Sitting of 29 January 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 11th February.
  ESSEX RIVER AND SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TECHNOLOGY

    Nuclear-powered Ships
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the construction of a nuclear-powered surface ship.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): As I said on 22nd January in reply to similar Questions by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), we are now examining the further information recently received
    1296
    from shipbuilders. We shall discuss this with them and others concerned.—[Vol. 776, c. 109–10.]
    Mr. Wall: Are not the Government aiming too high in expecting a prototype to be wholly economic? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the new container ship would probably be eminently suitable for nuclear propulsion, bearing in mind the high speed and the length of time to be spent at sea?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree that the container ship offers by far and away the best prospect for surface nuclear propulsions. I do not believe that it is fair to say, however, that the Government are aiming too high in seeking to invest in an economic and commercial proposition.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we start on the basis of a commercial proposition from the word "go" the project will never get off the ground and that in this important sphere of marine technology the Government are dragging their feet and should get a move on?
    Mr. Fowler: It is easy to suggest that the Government should get a move on. It is less easy to show economic sense in what is an extremely difficult sphere. I believe that we are going as fast as we can in a way that makes economic sense.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does the information from shipbuilders now being considered include information from the Germans, who, I understand, are building a second ship to the "Otto Hahn"?
    Mr. Fowler: I was, of course, referring to proposals from the British shipbuilding industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been two of these, and we are examining them in great detail.

    Metrication Board
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Technology whom he has appointed to the Metrication Board; and what initial task he has given to the Board.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology what progress has now been made towards metrication.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Lord Ritchie-Calder will take up his appointment as Chairman of the Board on 1st March, and Mr. Gordon Bowen, C.B., C.M.G., who is at present Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Technology, will be the lull-time director. It is my intention to appoint a deputy chairman and I hope that I shall shortly be able to announce his name and those of the other members of the Board. The Board will decide its own priorities.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many industrial firms, particularly engineering firms, are becoming increasingly alarmed about the costs and complications of the changeover? Has there been a serious cost-benefit analysis of the change to metric, and, if not, will the Board be undertaking this task?
    Mr. Benn: The request that this country should go metric came in the first instance from industry, including the engineering industry. The Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Metrication was published last summer and contained some passages about the difficulties of doing a direct cost-benefit analysis in this case. I have little doubt that the C.B.I. was right in saying that metrication and international standardisation of units were absolutely essential for this country's future prosperity.
    Mr. Osbom: What is the present policy of the United States in this matter and are they remaining on the imperial system? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this transition is likely to take nearer 25 than five years and will lead to confusion and difficulty? Is he further aware that at this stage the transition must be treated as a matter of urgency in view of the difficulties that have been encountered?
    Mr. Benn: As for the time scale, it will take some time to complete this task, as everyone realises. This is a transitional period involving transferring from one form of measurement to another with the two in parallal for a while, and this is bound to take time. As for the policy of the United States, there is a lot of pressure in America for a switch to metrication. I have little doubt that, measurement being international
    1298
    in character, it will ultimately lead to everyone coming into line, but I am not responsible for their decision.
    Mr. Lubbock: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask Lord Ritchie-Calder to undertake urgent inquiries into the dangers of the B.S.I. staff shortage, which may inhibit the programme of change?
    Mr. Benn: I do not need to ask Lord Ritchie-Calder to do that because I am myself in close contact with the B.S.I. The industries and firms involved also have an interest in seeing that the B.S.I. is not short of money. This is a joint responsibility, and we obviously do not want to see delay due to that cause.

    Concorde
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Technology whether, in view of the estimated intensity of the sonic bang which will be produced by Concorde of between two and four pounds per square foot and the estimated maximum acceptable intensity of 0·75 pounds per square foot, he will cancel Concorde.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Technology what is his policy on the Concorde aircraft having regard to estimates of the sonic bang produced by it.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The intensity of the bang produced by Concorde will not be known until the aircraft has flown at supersonic speeds, but I have seen no evidence to support my hon. Friend's estimate about the maximum acceptable intensity of a sonic bang. Concorde's flights will, of course, be controlled in the interests of those below the flight paths.
    Mr. Jenkins: As my estimate of the cost of the Concorde was correct whereas my hon. Friend's was notoriously incorrect, is it not at least possible that my estimate of the sonic bang will be correct and his will be equally incorrect?
    Mr. Mallalieu: We shall know that when it has flown supersonically.
    Mr. Cronin: With respect to my hon. Friend, is it not the case that there are so many variables in weight, speed and altitude that nobody knows what the sonic bang of Concorde will be? Bearing in mind that 73 per cent. of the world's

    1299
    long routes are over the sea, this is not really a very important matter in practice. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, make sure that the Concorde is left to survive entirely on its economic merits?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The answer to the first part of the question is certainly, "Yes". I consider, however, that the question of aircraft noise generally has its importance.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: When the sonic tests take place, will the Minister ensure that American observers are present, thus ensuring that when the time comes the Americans, who do not have the equivalent to Concorde, will not prevent this aircraft going to the United States for reasons of noise?
    Mr. Mallalieu: That is a very good idea.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Technology when Concorde 002 is now expected to have its first flight.
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Technology what is now the estimated date when the Concorde will be in airline service.
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the development of the Concorde.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimated date for the first flight of prototype 001 of the Concorde; by what amount this varies from the originally expected date of first flight; and what has been the estimated increase in costs deriving from this delay.
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Technology when the British and French prototypes of Concorde will now make their first flight.
    Mr. Benn: The manufacturers had planned to achieve first flight of the first prototype (001) in February, 1968. They now expect it to fly next month. The first flight date of the second prototype (002) will depend upon results from the early flying of 001; but it is expected to be about six weeks after the first flight of 001. The manufacturers hope to have Concorde in airline service by 1973.
    Development costs are at present under review between the two Governments, and
    1300
    I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 22nd January.—[Vol. 776, c. 108.]
    Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the flight of the British Concorde is not being delayed for any political reason after that of the French Concorde?
    Mr. Benn: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. He must believe that as I am the Member for Bristol, South-East, if there were any political factors operating they would be the other way. The truth is that from the outset the programmes were planned so that 001 would come first and 002's first flight would benefit from the experience of 001. It would be wrong for me as a political Minister and as a local Member to endanger the project by urging a change in the programme of the flight before the technicians were ready to do it.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Minister confirm that the target date for the first flight is 15th February? Has not the in-airline-service date slipped since he last spoke about it at the Despatch Box?
    Mr. Benn: I would rather not give a date. I have probably read the same stories in the newspapers as has the hon. Member. I am not responsible for fixing the date. It lies with Sud in the case of the 001 and I cannot comment. In answer to the second question, the manufacturers hope to have Concorde in airline service by 1973. We do not know how far the first flight delays will carry through to the later stages or whether this has meant transferring the order in which certain things had to be done.
    Mr. Wall: Will the Minister say what is the expected number of orders for the new plane?
    Mr. Benn: There are no orders for Concorde. There are some options that were taken out before. During the course of the flight trials the firms manufacturing hope to be in a position to give performance guarantees on which firm orders can be built. We are now at the difficult period with Concorde which is causing anxiety because a lot of money has been spent and more committed in anticipation of the first firm order from anybody to buy the aircraft.
    Mr. Biffen: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the answer to my Question on 22nd January, to which he referred, he used the term a "substantial" rise in development cost? Will he take the earliest opportunity to quantify that rather indefinite word, and will he confirm that it is the intention of the Government that a significant share of those substantially increased development costs shall nonetheless be recovered in the sales that are made of the Concorde to the airline operators?
    Mr. Bean: I used the word "substantial" for two reasons. The first is that we are still assessing the modifications proposed by the firms, which they have costed but which we have not yet costed. The second is that in an international project one has to have an agreed statement as between the Governments concerned about the latest estimate of development costs.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, I agree that we want to get back as much of our investment as we can, but that depends on the long-term market for the Concorde and the extent to which costs may tend to rise between now and the recovery period.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: While many of us are still confident about the ultimate success of the project, we are also aware that the continuing delays will inevitably put up the cost, and we are alarmed at the mounting bill. Can we have an undertaking that if there are further delays the Minister will report fully and frankly to the House the real position as he sees it?
    Mr. Benn: I have tried to keep the House informed as best I can, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there is too little information generally available about the Concorde project, and I should like to correct the position.
    As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the reasons for the delays are various, and obviously it would be wrong for a Minister to agitate about a technical decision of the kind involving the date of the first flight. I can do no more than discuss the problem generally. The anxiety in Filton and Toulouse to get the aircraft into the air is so great that it does not need any political encouragement.
    Mr. Ellis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the slippage of dates is most important for this aircraft's future from the point of view of the workers involved and public confidence generally? These decisions are vital. Is it not time that the companies gave more information to this House and to everyone who has invested in the project so that we know where we stand? We understand the difficulties, but would like more information.
    Mr. Benn: I must acquit the firms of failing to give information to this House or to my Ministry. The firms and my Department are in full contact. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to two other problems. One is that of communication between management and men in the factories, about which I share his view. The other is the extent to which information is available to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), and I shall see what can be done in that respect.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: How does my right hon. Friend explain that the Russians seem to have put their Concorde into the air already? Is he aware that arrangements are being made for a Moscow/Tokio flight of their Concorde? Would it not be a good idea to approach the Russians and ask them to give an exhibition at Prestwick?
    Mr. Benn: I cannot comment on the comparison between the two projects except to say that anyone involved in the aircraft industry must admire the technological skill that went into the flight of the Tupolov aircraft. Whether the Russians would fly it here and show it to us is another matter. It would arouse immense interest in our aircraft industry if we could see it fly.
    Mr. Corheld: Is the Minister aware that we are handicapped by reading Press reports of meetings held by the right hon. Gentleman in my constituency, though I think that they do me more good than harm? I would ask him to bear in mind that this constant fixing of dates for the first flight of the Concorde that are not met is the worst possible form of public relations. When he is next in contact with our French colleagues and B.A.C, Filton, will he impress upon them that we should prefer April or even May, if it is

    1303
    definite, to these constantly changing dates? It is always next month, and nothing happens. It is doing immense harm to the whole project.
    Mr. Benn: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, if I offended him, I hope that he will forgive me. They were not political speeches that I made. I talked to the management, to shop stewards, and to people at the factory gate at Filton. It was a discussion of the project itself. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy.
    It was because of his second point that I declined to confirm the date about which there has been much discussion. It is a matter which must be left to the firm. Hon. Members should remember that a very sophisticated test programme is in operation. If one part of it reveals a defect, it has to begin again. That alone can cause delay. However, when the Concorde flies, it will be the most fully tested aircraft that has ever taken the air.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On an occasion when so many Questions are asked together, turning Question time into a debate, would it not be better if they were dealt with at the end of Question time?
    Mr. Speaker: It has been done.

    Harrier Aircraft
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what negotiations are in progress with the United States Government for the sale of Harrier aircraft; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: It is not the practice to disclose information about sales of defence equipment to other countries.

    Airbus
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what support his Department is giving to the British Aircraft Corporation's 311 aircraft project; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Minister of Technology (1) if he will make a statement on the latest negotiations
    1304
    for the building of a European airbus;
    (2) if he will provide funds for the building of a British 200/250 seater short, medium range aircraft powered by Rolls Royce RB211 engines.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further statement on the A300 European airbus project.
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the European airbus project.
    Mr. Benn: My Department has continued discussions with French and German officials and with industry about the A300B. The three Governments will take a decision about this as soon as possible.
    The British Aircraft Corporation's BAC311 design may be considered as a possible alternative which I shall be studying at the same time, keeping the French and German Governments fully informed.
    Meanwhile, I have made it clear that there can be no advance commitment to Government support for either aircraft. Each will be evaluated on its merits, against stringent economic criteria against a background of severe restraint in Government expenditure.
    Mr. Fortescue: Will the Minister accept that we on this side appreciate that he is now faced with the most crucial decision for the British aircraft industry since his Government cancelled TSR2 and failed to cancel Concorde? Will he assure the House that he does not mean to destroy the aircraft industry by refusing Government support to either of these projects?
    Mr. Benn: The demise of the aircraft industry has often been predicted. All I would say about the first part of the hon. Member's Question is that four years after the cancellations to which he has referred, exports per head in the industry were twice as high as in 1964. [Interruption.] All money is made out of obsolescent technology. If anybody thinks that money is made from new technology, I would say that money is made out of technology when the learning curve has been passed.

    1305
    The point with which I want to deal in relation to the latter part of the hon. Member's question is that we are interested, as the firms are, in making money by making aircraft. That means devising aircraft that will sell in the markets which are opening up. That alone is the reason for delay. That is why the consortium itself withdrew the A300 proposals.
    Mr. Howarth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government's intention, however, to give support to the building of an aircraft of the size indicated in the Questions? Does he appreciate that it is suggested that the French and Germans, plus other European partners, may go ahead without us in the next few months, using an American engine? It would be tragic to miss an opportunity and waste the large amount of money which has already been spent.
    Mr. Benn: I think that the money which has been spent was properly spent, because it at least helped us to avoid going ahead with support for the A300, which the firm subsequently decided to withdraw as a design. The industry is full of rumour—it is a very rumour-full industry—and I would not believe everything I read in the newspapers about alternative plans. We want to back projects that will sell. Since that ought also to be the interests of the firms, I do not see much danger of a division between us in the long term.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister understand that there is nothing in the Government's past record concerning the aviation industry which gives us any confidence that they will get the decision right? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared, at the end of a long period of muddle, which is primarily his own responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Look at the export figures."]—to see the British industry prevented, because of comparatively small sums of money, from taking advantage of the opportunity which lies ahead of it, bearing in mind that if this aircraft is not built the consequences to the balance of payments will be serious?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Technological questions and answers should also be reasonably brief.
    Mr. Benn: Nobody knows better than the hon. Member and his colleagues about cancellations—I think, £250 million worth of cancellations. The decisions which we have taken so far have been right.
    Mr. Onslow: What decisions?
    Mr. Benn: We decided not to proceed with the BAC211, and BAC has now come forward with an aircraft which, had we supported the 211, would not have fitted this market. The A300 proposals were withdrawn not by us but by the firms.
    Mr. Marten: In the balance of argument between the two aircraft, would not the Minister agree that airlines will buy the machine which is most suitable for their route patterns and economics and will not buy for reasons of a political consortium? What is the difference in price between the two proposed aircraft?
    Mr. Benn: I cannot answer the latter part of the question, because the full evaluations of price depend on the amount of money that the aircraft would cost and these have not yet been brought forward. That is why the firms have not provided the necessary figures. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that the aircraft business is now a business that begins with the market and ends up with the design to meet it and does not involve supporting every design which may be brought out by the firms.
    Mr. Corfield: Will the Minister bear in mind that his attitude to E.L.D.O. has already seriously undermined the confidence of our potential European partners in the Government's bona fides towards European co-operation, bearing in mind that any further prevarication or withdrawing from the consortium could do fatal damage not only to the British aircraft industry but to the whole concept of technological co-operation with Europe?
    Mr. Benn: Nothing would be more fatal to international co-operation than to launch into projects, as the hon. Member's colleagues did, that were not viable in the long run. E.L.D.O. was a perfect example of a non-viable project which diverted resources from the aircraft industry or from computers or other industries in which the basis of international collaboration exists. I must underline again

    1307
    that under Sud leadership the firms withdrew the designs for the A300. The hon. Member will remember the Anglo-French variable geometry proposals. Everybody in Europe is now looking together to find viable projects, and that is quite right.
    Mr. McMaster: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply to the Question, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Hydrofoil Craft
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Technology if the final report of the working party on hydrofoil craft has now been completed; if he will publish it; and whether he will now make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend has received the final Report of the Working Party on Hydrofoils and is considering how it may be made available to hon. Members and others who are interested.
    Mr. Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a lot of public interest in the Report? Members of the public will want to make an evaluation between hydrofoils and hovercraft. Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Red Funnel Steamers, of Southampton, for instance, is, I understand, about to operate the hydrofoil and see how it works compared with the hovercraft?
    Mr. Fowler: I am aware of what the hon. Member has said in the latter part of his question, and I agree with him that it would be advantageous to the House if the bulk of the Report could be made available. There are, of course, difficulties with information which is commercial and confidential, but we are studying how we can best make it available to hon. Members.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the great importance of recognising the detraction which inevitably resulted for hydrofoils as a result of N.R.D.C. taking up hovercraft? Bearing in mind that N.R.D.C. obviously cannot take up everything, will the Minister ensure that the hydrofoil conception does not become downgraded unnecessarily simply because N.R.D.C. has taken up hovercraft?
    Mr. Fowler: I see no reason whatever why it should be downgraded because
    1308
    N.R.D.C. has not taken it up hitherto. We are certainly trying to look at hydrofoils and hovercraft on a level to see which is better for which job.

    Defence Equipment (South Africa)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Technology why he vetoed the export of Nimrod maritime aircraft to South Africa; and what was the value of this order.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Our policy on the supply of defence equipment generally to South Africa is in line with the Security Council Resolution of 18th June, 1964, and remains unchanged.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a maritime reconnaissance aircraft which has nothing to do with aggression but everything to do with control of the seas, in which we have a common interest with South Africa? What useful purpose is served simply by ensuring that South Africa gets her supply of such aircraft from other members of the United Nations?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The United Nations Resolution to which I referred, and to which the previous Government subscribed, makes no distinction whatever between arms for internal use and for external use.
    Mr. Corfield: Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government faced up to the fact that friendly relations with countries owning the eastern seaboard of the Atlantic are vital to the interests of the country? Is it not clear that if it were not for Her Majesty's Government's attitude to arms of this sort the Union of South Africa would be very willing to play its part in the protection of sea routes which are so vital to us?
    Mr. Mallalieu: These considerations were fully borne in mind when the policy was decided, and were fully debated and explained in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18th December, 1967.

    S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. Civil Aircraft
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology if he will list the projects for the development and construction

    1309
    of either short take-off and landing or vertical take-off and landing civil airline feeder aircraft which he is now sponsoring; what has been the financial allocation; how much has been spent so far; what stage of development has been reached; and what is the capability of each project.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: No proposals have yet been made by industry for Government assistance in the development of short take-off and landing or vertical take-off and landing civil aircraft. But extensive research to assess the prospects of this type of aircraft is being done. Some existing aircraft, partly backed by Government money, have a limited short take-off and landing capability.
    Mr. Osborn: Is it not the fact that this is the form of transport of the future, bringing aircraft down on grass landing strips near city centres or on pads in city centres? Should not this matter be given active support by the Government of the day?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that on present understanding it seems to have enormous possibilities, and we are backing it.
    Mr. Fortescue: Will the Minister confirm to the House that, whether or not there have been definite applications for financial assistance, at least one project from a leading firm of British airframe manufacturers is on the Minister's desk at present?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think that it is more than on the Minister's desk; it is in the Minister's head. There is not only one project; there are two, and they are extremely interesting.

    Linesman Ground-to- Air Defence System
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology what is the total cost to date of equipment for the Linesman ground-to-air defence system.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: £68 million, excluding building works.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since this area is, to use my right hon. Friend's phrase, rumourful, may we have an undertaking that there has not been extravagance and waste in the Linesman project?
    Mr. Mallalieu: So far as I know, not. It seems to be going extremely satisfactorily.

    Woomera (Launchings)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the latest launchings at Woomera.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The F7 launching of the Europa rocket, which took place on Saturday, 30th November, 1968, was the eighth development firing.
    Blue Streak and the French second stage performed satisfactorily and the German third stage separated and ignited, but thrust deteriorated rapidly and did not last for more than seven seconds out of the intended 340 seconds. Because of this the Italian satellite did not go into orbit.
    Mr. Dalyell: What are the future plans?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The next firing is on 30th June of this year.
    Mr. Marten: Is it not true that every Blue Streak firing has performed almost perfectly? That being so, what is the reason for the Government's confidence that the Americans will do all the launching of our satellites for us?
    Mr. Mallalieu: It is a fact that Blue Streak has performed admirably in these tests. The second part of the question is quite a different one.

    Aircraft Manufacture (International Co-operation)
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has for further international co-operation in the manufacture of aircraft.
    Mr. Benn: Government policy is to support, where appropriate in partnership with others, those aircraft projects which promise to be economic and which will meet established demand. Various proposals are now under consideration.
    Mr. Sheldon: Since the number of international projects within the aircraft industry, and in other areas, is almost certain to increase over the next few years, will my right hon. Friend consider the method of control over international projects, which appears at present to be

    1311
    quite inadequate? Although I understand that these things need to be worked out during a period of time, will he not, before making any further contracts, consider issuing in the form of a statement or otherwise information on methods of control, so that we have a chance to make sure that we avoid the bitterness and disillusion which would be an inescapable part of getting this thing wrong?
    Mr. Benn: I should like to consider the specific proposal of my hon. Friend. There is also a learning curve in international collaboration; we are learning from our experience. I think that the new arrangements are better than the old, and I hope that in future collaborative projects industry will supply a larger part and the rôle of Governments will be diminished to that of agreeing in the first instance and then supervising the development of the project and watching over the Government investment.
    Mr. Fortescue: May we have some clarification of Government policy as expressed this afternoon in the Minister's replies? He has said that the main object of the policy is that the aircraft supported should be viable in the market. Does this mean that an international project would not take precedence over an all-British project if the all-British project had a better chance of being sold?
    Mr. Benn: The case for international collaboration is not so much that we need access to the technology of our European partners but that in terms of the likelihood of commanding a good sound home market collaboration helps. Secondly, a number of Governments contributing to the launching aid reduces the totality of our investment and hence our own risk.

    Short Brothers and Harland
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Rohr Corporation relating to Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member on 27th November last.—[Vol. 774, c. 473–4.]
    Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman say when the financial reorganisation of Short Bros, and Harland will be complete, and is he aware of the great delay there has been and the trouble which it is causing to Short Bros.?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I cannot give a date for that. I know the difficulties that the company is in about this, but it is tied up with negotiations with Rohr.

    Shipbuilding Industry, Scotland (Rationalisation)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress made in the rationalisation of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland in the last four years; what effect this has had on the total numbers employed; and how much public money has been injected into the industry during this period.
    Mr. Fowler: Since the Shipbuilding Industry Act was passed in 1967 three groups have been formed covering respectively the five Upper Clyde yards, the bigger yards on the Lower Clyde, and two yards in East Scotland. These groupings have prevented a decrease in employment and as yard reorganisation proceeds should enable more secure employment to be given than in the past. The assistance so far provided or promised under the Shipbuilding Industry Act amounts to over £7 million in addition to the Government investment in Fairfields of £1½ million.
    Mr. Hamilton: While that picture is generally satisfactory, can my hon. Friend assure us that there is adequate public control over the public expenditure?
    On a more specific point, the threatened closure of the Burntisland shipyard, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that, if it eventuates, an independent public inquiry will be held into the causes of the closure?
    Mr. Fowler: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, yes, Sir.
    As for Burntisland, I hope that we can reach a commercial and viable solution which will enable the yard to stay in production. However, I must point out that the assistance voted by this House in the Shipbuilding Industry Act was meant to be used not to save uneconomic

    1313
    yards but to assist reorganisation with a view to promoting competitiveness in the industry. If the Burntisland yard fits that pattern, I shall be pleased, but I do not think that an inquiry would help us as of now.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that neither he nor the S.I.B. will exert economic or other pressures on the Upper Clyde shipbuilders and the lower reaches firms to come together against the commercial judgments of the firms involved? When can he comment on the progress of productivity agreements in Scottish shipyards?
    Mr. Fowler: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Shipbuilding Industry Act provides us not with sticks but with carrots. We cannot drive firms to do anything against their commercial judgments.
    On the second part of the question, it is not really for me to appear in this House and discuss matters which are for management.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend ay why rationalisation on the lower reaches of Clydeside seems to be progressing so slowly? The same would apply to Tyne-side and Tees-side. Has my hon. Friend any guidance on these aspects?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not understand what my hon. Friend is saying when he refers to progress being slow on Tyneside and Tees-side. I think that progress has been as rapid as could have been expected.

    Computer Industry (European Collaboration)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made, in particular with France, Germany, Italy and Holland, in the development of a co-ordinated European computer industry.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): This is essentially a matter for the firms in the respective countries which have been carrying on discussions with a view to making mutually beneficial collaborative arrangements.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the importance to Europe and to this country
    1314
    of a strong and developing computer industry, is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to approach the Treasury and the other countries with a view to arranging a fiscal advantage over a fixed period of time to get the industry going?
    Dr. Bray: There is no lack of financial resources in this country or in any other. The importance is appreciated in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in considering this problem we have to recognise the fact, however much it may be deplored, that many European computer firms are largely American controlled and owned? If we are to make sense of collaboration between the United Kingdom and Europe, we have to take America into account as well.
    Dr. Bray: It is impossible to ignore the American position, but there are major European-controlled firms with computer interests and, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) says, it is important to keep in touch with those.

    Multi-rôle combat aircraft
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further statement on the multi-rôle combat aircraft project.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to a similar Question on 20th January last. There is nothing to add at present.—[Vol. 776, c. 36–7.]
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister, first, remind the House who will have the design leadership of this aircraft? Secondly, does the Minister believe that co-operation with Europe in the military sphere could survive the collapse of cooperation with Europe in the civil sphere?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The second part of the question would lead to long debate. I could not give a straight answer. On design leadership, once the feasibility study has been completed—and it has—the Germans will concentrate on the

    1315
    single-seat version and we shall concentrate on the double.
    Mr. Dalyell: Might I ask the Government to be sceptical about the research estimate of £300 million and the unit cost of £1·2 million?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think that all Governments have learned to be extremely sceptical on those subjects.

    Science-based Industry, Wales
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Technology what is the total annual rate of support being given to science-based industry in Wales by the Government; and what is the equivalent sum for England.
    Dr. Bray: The Government are encouraging the establishment and growth of science-based industry in Wales through measures such as support for industrially oriented work at the university and colleges of technology, research and development contracts, and, more generally, through investment grants and assistance under the Local Employment Acts. It is not possible to say how much of this expenditure in Wales, which is running at over £30 million a year, relates specifically to science-based industry, and accordingly no comparable figure for England can be given.
    Mr. Hooson: Is it correct that, apart from two out-stations of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, there are no Government-financed research and development establishments in Wales? It has been estimated that out of every £1 paid by taxpayers in Wales, only 3d. is spent in Wales by the Government for this purpose.
    Dr. Bray: There are a number of non-Ministry of Technology Government laboratories in Wales of great distinction—for instance, the Welsh Plant Breeding Station at Aberystwyth and so on. What is lacking in Wales is direct industrial support of firms. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of increasing support, and we shall try to find ways and means of doing so.
    Mr. David Price: How does the Minister or his Department define a science-based industry? Does he agree that all industry is, to a greater or lesser
    1316
    extent, science-based, not least of which is agriculture, which is well represented in Wales?
    Dr. Bray: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to avoid what we regard as a very damaging distinction. It is important to make sure that the basic industries get as much support as some of the more glamorous.

    Research and Development, Wales
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Technology what is the total value of grants given for research and development to existing firms in Wales.
    Dr. Bray: In 1967/68 Ministry of Technology expenditure in support of research and development by existing firms in Wales totalled approximately £200,000.
    Mr. Hooson: Is not this a pitifully small sum? In view of the dependence of Wales on the older industries and their decline, what do the Government intend to do to remedy the situation, as we shall depend more and more on research resulting from the development of modern, technological industry?
    Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that more research and development should be done in Wales. However, he is wrong to associate employment and economic prosperity with locally conducted research. For example, the major expansions of the Rio Tinto Zinc smelter in Anglesey and the Baglan Bay project of BP are based on worldwide research and are of great value to Wales.
    Mr. Corfield: Can the Minister confirm that about 35 per cent. of jobs in Wales result from money spent by the Treasury under the Local Employment Acts and that, therefore, the Welsh are getting a fair slice of the cake?
    Dr. Bray: I think that development areas generally are benefiting enormously from the development area provisions of this Government. But it is right to say that previous Governments, including the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member, have been biased against development areas by failing to put Government research and development resources and Government defence spending into them.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is it not absurd to start trying to divide research and development as between Wales and England? When many companies have bases in both London and Cardiff, should we engage in such a fatuous exercise?
    Dr. Bray: We certainly need to look at research and development not only in this country but internationally. To be fair, I think that the hon. Gentleman who put the question is quite right in asking that industrial activities in the development areas should be well-paid industrial activities, not those at the most menial end of the industrial spectrum.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Speak for England for a change.

    Nuclear Power Industry
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Minister of Technology what progress he has made in the reorganisation of the nuclear power industry.
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Technology (1) when he will appoint the proposed Atomic Energy Board;
    (2) what final date he has fixed for the establishment of the second nuclear design and construction company.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the progress he is making with the formation of a second nuclear power plant company; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology what is to be the future of Atomic Power Constructions Limited consequential upon the reorganisation of the nuclear engineering industry.
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made towards the completion of the reorganised consortium structure of the nuclear engineering industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: Hon. Members will have seen the announcement on 15th January of the formation of the second of the two nuclear design and construction companies envisaged in my statement of 17th July last year. The industry should now
    1318
    be better equipped to meet our needs at home and compete abroad. I am grateful to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation for the work it has done. The two parent companies of Atomic Power Constructions—Fairey's and International Combustion—have, for the time being at least, not found a place in either of the two new companies.
    Now that the industrial structure is settled, I shall be in a position to go forward with the other arrangements foreseen in my statement on 17th July last year.-[Vol. 768, c. 1428–38.]
    Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the statement to which my right hon. Friend has referred. But may I ask, first, whether he acknowledges that the unfortunate delay in setting up this new structure has led to growing disquiet among employees of the Atomic Energy Authority, particularly about the future of their careers in the new organisations?
    Secondly, can my right hon. Friend say whether the financing difficulties of Dungeness B have been solved?
    Thirdly, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the new structure will advance the programme for the development of a commercial fast reactor and enable us to exploit this important development fully in the international market?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long questions mean fewer questions and fewer answers.
    Mr. Benn: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I had noticed the disquiet. As is evident in the House from Questions on Concorde and other subjects, disquiet is inseparable from advanced technology. We cannot have certainty in this area.
    On the second part of the question, I am not responsible for the Dungeness B contract. That question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.
    On the third part of the question, I believe that this will accelerate the progress of successful new reactor systems.
    Mr. Palmer: Apart from the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which my right hon. Friend has largely ignored, is he now satisfied that the structure which is emerging for the nuclear reactor industry

    1319
    is that which he set out to obtain? Has not my right hon. Friend been pushed by events rather than the other way round?
    Mr. Benn: I think that any Minister who believes he will get everything he wants is very optimistic. What my hon. Friend calls "being pushed by events" I would call "taking account of the realities", including the realities of international collaboration in this sphere. I think that the I.R.C. has done a good job on the remit that I gave. I believe that it will put this country in a better position to exploit the hundreds of millions of pounds which it has put into research in the peaceful development of nuclear energy.
    Mr. Price: Does the Minister agree that the main cause of the delay was due to the desire of the Government and the I.R.C. to do the Tote double and produce two out of the three consortia at the same time as producing mergers amongst the boiler-making firms?
    Secondly, what will happen to the Dungeness B contract, in view of the fact that A.P.C. so far has not been fitted into the new arrangements?
    Mr. Benn: On the latter part of the question, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put that matter to the Minister of Power, because I am not responsible for nuclear power stations being built for the C.E.G.B., even indirectly. But it has had industrial implications in the negotiations that have taken place, and I would add that to the factors which were mentioned as being the cause of such delay as there was. However, it was done very quickly and we should not grumble at the way that the I.R.C. carried out its duties.
    Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, first, which of the two new companies will be responsible for exploitation of the steam generating heavy water reactor and the high-temperature reactor, respectively? Secondly, can he say whether there have been any fresh implications concerning the arrangements that he has announced for international co-operation between our companies and those in Europe?
    Mr. Benn: On the latter question, these would be industrial links in which I should be interested but for which I am
    1320
    not responsible. This work is going on. Both B.E.E.N. and T.N.P.G. are to be licensed to exploit the fast reactor and the S.G.H.W. One will go ahead almost certainly on an inside track. The H.T.R. must be the subject of further discussion, though availability of the technology will not be restricted to one or the other.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman now be prepared to lay a White Paper giving his full comments on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which reported on the future of the nuclear reactor programme?
    Mr. Benn: I did, in a sense, give the answer. It is part of the answer—which bore upon the structure of the industry—in the statements which I made in May and July on the industrial arrangements that have taken place. I wrote to the Chairman, dealing with all the other recommendations which bore on my responsibility, but not those which did not. The final duty remaining on me is to deal with outstanding issues involving the A.E.A., and this I shall do as quickly as I can.

