regulated the length of engagement of soldiers; and the Army Act 1881 contains provisions on the terms of enlistment of soldiers. The Air Force followed the Army's model. If your Lordships refer to Part I of each of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 you will find the terms of enlistment then laid down. These again were modified in the Army and Air Force Act 1961. The Royal Navy was governed by the Naval Enlistment Acts 1835–1884.
In the Armed Forces Act 1966, which was recently passed by your Lordships, the terms of entry of ratings into the Royal Navy were brought into line with those governing the Army and the Air Force, and the Defence Council were given rather wider powers to regulate the terms of enlistment for all three Services by Statutory Instrument, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and therefore subject to Parliamentary control. An area of flexibility, still with Parliamentary control, has been introduced. In the exercise of these powers, the Royal Navy has now given recruits the right to buy their discharge for £20 at the end of the first three months' service. Thus all recruits to all three Services may buy their discharge during part of the first three months of service. I realise that noble Lords who are criticial will maintain that this period is not enough, and that the problems may not even arise at that point; indeed, even if unhappy, they may possibly, for perfectly laudable reasons, be persuaded to go on trying.
510
My Lords, let me now deal with why the Services want to recruit boys—because this is partly responsible for our dilemma. The Services look to the junior and apprentice schemes as an important source of high quality recruits to provide future warrant officers, petty officers, N.C.O.s and skilled tradesmen. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, some are commissioned. I must say straight away that I think they are a splendid lot of young men. I have from time to time given lifts to young soldiers. In my inspections at Halton, where I have talked freely to them, one cannot fail to be impressed with them. If I understood my noble friend Lord Gifford correctly, he would argue that this strengthens his case for allowing those who are dissatisfied to be allowed out, because the Services do produce a degree of enthusiasm and satisfaction probably greater among these young soldiers than even among the adult recruits. In the Navy these young sailors amount to over two-thirds of the total intake of recruits.
In industry and commerce, employers are increasingly trying to obtain their high-quality recruits direct from school and to train them in their particular field. Once a boy has received his training and has settled into a job generally—though not necessarily so; it will depend on certain types of management—he is unlikely to want to change. The Services must continue to follow the same practice if they are to get the leaders and the skilled men that they need. Experience shows on the whole that boys settle down more easily than adult recruits. Their wastage is less and they stay longer in the Service; that is to say, the proportion who extend their services or continue to pensionable engagements is higher than for adult recruits. Again, in general, because of their early start and the high-quality training they receive, they reach a higher rank than adult recruits. The Services think very highly of their boy entrants, and the boys think highly of their own Service. I think we can all agree on this.
My Lords, let me now face the point raised by my noble friend Lord Brockway. Boys between the ages of 15 and 17½ can join the Services, with the written consent of a parent or guardian, through an apprentice or junior training scheme. They undertake to serve

511
to the age of 18 and for a specified period thereafter. This varies, according to the Service and the type of trade concerned, from six years for most Army boys to a maximum of 12 years for certain recruits to the Royal Navy and the R.A.F.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt to ask whether it is not true that the junior who joins for six years in the Army receives 38s. 6d. a week less for the whole of his service than if he joins for nine years?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I was afraid that I should be asked that question. I have not my finger on the answer, but I may have it by the time I finish speaking. It is interesting, but it is not relevant to the main case, which is why they should be allowed to go. As I have said, they undertake to serve a certain period.
From the age of 17½ recruits may be entered for adult engagement without parental consent. Young men between 17 and 17½ may, however, enlist for adult service in the Army or the Royal Air Force, provided that they have their parent's or guardian's consent. The length of the initial engagement for adults is 9 or 12 years in the Royal Navy, the option of 6 or 9 years in the Army, and 5 or 9 years in the Royal Air Force; although a small number of 3-year engagements are available in the Army and Royal Air Force. All these engagements are for active service, and the rates of pay for certain of them depend on the length of these engagements. I have not yet got the answer to the point my noble friend raised. I was speaking in general terms, for I was not able to check the actual figures. All these engagements are for active service, and in some cases there is a liability for Reserve service.
In 1966 the Royal Navy took on 4,925 boys of the ages in question, the Army took on 5,838 and the Royal Air Force, 1,244. This makes a total of about 12,000 boys a year, amounting to about a quarter of the total intake. I have here a number of figures as to the number who left before completing their service, but in order to save time I will not give them now, because they were given in another place, unless the noble Lord wishes me to.