    Chapelcross Reactor (Breakdown)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Technology what is the cost to date of the breakdown of the Atomic Energy Authority's reactor at Chapelcross; how long the reactor is expected to be out of action; and what estimate he has made of the total resulting loss of revenue from electricity sales.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: About £200,000. It is not yet possible to forecast how long the No. 2 reactor will be out of commission. The loss of electricity sales to date is put at £1,700,000 and this will increase by £90,000 per month while the reactor is out of action.
    The other three reactors continue to operate at about 90 per cent. load factor.
    Mr. Eadie: Everyone will be glad that these faults have been remedied in the interests of the men employed, if nothing else, but does not my hon. Friend agree that this incident is a classic example of the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Science and

    1321
    Technology that all forms of energy production in this country should be subpected to independent investigation on the question of cost?
    Mr. Mallalieu: This incident, which is most unfortunate, is not typical of anything which is now known. This reactor is a very old design, and what happened there is most unlikely to happen with a modern design.
    Mr. Monro: Does not the Minister agree that the staff have shown great skill and initiative in trying to overcome this exceptionally difficult breakdown? Can he confirm that there will be no redundancies because of it?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I should like notice of that question, but I very much hope that no redundancies will arise. I agree with what the hon. Member says about the great work that the staff are doing in trying to put this right.

    Fishing Vessels (Dry Rot)
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the causes and treatment of dry rot in in-shore fishing vessels.
    Mr. Fowler: Dry rot in fishing vessels is a problem which has been largely overcome. It is caused by the growth of fungi in a moist atmosphere. The treatment is to remove infected timbers and replace by naturally durable wood or by wood that has been treated with a preservative.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister realise that the boats that are affected are the newer ones rather than the older ones? Can he give the reason for this? Secondly, does he fully appreciate that the effects of this dry rot in boats may cost many thousands of pounds' worth of repairs? Will he go further into the subject because, in spite of what he says, the problem has not been solved?
    Mr. Fowler: I am a little surprised at the hon. Member's suggestion that dry rot is found more frequently in new boats, since in new boats the use of decay-susceptible timbers is avoided and design modifications have been made to improve the circulation of dry air round timber structures. Perhaps, when the
    1322
    hon. Member refers to "newer" he does not mean "very new". I can assure him that the problem has been brought effectively under control—and relatively inexpensively.

    "Queen Elizabeth 2"
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Technology what inquiries he has made and with what results in the matter of turbine and other faults in the "Queen Elizabeth 2".
    Mr. Benn: I understand that the turbines are being repaired and the origins of the trouble fully investigated to prevent any recurrence.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the fact that approximately £20 million of public money is invested in this enterprise, would it not be appropriate for a Ministerial inquiry to be established to ascertain to what extent the builders of these turbines are responsible for the faults—which cast a grave reflection on British engineering construction—or whether sabotage has occurred, or what is the cause of this national disaster?
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Member is overdoing it. It is most unfortunate that these turbines should have caused trouble. They are very much more sophisticated and complicated, and carry more power, than any turbine of their kind ever placed in a British ship before. Turbine trouble is not unknown elsewhere. We have no reason to suspect sabotage, and no reason to believe that a Ministerial inquiry would help in what is basically an engineering problem that is being tackled with great care by many people, including people from my own Department involved—namely, the National Engineering Laboratory. That is the right way of doing it. It is a disappointment, but not a disaster.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was not this matter almost finally disposed of in the course of the debate on shipbuilding last Thursday, when the House was practically unanimous? Is it not about time that this carping criticism about the "Queen Elizabeth 2" and the turbines, and John Browns, was put a stop to, because the effect is to discourage foreign shipowners from having ships built in this country?
    Mr. Benn: I entirely share my right hon. Friend's view that making too much of what has been a technical difficulty in respect of the turbines does very great damage to an industry which we have, by collective action in the House, allowed the Government to help reorganise and so exploit world markets.
    Mr. David Price: Does not the Minister agree that in the debate last Thursday it seemed to be very much the opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House that no useful purpose would be served at present by having an inquiry and diverting those involved from the necessary and urgent job of getting the ship to sea, but that if long delays should continue, and if the technical difficulties should turn out to be greater than appear at the moment, the House would no doubt wish to reconsider the question whether there was any purpose in having such a technical inquiry?
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Obviously, new and entirely unforeseen circumstances might arise, and it would be foolish for me to rule out in advance the possibility of an inquiry, but on the basis of present evidence, I think it right to leave it to the engineers, and I hope that they will soon find the answer to problems which are more difficult than those which confront some hon. Members.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regard that reply as very unsatisfactory, and beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology if he will arrange for a full and detailed inquiry into the reasons which have so far prevented Cunard from accepting the "Queen Elizabeth 2"; and what action has been taken by the Shipbuilding Industry Board in the matter.
    Mr. John Leeasked the Minister of Technology if he will set up an inquiry into the delays in connection with the building and completion of the "Queen Elizabeth 2".
    Mr. Benn: For the reasons I explained to the House during the Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, I do not propose to set up an inquiry.
    Mr. Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the men who helped to build this ship are feeling a certain responsibility in the matter? They feel that they are being regarded as persons who have had a major part in creating this trouble. That is what they told me a week ago, as I told the House. It is therefore important that it should be demonstrated that, although there has been pilfering, it is only a small part of the trouble. Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter, in view of the fact that the S.I.B. has £7½ million, free of interest, in the venture. Can he say whether the S.I.B. has been con ducting any inquiry, and could we hear the outcome?
    Mr. Benn: I understand the arguments given, but I do not believe that they override the arguments against. I dealt with this last week, and the Shipbuilding Industry Board and I have been in close contact.
    Mr. John Lee: Since most of the allegations have been grossly exaggerated, would not one way of cutting them down to size be to hold an inquiry and scotch the matter now?
    Mr. Benn: No, it would not. The ship will sail months and months before any inquiry could report.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman resist all these demands? Surely this is not the time to allocate the blame. Will he ensure that the men on Clydeside are allowed to get on with the job? Would he not agree that this will be a wonderful advertisement for Clydeside when it is finished?
    Mr. Benn: That is my motive, and I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said both inside and outside the House.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that far too much publicity has been given to this unfortunate occurrence and that if hon. Members on both sides of the House want to help British shipbuilding and British shipping, we should leave this matter to the Upper Clyde ship builders and Cunard to sort out themselves?
    Mr. Benn: I agree. Self-denigration in this country has long overtaken cricket

    1325
    and football as our favourite national sport. It does absolutely no good and simply demoralises a country which is seeing its way through its economic difficulties.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if an equivalent sum of £29 million were invested in either a chemical or an engineering plant it would take many months to get the teething problems right, and that the trouble is not in the building of the ship but in the management having given a promise of a delivery date and the operating company having advertised sailings before it was certain that it could achieve them?
    Mr. Benn: If there were an inquiry, probably everybody involved would have some comment made about his behaviour and activities, but it would be very wrong of me to confirm criticisms made by the hon. Member, which he, no doubt, sincerely believes, for technical trouble in the turbines, which is what the trouble is about and lies behind much of the questioning for an inquiry, is very complex. I do not think that an inquiry in this respect need be held. I agree with him that these are very complicated questions which the engineers can best sort out.

    Motor Industry (Output)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Technology what increase in output from the motor industry he has estimated will occur in 1969, percentum and ad valorem, compared with 1968; and, having regard to the present state of the home market for motor cars, what estimate he has made of increased exports of motor vehicles in 1969.
    Mr. Fowler: The output of the motor industry as a whole is expected to increase by under 5 per cent. in 1969 in volume terms. Exports of all motor vehicles and parts may increase by about 5 per cent. in volume terms. The increases in value are expected to be slightly larger.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that after four years of expostulation by the Labour Government about the motor industry the level of production in 1968 is still lower than the level of production that the Tories left in 1964? How does
    1326
    he account for this dreadful state of affairs?
    Mr. Fowler: Clearly, the hon. Member is not aware that last year, when production was virtually at the level of 1964, the boom was export-led. There was a 42 per cent. rise in production for export last year over the year before, and the proportion of production for export was very much higher than in 1964. That is what we have been seeking to achieve.

PORTS (REORGANISATION)
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the reorganisation of the ports.
The conclusions the Government have reached and the policy which they propose to pursue are set out in a White Paper being published this afternoon. Copies are available in the Vote Office. This White Paper follows extensive consultations, based on a working document issued in July, 1967.
The rapid rate of technological and economic change which has affected the ports industry in recent years has greatly increased the urgency of the long-recognised need, emphasised, in particular, by the Rochdale Committee in 1962, for a properly-planned programme of port development and for the concentration of ownership and operation of port and related undertakings. The increased scope and rate of change demand an even greater degree of concentration of central control of policy than that visualised by the Rochdale Committee.
The Government have decided that a radical reorganisation is essential and that a National Ports Authority must be established to carry through the necessary changes and reshape the British ports industry.
The new Authority will have a complex task of fundamental importance to the nation's economy. Its first remit will be to take over the harbours now handling more than 5 million tons of goods a year. It is thus expected to take over London, the Mersey, Milford Haven, the Medway, Manchester, the Clyde, the Tees and Hartlepools, Bristol, the Tyne,

1327
These harbours together handle over and the Forth. It will also take over the British Transport Docks Board harbours, of which the main ones are Hull, Southampton and the South Wales ports. 90 per cent. of our overseas trade and over 75 per cent. of our coastal trade, and the vast majority—over 95 per cent.—of our registered dock workers are employed in them. They include those harbours on the main estuaries at which, as the Rochdale Report said, development, except that to serve certain bulk cargoes, should be concentrated.
The Authority will be required to manage the harbours through subsidiary authorities, set up in accordance with a scheme of organisation which will require my approval. These authorities are expected to be based in the main on the principal estuaries, and they will be encouraged to plan the developments called for by the needs of the regions, working in close consultation with the regional economic planning councils.
The provisions proposed for the transfer of assets and for compensation, which is not expected to exceed £25 million, are set out in detail in the White Paper.
The new Authority will have a duty to see that efficient and economical port facilities and services are provided at the harbours for which it is responsible. For this purpose, the operation of the main common-user port services, such as stevedoring, is to be concentrated in the hands of the nationalised authorities. The compulsory take-over of these businesses will follow from schemes which the Authority must put forward as a first priority for my approval within one year of the vesting day. It will be able to put forward supplementary schemes subsequently if necessary. In the interim, I hope that existing authorities, and the new Authority, when it is formed, will acquire businesses voluntarily.
The new Authority will be required to establish effective machinery for negotiation and consultation with its employees on the lines of Section 137 of the Transport Act 1968. But, more than this, it will, when putting forward its scheme of organisation, be required to pay particular attention to the means of ensuring that workers' interests are adequately presented to it in its deliberations.
1328
Furthermore, from the outset, the nationalised port authorities will be given a dominant voice on the employers' side in the machinery on employment matters affecting the industry as a whole; and the private port employers will be required by Statute to observe terms and conditions not less favourable than those observed by the nationalised authorities for similar work in the same area. In this way, the Authority will make the running for the whole port industry in the improvement of productivity and of conditions of employment.
Under the proposals in this White Paper the National Ports Authority will, as the first necessity, concentrate its resources on the management and development of the major harbours where the great bulk of our trade is handled. It will be armed with powers and duties enabling it to bring into its own hands, speedily and in an orderly and manageable way, the main port operations. And it will be able to extend its control to other harbours if this is shown to be desirable in the interests of the efficient and economical movement of our imports and exports.
Sir K. Joseph: Will the Minister now tell us his real intentions? Since most of the main ports are already in public ownership, why is he adopting nationalisation when the Rochdale Committee did not recommend it? Does he not realise that nationalisation will kill the last hope of competitive service to the public from our ports?
Does the right hon. Gentleman really intend to inflict this unnecessary disaster on the people, or is he bluffing the fanatics on his Left wing? Can the country take any comfort from his phrase that he only "expects" to take over the non-British Transport Dock Board major ports? Uncertainty has been damaging, so will he tell us the date by which he intends that the ports named will be nationalised? Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Bill to be a hybrid?
Mr. Marsh: This is a sad business. That one should have such an example of blind, doctrinaire prejudice from an otherwise reasonable man is, I think, cause for concern on both sides of the House.

1329
I know of no one—and I would not have thought that there was anyone until I heard the right hon. Gentleman—who is content with the way in which our docks are organised. There can be many arguments about how one tackles this problem. One of the greatest problems we face is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite did not tackle it and, therefore, we have come to the conclusion that what is needed here is a body which, from the centre, can provide a proper port system.
The right hon. Gentleman asked that I should name a date when the ports which I have named would come into public ownership. This will, of course, depend on how long it takes to get the Bill through the House; I am sure that, when hon. Members have had time to digest it, they will want to co-operate on it. It will certainly be our intention to take the earliest steps throughout the whole period of the discussions to ensure that all the preparations are made for vesting day to come into operation at the earliest possible opportunity.
Hon. Members: When?
Mr. Marsh: It will be very early, probably earlier than hon. Gentlemen opposite realise. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It is not for me to say how long it will take to convert hon. Gentlemen opposite to what is such a sensible proposition, but it will be done in the next Session of Parliament.
Hybridity is not a matter for me, but for the authorities of the House. I am in no doubt that the proposals which we are putting forward are fair to all concerned and that the Bill should, therefore, be a normal Bill.
Mr. Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before the Government took action there were 70 employers on the docks at Bristol and that some of them did not even possess a wheelbarrow or a hank of rope? Is he further aware that we warmly congratulate him on having introduced these proposals, along with the supreme fact that there must be one employer on a dock?
I assure my right hon. Friend that the vast majority of hon. Members on this side of the House will assist him in this enterprise and hope that the legislation
1330
will be brought forward as quickly as possible so that the country as a whole may derive all the benefits from it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should ask questions, and not make statements, when questioning a Minister who has made a statement.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Bill is to be a hybrid Bill he will stand no chance of getting it through next Session? Does he realise that such a Measure would be deplored on Clydeside, where a change of administration would hold up the development plans that are proceeding? How can he hope to carry out this operation in return for only the £25 million which has been mentioned?
Mr. Marsh: One must always have the public purse in mind. This is a fair basis of compensation. [Interruption.] Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have long been talking about a figure of £400 million, or some such extraordinary figure. I believe that about £25 million is the maximum.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about Scotland, I think that all the evidence shows that people within the industry, whether they be manual employees or management—and this can be said of most people outside the industry—have for a long time felt the need for a radical reorganisation of the dock industry. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those who are employed in the industry are satisfied with it, he should try talking to some of them some time.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that Labour hon. Members welcome his White Paper proposals? Can he say something about the regional structure and how the proposals particularly apply to ports in the Bristol Channel?
Mr. Marsh: In an earlier document there was a reference to three tiers of management. That proposal was virtually universally criticised. It would be a pity to have intermediate tiers of management. We shall, therefore, have the National Ports Authority at the centre and then largely estuarial groupings which will be almost the same as regional authorities, but there will be two levels instead of three.

1331
The effect of these proposals on particular areas will come within the first report of the Authority.
Dame Irene Ward: May we have an assurance that concerns on the Port of Tyne will not be made subservient to Tees-side, in view of the grave anxieties about the future development of the Port of Tyne and its eminent capacity to be the first port on the North-East Coast?
Mr. Marsh: One of the problems is that there is so little room for many first ports. We want an overall national ports plan. At present, it seems extraordinary that under any Government the only powers which the Minister has on port investment are purely negative—his power to refuse port expenditure under the Harbours Act, 1964 if it is in excess of £500,000. That is why we are now trying to get a positive ports scheme and it will be based on the port pattern which fits the interest of the nation as a whole. In recognition of this, the estuarial authorities will be in close touch with the regional interests.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that port workers as a whole—the majority of people on Merseyside—will welcome his statement and White Paper? As we have obviously not had time to read the White Paper, would my right hon. Friend give us a little more information about the development of greater industrial democracy and democratic management from the point of view of the workers in the industry?
Mr. Marsh: We are asking the National Ports Authority to prepare its first report on organisation. The matter to which my hon. Friend refers will be one of the things which it will be specifi-ally asked to consider and on which to prepare proposals.
Mr. Fortescue: Is the Minister aware that there are two dock systems on Merseyside, one quite large, under the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Board, and the other, slightly smaller, in my constituency? Is he further aware that the Garston Docks are under the British Transport Docks Board, a nationalised organisation, and are very efficient? Does he appreciate that they run efficiently because the Docks Board has the
1332
sense to leave the local manager alone to complete? May we be assured that under his proposed reorganisation such sensible policies will be continued?
Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. What I have said means that the relationship between the National Ports Authority and the subsidiaries will be something like the relationship between a holding company and its subsidiaries. The Authority will confine itself to issues of policy—such as pricing, research and development—while the management of these areas will be left to subsidiary management.
Dr. Ernest A. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have in mind all dock interests in our constituencies warmly welcome his statement? Does he appreciate that there will be certain matters which will need to be resolved, not only between one region of the country and another but, especially in the North-Western area, between one part of the region and another? Is he aware, for example, that this will arise in the case of Manchester and Mersey-side? Will he take an early opportunity to discuss this matter fully with, among others, the regional economic planning councils?
Mr. Marsh: I certainly hope, as I said, that the estuarial authorities will be in very close contact indeed with the regional planning councils. The purpose here is to get a good ports system. With the rapid technological change and vast investment that is taking place—I believe that there will be no argument in the House about this, if about nothing else—it is important to choose the areas to ensure that this vast investment is made in the interest of a good ports system.
Mr. Doughty: While very much regretting the right hon. Gentleman's statement, would he tell me, as honorary adviser to the Port of London Authority Police, what will be the position of the police under the new arrangements? Will they remain an independent body or will efforts be made to amalgamate them with other forces? If he is unable to answer me now will he write to me in the near future with the answer?
Mr. Marsh: I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman with a substantive answer in the near future. Obviously, the vast bulk of employees will be needed by the same authority, but I will take the opportunity of writing to him about it.
Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all sensible people employed in the dock industry and in ports throughout the country will warmly welcome the White Paper? Is he further aware that many people who are complaining about chokes and bottlenecks in our ports, impeding the speedy passage of our exports, will now get some measure of comfort in the knowledge that the problem is now being tackled?
Mr. R. W. Elliott: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication as to the composition of the proposed estuarial authorities and a guarantee that local interests, and particularly business interests, will be represented?
Mr. Marsh: It is too early to answer that question at present. The intention is that the National Ports Authority will make nominations to these estuarial authorities and that this will be done in consultation with the Minister. I have no doubt that they will want to have local representatives on these bodies, but not necessarily in a representative capacity.
Mr. Ogden: When may we expect to debate the White Paper so that hon. Members may make proposals and comments? Will my right hon. Friend repeat the assurance which he gave earlier, that legislation will be introduced early next Session?
Mr. Marsh: I have my problems and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has his. Whether or not there is to be a debate is, of course, a matter for the usual channels. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has heard what has been said on this score.
Mr. Bessell: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us now that the new Authority will have proper worker and consumer representation? Is he aware of what will result if it does not? Is he also aware that this sweeping and unnecessary measure of nationalisation will do nothing whatever to resolve the main
1334
problem of the ports, which is that of getting our exports moving quickly and resolving worker-management disputes?
Mr. Marsh: People have been concerned about the need to reorganise the port industry for many years now. It is inconceivable that it would be put back into private enterprise. I do not think that anybody would argue that from either side of the House. It is essential that there should be a central planning body. I do not think that responsibility for an industry can be divorced from the ownership of that industry.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of consumers and workers in the industry. The question of worker-representation is a specific remit for the Board's report. It is important that the voice of the consumer should be heard and it would be my intention to set up an advisory council of consumers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is one now. I was not contemplating having the two running together. I will explain it more simply. I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) asked about consumers. I started to say that it is our intention to set up an advisory council of consumers, who will have the ability to make representations except about certain dues and charges which are levied. They will be able to make those representations to the subsidiary authority, to the National Ports Authority, or to the Minister, who would have powers of direction.
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware, as I hope he is, that his proposals will be particularly welcome in the industry, because of its bad industrial relations in the past? This is an opportunity to make a fresh start, which is particularly important in this economically vital industry at a period when it is undergoing rapid change. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the step he is taking.
Mr. Marsh: I am overcome.
Mr. Heseltine: Does not the Minister agree that the greatest welcome for this proposal will come from those who work in ports with an annual turnover of less than 5 million tons? Will the power to

1335
extend the compulsory nationalisation to the ancillary purposes and activities in the docks lie in the discretion of the Minister or of the National Ports Authority, or will it be statutorily laid down?
Mr. Marsh: The National Ports Authority will have the power to make recommendations to the Minister for the compulsory acquisition of non-statutory undertakings. It will then be for the Minister to determine whether he accepts the Authority's recommendations.
Mr. Spriggs: How much money has been invested in the port industry, and with what results?
Mr. Marsh: It is difficult to define the actual results. Much of our port industry is very efficient. I think that the problems lie not so much in the managers of the industry as in the actual structure and control of the industry. Port investment has risen rapidly from about £13·8 million in 1963 to about £50 million this year, and this is one of the reasons.
Sir R. Cary: Will Manchester Ship Canal remain in the control of its Board and Manchester Corporation under the Minister's plans?
Mr. Marsh: The position of Manchester is a little complex, because there is a severance of the operation. The port undertaking of Manchester will be acquired under the Bill. The actual split is dealt with in the Annex to the White Paper.
Mr. Orme: I hope that the Minister will include the full public ownership not only of the Manchester Dock, but also of the Manchester Canal, because this is essential to the proper overall planning of the dock industry. I welcome the news about the Bill. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about worker participation in the management of the industry, because this is essential in an industry which has been ridden with bad relations for a generation?
Mr. Marsh: I do not think that anybody would look with any degree of complacency on labour relations in the dock industry over a long period. It will be our intention, with a specific remit written into the Bill, to lay upon the National Ports Authority as one of its
1336
obligations the task of devising a method of associating workers more closely with the industry. There is a variety of ways of doing this, as my hon. Friend, who has a great deal of experience of these matters, is well aware.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will the Minister assure the House that the unique position of Milford Haven has been recognised by him and his Department, in that this is virtually an international oil terminal and must be treated as such? Does he agree that the present handling of the Haven under the Conservancy Board has been highly successful?
Mr. Marsh: I do not think that there is any dispute about that. Indeed, this operation is not based on the assumption of any reflection being cast on the particular port managements. I have never thought that the taking over of industries which were failing the nation was necessarily a first priority. We are taking over a number of industries here.
Milford Haven is being taken over because it is an important port. It is a very good deep-water harbour. It has many advantages. The position of the oil companies there is recognised. I think that the only fear they would have, to be quite blunt, would be that they might be milked for other users. That certainly would not be allowed to happen.
Mr. Delargy: My right hon. Friend has heard the Opposition—Liberal now, as well as Conservative—say that his scheme is disastrous and unnecessary. Will he confirm that those who are most directly concerned—the port workers—believe that his scheme is excellent and, indeed, necessary? Will he give the widest publicity to the fact that Liberals now as well as Tories are united in their opposition to what the dockers and the port workers themselves would like?
Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I express surprise that my hon. Friend should find it unusual that hon. Members opposite are behind us in these matters. They always have been.
Mr. Dean: Is the Minister aware that the people of Bristol, who are proud of the port which they themselves own, in spite of the fact that he has vetoed modernisation schemes, will widely resent this latest example of Socialist ideology?
Mr. Marsh: Most of these ports are publicly owned already. We are reorganising them on the basis of a rational or central authority. I would like to know at some stage—not now, Mr. Speaker, because you probably would not like it—what the hon. Gentleman would suggest as an alternative to this other than going on as we have been doing for years.
Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals will be widely welcomed in the ports by the workers, if not by those who make profits there? What will happen to the very vital pilotage system under the new scheme?
Mr. Marsh: As the problem of pilotage is a difficult one, the Government have reached the conclusion that it should be dealt with in a separate Bill. Consultations will take place with those concerned on that basis.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.
Mr. Bessell: On a point of order. I heard the Minister say that legislation would be introduced during the next Session of Parliament. Is it in order to anticipate the contents of a Gracious Speech?
Mr. Speaker: Nothing which has happened this afternoon is out of order.
Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. Is it in order for you, Sir, not to call someone who represents one of the major ports of Britain?
Mr. Speaker: It is exceedingly difficult. All the hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies whom I did not call had a special reason for wanting to be called. I could not call everybody.
Sir Harmer Nicholls: On a point of order. My point is perhaps better put to you, Mr. Speaker, than to the Minister. At this stage, ought we not to be told whether the Bill will be treated as a hybrid? Clearly, it will be that. Is Parliamentary usage to be perverted by the Government's seeking to bluff it out and to treat the Bill as being otherwise?
Mr. Speaker: It is not at this moment that anyone will rule on whether the proposed Bill is a hybrid. That will come later.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSING
  Bill to make further provision for grants by local authorities and contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the cost of providing dwellings by conversion or of improving dwellings and houses; to confer powers on local authorities to improve living conditions by improving the amenities of areas or of dwellings therein; to amend the law with regard to rents payable for certain dwellings in good repair and provided with certain amenities or improved with the assistance of local authorities; to make further provision with regard to houses in multiple occupation; to make further provision for payments in respect of unfit houses subject to compulsory purchase, clearance, demolition or closing orders; to raise the legal standard of fitness for human habitation and confer additional powers on local authorities to require the repair of houses; to clarify section 2(1)(a) of the Rent Act 1968; and for purposes connected with those matters, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; supported by Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, the Attorney-General, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. James MacColl, and Mr. Arthur Skeffington; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and if any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown shall have been withdrawn or the Question thereon negatived before Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Question which he is directed to put at Ten o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Peart.]

LICENSING (SCOTLAND)
4.0 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959 so as to make provision for the establishment of licensing courts for new small burghs formed under section 133 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947; and for purposes connected therewith.
I wish to make clear that my Bill would apply only to new small burghs. At present, no new small burgh can have its own licensing court until after a census of population has been taken. Since a general census of population is taken only every 10 years, a new small burgh under present legislation can be denied its own licensing court for, perhaps, 11 years after its formation.
The next census is not due until 1971. But, according to the Second Report of the Guest Committee on Scottish Licensing Law, the Secretary of State has been advised that an order establishing a new licensing court must be based not on provisional but on final census figures, and it may be as long as two years after the census before the final figures are available.
Here is an example from my own constituency. The small Burgh of Bishop-briggs was established in May, 1964. Under the present law, this burgh cannot have its own licensing court until at least 1973, nine years after its formation. Bishopbriggs has a population of about 19,000, but no licensing court of its own, whereas older small burghs with populations of 7,000 or more have their own licensing court.
Since the siting of licensed premises is of considerable importance to the residents
1340
in a locality, I believe strongly that small new burghs ought to have the right to make their own decisions on licensing matters. They can do this, however, only if they have their own licensing court. The Guest Committee made a recommendation to this effect. In recommendation 5, the Committee said:
"It should be permissible for the Secretary of State to take cognisance, for licensing purposes, at any time of changes in boundaries or population resulting from the creation of new burghs …"
That is exactly the power which we wish to give to the Secretary of State if leave is given to bring in the Bill. Instead of having to wait a considerable time and until a general census has been taken, the Secretary of State would be empowered to use figures of population supplied to him by the Registrar-General for the purposes of establishing a licensing court for new small burghs.
The Bill is non-party, it furthers local democracy, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Herbison, Mr. Thomas Steele, Mr. Bence, Mr. Hannan, Sir Myer Galpern, and Mr. Manuel.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND)
Bill to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 so as to make provision for the establishment of licensing courts for new small burghs formed under section 133 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Fridav, 7th February and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

  UNIVERSITIES
  4.4 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I am sure that the House will think it right that we should devote a day, this week, to university affairs. It is a considerable time since we debated higher education, and there is much to be discussed. I am sorry that, through no fault whatever of Mr. Speaker, we have only a truncated day in which to debate these matters.
  I shall begin with university salaries and the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Then I shall say some general words about the relationship between Parliament, Government and the universities. Thirdly, I shall raise the question of resources for higher education and its future development. And, lastly, I shall refer to student protest.
  First, then, university salaries and the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Over the new year, some hon. Members may have felt, as I did, that the reaction of a part of university opinion to the Report was a little shrill. When I read those letters in The Times, I was a little reminded of a former head of my own college, Dr. Strong, who afterwards became Bishop of Oxford, who once described a particularly acrimonious college meeting; and used what I have always thought a rather graphic turn of phrase—"You could not have put a flat fish between the tutors' backs and the ceiling".
  That seemed to be rather the reaction of many people to the P.I.B. Report. Nevertheless, this was an inept and superficial Report, and university teachers have every right to be thoroughly disappointed with the results of the standing reference to the Board. I regret somewhat that the furore should have been
  1342
  concentrated on paragraph 51(b), which suggested that students should have some part in assessing teaching ability for the purpose of distributing merit allowances. That was an inept suggestion, though, perhaps, no more so than the alternative suggestion that a man's teaching ability should be measured by the examination performance of his students.
  In my view, the worst feature of the Report, however, was the manner in which it dealt with certain fundamental issues of university policy such as the balance between teaching and research. Here I quote—as so many have done in the Press—paragraph 47, the first paragraph of Chapter 5, The Pay Structure:
  "A university teacher discharges in different degrees three functions: teaching, doing research and administering Conventional wisdom has it that these three functions cannot be disentangled one from the other. Nor is this a proposition which we would wish to challenge. An individual university may, however, wish to change the balance as between the three tasks in favour of more research, or of more teaching. For the university system as a whole, we consider that the present salary and career structure is biased towards research and that steps need to be taken to encourage and reward excellence in teaching."
  I am sure that none of us in the House would wish to play down the importance of university teaching at either undergraduate or postgraduate level. But this paragraph which I have quoted seems to me to be one of the most arrogant and superficial I have ever come across in a document with Her Majesty's Stationery Office imprint. It is rivalled only by paragraph 57:
  "To encourage a shift towards teaching it is desirable to experiment with different combinations of labour and capital."
  Let us try to think this out a bit in the House. Frankly, I consider that it was completely unworthy of the Prices and Incomes Board to produce so superficial a document as this. If we are dealing with capital and labour, with factors of production, then we can measure inputs and outputs with some precision. But it is fantastically naive and ignorant to suppose that one can apply the same criteria of measurement to concepts like teaching, research and administration within a university. To take my own university subject, modern history, how can any top-class historian draw neat compartments between

  1343
  research, teaching postgraduates, keeping up with research, teaching undergraduates, and the organisation of both teaching and research?
  I recall what I thought was an extremely good though, perhaps, rather academic book by Professor G. R. Elton, of Cambridge, in which he very properly said that one of the marks of the professional historian is that, if he wishes to be an adequate teacher, he must all the time keep up to date his bibliography for those periods in which he is a specialist. In other words, keeping up with research is integrally bound up with being a teacher, whether of undergraduates or postgraduates.
  The University Grants Committee was quite right to say in its Report for the quinquennium 1962–67:
  "Teaching and research are inseparable elements in the life of at least the great majority of academic staff and in the proper conception of what a university stands for."
  These are important matters, and one cannot dismiss them with a slap-happy reference to "conventional wisdom". When I read paragraphs like paragraph 47 I sometimes momentarily wish that Professor Galbraith and his concept of conventional wisdom had never been invented.
  Furthermore, in this context let us remember one very important point which Lord Robbins made in his Report. I am quoting it from memory; I have deliberately not brought down the reference, but I well remember the spirit. He said that if by a cataclysm we were to lose all the university buildings in the country, that would be a great disaster, but it would not be absolutely irreparable; but if we lost the whole of our cultural inheritance which existed in our universities, that would be something absolutely irreparable.
  I do not wish to see, and I am sure that none of us wishes to see, the universities becoming too remote from the rest of society. Of course, the universities have a growing rôle to play in professional education, and our universites have always played a vocational as well as a purely academic part. None the less, our universities are also the guardians of certain values and traditions which just cannot be measured in terms of input-output analysis.
  1344
  I wanted to start with those general words on the Report, but now I want to refer to the award itself. The Prices and Incomes Board award, which has been accepted by the Government, was a 4 per cent. increase for university lecturers and a 2 per cent. increase for professors, a smaller rise than the price rise over the previous three years. In other words, it amounted to a cut in the real incomes of university teachers.
  Even if one accepts that the endless chain of wage increases must be broken somewhere and even if one rejects, as I certainly do, the extreme view which is sometimes put forward that wage increases are entirely the result of inflationary spending, none the less one can surely feel that it is wrong that university teachers should be offered less than school teachers have already been offered and rejected in the Burnham Committee.
  There are two other comments which it is right to make. First, it is unfortunate that the public should have been given the impression that the expansion of the universities in recent years has been carried out without any regard for cost efficiency or the use of new techniques. Paragraph 46 of the Report says:
  "We have received little evidence of experimentation with new methods of teaching which would economise in the number of staff required."
  One quite simple piece of evidence to refute that statement is to be found from the last U.G.C. quinquennial report, which says:
  "The response by universities to the ideals and recommendations in the Brynmor Jones Report showed that a great deal of serious and constructive thought was already being given to the extended use of modern media and centralised organisation of these new resources for teaching and learning … there is every prospect that the use of these media will lead to greater effectiveness in university teaching and, in the longer run, to a reduction in costs."
  That is one piece of evidence which seems to have escaped the attention of the P.I.B.
  Secondly, if we accept the broad line of argument in the Report and if all the benefits of productivity rises are to go to those engaged in occupations with measurable productivity increases, the income patterns of our community will change radically and in a direction not

  1345
  necessarily in accordance with the social priorities which we would wish to see. Personally, I believe that it would be quite wrong to imagine that the distribution of the national income should be determined entirely by questions of productivity. Surely we agree that there are certain other forms of valuable social services to the community which also deserve attention.
  I cannot help agreeing with Professor Vaizey about the political undertones of this report. He wrote in The Guardian: that the attack on university teachers' salaries
  "rests on dubious economics, and it may be interpreted as mainly an attack on the universities themselves."
  I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that the sooner the standing reference of university salaries to the National Board for Prices and Incomes is ended, the better. In all fairness, I should add that the Board itself, before it starts laying about the universities, recognises that it is not the right body for this task. It says as early as paragraph 3:
  "In the course of the discussions with ourselves the A.U.T. have expressed a wish to see their Salaries determined through collective bargaining machinery. This is a wish with which we have every sympathy."
  If we remove this standing reference, what are the alternatives? I believe that there are two. There is, first, the possibility of setting up an independent review body, as Lord Robbins and his Committee recommended. Secondly, there is the possibility of setting up some form of negotiating machinery. This, after all, is what we do with the whole of the rest of teachers' salaries. We have negotiating machinery which covers the rest of teachers' salaries and which runs right up into higher education. After all, the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions extends right up to the polytechnics. There is also machinery which works so well that we seldom hear about it—the Pelham machinery—for determining salaries in colleges of education. We have managed to devise this machinery for the rest of higher education and we should consider the possibility of setting up negotiating machinery to settle university salaries.
  The Association of University Teachers has recently produced new proposals which will have to be carefully studied.
  1346
  I appreciate the difficulty, which is that of setting up a management panel and there is, of course, particularly the difficulty about the vice-chancellors themselves. But I am not absolutely convinced that these difficulties are insuperable. However, all I ask the Secretary of State today is to say that he will look again at this whole question of the settlement of the pay of university teachers, and that he will take informal soundings about it in the universities. If he would like informal talks, without prejudice, with me at a later date, I should, of course, be at his disposal to discuss the matter.
  That was the first topic which I wished to raise this afternoon. I now want to say something about the relationship between Government and Parliament and the universities. I have been struck lately by the number of letters from universities questioning in retrospect the decision to have a Department of Education and Science covering the whole of education from primary school to university. Reading those letters, I have remembered the great national debate about this matter in the winter of 1963–64. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will certainly remember it. May I say that if ever I come to write a slim volume of reminiscences I shall contribute five pages to the history of this controversy, which I remember most vividly.
  Personally, I still believe that we took the right decision at that time, and I disagree with those who question it. I think that it was the right decision for two reasons. I believe that it was always a bad idea to divide higher education between two Ministers and that that argument applies more and not less strongly today. Secondly, I was always opposed to the idea of a "Minister for Schools ". However, I agree with the critics thus far: it is highly important that the Secretary of State of the day, to whichever party he may belong, should show himself to be understanding towards the, universities and their problems.
  I do not want in this debate to make any personal comments which the House might not like and which I might subsequently regret, and, therefore, I will say only this to the right hon. Gentleman, that in his dealings with the universities he has sometimes seemed to display something of the birchrod manner. It is highly

  1347
  important that the Department and all those concerned in it should be particularly careful in their understanding of the ligitimate concerns of the universities and higher education.
  I should like next to refer to the University Grants Committee. Personally, I see a continuing place for the work of the Committee. The case for its continuing work has never been better put than by the present President of the Board of Trade when debating the matter in the House in January, 1966. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The most striking development in the U.G.C.'s activities is the decision of the Committee substantially to reorganise itself into subject groups it is a reform that will make much easier what … [Sir Edward Boyle] drew attention to—the need to have some kind of rationalisation of courses when we have 43 universities. Clearly, not all can be equally pre-eminent in every single subject from ancient Greek to nuclear physics."
  Obviously, that is true.
  There has to be rationalisation of expenditure in higher education. Surely it is best that this work should be carried out by a committee, not part of the Government, predominantly consisting of those with genuine knowledge and experience of universities. There was a lecture given a year or so ago by Sir Eric Ashby, entitled, "Whose Hands on the Universities?", in which he reached the conclusion that it was absurd to say that no one's hands were on the universities, but that decisions particularly affecting them—decisions about their range of curriculum, about what subjects they undertook—should be taken by other dons, and that other university figures should have a considerable say in the rationalisation of costly provision. I am sure that that was right.
  A word now about Parliament and the universities. I believe that not only the Government, but also this House, have certain inescapable responsibilities toward the universities. We must concern ourselves with the Government's plans for expansion, the total numbers to be admitted, the level of resources made available and as today, with the machinery for determining university salaries. We must certainly concern ourselves with the relationship between the
  1348
  universities and the rest of higher education, a point which we have discussed in this House—what is sometimes called the binary system—and all the problems connected with the universities, polytechnics and the colleges of education.
  Now that the universities are financially accountable, this gives us fresh responsibilities. We also have—and, I hope, shall continue to have—a Select Committee on Education. I would very much regret it if the experiment of the Specialist Select Committee were to be discontinued after only two Sessions. I hope that there will be second thoughts on this matter.
  There are other ways in which Parliament must be involved to some extent with university affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye later in the debate, proposes to say something about the drop-outs. The dropout rate is a subject upon which we shall have to ask for more information as time goes on. Again, those of us who are interested and concerned about innovation, modernisation and the strengthening of professional standards are bound to take an interest in the developing pattern of post graduate courses.
  Universities have never been purely academic institutions. There must come a time in the education of the great majority of our citizens when their study needs to become more vocational, more orientated towards the needs of the world outside. There is one good reason why we must be interested in the development of post graduate studies. But it is also true—and here again I quote Sir Eric Ashby—that
  "… universities must preserve an individuality apart from the State."
  A good deal of humbug is sometimes talked about academic freedom. Yet certain academic freedoms are essential. The most vital freedoms for universities are, I believe, freedom of appointments and freedom of teaching methods. Perhaps freedom of appointments is the most vital of all. Unfortunately, one has not to go outside the Western world to see examples of political interference over appointments. That is something which I hope we will for ever eschew. It is an absolutely vital freedom for anything that calls itself a university.

  1349
  We should also have a respect for what Dr. Robson, of Oxford, calls "the continuing validity of a university discipline." I am taking those words from a lecture at which I had the pleasure to take the chair. I was greatly impressed by what he said on that: occasion—that there is such a thing as a university discipline which has its own built-in validity, and which develops in its own way. That is something for which we should always have respect.
  I come now to the question of resources and the future development of higher education. Here let us be clear about how severely the university building programme has suffered under the present Government in recent years. I do not want to weary the House with too many figures, but the substance of the matter is this. The 1965 moratorium meant a deferment of £15 million worth of starts which we had authorised in 1964. Nearly £10 million of that deferment, £9½ million to be precise, had been made up by the programmes originally announced for 1967–68 and 1968–69.
  Last August, just as many vice-chancellors were on their way to the Antipodes for a conference, £10 million was taken away without any official announcement being made, and despite the fact that the university target had recently been raised so as to provide for 25,000 extra places in 1971–72. That was not exactly a miracle of Socialist planning.
  We did go into the 1960s—and I freely admit this; I concede this point willingly—with an under-capitalised university base. I can add that my right hon. Friends made up for that pretty rapidly from then onwards over the next three or four years. It would be criminal now to make this mistake a second time, at a period when we know that the proportion of qualified sixth-formers is still rising. I put it to the House that, if the Government had followed a rational policy ever since 1964 over current spending—over items like school meals, prescription charges and housing subsidies—then these damaging cuts on capital spending would not have been necessary.
  A word about arrears and obsolescence. The University Grants Committee has specifically drawn attention to this problem at the older universities. I have checked this many times with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames
  1350
  (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who was Chief Secretary in 1964, and a tough Chief Secretary with whom to deal. He has always very firmly said that he recognised, as far back as 1964, that a special allocation of at least £5 million would have had to be made to the older universities for arrears and obsolescence.
  This is a matter which particularly affects the older civic universities. As the House knows, we have to build up the new universities, but there is also the problem of the older civic universities which have contributed enormously to the total numbers in the 1960s and in which the problem of obsolescence is particularly acute.
  Looking ahead, we have to start thinking very soon about the provision of higher education, not just for 1972 but for 1977. This brings me to three questions. First, how many people are involved, and what will the total numbers be for whom provision must be made? Secondly, there is the question of the types of institution, and how many pupils in each. And, thirdly, most difficult of all, how will it all be paid for? Let me deal with these in turn.
  First, numbers. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will agree that we must work on realistic estimates of those who will be gaining two A levels or more. The Robbins estimates were already out of date by 1965. I remember raising that point in debate as long ago as March of that year. Fortunately, a good deal of work has been done since then, and I would like to pay my special tribute to the work of Mr. Richard Alleyard, who has done an immense amount of valuable work on this subject.
  Secondly, there is the point about the types of institution. We took an important step last year towards a more unitary system of higher education, when we made both polytechnics and colleges of education more autonomous. A lot went wrong in 1968, but the House can modestly congratulate itself that we were so firm about the instrument of government for colleges of education. This was an important decision, and I will always wish to pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she responded to the House and handled the matter as the Bill went through.
  Whatever the Maud Committee recommends, the time is not far distant when it

  1351
  will make sense to try to plan the whole of higher education on a more regional basis. We have to come to that sooner rather than later. However, we ought not to suppose that, in the short run, it will be at all easy, simply to switch students from the university sector to the polytechnics. In this context, I would like to ask the hon. Lady two questions about the speech which she made at the London School of Economics on—this was, so far as I know, a peaceful occasion—on 14th January of this year.
  At any rate, her speech was fully reported, and I am glad that it was. First, I should like to ask whether she thinks that qualified students and their parents will be content with what may seem to be a second best? Will the good polytechnics, which provided courses as good as—and sometimes better than—some universities, be content with a continuing non-university status? And if they plan on a university scale, will their costs be any lower?
  Secondly, the polytechnics are supposed to be comprehensive institutions of higher education—perhaps I should not have mentioned that word—offering degree and non-degree courses on a full and part-time basis. How is this to be achieved in the present financial circumstances of the local education authorities? In many of the proposed polytechnics, building, staff accommodation, libraries and other facilities compare unfavourably with those at the universities. Adequate finance is essential, but how can it be provided with the increase in local authority spending being restricted to less than 4 per cent. in real terms?
  I am very concerned that we are putting too much strain on the further education sector of our educational system. There is a real danger that, if we try to switch students from the universities to polytechnics at one end, and, at the same time, encourage greater use of technical college premises by teenagers, we will put too much strain on our further education system.
  The last point, looking ahead, is finance. This is much the most pressing problem. How can we reduce the costs of higher education? We must think about all the following things. I will list about five or six items which we have to
  1352
  take seriously. First, we must accustom ourselves to less provision of residence, and more people going to their local universities or other institutions. I used to take the opposite view that it was a good thing for many people to move around the country. In the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves today, we have to be prepared for less residence and more people going to their local institutions.
  Secondly, and just as important, there is the need for more efficient utilisation of resources. For example, as most polytechnics are in university towns, why should not there be more sharing of staff and plant? Why should we not plan for more common use of student facilities? Whatever one thinks of the methods they used, I have considerable sympathy with the objective of those at Bristol who claimed that the students' union facilities should be more widely shared. I know that the hon. Lady is sympathetic here.
  There are really some nonsenses in this respect. I hope that the House will not think me too trivial if I say that in one university town known to me it caused the most tremendous excitement and a real crisis, involving mounds of correspondence, because two institutions proposed to share the same launderette. This is the sort of nonsense which we cannot put up with at a time of straitened financial circumstances.
  Thirdly, there must be some bending of the staff-student ratio in universities. We should plan to move from a ratio of 1 to 7·8 to something like a ratio of 1 to 10. There has been a danger recently of higher education consuming too much of its own product.
  Fourthly, there is the possibility of the extension of the sandwich course system to a wider number of universities and more part-time degree work. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady know the scepticism I expressed earlier about the open university. But there should be growing provision of facilities for part-time degree work. I am fully in support of what Birkbeck is trying to do, also Hatfield, Enfield and the N.S.C. course in the University of Aston. A number of people are being fully provided for in residential accommodation, taking integrated courses, who might be better suited by a part-time degree course in existing institutions.

  1353
  Fifthly, we cannot realistically discuss finance without the dread word "loans" making an appearance some time or other. I know that there are strong feelings about this. Like my right hon. Friend, I still come down against loans for first degree courses, but we on this side of the House have made it clear that we must keep our hands free on the possibility of a loan element in the number of postgraduate courses. It is unrealistic to suppose that we can discuss finance in the 1970s while closing our minds on this subject. [Interruption.] I should be a little concerned if I did not stimulate a little dissent from the hon. Gentleman.
  The last possibility is that of attracting more private money into higher education, which we should take seriously. There is a project for a free university. I do not want utterly to dismiss the idea this afternoon, though we can all take our own views about its practicality. But I should be sorry to see private money diverted from existing universities, many of which have made great efforts to raise it. I hope that the universities will make increasing efforts to find more private sources of finance.
  I hope that we shall have a full, and as far as possible open, debate about the future of higher education in the 1970s, about the numbers and types of institutions and the financial possibilities. All are matters on which we should encourage the widest open national debate.
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell: On a point of clarification rather than argument, will the right hon. Gentleman say more about the method of having postgraduate loans? In what order would be ask for loans? To discuss the matter sensibly, we must have more information.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am not putting forward any definite proposal now, but merely saying, as I have often said before, that we on this side of the House feel that we must keep ourselves free to look at this matter. No one is suggesting that there should no longer be S.R.C. or S.S.R.C. awards, for example, but if a growing number of students wish to undertake post-graduate work there will be a certain amount of it for which it would be reasonable to consider a loan element.
  I now come to the last part of my speech. I do not want to take up too
  1354
  much time, but it would be quite unreal to discuss the universities this afternoon without making some reference to student protest. Here I would make two preliminary comments. First, we know that it is a worldwide phenomenon. We must seek to reassure public opinion on the subject and at the same time give our minds to it. It is not a subject to which it makes sense just to react emotionally. It is a difficult, highly complicated and important subject.
  Second, I find it very sad that we should be faced with the possibility of a really ugly backlash of opinion at a time when so many younger people are, in my experience, so right-minded. I have every sympathy with those who feel that education should be more than just a process of clearing hurdles and gaining qualifications, and who want to know what beliefs about society, if any, their teachers and rulers really hold. It is admirable that so many students today feel strongly about the concept of human dignity—about world hunger, world peace and racial justice. I say to those who are most impatient about youth today that we should remember the genuine sense of outrage and shock caused by events like the invasion of Czechoslovakia last year. We should not underrate it.
  Again, I may not carry the whole House with me, but there is a sense in which I approve the desire to make the universities more democratic. Certainly, like the Vice-Chancellor of Sussex, Professor Asa Briggs, I think that students should be consulted about decisions that affect them, and I welcomed last year's concordat between the vice-chancellors and the responsible leadership of the National Union of Students.
  However, we are faced today with the stark fact that at a number of our universities there is a disruptive minority trying to wreck the life of their respective institutions. They are concerned not with solving problems, but ensuring that there are no solutions. That is what is worrying. I take the view, and I hope that the whole House will agree, that a university is entitled to enforce certain minimum rules which are essential if one is to have an ordered academic community.
  Universities have not only the right but the duty to defend law and order within their own institutions. In turn,

  1355
  they have the right to ask for the moral backing of Government and Parliament. It is often said that the onus should lie in large measure on the moderate students. Up to a point, I agree, but it is unfair to lecture moderate students too must about this. They have other things to do besides attending endless meetings.
  Those are my general comments on the question. One particular aspect of the matter which I should like to mention, because it often concerns us as Members, is the question of withdrawing grants. I am sure that we shall be right to continue to leave the initiative with the university authorities. With respect to local education authorities, it is not their proper job to act as judge and jury. Anyway, they are not on the spot; they cannot judge all the facts in a case.
  I do not like the idea of local authorities seeking to pay grants, as it were, under threat of good behaviour. It is not a wise procedure. It is for the universities themselves to exercise the necessary firmness. There must be fair and grown-up disciplinary procedures, with proper provision for representation and appeal. Now that we are reducing the age of majority to 18, the concept of in loco parentis will apply less and less to universities.
  But we must realise that there may be individual cases which will not be easy for the universities to decide. I do not suppose that any hon. Member would seriously suggest that a student should forfeit his grant because of a common-or-garden motoring offence, or because he carries a placard saying, "Peace in Vietnam". Equally obviously, a student convicted of a criminal offence who is sent to prison must expect to forfeit his grant. But what about the student, perhaps one of the ablest, who goes to his lectures but demonstrates somewhere outside his university, where he is arrested for obstruction and subsequently fined? Should he forfeit his grant? This must be a matter of opinion in the individual case, but if I were a university authority I should be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
  The principle I am suggesting is that there is a strong case for universities being more severe on internal offences
  1356
  which disrupt the life of an ordered community, and the whole purpose for which universities exist, than on an external matter. I should like to see universities being pretty severe when any action threatens to disrupt the whole orderly life of an academic community, but I would rather see them err on the side of leniency with an external offence, provided no prison sentence is involved.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that there should be a lesser penalty for disrupting universities other than a student's own? He is giving that impression. Many students travel around the country creating trouble at other universities. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is a milder offence than creating trouble at their own?
  Sir E. Boyle: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is a fair and pertinent point. Let me alter what I said to, "Someone who disrupts the life of his own or any other ordered academic community." I accept that amendment completely.
  If the universities are to take the general view that I have outlined—with the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, which seemed acceptable—they must be able to show public opinion that they are determined to defend the principle of law and order within their own buildings.
  Another point is the importance of student unions having sensible and workable constitutions. If students are to be consulted more, it is important that their unions should have reasonable and sensible constitutions, which is certainly not the case with all the student unions at present.
  Having set out those points, let me say that whatever our personal view we should be in no doubt that public opinion today is thoroughly aroused over the behaviour of a minority of students. It is easy and probably fair to put some of the blame on the mass media, but the fact exists. It is not only extreme public opinion, but includes a great deal of perfectly sensible, middle-of-the-road, public opinion.
  Few events did more harm than the reaction to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he appeared on television

  1357
  at the University of East Anglia. We are perfectly used to dealing with the right hon. Gentleman in the House in reasoned debate. That is much wiser than appearing to want to deny freedom of speech to a visitor whom surely most students at the university would have wished to hear.
  Mr. Stan Newens: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Press bears a considerable share of the blame for the amount of publicity it has often given to completely unrepresentative demonstrations by students and its failure to represent and give publicity to the activities which the vast bulk of students take part in, as they are perfectly entitled to do?
  Sir E. Boyle: I have said constantly, and I repeat this afternoon, that I wish more attention were paid in the Press to the excellent work done by large numbers of young people and rather less to the minority who act foolishly. None the less, it is true that nothing does the students' cause and their whole image more harm than seeking to deny freedom of speech to those with whom they disagree. It is much better either not to attend or, if one pleases, to walk out of a meeting, which I have done more than once, rather than to give the appearance of denying a visitor a hearing.
  Anyone can see from my voting record over a number of years that my own inclinations when considering proposed changes in the law, or matters of personal behaviour are on the libertarian side of the fence. But we cannot afford to have our nation split in two on this subject. That is why it is very important that we should stand firmly behind the right of an ordered academic community to maintain law and order, while recognising strongly the rightful place not just of questioning but active dissent in our universities, and the very good sense and courage that many young people are showing today in our universities and elsewhere.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what causes the public concern is the small number of staff actively disloyal to their leaders, and in some cases subversive? It seems to me that the blame lies more on them than on the student leaders.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned this. When I speak of those who seek to disrupt the life of an academic community, I include a very small minority of staff as well as students. My hon. Friend may have something to say about this if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.
  I apologise for having spoken for rather longer than I intended. I am leading up to the following point. I remember my father describing to me many years ago the lunches given by Mrs. Humphrey Ward. It was the custom in her house that one discussed only one topic at lunch. On one occasion there was a discussion on medieval culture. After about half an hour it was rather end-stopped by a lady who had not previously taken part who said, "For my part, I do not regret the Middle Ages." Nobody could think what to say after that.
  The reason I retail that anecdote is that for my part I do not regret Robbins, nor the acceptance of Robbin's recommendations by the Government of which I was a member. I can well remember the debate, five years ago almost to the day, in which we discussed the Government's acceptance. I remember, in particular, the eloquent and most convincing speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in which he supported the case for doing so.
  Today, I still want to see the continuing expansion of higher education in the 1970s, if only because, like the authors of the Crowther Report 10 years ago, I dread the consequences for the schools of increased competition for university entry. But things are not quite the same today as they were five or six years ago. We shall have to be tougher-minded on the financial side, and we must not underrate the task of carrying public and university opinion with us.
  I urge the Government, particularly the Secretary of State, to encourage open debate on this subject and to give us all the facts and figures on which an informed decision must be based. Let us start to plan now for the years in the 1970s, when, as I confidently believe, better and wiser economic policies will give us more elbow room and greater freedom to chart our course.
  4.50 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): I, too, greatly welcome this debate, which I hope will be wide ranging. There has been no collusion between the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and myself, but my speech will cover broadly the topics which he raised. I will say a word, first, about the functions of universities as I see them; secondly, about the alleged attack on the autonomy and freedom of the universities; thirdly, about their growth and development; and then a word on salaries and the Prices and Incomes Board's Report; and, finally, I shall be making some very forthright comments on the question of student protest.
  The university was well described by the present Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, Sir Eric Ashby, as a mechanism which preserves, transmits and enriches learning. The aspect which I should like first to emphasise is the enrichment, or advancement, of learning—in other words, research. I put it first because in all the clamour—in my view, justified clamour—to improve university teaching, research is too often relegated to a secondary position. It is true that for any university teacher worth his salt a central part of his work is to pursue the truth within his own field and to work within that sphere at the very frontiers of knowledge. The universities are, or I hope they are, constantly expanding repositories of knowledge of man and of his environment.
  I would hope that for most university workers research—the advancement of knowledge, the pushing out of the frontiers of knowledge—is insufficient in itself. Certainly, for a university taken as a whole, a further function closely bound up with the first is the transmission of knowledge to others. In our own university tradition, this aspect has been prominent from the earliest days. The transmission of knowledge has been second only to its expansion. Today, research and teaching are inseparably connected and, with examining, they are, I believe, the purposes for which our universities exist. It may be disputed which of them is the more important and deserves the greater current emphasis.
  1360
  It has not escaped me that a certain amount of academic interest in the recent Report of the Prices and Incomes Board has been stirred. For my part, I do not at present propose to get involved in this argument. Suffice it to say that both tasks are vital, that each is closely linked with the other, and that neither is really satisfactory without the other. I agree with the right hon. Member for Handsworth; there is no clearly defined demarcation line between research and teaching. It is not possible to place them in tidy compartments and increase or decrease one or the other at will.
  The third function of the university is that of examining. A university degree, especially an honours degree, has for very long been regarded as the hallmark of intellectual worth. I am not sure that it is, but it is so regarded. Currently, there are many arguments about the right method of examining. Many people hold that the traditional methods are too rigid and fail to do justice to the student's performance over the course as a whole. This is an argument with which I have a good deal of sympathy. Can we really assume that the ability to cram sufficient knowledge to pass half a dozen three-hour written papers is the best test of a student's worth?
  A great deal of work is being done on the method of examining, and I welcome it very much. However, there would be general agreement that the teaching function is incomplete without some form of examination which not only gives employers an indication of the graduate's intellectual merits, but also, I hope, helps the student to master his subject and focus his attention.
  Broadly, there are two theories about the purpose of the university. There is what I call the ivory tower theory, where learning is pursued and teaching undertaken in glorious disregard for the world outside. On the other side, there is the bread-and-butter theory, where the harsh demands of earning one's living are the only determination of what is taught or researched. I hope that our universities will become increasingly responsive to the demands of the economy and of the professions. Indeed, they can retain their autonomy only if they do so. But I also hope that as well as gorging at the