512
My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration said in another place that he was looking into the problem of terms of service for those who entered the Service as boys, and would announce the result in due course. But there are difficult and important manning considerations involved, and if there is one thing we ought not to do it is to dismiss these difficulties as ones which not only can we ignore but ought to ignore, in the light of the important principles which have been raised by my noble friends. A proposal to give all young entrants the right to go at age 21 would present the most tremendous difficulties for the Armed Services. It would almost certainly lead to a substantial (though how many one does not know) increase in the numbers which the Services would have to recruit; not necessarily because the number who would want to act out would be so very large, but because of the number who might join knowing that they could get out at that age without a commitment. That is quite apart from those cases which have come to the notice of your Lordships.
The right to leave might be exercised by other men who would otherwise be quite content to continue their service. Temporary difficulties or pressure from families may easily persuade a man to leave the Service and he may afterwards regret doing so. I have direct experience of this. I will not go into detail, but a group of airmen (and not all of them were very young) were, after their original application had been turned down, given the opportunity to purchase their discharge. This was two years after they had insisted that they wanted to leave. But by then they had changed their minds and wanted to stay. I think it is conceivable that my noble friend would accept some sort of barrier so that it was not possible for people to act too much on the spur of the moment.
The more men the Service recruit, the more they have to train. While the present training schools could no doubt deal with a modest increase, any substantial increase would involve the Services in setting up new training schools. There is no two-way traffic between the Services and industry—or at least very little—in respect of trained technicians. In practice, when a Service loses a trained technician, he is lost for good and the

513
Service has to train a replacement, which may take as long as five or six years. There is very little chance of recruiting a technician already trained by industry.
The Services are in difficulties about making firm manning plans, and these difficulties would be seriously increased by giving men a right to go at 21. The Services would not, for instance, be able to calculate at all accurately the outflow at the age of 21, because they would have little or no practical experience to guide them. Moreover, giving a right to go a 21 is the kind of step which, once taken, can hardly be retracted. Nor would my noble friend want it to be retracted. If we were to introduce an experiment to let everybody go at 21 it would, I think, be impossible ever to return to the former position and impose restrictions to which the noble Lords have objected.
It is therefore natural, as I am sure will be accepted by noble Lords, that the Services should be very cautious, faced as they are with the need to keep the Forces manned and to carry out the very onerous responsibilities that the people and Government of this country put upon them. Furthermore, they have to keep their costs within the limit of the Defence Budget, and there are plenty of people, including my noble friend, who would like to see that Budget reduced. The wider the door is out of the Services at an early stage, the greater the intakes and the greater the training bill.1/23/2007
Your Lordships may wonder why the Services should be able to hold young men when young men in industry can easily leave their jobs. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord with regard to a comparison of the position of the Service man vis-à-vis his ordinary fellow citizen in relation to the operation of Common Law. But there is a certain similarity, even so, between the terms for indentured apprentices in civil life and boy or apprentice entrants into the Services. I have had experience of this. There is usually a probationary period of three to six months, during which either the employer or the apprentice can terminate the contract. After the probationary period, any dispute between employer and the boy has to be referred to the National Apprenticeship Council which decides, sometimes after calling for further information, whether or not
514
the boy should be allowed to leave. Sometimes it recommends that he be transferred to another employer. The employer has the right to go to court, if the boy insists on breaking his apprenticeship, but in practice this rarely happens.
Despite the similarities, I recognise that in practice the Services do hold a man, whereas an employer normally does not. It is, however, worth making this point to show that this is not quite such a strange situation as all that.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise I am sure—no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—that an infant does have the right to avoid his apprenticeship contract at the age of 21.
LORD SHACKLETON: Then he has completed it. I am being as scrupulously fair as I can to noble Lords. The power to hold a Serviceman derives from the Service Acts. Parliament has made it an offence to desert or be absent without leave and has laid down penalties in these Acts, but noble Lords must face this. We may not like having Armed Forces. We may abhor war. There are those who in fact carry their hatred of war to the point where they can conscientiously object. But many of us cannot conscientiously object and have to face the consequences of the fact that there are fighting Services with the unique task of defending the country, and Parliament has recognised that the Serviceman should not have the right to leave at short, or comparatively short notice, and has provided penalties if he leaves unlawfully.