  1361
  vocational trough young people, in their years at university, will find some time to browse round in fields of learning outside their own disciplines and so emerge educated as well as trained.
  It is a feature of our system that the universities, though nowadays largely dependent on the State for their finance, are autonomous institutions established by charter conducting their own affairs. In this respect, the universities are almost unique among our institutions financed from public funds in not being subject to any kind of ministerial directive. This principle I endorse. The right hon. Member for Handsworth talked about my birchrod manner. He did not adduce any evidence to support that. If he calls plain, honest speaking to the universities a birchrod manner, then I plead guilty.
  It has been suggested, certainly over the last few weeks in the correspondence columns of the newspapers, that the universities are gradually losing their academic freedom. In support of this, some people would point to the decision, following the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have access to the books of the University Grants Committee and of universities. The first thing to notice about this is that it is about their bookkeeping and not about their academic freedom. The Comptroller is concerned only with matters of financial procedure and not with matters of university policy. There is no possible infringement of academic freedom here.
  In 1968, the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department visited six universities and several schools of London University. They prepared a memorandum containing comments and suggestions. This was sent to every university in Britain by the Chairman of the U.G.C. who noted that, as far as he was aware, the visits had been conducted with mutual good will and usefulness. He said that he had heard no single criticism from the universities about either the conduct of the visits or the content of the discussions. Each university was left to decide how best to deal with the Comptroller's suggestions.
  So much for what is alleged to be the first evidence that the universities are
  1362
  losing their freedom. Other people have claimed in the correspondence columns that the Government interfere with the running of our universities. But the Government have no dealings whatever with individual universities. Indeed, we have no power to interfere with them in any way. The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that they would retain their freedom of appointments. I do not know who is threatening their freedom of appointments. They are completely free to appoint whoever they wish.
  The Government deal with the U.G.C., a body which is independent of Government control and mainly composed of university teachers and administrators. It is the U.G.C. which presents a case to the Government for university development over each quinquennial period and for the building programmes required. It is the U.G.C. which distributes the Government grant among the individual universities, and it does so entirely without reference to the Government.
  It has been suggested that in recent years the Government have grown steadily more intrusive and the independence of the U.G.C. has declined. The U.G.C.'s excellent recent Report on university development between 1962 and 1967 provides ample evidence to rebut this. In particular, I should like to quote a passage from this Report written by Sir John Wolfenden:
  "No single one of the responsible Ministers or Permanent Under-Secretaries since 1963 has shown the slightest inclination to reduce the independence of the Committee or of the universities. On the contrary, they and their colleagues 'down the line' have been scrupulous in their regard for it."
  I do wish some of the distinguished correspondents to The Times and the other papers would read this Report. I cannot imagine that Sir John Wolfenden, who has recently retired from the chairmanship of the U.G.C., would have allowed these words to be published over his name had he not believed them to be true.
  Here, I would like to pay tribute to Sir John, who has enjoyed the affection and respect both of successive Governments and of the universities throughout his five years as Chairman of the U.G.C. Perhaps I could also wish success to his successor, Mr. Kenneth Berrill.
  Sir E. Boyle: I should very much like to be associated with the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks. I should have mentioned that in my speech.
  Mr. Short: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  The people who recently, in the correspondence columns of the Press and elsewhere, have shown such scant regard for the truth in discussing relations between the Government and the universities are undermining the splendid work that Sir John did during those five years.
  Those who have been so vocal in recent weeks in misrepresenting this relationship also point to the standing reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The right hon. Gentleman discussed this question today. These are by and large the same people who caused the standing reference to be adopted to determine salaries, because previously they held the view that there could be no negotiations as there was no employer in the normal sense. I shall be referring briefly to the Board's report later, but I would point out to the House that the Board is completely independent of the Government. I myself had no idea what its Report contained until very shortly—a matter of hours—before it was published.
  Finally, on the question of autonomy, I am told that there are those in our universities who resent the present activities of the Select Committee of this House. All I can say is that if there are those who believe that the operation of our parliamentary institutions detracts from their freedom they might look at the experience of universities in some countries abroad. I utterly reject, as I hope every hon. Member will, the charge that a Select Committee of the House of Commons is a threat to the freedom and autonomy of the universities. Indeed, it is quite the reverse.
  So these three pieces of evidence—the activities of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and the Select Committee—have no substance in them whatever in detracting from the autonomy and the freedom of the universities. I have seen no further evidence.
  Having said all this, it does not mean that things are exactly today as they were in 1939. I should jolly well hope
  1364
  they are not. In 1939, the number of students in the universities was less than one-quarter of what it is today. Exchequer expenditure in 1939 was £2 million, whereas this year it will be £260 million. It would be absurd to suggest that things should remain just as they are.
  Here again, I cannot do better than quote from the U.G.C's Report:
  "The sheer number of universities, their decreasing homogeneity and the correspondingly increasing variety of their offerings, together with national considerations of the kind which have been mentioned, demand some central appraisal if uneconomic duplication is to be avoided and a reasonable degree of differentiation of function is to be achieved. The word 'rationalisation' seems cold and austerely functional in relation to the warm-blooded and spontaneous activity of universities. But a rational distribution of specialised function seems to be not inconsistent with clear thinking or with sensible distribution of the financial resources which the taxpayer provides."
  This would, I think, be generally accepted nowadays.
  As the Vice-Chancellors' Committee says in its Report on the last quinquennium, on which I should like to congratulate it:
  "Where the needs for particular types of skill can be clearly formulated, the universities can and do respond to requests made to them."
  The Vice-Chancellors' Committee goes on to give some examples of initiatives to which the universities have responded—for example, the Hayter Report on Oriental, Slavonic, Eastern European and African Studies; the Parry Report on Latin American studies; the reports on business studies, the veterinary profession, the recruitment of graduates to agriculture, and so on. More recently, there have been the Swann and Dainton Reports, dealing with the supply of scientists and mathematicians. These two Reports were a valuable contribution to our thinking and made a large number of recommendations which are now being considered by the U.G.C., the universities, and other bodies concerned.
  As the House knows, the Government have decided that it is no longer appropriate to confine intensive thinking on manpower to the fields of science and technology. The former Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology is now being wound up and is in process of being replaced by a new

  1365
  advisory committee on highly qualified manpower, and I hope to announce the names of the members of this committee very shortly. It is likely that, in addition to considering specific problems—for example, the need for manpower in the social services—the committee will be concerned with the methodologies of manpower forecasting, including the exploration by the Government, education and industry of the relationship between the requirements of industry and the output of education. The universities, which are very rightly establishing more and stronger links with industry, will obviously have a great deal to contribute to this.
  But saying, as I have been saying, that the universities are increasingly responsive to the needs of the economy, of the public service and of the social services is not the same as saying that their freedom and autonomy are being eroded.
  I turn now to the growth and development of the universities. University development in recent years can perhaps best be measured against the Robbins Report, which was published in 1963. Robbins' assumption that courses of higher education would be available for all who wished to pursue them and who were qualified to do so was accepted by the Government and has been the basis for the tremendous higher education expansion since 1963.
  In 1963–64, there were 29 institutions on the U.G.C. grant list. The number has now grown to 45. In 1963–64, there were 126,500 full-time students in Great Britain, with another 12,000 in C.A.T.s and the Scottish central institutions which were to be given university status. The Robbins targets were 197,000 students by 1967–68, 204,000 by 1971–72, and 218,000 by 1973–74. The 1967–68 target was exceeded and the present Government set a new target for 1971–72 of 220,000 to 225,000—that is, a minimum of 16,000 above the Robbins target.
  Already it is clear that the universities will exceed this improved target, which itself, as I have said, is 16,000 at least above the Robbins target. In 1968–69 the universities have nearly 212,000 students. In October of this year they are likely to have 220,000 students and so reach the new target two years ahead of time. We have thus far exceeded the
  1366
  Robbins rate of growth, and this has been achieved at the same time as the vast increase in other sectors of higher education—polytechnics, colleges of education, and so forth.
  In terms of the number of people going to universities, in 1963–64 5·1 per cent. of the relevant age group entered undergraduates courses at universities. In this present year the percentage is 7·7. During this period women entrants as a percentage of their age group have risen from 2·8 to 4·7 under this Government.
  One rather disturbing aspect of this which, as a northern Member of Parliament I wish to mention, is that the percentage of the age group going to the university from the North of England is substantially lower than from the rest of the country. I am having some research done into the causes of this regional differentiation, but the major cause appears, at any rate on the surface, to be the unfortunate tradition in the north of early leaving. I cannot urge too strongly parents in the five northern counties to leave their children at school as long as they can, so that they get the same chance of going to the university as children from the midlands and the south.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the position in Scotland?
  Mr. Short: I cannot give the figures for Scotland off the cuff, but I am having some research done in the northern counties of England.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that as part of his research the relationship between the early school leaver and the level of unemployment in the areas is closely looked at?
  Mr. Short: It is an interesting problem to try to find reasons for early leaving. I think that it has something to do with the industrial pattern, industrial attitudes and the feeling of insecurity from the past, and so on.
  In 1968–69 expenditure on universities on my Vote amounts to £243 million. This is £100 million more than it was in the year when this Government came into office. In addition to this, other Departments and the Research Councils are providing £20·5 million for research and advisory services to the universities this year. This is £10 million more than

  1367
  it was when the Government came into office. So the total public money being made available to the universities from central sources is £263·5 million this year, compared with £153·5 million in 1964–65.
  I turn now to building programmes, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Building programmes since the beginning of 1964 to 1969–70 total £220 million, and this is a vast amount of capital to plough into the universities. The reduction last year of the 1968–69 programme from £31 million to £19 million was regretted, and the fact that it happened when most of the Vice-Chancellors were on the way to Australia was, I assure the right hon. Gentleman, purely coincidental. It will not prevent the universities from reaching their 1971–72 target which I mentioned; indeed, they are reaching it two years ahead of time.
  I can today announce a programme of £50 million covering the two years 1970–71 and 1971–72. This new programme which I am announcing for the first time will enable the U.G.C. to restore projects which had to be deferred because of the 1968–69 cuts. It will enable them to make provision for essential growth and for former C.A.T.s to be moved to new areas, and to remedy some of the worst cases of deficiencies of accommodation, such as libraries and refectories, and of obsolescence generally which is hindering teaching and research.
  There is only one other point which I should like to make under this heading. I greatly welcome the steps being taken by the vice-chancellors to achieve a more intensive use of facilities, but we are still very far from the position where university capital is used as intensively as it should be. The universities could learn a great deal from the example of some of the colleges of education and, in particular, I hope that they will now examine the four-term or even six-term year.
  Our present planning of expenditure on universities has not gone beyond 1971–72, but the universities not less than the schools must be aware of the gathering crisis, a worldwide crisis, in providing the resources for education. If the universities are to continue to take about the same percentage of an increasing age group, of whom an increasing number are
  1368
  being qualified to go to the university, the cost per place must be held and, if possible, reduced.
  Sir E. Boyle: I take it that the programmes announced by the right hon. Gentleman for 1970–71 and 1971–72 are without prejudice to the increase that was announced for 1969–70. If I remember rightly, the programme for 1969–70 was put up from £25 million to £29 million; I take it that the £29 million figure still holds?
  Mr. Short: The figure for the coming year still holds good.
  Next I want to deal briefly with the subject of university pay. On 18th December the National Board for Prices and Incomes published its first report on the pay of university teachers under the standing reference. On the same day, I announced that the Government accepted straight away those of the Board's recommendations which most directly and immediately affected their salary levels. These, I understand, are being paid this month. These increase the basic bill for non-clinical university teachers by about 5 per cent. overall, the actual percentage increases varying between 17 per cent. for some assistant lecturers, the lowest paid staff, to 2 per cent. for professors.
  The Board also recommended that salary increases amounting to 4 per cent. in total, over and above the basic 5 per cent., should be given to staff below the rank of professor as discretionary awards, and as distinction awards to professors who showed outstanding merit, particularly in the establishment and running of teaching departments. Because it was obviously impossible without a good deal of consultation to set up the machinery for selecting the recipients of these additional awards, the Board recommended that they should be paid from 1st October, 1969, as compared with 1st October, 1968, for the basic increases.
  I do not think that there need be any complaint that the Board's Report victimises university teachers. The Board is, of course, bound by statute to frame its recommendations in the light of current incomes policy.
  As to the rest of the recommendations, I would not regard it as desirable that students' assessments of their teachers

  1369
  should be one of the factors taken into account in distributing the discretionary awards. On all other points I am awaiting the advice of the U.G.C. who are carrying out the necessary consultations with the interests concerned, including the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the Association of University Teachers and, because these discussions are going on and I am awaiting their suggestions, I should prefer not to say any more now on the content of the Report.
  As to the standing reference itself, there has been some feeling that this new means of settling university teachers' salaries is not satisfactory. The standing reference was made only in November, 1966. Before that, the salaries of university teachers were settled by a series of negotiations between the university interests involved, the U.G.C. and my Department, and before that the Treasury. This procedure, known colloquially as "the minuet", was disliked by all parties, not least by the teachers themselves. The teachers in the universities would like to see some kind of collective bargaining machinery established, and the Board itself, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, sympathised with them. As I said earlier in my speech, one of the main reasons why we used to have the minuet was precisely that it was not possible to create salary-fixing machinery in the ordinary sense, in which representatives of the employers and employees negotiate, in some degree at least as plenipotentiaries.
  There seems to be no way of assembling an employers' side in our university system. The vice-chancellors are not really employers; they are senior members of the academic staff and the senates, the courts and the councils are not fitted to perform this function. I am willing to listen to any ideas on this subject which the universities may wish to bring forward.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Is there any reason in principle why the councils of existing universities as the employing bodies should not get together to form a specific committee just for this purpose, so that some established management panel could be brought in, just as the one which exists on the Burnham Committee?
  Mr. Short: There are difficulties here, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, but this is one idea which they are no doubt looking at, and when they have reached some conclusions perhaps they will come to see me about it. Because of these difficulties, we negotiated with the interests concerned, and with their agreement, the idea of settlement of academic salaries by the National Board for Prices and Incomes by means of the standing reference procedure.
  So far, the Board has made only one Report. Because the staff concerned did not like all its recommendations, they have now suggested that the standing reference should be withdrawn. Without accepting their criticisms of the Report or the right hon. Gentleman's description of it as being an inept one, I should like to make it clear that, if the interests concerned—the teachers, the vice-chancellors and the U.G.C.—can bring forward agreed proposals for alternative machinery following their discussions, the Government's minds are not closed to a review of the standing reference. Meantime, unless and until such proposals are made—and there are very serious difficulties—it must be sensible not to enter now into any sort of commitment but to continue with the standing reference.
  Mr. Dalyell: Could my right hon. Friend be more explicit as to what are these difficulties?
  Mr. Short: I thought that I had been explicit. The principal difficulty is that of assembling an employers' side for negotiations.
  I now turn to say a word about student unrest. Idealism and radicalism are characteristics of youth and the young in heart of all ages. In this generation, young people are face to face with unique problems in society. I often feel that many of us have underestimated the effect on the minds of the young of such problems as Vietnam, the bomb, and the new attitudes to sex and family. But there is nothing unique about youth having to face unique problems. My own generation, which is that of so many of us in this House, had to watch the rise of Fascism and Nazism, unable to do very much about it. We protested and marched in our day, and youth today must do the same. There is nothing

  1371
  wrong with that. It would be wrong if it were otherwise.
  However, there is a unique change today in the attitude towards authority. No longer will young people accept the old authoritarian concept of authority when it is imposed by one person on another in school, home, college or anywhere else. They will accept authority only if they are involved in it and, in my view, rightly so.
  If we are to give 18-year olds the vote and reduce the age of majority, they must be treated as adults, and our educational system must fit them, both by the content of education and by its organisation in our schools and universities, for their responsibilities. It is sometimes forgotten that they are the first generation this century which has not had to go to war. We have to see that their energy and idealism is harnessed to the pursuits of peace, which are no less exciting than the pursuits of war. The vice-chancellors and other senior members of the universities have shown themselves to be extremely responsive to this need, and their discussions with students over the past year are creating a new and better atmosphere in most colleges and universities.
  Students who have genuine grievances about conditions in their colleges and universities will find almost invariably today that they are negotiable; they are pushing at an open door, and there is no need to demonstrate about them. But the ills of society are not the fault of the vice-chancellors or the directors of their schools and colleges. It is monstrous to disrupt the life of a college, university or school because of Vietnam, Nigeria, race, or because one is opposed to capitalism.
  I come now to what is an extremely serious point. There is quite a different element in student protest today, and that has been seen clearly in the events at the London School of Economics in recent weeks. I wish to speak about this in terms in which it has not been spoken about before in this House, and I do not want to be misunderstood.
  L.S.E. has about 3,000 students. The disruptions which have taken place involve probably about 300 of these, though it is difficult to say because a great many others have come into the college who are not students. The real perpetrators
  1372
  are a tiny handful of people—fewer than one-half of 1 per cent. of the 3,000 at L.S.E. Of these, at least four are from the United States. They are subsidised to the extent of between £1,000 and £2,000 for their one-year master's degree course by the British taxpayer. These gentlemen are clearly not here to study, but to disrupt and undermine British institutions.
  This small group of less than half of I per cent. are the thugs of the academic world. Already they have succeeded in closing L.S.E., whose former free and easy and delightful relationships are remembered by so many hon. Members. This small core is not interested in redressing grievances, either at the school or in society. Indeed, its members have been offered everything agreed between the vice-chancellors and the students in the latter part of last year. So far, it has not been accepted.
  They are out to destroy and disrupt. I hope that no one in this House or outside it will underestimate the long-term effect of this kind of activity. It can only result in the slow rotting of institutions like the London School of Economics.
  Earlier, I talked about the threat to academic freedom. The only real threat of academic freedom is from the activities of people of this kind. I have a copy of a notice issued by them which instructs students to disrupt the lectures of named members of the staff: they are not to be allowed to lecture.
  These people are not Socialists. They are not even respectable Marxists. They are a new brand of anarchists, very different from the endearing characters whom many of us knew. Some of them are Maoists and some a new Brand X of revolutionaries for whom there is, as yet, no name. They are wreckers who, whatever they may say, are concerned only to disrupt society. Their weapons are lies, misrepresentation, defamation, character assassination, intimidation and, more recently, physical violence. The activities of this tiny cell of people could do untold long-term harm in this country. In the short term, they are doing untold harm to the educational chances of the vast majority of students who are just as idealistic and just as bright and decent as ever they were.
  I believe that the time has come for everyone who has any influence in the

  1373
  situation to exert it to stop this squalid nonsense. I hope that parents can still influence their sons and daughters. I agree that local authorities, in consultation with the universities, can wield considerable influence. They have a major deterrent in their own hands.
  For my part, while encouraging student participation in running their universities, as I have done whenever I have spoken about it, I will do all that I can to support the vice-chancellors and college heads in dealing with the half of I per cent. At this point, I want to express my confidence in Dr. Walter Adams, who has taken far more than any college head ought to be required to take. I am full of admiration for the steadiness and courage that he has shown throughout. If hon. Members would like to see some of the statements which have been issued in the college by these people, I would be glad to show them the file which I have.
  This has got to stop so that all our sons and daughters can get back to their studies which, in the main, are paid for by taxpayers who have never had a chance to go to university. If apprentices in a factory in my constituency behaved like this, they would be thrown out on their necks at once. It is high time that one or two of these thugs were thrown out on their necks as well.
  I am sorry to end on this note. This miserable episode is damaging a university system in which the nation can take very great pride, and it is fouling the good name of a whole generation of young people who are just as splendid as our young people ever were.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Many hon. Members have indicated their desire to speak in the debate. If hon. Members will practise the virtue of brevity, it may be that the Chair will be able to call most of those who have expressed the wish to participate.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I believe that the House will wholeheartedly agree with the terms used by the Minister about this very small percentage of students at the L.S.E. The disruption of the L.S.E. by this tiny number of people is intolerable. I know that it is not the Minister's responsibility,
  1374
  but it seems strange that the scientologists, for whom I hold no brief but of whom no one has spoken in the terms used by the Minister this afternoon, should be forbidden to enter this country; yet these people at the L.S.E., of whom I understand four are Americans, are free to come here, apparently subsidised by us, openly disrupting the L.S.E. and breaking the law. There seems some contrast between the treatment of these two groups.
  The House will be grateful to the Minister for the firm declaration that he has made of the commitment of the Government to the independence of the universities. If he has in his time appeared to have used the birch rod manner, it was merely blunt speaking. That I accept.
  I am not sure that the Minister dealt with the basis of the anxiety, which is probably unjustified, among some university people. A student protest is a worrying situation for them. Although we may tell them that they should enforce discipline, in fact the university depends on a common outlook between the teachers and those whom they teach. People do not teach at universities with the idea of enforcing police regulations. Once this has to be done, it is a disturbing situation because they know that there will be interference from outside. That is inevitable.
  There has been lately some talk that standards are to be applied to universities, which I reject. This is the fault with the Prices and Incomes Board. It is pretty mad to expect the Prices and Incomes Board to fix salaries right, left and centre all over the board whenever they are referred to it. The idea that somehow or other, on productivity or whatever it may be, we can apply the same criteria to universities is unacceptable. This may be an exaggeration of what the P.I.B. has said, but there is a fear that universities will be submitted to tests which are not applicable to their work.
  Although finance comes through the University Grants Committee, they are more and more dependent on the good will of this House and of the Government, and more and more subject to cut-backs at times of economic stress. At the same time, a good deal of their finance for particular projects comes from industry or the Government. While I do not

  1375
  accept that this process so far has threatened academic freedom, it is a worry all over the world that universities may be diverted into channels which they would not perhaps necessarily choose. However, I agree that the U.G.C. is a good instrument for allocating the available finances.
  I served for a short time as a lay member on a university court. I found it a reasonably efficient body. Granted the expenses of running the university were very small compared with the job in hand, I do not think that it compared worse than other bodies elsewhere and in many ways it was a good deal better.
  Universities are being blamed for all kinds of faults which are faults in our administration or society as a whole. By the time a boy or girl reaches university he or she has already been a long time at school and they have come from their own homes. Universities cannot be entirely to blame for what may happen in the three to four years in which they are controlled by the university authorities. As the Minister emphasised, the trouble at universities is at a tiny proportion of universities. There is practically no trouble in Scots universities or in northern or Welsh universities. In the South of England the trouble is confined to the L.S.E. and one or two other places, and that trouble is created by a tiny minority in those institutions.
  The rest of the students are getting on with their work and giving a great deal of voluntary service. This gets no publicity. The public at large is apt to get the impression that university students are in constant turmoil, that the principals are locked up in their rooms and the libraries are being burned in the streets. That is just not true. The matter should be kept in proportion.
  I disclaim any intimate knowledge of what moves the people who create trouble. But there are certain aspects not so much in universities but in the societies in which the universities exist which might cause genuine dissent among youth. We are constantly told that we run a permissive society. It is not easy to live in a permissive society at 18 or 19 years of age. In many ways it is better to have
  1376
  standards laid down which one can either accept or revolt against.
  Our society is not all permissive. We are subject to an absolute barrage by the newspapers, television and the public relations industry of a very conformist sort. This is designed to make us conform to certain fashions and modes of thought which appeal to big business, the Government, and what is called the establishment generally. Therefore, to say that we live in a wholly permissive society is not true taking society as a whole. We live in a society in which men are becoming more and more organised and the individual seems to be getting squeezed out. Further, the organisation men play down moral judgments. They play down value judgments. Look at our own business of politics. Political comment is too often reduced to psephology which is an occupation worthy of a racing tipster. It is about who will win, or the latest sensation, or mere gossip. Speeches are distorted, minor events are blown up, and a serious discussion is extremely difficult to get aross on the general mass media.
  Further, youth is told too often that technological or economic necessity will decide the future of the world. The result is that we have a society which is amoral, we have a State which impinges more and more on our lives and which itself has taken on many of the values of the market place. To some people it appears to be run more and more by a bureaucracy, and not a democracy. As a result, a lot of young people feel that they are being trained to suit the needs of a bureaucracy, of Government, of business or of professions.
  While I accept the need to look at the manpower needs of this country, about which the Minister has spoken, we must be careful not to regard education as being a matter of producing the right proportion of engineers, physicists etc., which we think the country will need 10 years hence. This is the real danger and this is felt by some people today.
  They also find it difficult to give true expression to their views. I addressed a meeting at Oxford about the splendours of democracy. A man at the back of the hall got up and said: "Take my case. I am a member of the Labour

  1377
  Party. I have gone to Labour Party conferences. I have carried motions against the war in Vietnam, against nuclear rearmament and against the incomes policy. What has happened? Nothing whatever." This is a real difficulty which, in its wider aspects, is outside the scope of the debate. However, I believe that there is a genuine anxiety about representative government as we all practice and believe it. Some, no doubt in an exaggerated way, feel that to talk of democracy at the moment is hypocritical when they have so little power over what they consider to be the important decisions either about their lives or the running of the country.
  When people go to university these things hit them. It is at that moment that they begin to feel they are not able to make their views known. It is at that moment that they met the people from big business who said to them, "If you are going to be a scientist, would you consider joining our organisation?" It is at that moment that they began to want to take a part in running their own affairs, and in some universities they found that the authorities were not always responsive. The result was frustration and a feeling of exclusion. The shades of the prison house began to close around people, and they revolted against them.
  At the same time, when they looked around inside their universities, they found that the dogmatic and far from permissive, but all-pervading views of their elders were not based on any real belief in values. I was amazed to read in our newspapers about the absolute solidity of de Gaulle's régime, and that it was like a rock. A few students revolted in the Sorbonne and General de Gaulle flew to see his Army commanders. He had no faith in the system which was supposed to be so rock like.
  Mr. Heffer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that what really concerned General de Gaulle was not the students at the Sorbonne but the action of the French working classes in going on strike?
  Mr. Grimond: I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman is right. At first the French workers were not on the side of the students.
  1378
  There were other minor faults in universities. For instance, a certain number of professors—it would be wholly unfair to blame the bulk of them—took up Chairs which they seldom occupied, since they spent a great deal of time in non-university activities. Some university lecturing and teaching was bad. I have been taught by lecturers who were inaudible. These are minor affairs, and most have been put right. The standard of teaching at British universities is high and the number of hours spent in lectures by many teachers compares favourably with the situation in most universities in the rest of the world. The staff-student ratio is very good.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) mentioned five points about finance. I agree with his approach, but I should be sorry to see the staff-student ratio severely worsened. He said that it is very high and that it might be possible to make better use of it—but it is one of the great advantages of our universities.
  What should be done about this situation? It would be fatal to approach this question influenced by the behaviour of a few lunatics on the fringe. We must enforce the rule of law. Not only is it intolerable that the L.S.E. should be broken up but—and though I hold no brief for what they have to say—it is quite intolerable that politicians who address meetings on wholly neutral matters and sometimes not even in the universities should be prevented by gangs from universities who are determined to stop them speaking.
  Initially it must be a matter for the university authorities, but they are not police; they are not employed to enforce law and order. I feel that the time must come when, at the request of the university authorities, the police should come in. I do not accept that university students should be above the law, any more than anyone else is. I take the Minister's point that if people of a com-parable age behave like this on the way to a football match they are arrested forthwith. I do not say that it should be done without the consent of the university authorities, but ultimately there must be a general enforcement of the law against students as against anyone

  1379
  else. The behaviour of the people at the L.S.E. is intolerable.
  Mr. John Lee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the difficulties concerning meetings that have been broken up by students when politicians have sought to speak is that in some cases the politicians support causes which are dubiously within the law themselves—for example, people who give aid and comfort to Rhodesia, or right hon. Gentlemen who come dangerously near to breaking the provisions of the Race Relations Act?
  Mr. Grimond: I should like to see the policies changed and the system changed, but while the system remains as it is, however wicked the policies of the Government there is a limit to how a person can protest. Equally, however foolish and provocative the speeches made by some people at universities, there is a clear legal definition of what is permissible and what is not and if speeches are not stirring up a riot or breaking the law, the law of free speech must be enforced.
  If such action is not taken there is the danger of an anti-intellectual revolt. The feeling is growing that intellectuals are privileged people, and that they should be hit over the head and got rid of. A dangerous situation could arise. It is the less privileged people—the people who have to go out to work straight from school, without going to universities—who are expected to pay in order to support education, among other things. An anti-intellectual revolt would be extremely damaging, and it is not without the bounds of possibility.
  During the Christmas Recess a parcel was sent to a constituent of mine in Shetland from a person in Suffolk and it bore on it a Customs declaration. This gave rise to a certain amount of merriment. I am told that when the Post Office authorities were asked whether they did not know where Shetland was they replied, "We know, but we had to employ university students over Christmas." Apparently the old postman who left school at the age of 14 is expected to know where Shetland is, but we should not expect a university student to do so. There is some strong feeling about this situation.
  1380
  We must also consider what is taught in schools and universities. We may take it for granted that everyone knows about John Stuart Mill, democracy, free speech, law and order, and representative government, but everyone does not. It is quite possible to reach the age of 23, having started in science in one's teens, and to know very little history and almost nothing about politics or moral philosophy, or the general way in which the country is supposed to be run.
  Sometimes this arises from the amoral nature of our society and sometimes from a genuine desire to keep politics out of education. But it is necessary that people, whether scientists or not, should know something about the type of system by which we try to run this country, and about the alternatives—certainly Marxism. They should certainly be taught what the Liberals, Tories and Socialists think they stand for, and what representative government is supposed to do. If people want to alter the system they must first grasp what it is trying to do. The same is true of nationalisation and free enterprise.
  I recently went to a university at which a man who was obviously extremely knowledgeable said to me, "I am a Communist." I said, "Why?" and he said, "Because I believe in free speech." He was quite genuine. If people in London who are saying that the situation at the L.S.E. is equivalent to that in Prague are supposed to be serious students they should be sacked on that count alone. We hear the most appalling nonsense talked. We must get back some general courses such as used to be the rule in the Scottish universities so that we know about the way in which things are supposed to be taught.
  The recent disturbances tend to divert us from some of the genuine difficulties of students at our universities. I agree that part of the trouble is mass media. It is no good bilking about this; the mass media like trouble and sensation and will get it if they can. The financial situation is a real difficulty. One of the difficulties which universities face is grants for maintenance. They are constantly getting grants for new machinery and building, but when I was on a committee I found it much more

  1381
  difficult to maintain the machinery and buildings which we had.
  Second, there is the problem of how far one should try to direct students into the areas where there are jobs, and how far it should be left to them. This is particularly acute in sociology, which has become a very popular science, as has arts generally, but there are not enough jobs for sociologists. Many of these professional students who ultimately become troublesome are trained in sociology. Not that I want to criticise this important subject, but there are simply not enough jobs in sociology.
  The liaison between the schools and universities is much better, but it could be improved. Many people go to university without much knowledge of how to work on their own. They face difficulties in their behaviour and in the ordinary business of living. Further, we should make it clear that to acquire a degree or a qualification is not everything in life and that one can be a very bad architect although one is qualified.
  We should examine very sympathetically the idea of a more continual examination period during the whole of the student's life. I was opposed to this at one time, partly because I thought that it would be a great strain on students, but from going round the universities I find that it is much more popular and effective than I thought, and it is a good addition, at any rate, to the ordinary examination system.
  If I were asked what qualifications I have for speaking in this debate, I would say that I am an honorary president of the Scottish Union of Students which, so far from being in danger of falling into wild anarchy, is one of the most respectable bodies with which I have to deal. They are all much better dressed than I am, for one thing, and they are anxious to follow the correct procedures and get down to a splendid administrative system, I think rather too early. The danger for students today is not altogether anarchy but that they are genuinely bewildered about the world into which they are thrown and, in some cases, that they want to begin running the canteen far too early.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that the House apprecsiates the support of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for the new style Select Committee. As Chairman of that Committee, I am in some difficulty in touching upon what has become the major theme of the debate—student relations—since I do not want to anticipate or prejudice our conclusions. Therefore, I do not intend to say anything about that matter.
  I was anxious to intervene for another reason—because I was actively concerned in the formulation of the Labour Party policy on higher education which we published five or six years ago as "The Years of Crisis". Many of its recommendations and conclusions were more authoritatively put forward subsequently by Robbins. Incidentally, one of our recommendations—I think that we were the first body to make this proposal—was the university of the air, and I congratulate the Government on the steps which they have taken towards the open university. This is very important. We should remember that Robbins recommended evening classes for first degree courses and the establishment of correspondence courses by some universities and that this should be backed by television, but at the same time I must add a cautionary note, that we should not over-play the open university. It has implications and a significance for higher education as a whole and we should be careful about its progress.
  Speaking generally about Robbins, I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said, that we should all recognise the tremendous achievement that has been made in that, in five years, in absolute terms, we have had a growth as great as that in the previous 50. Any comment or criticism, constructive or not, which I make, must be considered in the light of that achievement.
  My first comment follows something which the right hon. Member for Hands-worth touched upon. There is too much complacency abroad. The Robbins targets were based on the estimates of the bulge and the trend, and as he said, the Robbins estimate of the trend has already been shown to be an under-estimate.
  Another factor which should be borne in mind is that the Robbins Committee

  1383
  was directed to prepare its estimates on the assumption that the school leaving age would not be raised. It is in view of these qualifications that we cannot afford to be too complacent about the fact that, fortunately—we congratulate ourselves upon this—we are exceeding the Robbins targets. We must also remember—this is very important in present circumstances—that the Robbins targets provided for a growth in the proportion of students taking science. This is not the case; in fact, there is now a swing away from science. For higher education in the context of our national requirements, this also is a disturbing fact.
  Third—this is the main reason that I wanted to intervene—our experience in implementing the Robbins Report emphasises the validity of some of the recommendations which we made in "The Years of Crisis". The first point, again, has been anticipated. We were courageous enough, I believe, then to emphasise that, at any rate temporarily, we should probably have to rely much more on the home-based student. If we look back over the last few years, we find that there has been an undue emphasis on the provision of residential accommodation and, although there is a new appreciation now, until recently the provision has been too inflexible. There has not been enough experimentation.
  Again, I feel that the universities still do not take sufficient advantage of part-time teachers from industry, the professions, the Civil Service and elsewhere. It is, of course, important that we should keep a close relationship, as the right hon. Member for Handsworth said, between the universities and society, and this is one of the ways to do it. Moreover, like the Bow Group, I think that we should pay much more attention to education for the professions. The time is still opportune for a radical reappraisal of education for the professions.
  My fourth point was anticipated by the Secretary of State, but I should like him to do rather more about it, particularly in our own region. The provision of higher education should be part and parcel of development area policy and, as we said in "The Years of Crisis":
  "We should use the universities to help regenerate those regions which are economically and culturally under-privileged."
  1384
  We have a great deal to learn in this respect from American experience. My area is a development area and the only region without a new technological university, which is certainly relevant to our present unemployment difficulties.
  We were very imbued then—this was almost prophetic—with the importance of the government of the universities, and thought that it was essential to make this as effective and expeditious as possible. This also affects the use which is made of the staff and a good deal depends on good organisation. In fact, when we are talking about a good teacher, particularly at a university, this normally means someone who is also a good organiser.
  These are some of the things which we should review in the light of our experience in implementing Robbins, but it is equally important that we should review our experience where we have departed from the Robbins recommendations. The most important departure from the recommendations and spirit of the Report is the binary system. My own sympathy and support is for Robbins rather than for the Government. I congratulate the Government on the colleges of education, but would have been far happier if we had also established the schools of education. I am somewhat surprised at my right hon. Friend because as an old Bedan, he knows the benefits of the close link between college and university.
  I welcome the polytechnics, but I would have welcomed more the implementation of Robbins by making some of the regional colleges into universities. In fact, we seem to have created an institution which is considered to be a threat both to the universities and to further education. I would prefer, in short, that we were deliberately eliminating, as Robbins suggested, the artificial differences dividing the institutions in higher education, rather than making those distinctions more rigid and formal.
  I must issue a warning to the Government about this. The tertiary system in secondary education was not the fault of the Tories. It was formulated and introduced by Miss Ellen Wilkinson, and the distinctions were sold to us by talk about parity of esteem. No talk about that has blurred those fatal distinctions that were made in secondary education. In the same way, we are so sharply dividing

  1385
  higher education that no talk of parity of esteem will blur this distinction. The non-university institutions will be the poor relations in higher education.
  I fully appreciate that there are short-term arguments to support the steps which have been taken. I recognise them as being powerful, but I cannot follow the longer-term arguments which are now being advanced in favour of this division. For this reason, I would like the Government to return to the Robbins recommendation that there should be a single grants commission responsible for the whole of higher education.
  In "The Years of Crisis", we recommended that there should be a national university development council, responsible for all forms of higher education, together with regional authorities. This idea should appeal to the Minister of State. The Fabians proposed a national higher education authority with regional organisation. We can afford to take these steps now.
  Robbins was oppressed by the crisis which the right hon. Member for Hands-worth has, on occasion, frankly admitted was the harvest of the neglect of the 'fifties. In implementing Robbins, we have been equally oppressed by the urgency of the steps that we have been bound to take. Thus, now is the time to take a longer-term assessment of higher education, and this would be the most effective way of doing it.
  We should recognise that it is as valid now as it was then that at least in part Britain's economic stagnation has arisen from the neglect of higher education. It is as true now as it was at the time of the Robbins Report that if we want a free and democratic society then, in the modern complex society in which we live, we depend largely on an expansion of higher education.
  I feel—I may be exceptional in this—that at present there is a certain unease in education. We feel that we have done well, particularly in higher education, in dealing with the crisis which faced us. We are uncertain, however, about both the future and whether we have made sufficient sacrifices to safeguard the future. I believe it is time to revive the appeal of Sir Geoffrey Crowther which the Campaign for Education made in 1963; that we should have
  1386
  "all to 16, one-half to 18 and one-fifth to 21 ".
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. David Lane: Universities are now facing the greatest crisis ever to beset them in peacetime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say this in all seriousness and, if hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to me, they will hear why. This is an opportune debate, and I hope that the main message going out from the House will be to strengthen the resolve of the moderates among both senior members and students in all their efforts, which have not been without success, to keep university life going and improve its quality in the face of unprecedented difficulties.
  The threat to universities is at least a triple one; student revolution, public hostility and financial stringency. If one asks the man in the street about the university crisis, he will probably answer, in unparliamentary language, Students! "I shall come to that, but, first, I wish to touch on three other aspects of the crisis.
  On the question of freedom, I do not quarrel with what the Secretary of State said, although I hope that no hon. Member is underestimating the real concern that many people in the universities feel about this subject. Recent events—they have already been mentioned; I need not repeat them—have, rightly or wrongly, been seen by them as a creeping encroachment on their academic freedom. While we must be vigilant to see that matters do not go further, I believe that some of these fears are exaggerated.
  Whatever else academic freedom means, it does not mean a perpetual right to undisturbed existence in an ivory tower. The public are spending nearly £300 million a year on higher education. They are entitled to satisfy themselves that the universities are putting, and keeping, their house in order. The universities must get used to living in the limelight, and they should welcome it. For too long they have tended to exist as mysterious bodies apart from the rest of the community. They should respond to the present public concern by trying to build more bridges with the communities around them, to work more closely with industry and to take every opportunity to tell the public what they are trying to do.

  1387
  The second point is the related question of finance, and this was discussed at some length by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). I was glad that he gave the matter such emphasis. Whatever views we may hold, whatever doctrinaire position some of us take, politicians generally must give urgent rethinking to this whole problem in the next few years.
  If we accept that the present tightness will continue and that there must be a brake on expansion, then I reluctantly accept that it should fall harder on higher education than on the schools and that, in the universities, the accent will have to be on consolidation. On the side of expenditure, we must look for further economies. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the staff-student ratio. It cannot be sacred. I would add to that a search for economy in the grants which are at present available for postgraduate work. I believe that in many cases of a marginal kind, particularly in arts subjects, we could make economies.
  On the side of income, we must also take a fresh look. My right hon. Friend referred to loans, and these could yield some benefit, although I believe that it would only be limited. Industry has already done an enormous amount for the universities. Perhaps it can do more, and this will have to be looked at also.
  As for an independent university, this is an interesting proposal, and the response to it will give us an indication of the scope there may be, not only for a new style of university—I am all for experimentation and variety—but, as my right hon. Friend stressed, for injecting more private finance into the State university system.
  Before dealing with the question of students, I come next to a group of people too often overlooked. I refer to university teachers because, as has been said, they are feeling the harsh reality of the present financial position. The outburst of criticism at the P.I.B. Report has been mentioned, and it would be a pity if it were allowed to blur the many other important points in the Report.
  I welcome the emphasis on teaching. Far too much of university teaching has, in the past, been nothing like as good as it should have been, and I hope that
  1388
  more attention will be paid to training would-be university teachers in teaching. Whatever our views about that, it is sad that the combined effect of the Government and P.I.B. Report has been to leave a strong feeling of discontent in this vital, though not normally vocal, section of the community. We all know of their dissatisfaction with the Report. I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the Association of University Teachers, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take them exceedingly seriously.
  There are only two more comments that I would like to make on this today. The first is to reinforce what has been said from both Front Benches about the possibility of a new system for settling academic salaries. The A.U.T. has put forward the idea of a University Council, something akin to the Whitley Council for the Health Service. This proposal should be considered carefully. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State imply that he has an open mind on the subject if agreed proposals can be put forward. An alternative might be the possibility of combining into one body what would otherwise be two, three or four separate bodies looking at the salaries of doctors and dentists, higher civil servants and, now, university teachers.
  The second thing which I would like to do, as an indication of the responsible way that university teachers are reacting to this situation, is to quote two points made in a letter which I received yesterday from a prominent university teacher at Cambridge. First, he says:
  "The position of the ordinary university teacher, now that students and vice-chancellors have taken to making joint resolutions, bears thinking about. He must be given the chance of determining the lines of the further productivity of his own activities. I think that a number of our members are very concerned about these recent developments and look forward to a structure which will more accurately reflect their own feelings and aspirations for university life."
  His letter ends with these words:
  "I hope that university teachers will not be cast in the role of obstructive reactionaries, either on the student question or on the efficiency question, but what we must have is some means of influencing the future structure of the profession comparable with the medical profession, because it is the teachers, after all, who bear the brunt of the modern student."
  That brings me to the question of students. I do not minimise the problem

  1389
  in any way. It is, I believe, our job as Members of Parliament to take every opportunity to impress on people at all levels in the university that public patience is nearly exhausted. At the same time, however, let us try to keep this in perspective.
  The public are inclined to discuss students as if they were a monolithic mass of wastrels. I find it a little more helpful to look at them in three broad categories. The first are the extremists, the revolutionaries, about whom such forthright things have been said already today from both sides of the House. They are, of course, a minute minority. If one may adapt a familiar phrase, they are a tightly-knit group of politically motivated boys and girls.
  Reason, surely, is of the essence of a university, but these revolutionaries have no use for reason. They have no faith in freedom and they have nothing whatever to do with tolerance. They want only to shout down and to tear down. They have nothing constructive and coherent to offer. What a sad contrast, I thought, last weekend between the louts of the L.S.E. and the disciplined patriotism of the students in Prague.
  In condemning the extremists, we must, of course, condemn, also, the members of the staff who have aided and abetted them. I believe that the situation is further aggravated by a number of senior men in positions of academic honour who use their automatic platform in the Press or on the air to pour scorn on accepted standards and values and put nothing in their place.
  Cannot the revolutionary students see that society will not continue to finance the education of people whose main aim is to destroy it? Can they not see also that if they go on wrecking political meetings, from which many colleagues, on both sides of the House, have suffered, they will simply increase still further the publicity for politicians whose views they detest?
  The second category, who are still a minority of students, are those who loathe violence but are genuinely discontented with the state of society today. They want not revolution, but reform. It is from their numbers that the representative student leaders are drawn, and I would like to take this opportunity of applauding
  1390
  the vigorous and responsible line which, on the whole, the National Union of Students has taken all through the present crisis. This category also provides the voice of student conscience on so many political issues of the day, whether it be Czechoslovakia or Nigeria, racialism or the plight of the homeless.
  Thirdly, there are all the remaining students, the great majority. These simply want to concentrate on the things which most of us mainly did at the university—working, talking and falling in love. Let no one underrate the quality of this majority group of students. The other day I visited the engineering laboratory at Cambridge, and I was delighted to hear my host say that never in his experience in many years' teaching has the quality of undergraduates entering the university in that department been as high as it is today.
  What is to be done to put right this unhappy student situation? First, surely the university authorities, as has been said—and it cannot be said too often from this House—have to isolate and discipline the disruptive tiny minority. In my view, the whole of society needs more discipline today rather than less. One has to recognise however, that the problem of discipline in the universities is nothing like as simple in the present atmosphere as well-intentioned outsiders seem to think. Having said that, I hope that the authorities will not hesitate to act toughly and to expel where necessary, so long as they are also acting fairly and are seen to be acting fairly, because I am certain that they will have overwhelming public support in doing so.
  Secondly, I hope that the authorities will press on with the internal reforms of the universities. Plainly, to anyone familiar with them, there are many weaknesses which should have been put right years ago and many ways, too, in which students can usefully be brought into consultation, so long as the authorities reserve to themselves those areas of decision-making with which, I believe, it would be quite wrong for students to be associated.
  I regret that last November my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—I am sorry that he is not in his place, but I told him that I would say this—

  1391
  ridiculed the collective efforts of the authorities and the student leaders to improve communications and accelerate reforms. I believe that my right hon. Friend has badly misjudged the present atmosphere in the universities. This growing dialogue is one of the most hopeful signs today. I congratulate the vice-chancellors and principals on the initiatives they have taken and the progress they have made. I am glad to join also in the personal tributes which have been paid this afternoon to the present Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, Sir Eric Ashby, because he has been very much involved in all this.
  Thirdly, I agree that the quiet majority have other things to do, but the time has surely come when they must be ready to speak up and exert themselves. If they do not, they will be the main sufferers from the taxpayers' revolt which the folly of a minority is bringing dangerously near.
  Fourthly, it has been mentioned too little today that we should surely look to the Press and television to try to undo some of the harm which they have recently done in this situation. On far too many recent occasions—I have had personal knowledge of two or three of them—they have positively encouraged the revolutionaries to violence and have pandered to their vanity. It is time instead that they gave due publicity to the admirable majority of students—for example, their community service, their walks for Oxfam, their work for Shelter and a great deal else.
  All this and more needs to be done urgently, but there are hopeful signs in this academic year that the student tide is beginning to set against the revolutionaries. So I end on a mildly optimistic note, not only about the student problem but about the university crisis generally. The universities, after their great leap forward since the war, now need a period of consolidation. They have to prepare for the new bulge of the mid-1970s. They must strive to maintain standards while at the same time exercising the utmost economy in both current and capital expenditure. They must adjust to the lowering of the legal age of majority to 18, which will radically
  1392
  affect their traditional position in loco parentis.
  Through the difficult and turbulent years still ahead, the need both inside and outside the universities is for reason rather than hysteria, for understanding rather than intolerance. But I remain confident that, during the 1970s, we can expect from the universities an even finer flowering achievement and a still greater contribution to our national life.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Haseldine: I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) that the universities face the greatest crisis of all time. My right hon. Friend told the House today of the position since the Labour Government came to office, showing that no less than £120 million has been added to expenditure, with an increase of 39 per cent. in the number of students at universities, colleges of technology and in higher education generally. The facts can hardly be said to show a situation of great crisis.
  I shall address myself to one aspect of the subject, namely, accommodation for students. I note from the Report of the University Grants Committee that only 32,000 out of the total student population were living at home. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said that, perhaps, we should look forward to a state of affairs in which students attend a university nearer to their homes so as to obviate the need for further residential accommodation. We must addres ourselves to this problem, since as many as 150,000 have to find accommodation away from home.
  I imagine that the majority of hon. Members would accept the old principle that people should take their higher education away from the home environment and in a collegiate community life. In fact, 35 per cent. of students in 1966–67 were able to live in halls of residence, but 47 per cent. were living in lodgings. The term "lodgings", as the House knows, may cover a wide variety of circumstances. Many students are comfortably housed with landladies, but many are sharing rooms, and a fair proportion of those rooms do not afford the sort of accommodation which would be regarded

  1393
  as conducive to the studies of the young men and women concerned.
  The problem is such that the supply of suitable lodgings or flats has almost reached saturation point. I understand that the situation in London is such that 53 per cent. of the student population are forced to find accommodation in lodgings rather than in university residential accommodation. We cannot ignore the effect which this pressure has upon the housing situation generally, aggravating the difficulties in various parts of the country. Housing taken by students could be used by families. We all know of the problems which, unfortunately, still persist in London in this respect. It must not, therefore, be looked on as an education matter in isolation; it must be considered from the standpoint of the general housing problem, since the students must be properly housed.
  Unfortunately, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. The Robbins Report referred to it in 1963, and then, two years ago, the University Grants Committee announced that no further capital grants would be available for halls of residence before 1971. In the Report of the U.G.C. for the quinquennium 1962–67 there are two important paragraphs, Nos. 501 and 502, which deserve study.
  Against that background, I wish it to be widely known that a good number of students have themselves been active in efforts to solve the problem. They have not made an outcry about the provision of new halls of residence. They have got down to the job of organising and finding ways to provide new accommodation for themselves. In this effort, they have been determined to seek expert advice and to recruit to their cause many leading academics. They have been guided to a great extent by the activities of students in other countries. Thank goodness—the international interchange of ideas and effort is today very wide and valuable.
  In Canada, Sweden, Finland, the United States, Denmark and West Germany students have got down to the job and have benefited from a British export, an export which we do not often regard as such, but a valuable export none the less, that is, the principles of co-operation. There have been great successes in these other countries, and I shall take a few moments to
  1394
  give examples of what has been done in the formation of student housing cooperatives.
  In Canada, for example, students were able to bring about an amendment to their Housing Act in 1964 which allowed them to go ahead with the building of residential accommodation. Very soon, they had under way an 11 million dollar project, which is now completed, and there is a further 9 million dollars worth of work in the pipeline—all this through their own efforts but with the necessary advice. In Sweden, through a Government loan and grant scheme since 1962, student housing co-operatives have provided dwellings giving no fewer than 19,000 places. In Finland, the students have themselves on a similar basis provided 3,500 places.
  There are some interesting facts to be noted from the Canadian system. The cost of construction of an 18-storey block was reduced by 40 per cent. from the traditional cost simply by, as the students said, eliminating frills and avoiding the temptation to design a prestige project. As a result, rents are reduced by 25 per cent. from the level in traditional halls, although the students have to face paying off the capital, municipal taxes and financial charges which are not borne by those in traditional halls of residence.
  The Robbins Committee estimated in 1962 that the cost of a place in a university hall of residence was £1,425. Doubts have been expressed about the professional estimates already prepared for students in this country suggesting that the reduction in costs is unrealistic and that it is not possible to come down to the figure of £800 per place which the students say can be done in London at 1968 prices. Nevertheless, there is some evidence available in this connection.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) is not here at the moment, but he would confirm what I am about to say in regard to a project at Lancaster. It is not a student project, but the figures are of interest none the less. Mr. Haydn Smith, of Taylor, Young and Partners, working on plans similar to those for some other student dwellings which I shall mention in a moment, has built dwellings in Lancaster, occupied in October last year by 160 students, at a gross cost of

  1395
  £678 per place, including site works. I have not seen them, but they are said to be equal to, if not superior to, many student residences in this country. That is a lesson in objectivity.
  The students in London deserve full credit, which I shall give to them by addressing the House on the subject. They have looked at the problem not in terms of providing frills and trimmings but in terms of meeting the students' requirements, appreciating that funds are limited. In the first place, they took a note from Building Bulletin 37, published by the U.G.C.D.E.S., which pointed out that only 65 per cent. of the traditional halls of residence which have been built are used for living space. They want to eliminate the prestige aspect and, further to reduce capital costs, they have obtained the advice of architects, who have designed for them what they call a single-study-bedroom in a responsibility block, with a farmhouse kitchen.
  This would reduce not only capital costs but also recurring costs, because they would not have refectory requirements and large staffs. This would contribute considerably to the reduction of capital costs and it would reduce the charges necessary to provide these services probably by as much as 25 per cent. That has been the experience of the Canadian students. Within the block there is provision, which will be rent providing, for, say, a grocer's shop, a bank and a snack bar. Having eliminated staff, they have made an important economy on the basis of the students' own determination of what they require.
  The proposal by the students is that there should be residence for 50 weeks a year. This would involve granting cheap accommodation for visiting students and providing facilities for summer schools and conferences. This is a very worthy project. Work has been proceeding on this subject for a considerable time, and I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are aware of it.
  Having outlined the scheme, I want to make one or two points about it. Already there has been formed an organisation in London known as the Student Cooperative Dwellings. The organisation
  1396
  has on its board of directors an impressive list of well-known academics and people well versed in co-operative housing, and it has excellent professional advice. I am delighted to say that since July last year contributions from the student unions of 15 London colleges, and aid from charitable trusts, have already ensured that there are sufficient funds for the organisation to function with an executive director and a small staff for the next three years.
  This is an educative process because it will assist students to radiate their ideas out to the colleges. It is most important that students being to talk about this work. I ask my right hon. Friend to note the project carefuly. Quite apart from the realistic proposals which have been put forward, the House will appreciate, as I am sure will my right hon. Friend, the educational spin-off involved, if I may use the term, in this sort of exercise. It is in itself an educative process at a time when students are demanding participation in so many fields.
  Here they are putting forward a plan to create their own co-operative organisation, to manage it and to take full responsibility in a democratic way for financing, building and managing the buildings. Experience abroad has taught us that this can be done. Why should it not be done on a co-operative basis in Great Britain, the land which saw the birth of the Co-operative movement?
  I am in no way critical of what is being done by my right hon. Friend's Department and I am aware of a pilot scheme being undertaken, but I urge my right hon. Friend to look at the earliest opportunity at the plans put forward by the Students Co-operative Dwellings. I urge him to have early discussions with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government about it. We must accept that this is primarily a housing matter, although it is a matter of housing students, and in my view it should fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  I hope that the Minister of Housing will not say that it is an education matter while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science says that it is a housing matter. Let us reach some agreement, because there are many

  1397
  ways which I can suggest in which help could be given to the project. The Minister of Housing and Local Government set up the Housing Corporation and with some slight help the Corporation could be a vehicle for the project. Failing that, we could look forward to the formation of student housing corporations. The Housing Corporation could use co-ownership schemes under the 1964 Act.
  The Swedish experiment is interesting because 60 per cent. of the total cost of all student co-operative buildings is provided in the form of low-interest loans. I wonder whether the Minister will match that? Savings would be made nationally, and there would be a return on the loans, possibly over a period of 60 years. Could they not take loans under the option mortgage scheme, thus making their contribution to a students' cooperative? Great savings would be made. We cannot afford a standstill in student housing for the next three years.
  That period can be used to get this project under way. It would give students the opportunity of self-help and it would be a worth-while experiment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter as urgent, because I am convinced that when students have organised themselves in this way, attention should be paid to their efforts and the House should applaud what they have done. We hear loud complaints today about student activity, but here students are presenting to us an opportunity of saving national funds and of using a method which should have been tried in many other aspects in this country over a much longer period.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Hornby: I want to emphasise three points which have been raised in debate. The first is to reaffirm the importance to us of higher education; the second is the extent of public concern about some of the things which have appeared in the Press recently to do with universities; and the third concerns the financial burden that the expansion of higher education entails.
  I make my first point deliberately because it is all the more important to make it when the universities are under fire. There is a danger, following the acceptance of Robbins and the massive expansion programme, that, just when we
  1398
  come to accept the importance of a highly educated society, in a technological and cultural sense, because of recent events, there might be a turning-back from the recognition of the importance of higher education.
  Nothing would be more disastrous for us in the long term than to turn back from that aspiration. Robbins was right in the broad analysis he made. A book, "The American Challenge", by Schreiber, is right in its general definition of some of our problems in Europe. The last thing that we must do under the pressure of criticism of these things that have happened recently in the universities is to turn back from the rapid expansion that we have begun.
  My second point is to do with the extent of public criticism. I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), that there is a real danger of an anti-intellectual opinion growing up in many places, an anti-university feeling in the local education authorities, an understandable concern about what is going on among parents, many of them first-generation university children. There is also the concern, which is more especially attracting my attention, about criticism amongst the contemporaries of those who are at universities now. There are very real signs of a contempt for the university undergraduate among others of his age group.
  If this is to happen there will be a damaging divisiveness in society, which is precisely what we do not want. We do not want a built-in division in industry which is already there in the minds of those who have not been to university. Obvious danger signs are there as a result of some of the things that have been happening in the universities recently, some of those things which have been caused by a very minute minority. I am particularly glad that the Secretary of State spoke in such strong terms about recent events, with particular reference to the London School of Economics. Only in one respect did I think that the right hon. Gentleman went too far. I hope that I did not mishear him. The passage was when, talking about grants, he referred to possible initiatives that might be taken by local authorities, and I think that he used the phrase,

  1399
  "working in partnership with the universities". It is important that responsibility for recommending that a student is not fulfilling the purpose in a university for which he was sent should rest with the university and not with the local authority. On reflection, the right hon. Gentleman might find that he was treading dangerous ground in using that phrase.
  As to discipline and academic energy, it is for the universities to decide whether the student is, or is not, doing his job and playing the part for which he was sent to a university. Certainly, let the universities do precisely that. I do not want to go further into this, as I am a member of the Select Committee examining these matters. I have had the feeling on some occasions that they have been lax in the exercise of their authority and I would not be sorry to see them do more.
  My third point concerns the financial burden which the expansion of higher education involves. We are concerned here with massive figures, which we have to afford. We are dealing with about 30 per cent. of our educational budget when talking about higher education. We are concerned with figures rising rapidly, year after year, maybe to as high as 12 per cent. If this is so, and if, as I think quite certain, educational expenditure rises far faster than the gross national product, then we have to scrutinise and urge the universities to scrutinise, their financial expenditure, and make recommendations, both for economies where we can see them, and for sources of additional revenue.
  I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree, but hard as one looks, one sees precious few prospects of economies for the schools. There are greater opportunities for pruning, or at least more prudent expenditure, in the higher education sphere than in the school sector. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to list a number of areas which should be scrutinised, and he put it no higher than that.
  Other Members have referred to some of the points he made, and I will not follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) about residence. Residence is provided to the tune of approximately
  1400
  25 per cent. of the university population, according to the latest U.G.C. Report. This is a high figure, and it is not impossible that one could achieve considerable economies through more home-based work.
  After all, the figure of 44 universities is to some extent an illusory one. We are entering a period of about 80 institutions of higher education, with near-university status, polytechnics, and so on. It is not impossible, by a certain amount of dirigisme of university places, to get some economies.
  I deal now with post-graduate work. There is a case for asking ourselves whether our expansion has gone faster than is right. Many areas of postgraduate work are vitally important to the quality of our research work, and the life of the country, but the expansion here has substantially exceeded Robbins' expectations—4½ per cent. as opposed to 2½ per cent. The U.G.C. has recommended that priorities should be given to undergraduate development rather than postgraduate development. There are some grounds for doubting whether all postgraduate work is quite as necessary as those who want to do it would like us to think. There is the danger of the perennial student. It is a very tempting world to stay in for as long as one can and a little bit of pressure to push people out into the world, to their first job, maybe returning at a later date, would be no bad thing.
  Closely associated with that there is a case for urging the universities to look a little at the age at which they accept people for the first time. Many university teachers enjoy teaching people of a slightly later age than the boy or girl leaving school. There are also some people, not very many perhaps, who wrongly come to the universities, and who would have been much better placed—and would have subsequently recognised it—if they had gone to some rather more vocational course. If there was more often a gap between leaving school and arriving at universities some people would willingly, and rightly, drop out of the university course for which they were not necessarily properly cast.
  There could be advantages in this, in better deployment of manpower and

  1401
  some very slight relaxing of the pressures on universities, as well as a slight damping-down of the excessive snob appeal, to put it that way, which a university place sometimes has by comparison with other institutions.
  I turn now to the question of loans versus grants. This is a subject on which many people feel strongly. It would be a very great pity if there were to reappear, as a result of any change of policy, a cash barrier against higher education. This is the last thing that the House; would want. Unfortunately, the pressures on capital expenditure in this and other areas being as heavy as they are, one is bound to look at current costs in a number of places.
  My belief is that because of the pressure on current costs, and last year provided an example, successive Governments will be compelled to make the maintenance grants less and less adequate for what they are to do. For that reason it would be folly for this House to neglect to make a reappraisal of the possibility of loans as a partial solution of some of the financial problems. It is, in particular, relevant to postgraduate studies, more so than to undergraduate studies, although I do not rule out the latter from consideration.
  In conclusion, I would say, let us reaffirm our belief that the growth of higher education is important to this country, let us defend the autonomy of the universities and urge them to exercise discipline within their own houses—because if they do not do so public opinion will turn against precisely the concept which it is in their interests to protect.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I begin by touching on the subject with which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) opened his speech, and that is the discussions about the alleged diminution of the autonomy of the universities. It is important to say this, because I believe that all the allegations that in some way the Government are encroaching on university autonomy are so much claptrap from beginning to end.
  I want to mention two bodies—I will say nothing of the Select Committee because I am a member of it and we ought
  1402
  to reserve judgment on that until this Session is over.
  There is a very interesting account in this term's Higher Education Review, by certain vice-chancellors, including Dr. Carter, Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster, about the way in which the Comptroller and Auditor General works within the universities. Reading this sort of account, I cannot but feel that he ought to have had access to the universities many years ago and that he would have saved a great deal of public money. The greatest advantage of having public accountability in the universities is not what the Comptroller and Auditor General does, but what he does not do—the reorganisation and co-operation that the universities put in hand simply because they know he is there. It is very much like the virtues of the Ombudsman. It is not a question of the cases he solves, but the cases that are put right in the first place because he exists.
  The schemes of co-operation in university building, the consortia in the northern area, and which are growing in other areas, will increase. Co-operation should not simply be between the universities, but should straddle the binary system. If the present polytechnic policy is insisted on to the letter of the law, many nonsenses will occur, particularly in Birmingham, where the University of Aston is on the same site as part of the proposed Birmingham polytechnic. For years, they have shared a student union. Indeed, the whole site was planned on the grounds that one day this would be Birmingham's municipal university.
  I am convinced that some means must be found not only for sharing the joint student union between the University of Aston and the College of Art on the same site, but for many other facilities on that site to be shared. If they are not, there will be a great deal of public criticism from places like Birmingham about the waste of public money.
  Anybody who saw the nonsensical situation at Loughborough, when the University of Technology there had to be sliced apart and the student union had to be cut in half simply because the technical college became a new university and the college of education did not, should make certain that this sort of nonsense

  1403
  does not happen again. The binary policy, which I have supported, should not pre clude sensible, intelligent, commonsense co-operation where two institutions are on the same site. A great deal of money can be saved in this sort of area. So far from the P.A.C. being a threat, public-accountability will be one of the greatest assistances that the universities have had for a long time to sensible and economic use of money.
  I should also like to say something about the Report of the Prices and In comes Board, which has come in for a great deal of unjustified criticism. One criticism that I have is of the way in which student assessment was mentioned in such detail, whereas many other things were simply mentioned in passing. It was inappropriately put, and there may have been a certain amount of rush about it. I am sorry that just because of that the idea of student assessment should be swept aside by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale in the cavalier manner he adopted.
  It is clear that in university teaching, as in school teaching, and the way consultants are paid, and as there is a great desire to pay general practitioners, there should be a merit addition, a productivity payment. This is almost common ground among many people. If there is to be such a merit addition it must be assessed, and somebody must decide how it will be paid. Broadly speaking, there are only two ways. One can do it as it is done in the schools or with consultants, and have a sort of headmaster's diktat.
  I suppose that one could do it in the universities with a sort of professorial diktat, with the professor simply saying which of his staff should get a merit addition. But I think that professors in our traditional universities, particularly the Victorian ones, have rather too much power, and certainly too much responsibility. I would not be in favour of that at all. If it is not done like that, we must find an objective method of assessing teaching merit, if that is to be one of the criteria, as it should be, for paying the merit allowance.
  The P.I.B. would have done much better to gloss over the student assessment and leave it to the U.G.C. to work it out. All that I am saying now is that it would be most unfortunate if that way of assessing
  1404
  teaching quality, which is growing in other parts of the world, as the P.I.B. pointed out, should now be ruled out for this country once and for all, simply because of the row among many academics, many of whom never even read the Report but read only the Press reports of it.
  Most people agree that it is essential that students should be better taught at university. On the whole, they get very good teaching and very close staff-student relations in the sixth forms. They become very close to their teachers for two or three years, then are suddenly, at the age of 18, decanted into an enormous institution where apparently staff and students are much cooler towards one another, and do not get to know one another really so well. That is a generalisation, but I am sure that in some of the institutions where there have been difficulties that is one of the causes. Better teaching would induce in the students a greater belief that people really were interested in their progress through the university.
  Therefore, I very much hope that there will be second thoughts about student assessment. Clearly, the merit allowance cannot be paid yet. Perhaps September, 1969 is far too early to think of applying a method of paying such an allowance, but let us not rule it out for all time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will say something about this when she replies to the debate.
  I should like also to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) about the Secretary of State's mention of local authorities. Only time will show whether his tone in the last part of his speech was wise. I agree completely with all the facts he put forward, and that there is a small but vicious number of students in some of our institutions whose sole desire is to disrupt. These facts have been put forward in the Press many times. I am not sure that simply shouting them from the house tops makes the situation any better. What we need is methods of dealing with it and to try to ameliorate the situation.
  I was particularly unhappy about my right hon. Friend's mention of local authorities. I am sure that he did not mean that they should take the initiative in withdrawing student grants in this sort

  1405
  of case. I can think of nothing more undesirable than a succession of local authority witch hunts. There have already been suggestions of this. In Warley, a local authority near Birmingham, local councillors with responsibility for this talked about their intention of trying to take away grants from Birmingham University students who were involved in an incident in which practically everybody in the university took part. I hope that that sort of attitude will be thoroughly deplored and that we make quite sure that there shall not be any witch hunts of this kind.
  I want to end by saying one or two things about what we can do to strengthen the universities against the difficulties they now face. I am convinced that the key to a great deal of this is their administration. Many have been administered with much the same system for years and years. The method which was perhaps once appropriate to a small university, sometimes with under 1,000 students, is totally inappropriate for the 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 and 8,000 students who are now in some of our large universities. For all that people say that a university is controlled by the council and senate, it is, in effect, run by a small group of administrators, on whom a great deal depends. Many of them, through no fault of their own, have not shown the necessary political awareness over the past few years to deal with problems which, had they occurred in a section of industry where people are aware of these things, might have been solved very sensibly. Administrators in our universities need training, and need to be made more aware of the sensible methods of solving these problems.
  Representation is very rightly coming, with students and junior staff on the committees of the universities, which is something that the universities are not used to. Birmingham University, until recently, had a senate of nearly 100 with only three members of the non-professorial staff on it. Representation of junior staff and students will put a far greater burden on university administrators than they have had before. They need to be able to cope with it, and far better communication within our universities is needed. One university I know has just installed closed-circuit television, with cameras and screens all
  1406
  over the university, in an effort to counter the sort of rumours that go about, and to get information about decisions spread around the university very quickly. This is run by the students.
  Above all, what needs to be done is to break down the terrifying departmentalism within the universities. What struck me more than anything else at some of the universities I visited recently, particularly Birmingham, was the acid quarrels and arguments between the engineers and the social scientists. I do not want to say much about art colleges, because, again, the Select Committee is looking into the matter, but the most obvious fact is the vicious arguments going on publicly, in front of the students, between the artists and the designers. If the staff quarrel like this in public, as they do, we cannot be surprised when the students ape them and follow them in some of their arguments and quarrels.
  A great responsibility lies on those in charge of the universities to try to weld their institutions back into the genuine meaning of the word "university", a place where everybody is present for the same sort of purpose, to receive a broad education. They need to be welded back into the real community of scholars and teachers, which perhaps they never quite were, but which at present, with rigid departmentalism, they are further from being than they have ever been. If it gets much worse we can only see a worsening of relations within the universities.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) touched on a very important subject in his concluding remarks. Probably departmentalism is a product of what some regard as excessive early specialisation in our schools and why there is considerable tension in the universities among the student population. They feel that some of the studies, courses and curricula are irrelevant not only to their needs but to the needs of society and that tensions are imposed on them when after a time they find that they are ill-suited to a course which seems excessively rigid and that it is difficult to make an appropriate transfer.