Your Lordships may also wonder whether a large number of men would leave if we gave them the right to go at, say, 21. We do not really know the answer to that question. As I have said, we hope that the vast majority are content with life in the Services. We know, however, that some wives of Servicemen may not be. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the average age at which a Serviceman marries is going down, and this is in line with the rest of the population.
The demands which the country imposes on Servicemen, such as readiness to go anywhere in the world at short

515
notice, and if necessary to serve unaccompanied on tours overseas, are very much disliked by the wives of Servicemen. Moreover, the Services cannot guarantee accommodation for the families of those serving at home. The Services do their very best to minimise the separation of a Serviceman from his family, but some degree of separation is inevitable. Here again, the shortage of housing in this country affects far more than the Services but money is limited. Naturally, no wife likes separation, and it is at this point that so many of these young men, very often over the age of 18 when they get married, find that they would like to get out of the Service. There is a real problem here, for which there is no quick and easy answer. The natural desire to liberalise the terms of enrolment for boys conflicts to some extent with the tasks the country has laid on the Services.
My noble friend referred to the cases raised by the National Council for Civil Liberties. I will not discuss them further now. My noble friend can read Hansard of another place, and I have dealt with certain points. I must point out, however, that Mayhew is being allowed out before he has completed his nine-year engagement, and will be let out in time to go to university if he wishes to do so. This is a case which has been considered sympathetically, and I would make clear that these cases are examined sympathetically and if there is a compassionate element particular attention is given to it.
I had a large number of cases brought to me by Members of another place. But we are in a difficulty here. Young men in the Services are free to approach their Members of Parliament, and the suggestion in the N.C.C.L. paper that they are not free to do so is simply not true. I know the care that is taken to prevent victimisation. This is such a well-established right that, although naturally it is far better for a Serviceman initially to use Service channels, he has still the right to approach an M.P. I have dealt with the question of desertion.
My Lords, I do not believe for a moment that I have satisfied either of my two noble friends. I am sure that they will recognise the extent of the dilemma and the concern that the existence of a situation of this kind must
516
cause to anybody with a liberal-minded approach to life. I can only say to my noble friends that I have listened carefully to what they have said. There will be a further examination of the problems to which my noble friend has called attention, but, having gone into the matter very fully, I cannot honestly see much prospect of an easy solution to them.

REHABILITATION OF DRUG ADDICTS
8.3 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what terms and particularly on what financial terms they intend to co-operate with voluntary bodies over hostels for the rehabilitation of drug addicts. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Question is to elicit further details from Her Majesty's Government about their policy on the rehabilitation of drug addicts. May I start by reminding the House of the view of the Brain Committee, which reported on the subject in July, 1965. On page 9, paragraph 25, of their Report they say:
"The withdrawal of a drug is only the first step in the treatment of an addict. Those who are discharged after satisfactory withdrawal of the drug of addiction may soon relapse on returning to their old haunts."
They go on:
"The situation would, in our view, be greatly improved if there were proper facilities for long-term rehabilitation, both psychological and physical, in the treatment centres and elsewhere."
They point out that in dealing with this subject they are outside their terms of reference, and they leave it at that.
Nearly twelve months later, we had a useful debate in your Lordships' House on a Question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, by which time public anxiety about this problem—not so much about the size of the problem as about the rate at which it was growing—had considerably increased. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who replied, in dealing with this aspect of the problem said that after the withdrawal stage, which was usually successful:
"…the addict needs to be in hospital. The second stage aims at removing psychological dependence on the drug, and this usually requires the patient to be under psychiatric supervision in hospital or in a local authority hostel. These hospitals are being provided,

517
and there is no reason to confine them to those addicted to narcotic drugs. The centres will deal with anyone in such need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/6/66, col. 833.]
He ended with the further statement:
"These are not simple matters. Her Majesty's Government are conscious of the need to reach early and sound conclusions, and hope to do so shortly."
In fact, my Lords, another seven months elapsed, and then there was a debate in another place. This time the Minister of Health, giving the further development of the Government's policy in this matter, said:
"I should like to say a little more about the problem of the rehabilitation of addicts. The Brain Committee said, and this is generally recognised, that withdrawal is only the first stage of treatment. The problem is to prevent subsequent relapse, and that can he prevented to some extent by improving facilities of long-term rehabilitation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 30/1/67, col. 140.]