  1407
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) will have something to say about the effect which this can have on the dropout rate among students. The psychological tension is considerable. There are sections of the student community who regard themselves as thoroughly moderate and do not criticise—although we would wish that they did it forcibly—the activities of the militant minority. Because of this the militant minority seizes on this weakness.
  I wonder whether the Secretary of State could prevail on his hon. Friend the Minister of State to enlarge on his concluding remarks. I admired his forthright statement. I well understand the points which have been made in the reaction to it, and I share those views myself, but credit is due to the right hon. Gentleman for being forthright in his denunciation of the vicious militant minority. If there is time, would the hon. Lady tell us a little more about the four or five students from abroad who are being subsidised by this country's money? Who is subsidising them, and what courses are they taking?
  I wish to say something about student protest. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that he did not think that it was altogether much good shouting about it from the rooftops, but certain points have been made in the Press about the aims and objectives of the student movement and they have not been specifically referred to in this debate. I fear that anyone reading the report of the debate might not understand why the Secretary of State made his forthright denunciation.
  The overwhelming majority of students are perfectly decent, law-abiding citizens. The qualifications for entrance in our universities are higher than they used to be. Those who get to university must work hard if they are to achieve a degree. I have no doubt that they have complaints; and hon. Members have mentioned them. We know that they are subjected to tensions. It would be unrealistic of those who have not experienced a university education or those whose memory of a university education is growing ever dimmer to believe that the student population should be insulated from many of the tensions from which modern society suffers.
  1408
  The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) touched on one of them. He said that some students feel that they are growing up in a society in which they are at the mercy of a growing bureaucracy or big organisation men—and I suppose that he was referring to the tensions of big business. The right hon. Gentleman is not present and, therefore, I will not pursue the point too far, but I wonder to what extent he or people in business go out of their way to enlighten students in universities of the nature of society as we see it. I do not take such a gloomy view of our society as some modern Jeremiahs who write to some of our "posh" newspapers. It is an exciting society which probably offers far more opportunity for young men than any previous generation was offered.
  Anyone who studies modern business and the progressive, industrial commercial firms knows that they put an increased premium on knowledge. They are looking for the educated man, and the educated man is an individual who is not afraid to stand up for his views. It is an interesting concept that side by side with the expansion of our university population and the expansion, as I believe, of rational man there is a growing need in industry and commerce for the sort of man or woman who comes from our universities. It is this aspect of modern society which too often goes unnoticed and is not emphasised. I can well believe that there are individuals in the student population who wish to encourage the opposite point of view—that they are growing up in a society in which they will find themselves increasingly managed, if not by a State bureaucracy, then by private monopoly.
  Probably hon. Members opposite will regard my fears as exaggerated, but I understand the growth of State bureaucracy and oppose it resolutely. With the growth of mergers, I can see the dangers of monopoly. But I can also see the growth of international business and competition, and the application of modern business techniques can also encourage individual judgment and individual excellence. I would argue that it is through the development of an enlightened progressive capitalist economy that one can have a multiplicity of institutions and different centres of authority which in turn should encourage the talents of educated man.

  1409
  When considering the student unrest, it is interesting to note how politically orientated it is. It is orientated in a way which I believe is fundamentally alien to the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House. This needs to be spelled out, because too often it is still assumed that, because members of the revolutionary students' movement argue that there should be this or that minor reform, they are basically people who want to see a better ordered society, not only within, but without the universities.
  I have a photostat copy of a document setting out the aims of the Revolutionary Student Movement at a meeting at the London School of Economics on Friday, 14th June, last year. In the preamble to the aims it is stated:
  "British students confront authoritarian and bureaucratic structures as do their French and German counterparts ".
  It argues that the basic platform for the revolutionary student movement should cover three fundamental areas of action, one of them being student power. Student power is interpreted in this way: control of staff appointments by students; control of courses by students; control of facilities in a university by students; ensuring the accountability of teachers by subjecting them to public criticism; enforcement of the complete removal of the examination system; abolition of entrance qualifications; and the replacement of the present bureaucratic student unions.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: No abolition of grants.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: No.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that we should not dismiss the comment of the Prices and Incomes Board about the assessment of university teachers. I have no love for the manner in which the Board operates; I am a very strong critic of it. But to criticise the Board and everything that it says is an entirely different matter. The hon. Gentleman was fair in saying that people had too swiftly dismissed its comment about the assessment of university teachers.
  We see what escalation there is when a revolutionary student movement calls for complete accountability of teachers by subjecting them to public criticism. It sounds to me rather reminiscent of the
  1410
  Maoist technique in China. That moderate students feel that there is some need for assessment I have no doubt, and this is something which the Secretary of State and the University Grants Committee could well consider.
  The second main area of action of the Revolutionary Student Movement is an anti-capitalist alliance with workers. As far as I can gather, hon. Members opposite who have fairly close contact through trade unions with the workers inform us that the British working man has a strong contempt for the British student.
  I quote again, however, from the aims of the Revolutionary Student Movement:
  "Revolutionary students must ally themselves with the workers' struggle against capitalism."
  There may be some hon. Members opposite who also would like to ally themselves against, capitalism.
  Mr. John Lee: That is what we are here for.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: The hon. Member will, no doubt, find friends among the Revolutionary Student Movement. For my part, as hon. Members will have gathered from my opening remarks, I believe that it is through capitalism that students are more likely to achieve individual freedom and full use of their talents.
  The third area of action is the struggle against imperialism. I quote:
  "Solidarity with all militant national liberation movements in their struggle against imperialism is an essential duty of revolutionary students. The Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions represent the heroic vanguard"—
  I hope that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) is listening—
  "of the world-wide upsurge against Western imperialism."
  There is, of course, no mention of the struggle of the students in Czechoslovakia, but in fairness it must be said that those aims were issued before that uprising. What is most interesting, however, is to ask what sort of action those who allied themselves with the Revolutionary Student Movement have subsequently taken to ensure that the tyranny in Czechoslovakia is thoroughly and fully expunged.

  1411
  The movement goes further than that. It is not really a movement which would attempt to be satisfied with reform. Its aims—
  Mr. John Mendelson: Following the hon. Member's question a moment ago, I am sure that he would not want to be unfair even to students of whose methods he disapproves. On the first Sunday after the tragic invasion of Czechoslovakia, a very large body of several thousands of students marched to the Soviet Embassy and held a major demonstration.
  Mr. Johnson-Smith: I withdraw what I said. Subsequently, however, I have heard very little about their aims. They invariably associate themselves with the campaigns waged by the "imperialists" in Vietnam and our attitude to Cuba. It is this which pervades the whole atmosphere of the Revolutionary Student Movement rather than sympathy towards the Czechoslovakian students, which I found much more evident among the moderates.
  In many cases the revolutionary students make, I would have thought, a deliberate attempt to provoke repression, either non-violent or violent, so that they, in turn, can justify force. I believe that they are basically not interested in reform, but are interested in revolution, nothing more or less than the complete overthrow of the sort of society which we have in this country. For that purpose, they start within the universities.
  It has been put to me by those who would describe themselves as moderates in the universities that the revolutionary students argue that moderates have what they call
  "a false consciousness—that is to say, they are not able to see their true position in society or the true nature of the society in which they live. Therefore, as the arguments of the revolutionary students cannot be comprehended by the moderates, or they either cannot or will not be convinced by them, force is justified."
  It is interesting in this context to witness the treatment which was meted out to Professor Trevor-Roper when he attempted to lecture at the London School of Economics. I will not go into detail about it, but it was most shabby treatment afforded to a distinguished historian. What was prophetic was a particular comment in his address which arose from
  1412
  a point he was making that one safe rule of history is that historical situations never exactly repeat themsevles. He went on, however, to say this:
  "The new Fascism, when it occurs, will occur with radical differences. Indeed, with such differences it has already occurred: the arrogant cult of youth, the intolerance of dissent, the rejection of rational argument, the deliberate invocation of force to justify counter-force. All these have recently been resumed."
  Mr. Dalyell: It is a very good tradition of the House that we are not personal, but when the hon. Member talks about the arrogant cult of youth one is justified in asking him to what extent the mass media, which he knows so well, are responsible for this.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: I am quoting from Professor Trevor-Roper. That is a view which a distinguished historian has expressed and I regard it as valid to the development of my argument.
  As to the medium with which I had some connection, but no responsibility, various comments have been made about the part played by television, and in this respect we can well include the Press. The hon. Member will be aware that when something unusual or a new development takes place—and most new developments start with a tiny minority—it is customary for it to be news. Crime often gets more news than the good works of individuals.
  It is not for me to question the integrity of the producers of our television service, or, indeed, the integrity and judgment of the editors of our newspapers. By and large, I would say that we are served better by them than any country which I have visited, although it may be that my old connections with broadcasting lead me to form too partial a view.
  Strong criticisms have been made of the way in which television by its presence can encourage the extrovert. If there is truth in this—I do not dispute that there is some truth—it can be said in favour of the treatment by television of the subject of student unrest that I believe that the B.B.C. did a valuable service for the general enlightenment of the public by bringing together various representatives of the Revolutionary Student Movement, not only from this country, but from other countries, and assembling

  1413
  them in a studio in London where they could be questioned and we could hear what they had to say.
  Secondly, I believe that a valuable service was done by the B.B.C.—it took a risk, but it was enlightening—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer took part in a broadcast from the University of East Anglia. It is no good sweeping matters of this kind under the carpet. To this extent, it was right that publicity should be given to various events.
  That the B.B.C. may have gone too far or played it up too much is a matter of fine judgment, and I do not propose to make that judgment, not having seen every television presentation. In the two instances to which I have referred, however, I would have thought that the public interest justified that type of programme.
  To continue with the development of the aims and objectives of this group, which wields an influence out of all proportion to its numbers, we know that no movement is without a leader. Although many people will not have heard of him, there is no doubt that some of the views of Professor Marcuse are attractive to those who believe that Western society, particulary if it has a capital economic-base, is rotten to the core.
  Professor Marcuse adds a respectable and intellectual veneer to those who would destroy our society. He argues, in his essay on "Repressive Tolerance" the view that in the main young students and other members of our sort of society do not comprehend its true nature and do not understand the extent to which they are lulled into a false sense of values. They do not fully understand how utterly repressive it may be, that behind the bland face of a London policeman, so he argues, there lurks the beast of the Fascist, manipulated by those who wish to maintain the status quo. This is heady wine, and there is not time to develop the argument, but this is part of the thinking and the rationale of those who form part of this small group.
  One of the better known leaders of the revolutionary students is Cohn Bendit, "Danny the Red" as he almost affectionately became known by some people. I quote from a comment he made during the course of an interview to the San Francisco magazine "Ramparts". He said:
  1414
  '"We demand freedom of expression within the university, but we will refuse this freedom to those who support the Americans. No one would start a forum on the topic that Hitler was right to liquidate six million Jews, so why allow a pro-American meeting organised by Fascists with an entirely analogous topic?"
  Who says that it is an analogous topic? Who says that with the escalation of the American intervention under the leadership of President Johnson he is playing a rôle analogous to the liquidation of 6 million Jews by the leader of the German nation in the thirties?
  During the last year or so, even in this country, which prides itself on its free speech and its liberal tradition, it has proved increasingly difficult for a person to take an unpopular view, and to argue it, knowing that he would be fairly heard by the student population. That means the tiny majority, the 10, 15, or more who will deny the right of people to express an unpopular view. It is this aspect of the development in our universities, this escape from argument into force, and this reliance upon force, which particularly shocks all of us who have knowledge of what it is like to live in the liberal atmosphere of a university.
  I can understand the shouting and the ordinary heckling that goes on, but we have heard of the appalling treatment afforded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) at Essex University this week, when he went to speak on immigration, and we know what a deep understanding he gives to this vexatious social problem. It was almost implied earlier in the debate that if one expresses a deeply unpopular view which seems to be giving aid and comfort towards a régime like the one in Rhodesia, one must expect pretty rough treatment. I do not think that sort of treatment should be meted out to such a person.
  Mr. John Lee: The hon. Gentleman, I am sure unintentionally, misunderstood what I said in my intervention. The speakers who received rough treatment were themselves pretty near the edge of the law, in one case giving aid and comfort to those committing treason and in another case coming near to violating the Race Relations Act. These matters are quite different from expressing an unpopular opinion.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: If any hon. Member speaking at a meeting has violated the Race Relations Act, the hon. Gentleman knows to whom a complaint can be made and by whom suitable action can be taken. The implication of his argument is that it lies within the student audience to take the matter in hand, but surely that is not so. It becomes a matter of mob rule which is most disturbing and needs to be firmly nailed and exposed.
  We recognise that universities have had a difficult job to do, but, to some moderate students, they have appeared on occasion to bow to this threat. I do not want to single out universities; I state only that it is held by some moderate students that there have been occasions in the past year or so when the university authority has felt that it had to bow to a threat of violence, and ask for a meeting to be cancelled because the security of the speaker could not be guaranteed.
  This is most worrying. It is a challenge to the existence of the university, a challenge to the existence of all our student population and their ideals, and it is a challenge which the moderates will increasingly have to take up and meet. We can help them, but I do not believe that they can let this go by default. To sum up, it is a challenge which in the end all of us in all walks of life have to meet.
  One of the finest things done by the previous Conservative Administration, in 1959–64, was to implement the Robbins Report. The consequence of this rapid expansion of our universities has not been, as some people say, that there would be bound to be trouble if there were a lot of people at university who should not be there. Those people discount the tremendous labours an individual has to endure to get into a university. We might perhaps have underestimated the enormous social effect this would have on the universities and on the need to adapt the institutions and the administration of discipline to the numbers of individuals from different sections of society who had hitherto been deprived from a university education, and the need to understand that there was bound to be resentment, a resentment shown not just by students, against petty restrictions, and outmoded, over-paternalistic disciplinary approaches.
  1416
  The methods in some of our universities appear to many students to offend the principles of natural justice. It does not help the cause of the moderate students to come up against a university authority which would send down a student in his final year without a right of appeal. This is a monstrous injustice, which plays into the hands of those who belong to the militant group, which I described earlier.
  I am sure, therefore, that the universities and moderate students deserve all our support in their efforts to ensure greater participation for students in relevant areas to improve their disciplinary methods so that they coincide more with our views of how a young man should be trusted to live his life with the change in the law in the age of majority. Much could be done in this respect if the implementation of the national agreement between the representatives of the National Union of Students and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals were accelerated. Some universities have gone a long way towards it, but others need to make better progress. I do not want to criticise the vice-chancellors, but there is no doubt that progress in some institutions has not been rapid as students would like along the lines generally agreed last October.
  I hope that the Minister will deal with one point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine), which I had intended to go into in some detail. He referred to the housing problems of students. I do not dissent from my right hon. Friend when he says that, in the general escalation of expenditure, we must be prudent about these matters, that in future a slightly larger proportion of students may go to universities and colleges which are closer to their homes, and that providing accommodation is very expensive.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has expressed a view about this, but I believe that there is scope for providing accommodation for students through the use of non-profit-making housing co-operatives. All this stems from the housing association movement. I quite see how that might fall between the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and that of the Secretary of State for Education and

  1417
  Science, but I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West in his plea for a searching look at that possibility. We would like to know what is taking place.
  Returning to my main theme, if we are willing to stand up for certain values in our universities and to meet head-on the threat posed by the revolutionary students, I am sure that we can do a great deal to help bring about the necessary adjustments to our universities. In that respect, I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition received an invitation last year from the National Union of Students, accepted it, and spoke to that body. I look forward to the day when the Prime Minister receives a similar invitation and accepts it, because it is the duty of members of all political parties to maintain close links with our student organisations. My own party has done much to maintain those links, but there is more still to be done.
  Any criticisms of students should be selective, with a view to avoiding an indiscriminate backlash which could be as big a threat to the freedom of our universities as the work of the Revolutionary Student Movement. There are genuine demands, but the university authorities should not be discouraged from taking disciplinary action, which should be seen to be fair and be fair in fact. Finally, our university authorities should have our sympathy and full support in dealing with that small but violent minority whose objectives are the destruction of our universities as we know them and, ultimately, of our society.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. May I remind hon. Members of my earlier appeal for brief speeches? I hope that hon. Members will keep it in mind.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall keep your appeal in mind. Indeed, I had it in mind before you reiterated it. For that reason, I shall not comment on the main theme of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) of the student situation, unless I find that I have time towards the end of my speech, which I do not expect. I would prefer to comment briefly on a number of other points
  1418
  and, since a brief commentary on a variety of topics has been one of the main features of speeches in the debate, perhaps I shall not be out of place.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) both made suggestions about easing the financial plight of our universities, and one of them which should be looked into is that concerning residential accommodation. The old idea that one has to reside among one's fellow students is not quite as strong today as it used to be. I agree that one of the major sources of education in a university is one's fellow students. However, another main source of education at that stage of life ought to be one's fellow citizens. There is as strong an argument now for living in one's own community as there was before the war, for example, for living in a student community. There may be an argument for splitting the undergraduate years between the two, but when financial matters come into the argument, there is a strong case for saying that we should look very hard at any proposed expenditure on residential accommodation for students.
  I agree also with the suggestion that further attention should be given to the staff-student ratio. I would be very strongly in favour of revising it towards 1:10, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, providing that the staff released under such a situation found themselves working in the upper forms of our secondary schools, which will need greater reinforcement in the near future. I am not at all sure that that is what would happen but, even so, there is a case for revising the staff-student ratio.
  The principle of having a small number of students for each member of the staff is a good one. The reason why it is accompanied by difficulties in some of the larger departments is that always there have been high staff-student ratios in some of the very small ones. I do not know if there are ever ratios of 1:1, but frequently one find 1:2 or 1:3. A few years ago, I would have been more familiar with the figures, but I am afraid that I cannot quote specific departments now. However, the situation persists.
  The University Grants Committee is a first-rate institution of which I am all

  1419
  in favour. I hope that it will continue with its very constructive work. However, in my view it has been much more ready to apply its mind to matters of construction, to building up departments and centres in our universities, than to rationalising the smaller departments which are so uneconomic in terms of staff. One could probably revise the staff-student ratio towards 1:10 and, at the same time, improve the staff position in a number of the larger departments if a systematic attempt is made to rationalise those very small departments which are so expensive in terms of staff.
  I was glad to notice in this group of topics the attitude taken by the right hon. Member for Handsworth about student loans. I gather that he is not in favour of student loans for first degree courses, and he leaves his mind open about graduate courses. This is possibly as good a point of view as one can expect. I would be against the replacement of grants by loans. But, if there was to be anything of that sort, I would certainly prefer it to be started with some of the graduate students.
  I should like to make one or two inquiries about a question that has bulked large in the newspaper correspondence which has followed the P.I.B. Report on salaries, namely, the relationship between research and teaching.
  The expansion which we have seen in the size of existing universities and in the establishment of new universities in recent years has been openly and admittedly done to produce more places for students to be taught. The reason for the university expansion has not been the need for more research, but the need for more teaching. To that extent, therefore, there is some argument in favour of giving teaching greater priority than it has had. I notice that at least one vice-chancellor—Lord James—has come out with a point of view roughly like this.
  But what the correspondence in The Times and what so many other people say is quite right. We cannot run a university on the basis that research and teaching are not carried on together, that they are separate, or that somehow research should be demoted as against teaching. This is undoubtedly true. It
  1420
  is really axiomatic and something we would all accept. But it does not help to state this in a general broad way as so many of the letter writers have done. They have simply said that we cannot really divorce teaching from research; a university is a place where the two things go on together.
  But universities in our generation and in previous generations have not always necessarily been places in which every teacher is working at research. I accept that every university teacher ought to be familiar with the results of research in his own subject, but not all university teachers have done research and not all need to do research.
  I take as an example the broad area of subjects which we call the humanities. When I was a young man and we talked in university about scientists doing research it was assumed by staff and students alike that the corresponding activity for a teacher in the humanities was not research in his subject; it was simply wide and deep reading. Some people use the word "research" in a wide way to cover that kind of thing. That does not help either. Research in its specific sense is not necessary for a teacher in the humane subjects. I do not suggest that good research is not being done in humane subjects. Some research in the humanities throws light on the fundamental parts of particular subjects. But it is not true that all teachers in the humane subjects in universities ought to be, or are, engaged in research in its proper sense.
  A lot of the research now being done in the humane subjects—and this echoes what I think the hon. Member for Ton-bridge said—is a bit trivial. I cannot make a safe generalisation about this—I do not suppose that anyone can—but in recent years I have come across indications that people are spending their time doing research upon perhaps admirable subjects in many cases, but which often strike me as being the kind of thing which would make a pleasant, sensible hobby for the local parson or the local schoolmaster; not the kind of thing that we really want a publicly-fin??ed institution to be encouraging and persuading its teachers to engage in. This is perhaps a normal result of the fact that we have an enormous increase of

  1421
  the number of people teaching the humanities. If they are all expected to do research, I suppose that they must look around for subjects, and they do not always get the most important.
  Not all teachers in professional courses do research. I will give one illustration, which I hope is not typical anywhere now. In my young days, the law faculty in the University of Edinburgh was staffed largely by what one would call briefless barristers or briefless advocates as we call them in Scotland—young chaps just waiting to get enough briefs to stop teaching in the law classes. None of them made any pretence to having done any research or to having the slightest interest in doing any. I do not know whether that faculty is so staffed in these days when most lawyers are as busy as can be. In any case, even if there was some attempt to use them, the law faculty in Edinburgh is in livelier hands today, and I cannot imagine that that would be encountered.
  I quote these illustrations to suggest that it is not helpful for university spokesmen, or people who wish to be considered as speaking for universities, to talk broadly about the necessity of teaching being linked with research in universities. The public see an overlapping between universities and sixth forms. Students going to university often say, "We have done a lot of this stuff in the sixth form"—where the teachers were not engaged in research, and students are sometimes excused the whole of the first year because they have done the work in school, having been taught by people with no research commitments while they were teaching.
  It would be helpful to the public in general, to students and to the universities, if the U.G.C. could set up an internal committee to examine and explain to the public what happens concerning research and the relationship between teaching and research—a committee parallel to the one it set up on methods of teaching. At any rate, I hope that it will not be taken on the basis of letter writers to The Times and so on that all university teaching must necessarily be done by people who are themselves engaged in research.
  I will avoid going on to the next topic, which would have been student affairs, because I have come to the end of what seems a reasonable time.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Esmond Wright: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), because he speaks with knowledge of university institutions in many countries.
  This is an invitation to an open debate which poses specific problems for Members of Parliament, because the task of Government—I think it was Matthew Arnold who used the phrase—is always a marriage between law and influence. The universities can hardly be entirely controlled by legal precept. They have in large measure to be influenced. I think that one of our themes should be how we can best influence them.
  I should like to address myself, if time permits, to one central fact and to four consequences following from it. The central fact is that we are in the first year of the new university quinquennium, but we are also at the end of a decade that has been, in a university as well as in a radical student sense, revolutionary in the history of British higher education.
  At the start of the last quinquennium—1962—there were 120,000 students in British universities. At the end of that quinquennium—a year ago—there were 185,000. In other words, there was a 50 per cent. increase in the number of students. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs was right to emphasise that achievement.
  In terms of the efficiency of the industry, there are not many faults to be found—but there are some, and I hope to identify them. It is striking that in the last decade there has been an expansion of about 4 per cent. per year in student numbers. What has not yet been asked is, what will happen at the end of the present quinquennium? I am aware of the sad disasters that occurred a year ago in higher education. There will be a greatly increased demand for places in the next quinquennium. Robbins has already been surpassed.
  I want to remind the House of some relevant figures. At the beginning of 1968 there were 114,000 senior sixth-form students, comprising nearly 17 per cent. of their total age group. In 1977—this point is not a partisan one; whoever is in power in 1977 will have to deal with this

  1423
  problem—on present projections, which may well be modest, there will be nearly 180,000 senior sixth-form students—that is 23 per cent. of their total age group, and in 1980 there will be 210,000.
  All past experience suggests that these figures are too modest. We must remember that the school-leaving age will presumably be raised. We must also remember the appeal of higher education, and the application of comprehensive education. We must take note of the fact that colleges of education show the same trend. They also have doubled their student numbers.
  The central point is that by 1980 one in five of our students will be qualified for and expect to be given a university place. If we are to cope with that problem we must start taking action very soon. It took a long time before the new universities—these Balliols-by-the-Sea or Bedlams-by-the-Sea, according to taste—were flourishing and able to begin to move to the 3,000 maximum which Lord Fulton believes will be the optimum, in terms of efficiency, for colleges of that type.
  If these projected figures are correct four problems arise. There is the question of the government of the universities; of the people in them; of the type of institution, and of policy. I shall apply to myself the same self-denying ordinance that my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Science imposed, and not follow some of the exciting topics that were raised by some speakers.
  I want to make three points in respect of students. First, more attention should be paid to the effective place where students can genuinely participate, namely, in their own departments in universities. Far too much nonsense is talked about the contribution which they can make in faculty or senate. They can make very little, and they know they can make very little. They are attracted by the notion of being on council or court because of its prestige.
  I should like to tell the House what happened in a university at which I was a professor—the University of Glasgow—where we added lecturers to the court. For obvious reasons we found it impossible to put them on some of the key committees—especially the salary committees
  1424
  of their own senior members. Students would be in the same situation. Nor would it help if they were given a silent presence—a presence without a vote. Their proper place is in the departments, and much is already being done in this respect.
  At one point in the debate I became a little depressed. Much of what was said—no doubt it was genuinely motivated—was true of the situation about five or 10 years ago, but universities today are not as old-fashioned or Victorian as some speakers have suggested.
  The second area where the students must be encouraged to take part is in the students' unions. I support what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). He was absolutely right in what he said about their sense of responsibility. In the Scottish universities the unions are independent institutions, run by the students. I had the honour of serving on the union board as an invited member of senate and serving for some years. I found that the unions were run as efficiently as any senate or faculty or any other institution that one can think of—and they were handling large sums of money. There is a real and genuine rôle to be played by students here, from which they can derive a degree of satisfaction.
  The third point about students for the Government to consider concerns a point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and also the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price), namely, the inefficiency of the court and council. It is true that if one is concerned with an institution that, in a decade, has grown to twice its former size, it sometimes seems rather amateur in character, but I suggest to the Minister that in her discussions with universities, it would help if she impressed upon the courts and councils the value of independent laymen. If only we were able to find more of these people to do the voluntary work. Without them at least two universities in Scotland—I shall not name the individuals concerned because it would embarrass them, but without them the university could not function as a business. We should pay tribute to what they do in court and council.