We must have these facilities for long-term rehabilitation in order to complete and round off the cure of drug addicts. I do not know what facilities for this rehabilitation have been provided by the hospitals or local health authorities. Perhaps the noble Lord who is going to reply can tell us something. Treatment centres are in process of being set up. We know that. And we know that the Minister said at the end of January, in the same speech from which I have just quoted (col. 140):
"I am anxious to build on existing services and try new methods. One possibility is the accommodation of addicts in hostels, where they can receive psychiatric supervision and support while in regular employment. In arrangements of that kind I feel sure that there is scope for voluntary bodies, and I certainly welcome their co-operation."
What have the voluntary bodies done? I have some details, not I hope an exhaustive list, but a few examples. We have, I suppose, among the longest-established hostels the one at Spelthorne St. Mary's run for the past 88 years by the Wanted Sisters to deal with alcoholics and drug addicts. Perhaps most of their patients are those who pay privately for treatment, but they take in as many others as charitable subscriptions and donations will allow. They have developed over these long years good cooperation with local doctors and hospitals and with the local health authority. It would be interesting to know what is the further pattern of co-operation the Minis
518
ter has in mind for an establishment of this sort.
Then there is the centre at Chelsea, run, I believe, by doctors in private practice, and linked with a hostel run by the Salvation Army at which occupational therapy is given to the patients who are being treated for their medical condition. It would be interesting to know what pattern of co-operation is envisaged in a case like this. The third example is the centre near Bristol, run by a group of which the local rector is chairman, yet to be established, but trying to cope with the demand in that area and linked in some way with the local council for social service. What is the pattern the Minister would have in mind in a case like that?
Fourthly, there is a centre consisting of two houses in Watford, operated by a group of doctors and nurses—the Crossroads Trust. What is to be the pattern of co-operation here? Fifthly, there is the Hill Farm enterprise outside Birmingham, another centre not yet fully set up, but running in conjunction with All Saints' Hospital, so far relying entirely on subscriptions from the churches. What is the pattern of co-operation here? Lastly, there is Narcotics Anonymous, led by a group based on Dulwich, chaired by a clergyman, and using a house at Ripton in the country, entirely dependent on private subscription. These are not the only cases in the field; this is just an example of what the voluntary bodies are so far doing.
I mention these because all the other medical and psychiatric treatment of addicts in hospitals and clinics which was spelt out in some detail in the debate in another place at the end of January will be wasted if matching provision is not made at the same time for the rehabilitation of addicts in homes or hostels. As the Minister of Health has said, this is an ideal field for the voluntary bodies. As I have shown, they are already in action, or about to go into action in this field. It is good to know that the Minister welcomes their co-operation, but these bodies in turn would welcome his co-operation, and they want to hear now, and if not now, later, in what terms he is going to express it.
8.11 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on raising an important matter

519
in such an interesting way. I am only sorry that the lateness of the hour has precluded other speakers who would have liked to join in this little debate from taking part. I am sorry, too, that I am not in a position to give him much additional information to that which he has placed before us. By "rehabilitation", in this context, as he has said, we mean the second stage in the treatment of addiction.
The first stage, which is of short duration, involves the withdrawal of the drug of addiction, and that usually takes place in hospital. When it is completed, the patient is free from physical dependence on the drug, but only rarely is he free from psychological dependence. Most patients, therefore, as the noble Lord rightly says, need to enter a second and longer stage of treatment, which may be called rehabilitation. In this they receive psychiatric supervision, social support and are actively employed. The object is to enable them to overcome their psychological dependence on drugs, and to lead a normal life. At the present time, most of the mental illness hospitals which offer the first stage of treatment also offer the second stage. The treatment may be on an in-patient basis or on an out-patient basis. For in-patients, occupational or industrial therapy is usually provided in the hospital, or arrangements may be made for patients to go out to work in the community during the day and to return to the hospital at night.
For those patients who have left hospital, after-care services, including hostels of local health authorities, are available as to other patients who have completed treatment in psychiatric hospitals. There are, as the noble Lord said, various voluntary bodies who are running hostels, and some accept persons who have received treatment for addiction. The noble Lord made special mention of the Spelthorne St. Mary's hospital, and I should like to say how highly their devoted work is regarded. Hospitals in the Health Service, of course, usually offer continued supervision and support by means of regular out-patient clinics.
Given that there are all these services, it is perhaps not obvious why the noble Lord has stressed the need to improve arrangements for rehabilitation. But, of
520
course, he is quite right to do so. The explanation is that drug addicts make insufficient use of available services or—to put it another way—the services are not generally acceptable to addicts. In order to consider what is possible or desirable in the rehabilitation of drug addicts it is necessary to reflect on some sad, but relevant, facts.