  1425
  My next subject concerns the problems of the people in universities. I shall not go into the question of the causes of student unrest. We all have our views about this. Are these people heroes in search of causes? Are they politicians taking a new guise and being anti-political? One of the most disturbing phenomena is their unwillingness to give an audience to opinions of any sort.
  I want to give one example because it is typical of the way in which we are going. Last Friday I was asked to chair a teach-in in the University of Glasgow which happened to be going out as a radio programme. Three vice-chancellors were present. There was the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, Sir Charles Wilson; the Vice-Chancellor of Durham University, Sir Dermad Christopherson, who is also Chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, and Dr. Tom Cottrell, the new Principal of the University of Stirling. They sat on the platform and took a whole series of insults that pass description in this orderly Chamber. It staggered me, who thought he knew the Glasgow Union fairly well. In their number was a visiting gentleman, Wolfgang Nitsch, from the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, obviously a member of a radical student organisation.
  Those three Vice-Chancellors kept arguing with their vehement and sometimes violent critics. I make this point because this is typical of the situation in universities. At all levels—staff, junior staff especially, and students—there must be seen to be a measure of participation and discussion. Perhaps not enough attention has been paid by governments of universities to what this means.
  The University of Stirling has done much good with its notion of having regular convocations of its junior staff, at which all aspects of policy can be discussed—buildings, capital programme etc. There is a similarly happy story in Glasgow. But there is a need for students to have the story taken to them and it has to be put over through all the insults and vituperation and the four-letter words which are thrown about. I still believe that reason will prevail.
  "Who ever knew truth put to the worse in free and open encounter"
  —the words are Milton's but they should still be a clue to our own times.
  1426
  I endorse what was said by the Minister; that, on the whole, too much emphasis is placed on the question of residence. That is of course a Scottish viewpoint—the Scottish universities are being praised lavishly—I hope that there will be no repercussions—and it emphasises the value of the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. tradition. The 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in no way weakens the strength of the student community, the power of the S.R.C., or the quality of the Scots who graduate. Dissent and debate, yes, and all the time: violence, no. This is, for the university, the key area of decision, the problem of discipline—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that that he is a pacifist?
  Mr. Wright: I am not a pacifist, but that is an invitation to another debate with the hon. Member.
  One category which has not been mentioned is that of junior staff, who have been talked about only in terms of the Prices and Incomes Board's Report. When I was a university teacher, if there was one special problem which I identified it was the isolation of my junior colleagues, which in the big teaching departments, is a special problem. Some of them are "new men" in the C.P. Snow sense, classless, déracine somewhat like their students; they should, for that reason, be better teachers. They may sometimes be bewildered by the tone of the older universities.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Perry Barr in his reference to too much departmentalism. One reason for junior staff unrest is that they do not quite know the boundaries of their own subjects. In particular, I would welcome a definition, but would not ask the hon. Lady to give it, of sociology in our time. There is a risk, if one does not know where one's boundaries are, that one becomes a lost soul academically.
  Here the solution is endless debate, conciliation, staff meetings and the holding of assemblies. I would congratulate the vice-chancellors of the Scottish universities, who have always gone out of their way to talk to junior staff in the absence of senior staff, to tell them frankly about the building programme

  1427
  and the general capital expenditure, so that they feel fully members of the university community.
  The Prices and Incomes Board's report was ineptly handled. I disagree with its findings, except that I thought that the emphasis on helping the junior staff was, financially, absolutely right. Also, I suppose that 2 per cent. is about right for professors, but since until recently I had a vested interest, I will not develop that. But I want to stress one point: the absence of a knowledge by A.U.T. or their university branches of whom they are really negotiating with. Who is the employer in a university? Of course, the very concept of "employer" is wrong. One is one's own employer; one is part of one's university, one employs others in due course, joins them and judges them. This is part of the process. We must think hard on this—I would welcome the hon. Lady's views—about the problem of negotiation, which is central for the junior staff.
  Third, there are the problems of the institutions themselves. I should like to hear the hon. Lady's views on the four-term year. This is a tricky subject. Some important departments never take vacations. Some professors never let their staff off except for two weeks in the year, which the professors themselves choose, because they are working to long scientific research programmes. On the other hand, there are times when many buildings are left empty, when there could be a sharing of facilities. Much more could be done in sharing plant. A reference was made to the value of closed circuit television. Glasgow, again, has a good record here, because, when it set up its own closed circuit system, it did it for all the higher education institutions in the city, and at an expense of well over £100,000.
  I should also like the hon. Lady's view on the whole broad spectrum of the universities, the polytechnics, and the colleges and central institutions. We have been on the edge of discussing the binary system. I do not believe, that, in the world into which we are moving, there should be any distinction between the polytechnics and the universities. If a major error was made in the last 10 or 12 years, it was in failing to make one or even two of these liberal arts
  1428
  colleges, these splendid architectural creations, the beginnings of an M.I.T.
  We should have emphasised and given prestige to technological education. This is one of the fields where the Germans have the advantage. This is why there is a great boom in industry around the Stanford Campus and why the route around Boston is flourishing, because they want to be around M.I.T. and the Harvard Business School. We have here failed in the act of imagination. But I would want to talk about the spectrum of higher education and not the distinction, which is quite false in the world into which we are moving, between technical and university.
  I have left until last the central problem, money. This is what a Government can genuinely do, preserve the autonomy of the institutions but help them as much as possible. A number of suggestions were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), all of which I would endorse, but may I put one or two others as well? I should like an assurance that we will get away from the quinquennial grants, which for one thing have been ruined by inflation, and for another produce a sense of uncertainty at the end of three and a half years, when the planning has to begin. I should like to move into the system of a rolling quinquennium which Dr. Carter, the Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster, has been proposing for a long time. Universities should be assured of their interests, and of the future.
  I wonder whether the hon. Lady has views on the distinction between capital and recurring grants. Is this a valid distinction any longer? It is beginning to be a very real problem for universities to plan ahead if their programme is so tightly curbed. May I suggest—although I know that the hon. Lady will say that it is a problem for another Ministry—that we might hear from the Government from time to time of tax concessions on American lines for industrialists who make gifts to universities or institutions of higher learning?
  Let me cite figures from the two universities with which much of my life has been bound up. The University of Virginia, of which I am a graduate, is a middle-ranking State university, population 5,000. It receives 39 per cent of

  1429
  its funds from the State, 31 per cent. in student fees, and 14 per cent. in endowments. The other, the University of Glasgow, gets over 70 per cent. from the State, anything between 2 and 5 per cent. from the State in addition for research, 10 per cent., as distinct from 20, from student fees, and 4 per cent. from endowments. This is in no way to minimise the value of many of these endowments, from Nuffield, Wolfson, Carnegie and the like, but we are remiss as a nation in not investing in our university institutions.
  May I suggest, again, that there is something to be said for consideration of doubling the fees which students pay? This is, I know, an old one which poses many problems for foreign students, for example, though I do not believe that we could not deal with that separately. If the student-fee component of a university budget were doubled, it would not affect the source of those funds, since they would come, directly or indirectly, from the State, but it would give the university some measure of genuine freedom of choice about which subjects to emphasise and which lines to go for.
  I agree with the Secretary of State's reference to some of the educational developments. The Hayter Report, the Parry Report on Latin American Studies, are splendid. But I would dissent from the reference of my right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth to any bending of the staff-student ratio. To take this point up with the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs, the staff-student ratio in this country is very good and is unmatched in the world, at 7·8 per cent. I believe that this is the real reason why there is a sense of freedom, a genuine sense of autonomy in British universities, and why it is possible to have genuine tutorials on a one-to-one and one-to-two basis, which is totally missing from France, Germany and, very often, the United States.
  I endorse what has been said about the function of a university because it is impossible to distinguish between teaching and research. The best teachers must come to their teaching from a genuine handling of documents, tools and sets in laboratories or they are not adequate teachers. Unless they are making new discoveries they do not keep the enthusiasm which research needs.
  1430
  We in this country, with all our staff-student problems—and in particular some of the threats of recent days—have a record of which to be proud. Nevertheless, from where will we get the mounting sum of money that will be needed, and which by 1980 could total £800 million, thus making this the major industry in these islands, which perhaps it should be?
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I accept that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) in which he urged hon. Members to "dissent and debate: but violence—no!" I promise not to become violent, although I have found many of the general comments of hon. Members a little discouraging in their implications to us in Scotland.
  There is an assumption that we have reached in university provision the point of completion and consolidation. While there is no demand for any serious cutback or economies to be made in that sense, there is a general acceptance of the desirability of cutting back on the expansion rate. There is, of course, a strong immediate financial case for this; but, looking into the 'seventies and 'eighties I do not see how we can afford to cut down or retard this form of public expenditure and investment, which may in many ways be among the most important of all to our economic survival in decades to come.
  While it may be said that we have sped ahead rather more quickly than was anticipated at the time of Robbins, when the additional acceleration was started, we must take a longer view than has been taken by some hon. Members in accepting a slowing down so soon of the expansion rate of the university programme.
  I ask the Government, without apology, to open their mind again on this issue and to look forward a few years further in the Scottish context to the university requirements of the latter decades of this century. There is a strong economic case generally for what I am asking them to do, which is to reconsider the Scottish programme in the context of Scotland's economic and other needs; or—and this will appeal more to my right hon. Friend in more general

  1431
  terms than as a purely Scottish appeal—of United Kingdom development.
  Since the University Grants Committee was out in strength in the field in Scotland in 1964, many new factors have made a tremendous impact on Scotland's development, with far-reaching results which, the Government will be claiming at election time, have been some of their major achievements; and rightly so. These new industrial and economic and technological factors have already had their effect in the universities, on industry and on the Scottish economy in general.
  I wish to draw attention—in localising the matter a little—to the regional need, and the national advantage, of the provision of a full-scale university in the northern half of Scotland. After all, the Highlands represent one-fifth of the territory of Britain and one-half of the territory of Scotland. No mention has been made of the needs and advantages of this developing area in terms of university provision.
  A university established in the Highlands—this is not a new concept—would, from the start, consciously have a vital participation as a new industrial base in the context of what is the first activated regional development area in Great Britain. That is one chief reason why I seek the establishment of the university which we have so often pleaded for in the Highlands and Islands.
  Some areas have both industries and universities and they are doubly fortunate. Unfortunately, in this part of Scotland we have till recently had neither industries nor universities.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that such a university would be particularly suited to specialise in studies into land reclamation, fishing, soil erosion and matters of that kind?
  Mr. MacMillan: I would, if driven by desperation, accept that argument—if we were obliged to continue to live for all time without any industrial expansion and on our purely indigenous industries. I therefore do not accept the underlying basis of the hon. Lady's question. I agree, however, that there is room for a great deal of progress to be made in
  1432
  providing for studies and research in the fields to which she referred.
  We have always advocated the establishment of a university with full university status and the full comprehensive provision which only such a university can give. We have had neither industries nor universities in this part of Britain, although, as to one part of that problem the situation is now changing quite rapidly. We have the Highlands and Islands Development Board now operating in the field, and an Act of Parliament with the widest powers and terms of reference supporting it in its activities. Industries of major national importance are coming into the area. For example, we have the massive aluminium smelter coming into Ross and Cromarty and an even greater petro-chemical complex soon to come into the same area. This will represent some scores of millions of pounds of development. The expanding pulp mill in the Fort William area has created new development. These will all require and create supply servicing and using industries and ancillaries; and there will obviously be much fall-out benefit in the creation of smaller firms and further ancillary industries which will gather in turn around these developments.
  There will be massive technological growth, which we look forward to encouraging and exploiting. We wish to see also the development of microbiology-based industries and other modern new developments. This must lead towards a great surge forward in technological and scientific research which, in modern terms, needs a fully equipped, major centre at which to operate, develop and grow.
  In January, 1967, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology commended the increasing co-operation which was taking place between industry and the universities, aimed at promoting faster technological growth. He said this:
  "We have it in mind that the universities should play a fuller part in the areas of the country in which they operate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1967; Vol. 739. c. 1241.]
  How blessed those areas are, as I have said already, where there are industries and universities able to co-operate with each other and mutually to develop.
  There is one great gap in the comprehensive development and regional planning of the Highlands and Islands. It is

  1433
  the absence of a university. It is not the first tine that I have pleaded this case. I have given evidence to the University Grants Committee, and written many times, about it; and spoken in the House and in its Committees at various times, about the need for such a university. It was, in my view, very near to acceptance. The toss-up latterly was between Stirling and Inverness. I do not think that there should have been such a tussle. We can agree with and accept the decision regarding Stirling: thank goodness for Stirling's good fortune. I thought, however, that the case for siting such a university at Inverness, in the Highlands, was overwhelming also. To this day we have never had disclosed to us the reasons which just tipped the scales against it. Such a university could aid, encourage and speed, and itself contribute to, the total economic and social and cultural life and growth of the Highlands and Islands. I always regarded it as just as much an industrial base as an institution of higher education and learning.
  I hope that the Government will accept that a revolution has been started as a direct result of the deliberate and positive and progressive Government policies of the last few years. This is largely this Government's own achievement. They therefore have a responsibility to have another look at this area, to have another look at the especial need for a university-cum-industrial base in the Highlands and Islands. After all, this Government have designated permanently the Highlands and Islands as a development region. They have created the Highlands and Islands Development Board with the very wide powers to which I have already referred. They have furthered industrial development in the region through the regional policies now in active practice. They have given greater financial aid to the main indigenous industries—agriculture, forestry, fishing, textiles and other manufactures, and tourism. All these things are expanding and flourishing and will, I trust, prosper increasingly as time passes.
  To ensure that the region benefits to the full from those Government created or assisted, and other, developments and that it benefits to the full from the technological growth and from the results of the further increasing fall-out from scientific and technological research, we
  1434
  must forge this missing link of the Highland university. It is not a question merely of asking for something for the Highlands. We would be filling a national gap in what is accepted as one of the important regional development areas. Without it we fall short of obtaining the best and the most from these excellent policies of the last few years.
  This is not an appeal purely for the Highlands, apart and distinct from the rest of the country. It is certainly not an appeal for a university only for the Highlands and Islands, because that is not what it could be. Any university has a national, and indeed an international, importance and significance. A university in the Highlands would not expect, from the very nature and size of its population, to draw more than a relatively small part of its student population from the region itself. By very reason of that fact, the university would be offering places and opportunities to students from the rest of the country and to teachers and students from the rest of the country and from outside this country.
  I have not mentioned the siting, except incidentally. Inverness was always pretty well agreed by everybody in the Highlands and Islands. When we gave our views before Sir John Wolfenden and the U.G.C. in 1964, we found practically every interest in the area, except the traditionally reactionary interests of some of the landlords in that territory, in favour of the establishment of a full-scale university in the area. If the Government were to change their mind and look forward several years—and not just to the economies of the next year or two—and if Inverness were once again regarded favourably as a site for the university, I should be delighted. I should be equally delighted if any other Highland area were to be selected; though I should be rather surprised.
  The area of Inverness has everything to commend it as the site for a university. Apart from being at the heart of both the developing industry and agriculture of the Highlands and Islands region, it has in its favour practically every feature which a university might wish to command. It is set in an area of great natural beauty, as everyone who has been there knows. The town itself has 1,000 years of colourful history: though, at the same time, while proud of

  1435
  its history and proud of its setting, it is confidently planning its modern industrial expansion and future development. Physically, it commands without question ample space for the planning of a university on the most spacious lines. It would allow space for considerable functional experiment as well.
  Those who share with me the advocacy of a university in the Highlands are eager to see the area grow and contribute. They are not asking for something to be brought into the Highlands just for the sake of bringing something in. We are talking in terms of development and of the increasing contribution which such an institution would serve to enhance, to the benefit of the rest of the country. It is not, therefore, simply a matter of asking for something and giving nothing back.
  We would wish, as I have said, to see such a university in the Highland areas as an industrial base on which and from which to build the new Highland future, attracting and employing the capacity of people from areas outside the Highland region as well as the best brains of the Highlands and Islands themselves, which are at present one of our biggest exports, and have been for many years.
  There is no doubt that Inverness could be a university centre the selection of which would never be regretted. It would be one of tremendous value because the establishment of a university would be a permanent commitment, not like a branch factory coming into Scotland—as has been our bitter experience over the years—which in bad times can pull out and leave nothing but a memorial to failure behind it. The value of a university as an industrial base there would lie partly in its permanence and partly in its great contribution to the development of the area and the assistance which it would give to industrial expansion.
  There are no difficulties of communications and distance. Today, Glasgow and Inverness are only half an hour apart; Inverness and Orkney about the same, Inverness and Aberdeen about the same. Inverness and the Western Isles are roughly only half an hour apart. That is the true position now as regards communications from the centre. In the hinterland, there is the greatest attraction for all who are interested in applying
  1436
  themselves to research in almost every field of study. Much of the work which presently has been bringing the study teams in geology, geography, botany, zoology and biology from distant centres in Scotland and England could far more appropriately, systematically and economically be performed from Inverness university as a base. It is a region of tremendous interest for the ecologist, as Dr. Fraser Darling has proved over the years, and it is itself an area in the greatest need of ecological restoration, which could be a practical long-term application of the work of the ecologists and others. We have there great, natural reserves in the conservancy areas; and the Island areas, provide the ideal environment and opportunity for undisturbed observation of the flora and fauna in their natural state and habitat.
  One of the tragedies—I press this upon the Minister, as an ex-schoolmaster—of the Highlands and Islands has been that education itself has been one of the greatest depopulators of all simply because of the lack of opportunity for its application in the homeland of the students themselves. A Highland university both as a university and as an industrial base, employing skills and specialisations, aiding and creating servicing and ancillary industries, and working with the new industrial complexes would retain and attract the intellectual best. At the moment there are almost no opportunities for professional jobs in the area except those which have been created by the new industrial projects. We believe that the greatest contribution to the total development of the economic, social and cultural life of the Highlands would be through the establishment of a university in this upper half of Scotland. The area has hitherto been completely rejected or neglected in that respect.
  There would be no difficulty about offering a good social and recreational and leisure life for the teaching staff and their families. Certainly, there should be no difficulty for intelligent people, although they would have to be imaginative in creating their own intelligent use of leisure. The area is near to the best winter sports development in Britain—at Aviemore—and the city is easily reached by air from the main centres of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Those who have settled much further north, and in

  1437
  much more remote areas, as some might call then, at Dounreay, Thurso and Wick have been able to develop their own full social life and leisure with no difficulty. Many of them would not wish to leave the area, and I hope that they will not have to do so, although we cannot tell what will happen in the not-too-distant future.
  I ask the Government not to think entirely in terms of financial restriction and consolidation of the university programme; and not to think in terms of cutting back already the rate of expansion of university provision. Cutting back in this field is never a good investment. In this above all we cannot afford to fall behind other nations, and to fall behind the requirements of the fiercely competitive world society in which we live. We have as a nation to win the battles in science and technology, or we shall go under. It is a matter of providing and investing in national survival, not a matter of asking for luxuries. While we are developing Highland industry, at last, in a big way, through Government aid and private enterprise, we have left this gap. This region will in time become a new and important national industrial power-house. I hope that the Government will think again more positively and creatively on this subject than they appear to be thinking at present.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Silvester: The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has fully explained the importance of a university in the north of Scotland for the development of the economy of that area, and I wish, quickly, to comment on the importance of universities in the development of the general economy of the country.
  It is interesting that, following the suggestion made for an independent university, the debate centred to some extent on the importance of private investment in universities, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright). It is a most attractive feature that about 2 per cent. of the current expenditure and about 7 per cent. of the capital expenditure in universities comes from private sources. It was interesting that to a large extent the debate was stimulated by a desire to demonstrate the independence of the universities and
  1438
  that to many people that means independence from the needs of the economy of the country.
  During the five minutes available to me, I should like to put to the Minister some questions arising specifically out of the Swann and Dainton Reports. The Swann Report demonstrated clearly that by all estimates there will be a shortage of scientific and technological manpower in the next five years and that the possibilities of meeting the shortage through present arrangements in the universities are slender. The Dainton Report added another piece of information which is crucial to the understanding of the problem—the fact that the shortage can be traced right back into the schools, for only about 17 per cent. of children taking O levels were free, by the time they reached university, to change the direction of the course which they were undertaking. Most had predetermined their course.
  Dainton put forward the proposition, and I do not see any mention of it at all in the proposal for the next quinquennial, that universities should consider a further range of courses, designed to attract into science, engineering and technology, able students who were not already committed to that field of study. I would urge upon the Minister—I know that in his opening speech he said that the University Grants Committee was currently considering both Reports—that it is of the utmost importance to consider the position. If no exceptional measures are taken by the universities, then we will be dealing with a situation which will clearly stretch on to about the 1980s.
  Already, those who are to go into the universities in 1970–73 are determining their course of study this year by the subjects they will take at O level. As he knows, that is a mixture of many different courses, but at some stage, some person, if these calculations are right, has to inject into the system a means whereby we can switch some of these people from their present intended courses to other scientific studies. The universities will be the main instruments.
  I should like to know whether the hon. Lady can tell us what the present thinking is in respect of these developments and give us the extent to which the universities are prepared to develop postgraduate courses which are shorter in

  1439
  nature and related to matching requirements of employment and other things described in Swann. Secondly, I should like to know the extent to which we are prepared to develop courses which will enable people who, when at school, did not think that it would be possible to take science and technological subjects to make that decision at a later stage in their career.
  I was delighted to hear that the Minister is now making a study into highly qualified manpower, scientific and non-scientific. I do not want to give the impression that I am solely concerned with scientific and technological subjects, but we have to face the fact that this is an area which has been reported on, where the need has been diagnosed. It would be a criminal mistake if we let the debate go without urging upon the University Grants Committee the need to investigate this as part of its plans for the next quinquennial, as it seems to be omitted from its present plans. Otherwise, the whole thing will stretch on ad infinitum.
  I would particularly draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the University Grants Committee specifically says that it has to work on the known facts, that because the demand from the schools is for places in the social sciences and the arts, that is where it intends to work in the next quinquennial. I can understand the basis on which Robbins worked as being a good reason for doing that, but it is no answer to the needs of industry in the decade 1970–80.
  I promised to be five minutes, and I have just done it.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: This has been a wide-ranging debate, rightly so, but it seems that the one unifying theme has been that both sides have fought with each other in deploring student unrest, certainly violence. I, of course, subscribe to the view that violent behaviour is to be deplored, wherever it is found. But I would not like this debate to end without adding a qualifying note.
  In common with a number of hon. Members, I attended one of the two older universities. When I think of the amount of non-political violence that used to occur years ago, not so distantly for Oxford and Cambridge, on 5th November
  1440
  and other occasions, and of the damage that was caused, on not all those occasions, but at least on some, compared with some events that have been the subject of so much condemnation today, I feel that it is only right to put this into perspective.
  It is true that senior public figures were not publicly insulted in the way they may have been in some of these more recent events, but the violence was purposeless and mindless, and in no way related to any social or political programme.
  One subject which has not been mentioned so far is an aspect of the university system which is radically in need of overhaul—the degree system. There are basically four levels of degree in all the systems. There is the Bachelor, the Master's degree, the Ph.D. and the very senior Litt.D. or Sc.D. degree. In the first instance, the designation is quaint and obsolete, but that is not the main trouble. The main trouble is that there is no standardisation among these universities as to what these degrees are supposed to mean.
  There is no standardisation of the examination quality in many cases, even though there may be visiting examiners travelling from one university to another. With the Master's degree, there is complete chaos, I think that one can justifiably say that, about what it is supposed to represent. There are 12 universities which award a Master's degree on examination. For the rest it is, for the most part, a minor research degree, in some cases representing one year's research work, in others two years'. Presumably, in the latter case, it represents a far greater degree of work, and it should signify a greater advance in the academic course prescribed.
  Then there is the Ph.D. I would like to say, "Down with the Ph.D." This was something which came to this country just after the First World War, when a number of German universities decided to manufacture what one might call "bogus doctorates". We followed suit, and it has become a world pursuit. There is a very good case for a period of research, fairly early in a man's career—although I have my reservations about it.
  But a first research thesis is hardly something that should be dignified by a

  1441
  doctorate. Moreover, it has the disadvantage that, partly because of the wrong status it is accorded by many outside the academic world, not only must we now contend with schools which over-specialise to get their pupils into universities, but with the fact that many undergraduates tend to over-specialise with a view to the research they will do subsequently. Concentrating on it for three years, and sometimes more, they may well become rusty in the major scope of their work by the time they have finished their Ph.D. thesis.
  I can give an example from my own experience. When I first went up to Cambridge, just after the Second World War, I deliberately shared rooms with an undergraduate who had been a technical college student, and whose interests and outlook were as different from mine as they could be. He had taken a degree in engineering and got a First by the age of 20, qualifying as a Whitworth Scholar for an engineering research thesis degree. He then spent five years, a length of time caused by the shortage of materials and apparatus, in carrying out research in a no doubt valuable, but very narrow, field. I cannot help feeling that by the time he had finished this work, which might have been quite accidentally chosen, having regard to his necessarily limited experience, he was not the better engineer for it but very much the reverse.
  My other criticism of the degree system is that if it is meant to be the way in which the universities recognise and reward prowess and progress in study, there should be intermediate stages between the Ph.D. and the Litt.D. and Sc.D. The Ph.D. is taken by someone in his twenties, very often as a first piece of research, and is certainly not likely to be more than the second piece of research. The Litt.D. and Sc.D. are major doctorates awarded much later in life to people staying on in their academic career, and are often awarded for work of major international significance.
  I should like to use the following analogy, which, while it may not be wholly fair, at least illustrates the anomalies of the system. It is almost as if we had a system of ranks in the Army with second-lieutenant, lieutenant and captain and then a leap to the rank of major-general. There is nothing in the
  1442
  degree system of university awards between a piece of minor research done by a young man, normally in his twenties, which may be, and often is, of very little benefit, although it may be adequate for the purposes of a degree award, and what may be awarded to a man at the height of his academic progress many years later in life.
  It is argued that the recognition of this comes in the university appointments, and that the real ranking system is the system of lectureship, readership and professorship. Up to a point, this may be true, but if we are to continue the system of degree award it should clearly be revised and account should be taken of the kind of points I have made.
  I do not know how much longer Oxford and Cambridge Universities will continue to award Master's degrees merely on payment of a fee. After I had been down for 12 years I decided that I had enough money and that I would like my M.A. degree at Cambridge. This did not represent any kind of academic prowess, and it seems to me to be most unfair on other people, who would have done research or, in the case of some of the newer universities, deeper examination degree work, that I should be ranked with them in the same degree. The anomalies are allowed for and recognised within the universities, but these things are not altogether understood in the outside world, and it is quite indefensible and most surprising that this has survived so long.
  I very much echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), which were elaborated to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) about the dangers of over-specialisation. We know that the causes of discontent are many and varied, but I have been looking at the list of additional faculties created in the past 30 years.
  I take Manchester University as an example. No fewer than 60 new self-supporting academic disciplines, no doubt within the compass of larger groupings, have been created there in that time. To some extent, this is the inevitable consequence of greater knowledge, especially in science, but one inevitable result of the addition of faculties is that it must narrow the field of study for most people.