The first is that, in general, addicts are not willing to undertake treatment which involves withdrawal of the drug of addiction. There are no reliable figures of the total incidence of addiction, and I cannot say what proportion of addicts undertake withdrawal treatment; but it is generally believed to be very small. Secondly, a substantial proportion of the addicts who enter hospital with the expressed intention of accepting treatment leave almost immediately and before undertaking treatment. It is thought that they enter hospital because of some personal crisis, and not because they have a genuine intention to accept treatment. Thirdly, there are patients who enter and remain for withdrawal treatment, which is, as the noble Lord said, usually completed successfully. They require the second stage of rehabilitation, but all too often they leave hospital against the advice of their doctor and then, having returned to their old environment, relapse into addiction. Finally, there are those who successfully complete the second stage of rehabilitation.
My Lords, I fear that this is a sombre picture, and it is no satisfaction to any of us to say that it is even darker in other countries. One study in the United States which followed up patients who had been discharged from hospital after treatment for addiction showed that more than 90 per cent. were re-addicted within six months.
This is the background of our discussion which the noble Lord has started. The problem is well-known to the psychiatrists who treat addicts, and it was, as the noble Lord said, recognised by the interdepartmental Committee on Drug Addiction under the chairmanship of the late Lord Brain. But it is one thing to recognise a problem, and another to find a solution. The fact is that there is no ready-made system of rehabilitation which guarantees success. We should all

521
like to see an effective form of rehabilitation, which is really to say that we should all like to see a reliable cure for addiction. But that is not to say that it can necessarily be provided by Government action. However, the Government accept the need to improve rehabilitation measures.
They have set up the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. Its duly is to keep under review the misuse of narcotic and other drugs which are likely to produce dependence, and to advise on remedial measures that might be taken, or on any other related matters which the Ministers may refer to it. Legislation is being prepared to limit the authority of doctors to prescribe or supply restricted drugs to addicts, initially heroin and cocaine, and to require all doctors to notify to a central authority patients who are addicted to dangerous drugs. Hospital authorities have been informed of the treatment facilities that are required for addicts unable or unwilling to accept withdrawal treatment, and they have been asked to provide it urgently. The Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation—by way of an Amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act—during the Session. In a memorandum that the Minister of Health sent last week to hospital authorities about the organisation of hospital facilities for the treatment of heroin addiction, he said that the question of after-care and its co-ordination with the hospital service was receiving further attention, and that guidance on the organisation of the rehabilitation of addicts would be forwarded separately.
Having outlined the existing arrangements for the rehabilitation of drug addicts and some of the problems, I should like now to outline some of the considerations that appear to the Government to be of the greatest importance in the development of future arrangements. The main difficulty in continuing treatment in hospital after withdrawal lies in retaining the interest and co-operation of the patient, and some modification of the usual occupational and recreational activities and arrangements for after-care may be necessary, especially in order to meet the needs of those addicts who are young, active and intelligent.
522
A conference of psychiatrists with experience in the treatment of addiction has considered this problem of rehabilitation. It seems to be necessary to provide psychiatric supervision, social support and employment, all in a form acceptable to the addict. It is possible that the services will be acceptable if they are provided in a hostel. These requirements suggest that there are important parts to be played by both the statutory services, including the hospital and local health authority services, and the voluntary bodies. It seems likely that the best results will come from co-operation between these services by joint ventures, and that the range of experiments in the rehabilitation of addicts should include the use of hostels, which may be run either by voluntary or by statutory bodies. I am afraid I am not in a position, and it would not be right for me here, to discuss the particular examples to which the noble Lord referred in his speech.
These are some interim observations pending the completion of the Government's consideration of the problem. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot today precisely define the role of voluntary bodies in rehabilitation generally, or in relation to hostels, or in the financial terms for which he asked. I assure him, however, that the Government recognise the need to improve arrangements for the rehabilitation of drug addicts, and will press forward their consideration of this matter with a view to reaching early conclusions and to issuing guidance about the desired form of co-operation between the statutory and the voluntary services. Our intention is to improve existing services and to experiment with new measures in order to reduce the rate and the risk of relapse which is such a tragic feature of treatment at the present time. In devising these measures, although I realise that I have employed terms which the noble Lord himself said had been used on previous occasions by other Ministers, I assure him that what he has said this evening will be taken fully into account.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eight o'clock.