  1443
  I do not subscribe to the C. P. Snow outlook on these matters. I think that it is the counsel of despair, and I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) nods in agreement. I hope that my right hon. Friend holds the same view. I am delighted that at any rate, in that respect, we are in general agreement.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I shall confine myself to one theme, and that is the effect of the policy of expansion which has been followed in recent years in the universities, about which many hon. Members have spoken today with a great deal of pleasure.
  I wish to refer to its effect on the University of Wales, which is a federal university. It is also a national institution; it is a national university. It is true to say that the finest universities in Europe are national universities which are the guardians of values and traditions, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said. That is true of the University of Wales—at least it used to be true. In these national universities there are students from many other countries, as a rule, but never do they come in such numbers that they overwhelm the native student population in them. For instance, Oxford and Cambridge are still essentially English, although they include people from countries other than England.
  In Wales, Aberystwyth was the first university college to be established, in 1872. Welsh people are very proud of the fact that it was established with the help of the contributions made by quarrymen, miners, small farmers and craftsmen. The shillings of the poor, we say in Wales, helped to establish and maintain the college in its early years.
  Consider what has happened since, especially during the last decade. There has been a massive expansion in Aberystwyth and in the other constituent colleges of the University of Wales, except in the School of Medicine, with the result that Welsh students are in a minority in every university college in Wales, except the medical college in Cardiff. In 1967–68, only 44·1 per cent. of the Aberystwyth students came from Wales. In Swansea, the figure was 43·6 per cent. and in Cardiff 42·8 per cent. In
  1444
  Bangor, which used to be the most Welsh of the Welsh colleges, 24·5 per cent. of the students came from Wales and in the School of Medicine the figure was 71·2 per cent. Of the 11,207 students in these five colleges, 4,513, or 40·3 per cent., came from Wales, 6,168 came from England and 526 came from overseas countries.
  We are often told that a university should be international. Of course, there should be an international element in a university. But that is not what has happened in the University of Wales. Our university has been converted into a provincial English red brick university. I do not think that many would agree that that is a good thing for Wales. Can one imagine an Oxford or Cambridge in which only 40 per cent. of the students came from England? There is a small college in the heart of Welsh-speaking Wales, in Lampeter, where only 16 per cent. of the students come from Wales. This is now a constituent college of the Welsh University. It is an incongruous alien plantation, with no organic relationship with the life of the country.
  Welsh students go to universities in England and elsewhere. I do not have the latest figures. The most recent figures I have relate to 1964–65, when there were, apparently, 2,604 Welsh students in universities outside Wales. The number has increased since. However, even if all Welsh students attended the Welsh University, it would still be far too big for Welsh needs.
  It is a striking fact that over the 20 years between 1947–48 and 1967–68, whereas the increase in the number of Welsh students attending the Welsh University was only 480, or 12 per cent., the increase in the number of English students was 5,541, or 884 per cent. The process which I have described among the student population is to be seen also among the staff.
  The University of Wales is among the strong bastions of 19th century psychology in Wales. I speak here to my own people rather than to the government. It was a feature of that psychology that Welsh people had no confidence in themselves and there was an unhealthy and uncritical adulation of everything English. It is still true that if it is at all possible to appoint an Englishman

  1445
  to a chair in Wales or to the principalship of a college, this is done.
  Leaving out the chairs in Welsh language, literature and history, for example, there are 119 chairs in the university, only 30 of which are held by professors who have degrees of the Welsh university. Only once in the history of the university has a person been appointed principal of a university college whose only degrees were Welsh university degrees, and this in a country whose tradition is so strongly intellectual.
  Little wonder that the University of Wales has done so little to gear itself to serve Wales. Little wonder that in its history studies, the history of the Welsh nation is treated as a kind of addendum to which only a few students of history pay attention, instead of being the basis of historical studies. Little wonder that the national language of Wales is so little used as a teaching medium.
  Some weeks ago I had the pleasure of listening in the precincts of this House to the principal of the University of Jerusalem, who was addressing a meeting of hon. Members. He described to us how every subject at his University of Jerusalem was taught through the medium of Hebrew, a language which was not a living, spoken tongue even in New Testament times.
  How different is our situation in Wales. Some of the people who were brought in to teach in our universities raise an outcry even against the teaching of small children through the medium of Welsh, let alone teaching university students through that medium.
  I suggest that one of the constituent colleges in the university should be a Welsh medium college. This is becoming more and more necessary as the products of the very successful Welsh medium secondary schools are reaching college and university level. It has been suggested that the original premises of our first university college, at Aberystwyth, would be an appropriate place to house this college and that under the same principal; the principal of the university college could be the principal of the Welsh medium college as well. This would be a splendid way of celebrating
  1446
  in 1972 the centenary of the establishment of that college.
  The University of Wales has to be rescued from the crushing provincialism which has overwhelmed it. As it becomes once again a national Welsh university, a true guardian of our values and traditions, as it should be, so will it attract the able Welsh student who sees no advantage today in going there rather than going to some English university. Those students would be the most likely students to take pride in their university—it would be their university—and the most likely to maintain high standards and values in it.
  It is by restoring to the University of Wales its national self-respect and a sense of its so important function in the Welsh national life that standards, academic standards even, are most likely to be raised.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I hope that it will count to the modest credit of the hon. Lady and myself that we both felt, in view of the large number of hon. Members who wished to take part in the debate, that it would be proper for us to clip some time off our speeches, and I am delighted that the result has been that we have been able to hear a voice from the Principality, although a not entirely uncontroversial voice. This means that I shall not be able to do as much justice to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides as I would wish in courtesy to do, for which I hope I may be excused.
  I start with the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. If this debate were justified for no other reason, and it has been justified as both sides will agree for many reasons, it has been helpful to have the Secretary of State's clear statement that he is willing to discuss and to consider alternative negotiating machinery, and on this occasion one cannot ask him to go further than that.
  Inevitably much of our discussion has centred on current student problems. I have a modest and harmless quirk in that I read all the parish magazines in my constituency. One of my vicars set out recently some New Year resolutions for other people which, as he said, is so

  1447
  much easier than to make New Year resolutions for oneself. His New Year resolution for the students was as follows:
  "Remember, as the vast majority of you do, that you are there at a university to study, but if you must sit in then give yourselves a good P.R.O."
  Both parts of that modest advice are true. The vast majority of students are applying themselves to their courses of study. We have been reminded by evidence recently given publicly to the House that there has been negligible dislocation of teaching in universities, taking them in the round, and that the vast majority of young people are applying themselves fully to the job in hand.
  But there is a small minority who are disrupting the activities of the large majority, and I want to draw attention to some new and nasty tendencies of debates at universities in recent months. The first is the tendency to suppress by violent action any view with which one disagrees. This was commented upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright), and the House will remember the vivid account which he gave of his recent experiences at Glasgow University. When one thinks of the views so frequently put forward in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), it is an absolute disgrace to the University of Essex and to those who took part in the demonstration that on Monday of this week he should have had to abandon his meeting on the subject of race relations.
  I cannot accept the theory of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) that if a view put forward may in a person's judgement get close to breaking the law, that person is entitled to use violence to stop that view being put forward. It would, for example, be possible to have a rational discussion as to whether or not the consumption of cannabis should be made less of a criminal offence than it is now. To advocate the consumption of cannabis would be clearly illegal, but I hope that nobody would suggest that such a discussion should be cut short by violence. I cannot accept that there are any circumstances in which violent action is justified.
  Mr. John Lee Mr. John Lee rose—
  Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not give way. He was not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate and the hon. Lady and myself agreed to be very short, so as to enable as many hon. Members as possible, including himself, to take part in the debate.
  The third aspect to which I want to draw attention is the alarming tendency for some junior members of staff to associate themselves openly with the active demonstration and suppression of speech. I have taken the trouble to check my facts accurately, and I am assured by students of differing viewpoints at the London School of Economics that the most inflammatory speech at the crucial meeting of that union was made by a junior lecturer in psychology. I have sought advice about it, and I understand that there are possible criminal charges pending generally. In view of that, it would not be right to identify the junior lecturer, whose name I know, but I wish to send the name to the hon. Lady, because the public is not prepared to tolerate activity of this kind by junior members of the staff. Surely the Rubicon is crossed when such people physically attack the institution of which they themselves are members. This has nothing to do with their personal views or their activities outside. Certainly it has nothing to do with their individual freedom of speech as members of society.
  It would be equally fair to record, as hon. Members have already, that, in a helpful statement this week, the National Union of Students has called upon the vast majority of reasonable students to exert themselves more effectively in this situation. That is all very well; but we are entitled to reply from this House that the constitutions of many of these unions are totally archaic, and that of the London School of Economics is a case in point.
  If we are to accept students in meaningful dialogue as I think the vast majority of hon. Members do, they must themselves have institutions which make sense. When a constitution is such that meetings can be called at frequent intervals and at short notice, the vast majority of students with work to do are not prepared to spend afternoon after afternoon and evening after evening often in meaningless dialogue. We are entitled to ask that that will apply their way as well as ours.

  1449
  Although the view was not expressed in the House today, it is inevitable that some outside this House will want, in the circumstances, to use the grant structure as a disciplinary weapon. That has not been said inside the House, but we are all conscious that it has been said outside. Various views and nuances have been expressed about the whole grant structure, both for undergraduate and postgraduate studies. But I hope that we are agreed that, whatever reason we might choose for making an alteration in the grants structure, the one which is not tenable is to use it as a disciplinary weapon. There may be grounds in one form or another for a change, but this is not the right reason for making it.
  We were helped by what the Secretary of State was good enough to say on the general subject of student difficulties, grants and the like, but he will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), in a penetrating speech, made the point and caught the tone of the House that the Secretary of State had appeared to suggest that he would welcome the initiative being taken by local education authorities in terms of grants in cases of disciplinary trouble. I think that it was the feeling of the House that that went a little further than was reasonable, and we should be grateful for some clarification of the point from the hon. Lady.
  A number of hon. Members, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), pointed out that there is some anxiety in university circles about the interest that this House is expressing in their work. I will give one example where it seems proper for us to express an interest. This was touched upon by my right hon. Friend in opening. Some hon. Members will know that we have recently been enabled, for the first time, by the use of this fascinating collection of statistics, "Inquiry into Student Progress, 1968", to know in some considerable detail how different universities are faring. It must clearly be said that the overall picture is very satisfactory indeed. The overall rate of students leaving without obtaining a degree is 13·3 per cent. for all reasons, of which 10·9 per cent. leave for academic reasons. Taken overall, for every reason. I think that we have cause for satisfaction if we compare those figures
  1450
  with other parts of the world. The point is that these figures, available to us for the first time, show a wide divergence between universities when it comes to failure for academic reasons.
  I will illustrate what I mean. I take an example at random. The overall academic failure rate at Oxford University at 3·1 per cent. or at Sussex at 2·8 per cent. is matched by Bath at 28 per cent., Brunei at 26·1 per cent. and Salford at 29·9 per cent. But we must look further than that, because the partial explanation, as the House will instantly realise, is that the last three universities I mentioned are all former colleges of advanced technology and, by definition, largely deal with technological subjects.
  This is shown very clearly if we equate the figures another way. The overall failure in the Arts at all universities is 6·3 per cent., in physical sciences 12·8 per cent., and in engineering 20·1 per cent. But the really interesting point is that within any given subject the former colleges of advanced technology stand out.
  I will not weary the House with long columns of figures. I will give two examples. In the physical sciences, other than mathematics, the academic failure rate at Cambridge is 1·6 per cent., Leeds 8·5 per cent., Brunei 20·8 per cent. and Surrey 27·7 per cent. In engineering, the rate at Cambridge is 4·5 per cent., Leeds 11·6 per cent., and Surrey 39·5 per cent. In short, at the University of Surrey very nearly 40 per cent. of undergraduates who start a course in engineering do not obtain a degree.
  I think that we are entitled to say that, prima facie, these figures give cause for anxiety. It must be right, on the other hand, to keep a balance. It would be unreasonable for me, particularly in the compass of a short speech, to castigate unfairly. For example, the view of the staff at these places is that new staff tend to mark very heavily, that they may well be over-jealous of their standards, that some of them have got courses, or had courses—there are changes now—only to honours standard, and that some are students on integrated courses.
  Furthermore, the figures—and I wish to be fair—are taken from a time when they started as colleges of advanced technology and ended up as universities.

  1451
  There is not much fundamental difference, and it certainly does not fully explain the differences. Therefore, I suggest that there are certain courses or areas for study.
  Are we, perhaps, allowing these failure rates in different courses to become a matter of convention? Has it become a matter of convention, for example, that at Cambridge they are low, but at the Imperial College, which is a long-established college, they are high?
  Are we satisfied with our admission procedures? It would not be fair to name the particular former college of advanced technology, but I have made sure that my facts are accurate. I understand that in this particular university, which I will name privately to the hon. Lady if she wishes, 30 intending candidates to the department of mathematics are first given a recorded television address by the professor of mathematics and are then selected solely on paper qualifications, never being seen individually. It must therefore be for question: are we satisfied, overall, with our admission procedures?
  Thirdly, are we satisfied with the courses, lecture programmes and, especially, the effect of sandwich courses? What research is going on into the question whether or not a sandwich course has an important bearing on these subjects? Are we providing too many places? It has recently been represented to me very strongly by members of a Midlands college of technology, not of advanced technology—that we are providing too many places. The staff there would be quite prepared to face the realities of what they have said, although I am not sure that I am prepared to accept that at the moment.
  Finally, are we satisfied with what happens to those who fall out from a course? Have we got an academic net which looks after those people and have we, particularly, the organisational arrangements, extending over the universities and other sectors of higher education, at least to catch those who fall out, especially after the first year—which accounts for over 50 per cent.—so that the substantial investment represented by them is not wholly wasted?
  This is the sort of question in respect of which the House is entitled to express
  1452
  a view. We are dealing with substanital expenditure, and we are expressing our view in a quite friendly way, but we are entitled to tell the universities that we have noticed this and that we should like further information and to make further inquiries.
  Many hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for East Grin stead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and especially the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) in an impressive speech—have touched upon the question of accommodation. Some interesting experiments are going on in different parts of the country in the provision of different types of accommodation, assuming that we accept that the greater number of students will be studying away from their homes.
  Hon. Members will know that in Kent they are building residential and teaching accommodation combined; they will know of the work at Newcastle, Edinburgh and Leeds on the conversion of old houses into flats; they will know of the purpose-built flats of Leeds, Manchester and Essex, and of the provision at Essex of tower blocks for non-resident students, and of the student village campus in the university precinct at Manchester. I take these examples simply to show that it is not fair for the outside world to suggest that universities as a whole are not examining with considerable imagination various ways of providing accommodation for their students.
  I recognise that the sheer pressures of economics are bound to make us all look again more closely at the question of sending students to the universities which are nearest their homes. There are many reasons, but one of the main ones is that the maintenance cost of traditional halls of residence can be a high recurring charge. Like so many questions that we have to decide it is not a black and white argument; there are points on both sides.
  If we assume that it would be easy to send the majority of students to the universities nearest their homes we must remember those for whom there would be no appropriate available course. It is no good sending a medical student to a university where there are no "medics", and if a person is studying medieval

  1453
  French—if that is the lethal subject of his choice—he must be sent to a university which teaches medieval French. I mention that only because it was from that department that the most lethal revolutionaries came in Essex University—and there must be something in that.
  It should also be said clearly that, whereas in certain great universities like London and Leeds there is a vast catchment area, which makes the problem comparatively easy, for the University of Cambridge, represented so ably by my hon. Friend, or Hull, with its special geographical problems, the catchment area problem is quite different. Also, we now live in an era when families frequently move and a student might start at the university closest to him but would then qualify to go into residence because his family moved. There are no regulations permitting him to transfer from course to course.
  I therefore support very warmly the plea of the hon. Member for Bradford, West. He drew attention—we might remember this when we are so critical of the student world—to the very exciting work being done in that world with expert help by a particular body interested in student co-operative housing. I well understand that this is not the hon. Lady's Departmental responsibility, and it would not be fair or reasonable to ask for a firm commitment tonight, but there is a specific simple technical problem which I am certain that she, with her energy, could make sure was put right by an addition to or a Clause in the Housing Bill which has only just been published, to make it clear that local authorities would have the power—I would say no more than the power—to make loans available for this purpose, a legal difficulty which, at the moment, is not clear.
  I cannot see why the Government should not be prepared to take this legislative opportunity—we all know how short a time we have in the House under any Government dealing with this matter—to make the power available. I do not necessarily ask that this Government should use the power and I hope that she can make it clear to her right hon. Friends in the appropriate Ministry that we are talking not about student hostels in the accepted sense, but dwellings built to Parker Morris standards into which
  1454
  students will move in rotation, so releasing housing badly needed by other people. When the costs are as one of her hon. Friends so impressively described them, I cannot believe that this is the right way to move forward in this field.
  We have had a useful and valuable debate. I am sure that we all agree that this discussion made available in Opposition time has been of the greatest value to the House and the outside world. I have no doubt that some outside in the academic world will see in this debate one further link in the chain of Governmental and Parliamentary interference with the universities. This point was effectively taken up by several hon. Members. These people feel that they have seen the bringing of the U.G.C. within the aegis of the Department, rather than the Treasury, the Public Accounts Committee—though it has been fairly said that it does not exercise detailed control, certainly not of what they teach—and now the Select Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, under the distinguished chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North, which has been held by some outside to be the last straw.
  But these people, if I may say so in a friendly way, misunderstand two things. First, we are dealing with very large sums of public money and it is entirely the duty of the House to concern intself, not with the detailed spending of that money, but with its overall supervision. Frankly, that duty we on both sides intend to discharge. Second—this should be said clearly—this debate has shown that the vast majority of hon. Members understand the difficulties facing the universities and their only object, whether they serve on the Select Committee, study these matters in party committees or take part in these debates, is, in a helpful way, to contribute to the solution of these problems.
  My hon. Friends and I have no wish whatever to interfere in the detailed administration and academic freedom of those in this most important world. Our closing words on the subject are that we wish, at a difficult time, all those engaged in the university sphere—administrators, staff and students—well in the important work which they do on the nation's behalf.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): It would be appropriate to begin by offering thanks to the Opposition for having made time available to this exteremely useful debate. I hope that there will be other opportunities for the House to give its views on the shape that higher education should take in the coming decade, since many crucial decisions will have to be made during the next two or three years.
  I will, at the outset, follow some of the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) which were borne out in some of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) and some of my hon. Friends. We are bound to see a further really massive expansion of demand for higher education in the next decade, in the 'seventies. The hon. Member for Pollok referred to the increase in the number of young men and women who will qualify for university entrance by achieving two or more A levels. I hope that he will forgive me if I correct him on one point. It is that although by 1981 nearly one in five boys will so qualify, I cannot say that of one in five people, because for girls the proportion will be about 12½ per cent. in that year.
  This means that by 1981 the 400,000 students whom we have in higher education today, just over half of them in universities, will require, even if we envisage only the same proportion of the age group going to higher education, no less than 650,000 places, of which over half will be in universities. This is to leave out the dynamic element in education, because one of the striking facts is that the secondary schools, criticised though they often are, are producing generations of school children whose academic demands consistently outstrip the increase in the general population.
  If we add the tendency to stay on, the increased size of the age group, the raising of the school-leaving age, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pointed, and the as yet quite unquantified and unknown effects of comprehensive reorganisation in terms of larger fifth and sixth form opportunities, it is clear that we are looking
  1456
  at a situation of expansion virtually as great as that through which we have just gone, but in numerical terms very much larger.
  The financing of this will, indeed, be one of the serious preoccupations of the House. Today, nearly a quarter of the total educational budget is spent on higher education—rather more than 1 per cent. of the gross national product. The rate of growth during the last five years and earlier has, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, been a jump from £143 million in 1964–65 to £243 million in the current year. This rate of growth, projected forward, would mean a higher rate of growth than any feasible or possible rate of growth in the G.N.P. In other words, it implies a larger share for higher education as well as a larger share for education within any given total G.N.P.
  This brings me to the point which the right hon. Member for Handsworth rightly raised, which was borne out in a valuable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Hasel-dine) and the remarks of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)—the crucial question whether any reduction in unit costs are to be found in higher education.
  First, the question of residence. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wokingham made many points with which my right hon. Friend and I would fully agree. I add for the information of the House one other point. As will be seen when the annual Report of the University Grants Committee for 1967–68 is published shortly, five schemes are already under way and several others are in preparation for self-financed student accommodation which will cover the running costs and the interest on loans, with the help of a direct subsidy from the U.G.C. towards the cost of furniture, and in some cases the cost of site preparation as well.
  It is emerging already that the first of these schemes is showing a cost per place of about £800—that is, one-third less than the normal allowance made by the University Grants Committee for a resident place. If we can make these experiments in self-financed accommodation a success—this does not raise the legal difficulty which the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to—it looks as if we will be able to finance a rather

  1457
  larger proportion of residential accommodation at a considerably lower cost than we have done in recent years. Incidentally, as some hon. Gentlemen know, the actual proportion of residents has risen during the last six years from 28 per cent. of the student population in 1961–62 to 35 per cent. in 1967–68.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen must not leap too quickly to the conclusion that this will solve all our difficulties, whether it is done by cheaper residential self-financed accommodation or whether it is done by deciding that students must attend university near their home. I recognise that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) might find that this created a more Welsh Welsh university. The contribution that Wales has made to education throughout the United Kingdom is one that those of us who live in Scotland, England or Northern Ireland would very much regret to see confined within the Principality on its own.
  There is just one purely technical point that I want to make to the House about student residence. It is a rather striking one. The actual cost of travel grants which at present are payable to students is equivalent to the cost of residence for students who live within approximately—it is very difficult to be very precise on this—10 or 15 miles of the university. As a great many students live within 10 or 15 miles of the university, especially those now living at lodgings, not least at seaside lodgings close to some of the new universities, it is not quite as obvious that the savings would be as great by placing students in universities near their homes as people might be led to believe at first glance. This is no reason for our not investigating the matter more closely.
  Secondly, there is the question of the sharing of buildings and other facilities of universities. We in the Department are very anxious to pursue the possibility of the sharing of facilities, both by universities among themselves and by universities with other institutions of higher education. It is perhaps an interesting comment on some of the difficulties of communication to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) pointed that it was as early as 1966 that the U.G.C. first told the Students' Union
  1458
  in Bristol that in principle it was prepared to accept the sharing of student facilities in that town.
  Why is it that, although the U.G.C. was prepared to accept this principle of sharing three years ago, a principle which I repeat we would like to see carried forward into the sharing of library accommodation, particularly research libraries, and many other facilities, three years later there should be a sit-in at the University of Bristol on this very issue? The answer is that, unfortunately, many of these problems cannot be solved purely locally.
  The hon. Member for Wokingham, because of his long association with the National Union of Students, will recognise the difficulties that arise from the large discrepancies in students union fees between the university sector and the local authority sector. Therefore, to achieve a very useful economy and one which many students wish to see we need to get straight the kinds of contributions that students should make nationally where facilities are to be shared.
  The right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members spoke of the possibility of a lower staff-student ratio. In fact, the staff-student ratio has improved, if only marginally, compared with ten years ago, from one teacher to every 7·9 university students to one for every 7·8. In the face of an expansion of the kind which we have witnessed, it is remarkable that there has been not a deterioration but an improvement.
  I hope—and I think that I carry many hon. Members with me in this—that university teachers, benefiting as they do from this generous staff-student ratio, will recognise the special responsibilities that it means for them in terms of administration and participation with students, and will also give greater attention than, perhaps, has always been given to the actual preparation and even the study of training for the business of teaching itself. There is here, perhaps, a gap in some university provision, and I am pleased to see that a number of universities are now embarking, with the support of the A.U.T., on preparatory courses for young members of junior staff.
  Now, the question of more sandwich courses raised by the hon. Member for Pollok. This, again, is well worth pursuing, but I hope that I shall be forgiven

  1459
  for saying, in passing, that we must bear in mind the particular problems which it raises for women students because of the difficulty of introducing a sandwich element into their courses. We still have 4·7 per cent. of women and 10·6 per cent. of men receiving a university education.
  On the question of loans or grants, I am sure that I carry my side of the House and many hon. Members opposite with me in saying that the grant system, especially for first degree students, is one which we should be extremely reluctant to see disappear. Not only is it associated with a low rate of wastage. It is associated with an intensive, short first degree course—only three years in this country as compared with four or five in many Continental countries—it is associated with a massively greater proportion of boys and girls from homes of manual workers than in almost any comparable country in Western Europe, and it is also—this is crucial—associated with a lifting of the burden of having constantly to attempt to work one's way through college which is so much a factor in universities in the United States.
  However, having said that, I should add that the grant system depends, and can at this time of financial stringency only depend, upon a recognition of the part which parents play. I stress the real hardship which many students today are suffering—this is a genuine grievance—when their parents refuse, for one reason or another, to take their share in the student award system. We wish that we could do without it. We cannot at present. It would cost £30 million. We must bring home to parents the importance, where they can afford it—I stress that—of bearing their share of the cost of university finance.
  Mr. Gilbert Longden: What will happen when the age of majority is reduced to 18? Will the parental contribution disappear?
  Mrs. Williams: The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is, "No". At present, the period of parental contribution goes on until the age of 25, and there is already a four-year anomaly. I agree that it would make the anomaly in some ways more serious.
  1460
  I have one or two other comments on the question of reduced cost per place, since this is really critical if we are to be able to embark upon the expansion of higher education, not least university education, which we want to see. I refer, first, to the point about reduced wastage ably outlined by the hon. Member for Wokingham. I add to what he said only that the period of the survey was one in which the C.A.T.s had students who had entered before the C.A.T.s had become universities. The entry requirements were not equivalent to those now required in the C.A.T.s for all places, and, in addition, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the proportion within the fields of science and technology was particularly high.
  I must in fairness say that the requirements for entry into science and technology are not, in practice, as high as they are for the arts and social sciences. I do not think that we can entirely judge this until the C.A.T.s have been allowed to grow a little older, but the universities and the local authorities are thinking very carefully about the possibility of transfers within the higher education system which might save some of the present wastage.
  May I turn to some brief remarks on other subjects? First, I bear out what has been said: the universities have moved with the times to a greater extent than that for which they are given credit. There are not only the units of the Ministry of Technology, but a much greater amount of work is being done in conjunction with industry in research and development, which is shown by the fact that the amount spent on research in universities, not as the result of the universities but through the choice of outside bodies, has doubled over the last five years. That is a remarkable tribute.
  In addition, the universities have swept past their target by 8,000 students, within the same financial provision made for them for a much smaller number of students. They are beginning to make a very serious approach to the problem of the use of buildings, plant and teacher-time. I refer to the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the research project into the use of buildings, and, in answer to a question put to me, into six-term as well as four-term use. Universities are endeavouring to meet the needs of the times. Many of us feel that in respect of those

  1461
  students who are not typical, traditional, 18 to 22 first-degree students, they could do still more in the use of their plant and equipment, and perhaps not least in thought about the possibility of a summer term of the kind run in many American universities.
  This brings me to the binary system, which one or two hon. Members have discussed. The right hon. Gentleman asked me some direct questions about it. I cannot give him precise answers, but, broadly, the position is that it is not less expensive at present to educate a student in a polytechnic than in a university, if one leaves out the element of research. Up to now there has been an almost automatic assumption that the amount of research will increase pari passu with increases in university student numbers. It may be that that principle will need to be looked at more closely—the principle that increased research directly followed any increase in the student numbers.
  But the real economies are to be made not by major switchings of the students from universities to the advanced further education sector, but rather by looking at individual departments in terms of a viable size. Some of the departments in universities may be of an uneconomic size. Some may be of an uneconomic size in polytechnics. We need a more sophisticated look at this problem to see how economies can be made without affecting standards across the whole sector.
  I would make one other remark about the binary system, arising from a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. I make the remark a little truculently, although perhaps it is hardly fair to do so six minutes before the end of my speech. If he is in his place, I know that he will forgive me. There is no comprehensive tertiary system without a break somewhere. The question is whether the break comes between a large number of older students in further education, studying for H.N.C. or H.N.D. in the colleges of further education, or whether it comes between the university and the rest of the advanced further education system.
  Our feeling is very strongly that, to see the polytechnics at present—I stress "at present", because things change—take
  1462
  the path which was taken several years ago by the Colleges of Advanced Technology, losing their part-time advanced students, paying their most intensive attention to the first-degree 18–21–22 year-olds, would be once again to cut off opportunities for a very substantial and a very talented part of our population, one which we feel very deeply is given full attention by the present attempt at the link between further education and higher education through the polytechnics.
  In passing, I would make one remark about a subject hardly raised in the debate, because before long it will be a crucial subject. This is the whole question whether we are still, as a country, producing too many specialists from our first degree work in universities, following from too specialised a system of A levels in the secondary schools, and whether we should not at this stage pay considerable tribute to the universities for having, through the Standing Conference on University Entrants, recognised that to a great extent the universities shape the schools, both those who go on and those who do not, and that they have a responsibility which I am glad to see they are now bearing well, towards schools to become both broader and more humane in their approach to the later stages of secondary education.
  I turn to the subject of student discontent and participation. First, let me say that I very much wish to bear out the remarks already made in all parts of the House about the much greater opportunities for student participation at present, the importance of this, and the very great work done by a number of vice-chancellors and other academic staff, as well as by the National Union of Students in bringing about this greater participation.
  We would be less than honest if we did not recognise three difficulties. One has been mentioned. It is out-of-date constitutions, of which it must be said the London School of Economics is an example. Secondly, there is the problem of the time-scale of the student, as against the time-scale of the academic. The student who participates wants results quickly. The decision-making machinery of most of our universities, although very broad, in the sense that participation is possible, is also often extremely slow—like the mills of God, it grinds exceeding

  1463
  slow, but grinds exceeding fine. Very often the student of one generation has passed through the university before he gets any response to the appeal that he began by making.
  So the universities have to work at the speed at which this decision-making machinery works. Let us say bluntly that participation will not make it work quicker; if anything it will make it work yet more slowly.
  The third point is that made very fairly again by a number of hon. Gentlemen, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) and by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright). This is the extreme need for universities, not only to accept the participation of students, but the crucial need for the recognition of full participation of junior and middle-grade staff. We simply cannot say that students should have the degree of participation not extended to the younger, senior members of the university. Here again, we have to make sure that they are fully represented at every level of the university.
  In conclusion, I want to say a word about the question of the student militants. We have to recognise that the student militants very often regard themselves as being engaged in a mission against the hypocrisy of society. We regard them as, and they are, ruthless. They regard us often as being hypocritical. What we have to try to get across, and Members of Parliament are as much engaged in this as anyone, is the willingness to discuss, to debate, to face up to what they have to say and to do that with courage.
  We also have to make sure that we constantly make plain the distinction between violence on the line which has just been crossed by some of the minority at the London School of Economics, and the basic right to express one's views by demonstration, statement and argument. My right hon. Friend, and I have been asked to clarify this, made it very clear that local authorities should not act, except in consultation with academic authority, in a case of misconduct or in any case of student discipline.
  1464
  If that is adhered to, if the academic and local authorities work together, and if we maintain the devision between violence and the free expression of thought, it is possible that the great mass of students, as of university staffs, will see that this House has made the division in the way that this House should always make it—between tolerance, and freedom on the one side and anarchy and destruction on the other.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1968–69
  Motion made, and Question,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £187,493,000, 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 1969 for services included in the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:

  £

  Class I, Vote 3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  1,000

  Class I, Vote 3A, Cabinet Office

  1,000

  Class I, Vote 8, Inland Revenue

  5,655,000

  Class I, Vote 9, Corporation Tax: Transitional Relief

  7,500,000

  Class I, Vote 11, Civil Service Department

  1,000

  Class II, Vote 4, Common wealth Services

  4,757,000

  Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Transport

  2,000,000

  Class IV. Vote 6, Roads and Transport Services, Wales

  1,725,000

  Class IV, Vote 11, Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports, &c., and Certain Other Services)

  19,300,000

  Class IV, Vote 13, Investment Grants

  45,000,000

  Class IV, Vote 17, Ministry of Power

  5,159,000

  Class VI, Vote 2, Scottish Development Department

  5,530,000

  Class VI, Vote 10, Ministry of Health

  1,000

  Class VI, Vote 11, National Health Service, &c. (Hospital Services, &c.), England and Wales

  21,500,000

  Class VI, Vote 12, National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales

  7,500,000

  Class VI, Vote 13, Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales

  1,000

  Class VI, Vote 15, National Health Service, &c., Scotland

  4,360,000

  1465

  £

  Class VI, Vote 17, Department of Health and Social Security

  1,000

  Class VI, Vote 20, Non Contributory Benefits

  33,000,000

  Class XI, Vote 9, Miscellaneous Expenses

  1,000

  Defence (Navy) Supplementary Estimate, 1968–69

  15,000,000

  Defence (Air) Supplementary Estimate, 1968–69

  9,500,000

  Total

  £187,493,000

  put forthwith, pursuant to Order, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman
  1466
  of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. Dick Taverne and Mr. Harold Lever.

CONSOLIDATED FUND
Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1969, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

SALMON AND TROUT (DRIFT-NET FISHING)
10.1 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move
"That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-Net Fishing) (Extension) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved."
Before I deal with the reasons for asking the House to approve this Order, which is in substantially the same form as the corresponding 1966 Order which was approved in February, 1967, I should perhaps briefly recall the background and purpose of the Order. In 1962 hon. Members opposite, when they were the Government, became alarmed at the sudden development, and rapid growth, of a drift-net fishery for salmon in the sea off the Scottish east coast.
This began in 1960 when 9,000 salmon were taken, all of them off the Tweed. In two years' time the activity had increased to such an extent that some 115,000 salmon were taken. This was such a big additional toll on Scottish stocks of salmon—and there was every sign that it would expand still further—that the Government of the day, having first given the fishermen some 13 months' notice of their intention, prohibited this method of catching salmon in a defined area around Scotland.
The prohibition lasted, in the first place for three years, and it has been extended since then on three occasions by Orders like this one. On each of the first two occasions the extension was for one year and on the third occasion—one that I remember vividly in 1967—it was for two years. The current Order expires on 15th February and the sole purpose of that now before the House is to maintain the existing position by carrying forward the existing prohibition until 1971—again two years' prohibition.
It was no easy decision for us to adopt and extend the policy that was first taken by the party opposite. I made it very plain when I spoke in the debate two years ago that I took no pleasure in the prohibition, and my feelings have not altered with the passage of time. Yet it seems to me both right and inescapable
1468
that the prohibition should be extended until 1971.
There are two main reasons for this. The first arises from the Report of the Hunter Committee. As hon. Members know, the Committee investigated the growth of the drift-net fishery and its implications and considered whether it could be allowed to continue on a limited scale, but was unable to devise a practicable scheme which could be enforced. It recommended therefore that the prohibition should be made permanent. This recommendation, however, is only one of a number of recommendations about permissible methods of fishing for salmon, and it cannot really be decided in isolation. We are not yet in a position to say what action it would be right to take on the Hunter Report as a whole and we continue to think it best, therefore, to maintain the ban for a further limited period, and so to preserve the status quo for the time being.
I am, perhaps, pre-empting the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) with his battery of quotations. I must say frankly that I had hoped we would be further forward in our consideration of the Hunter Report than we are. The position, however, remains that, as I have said several times in answer to Questions, our consideration of it is not yet complete, and I cannot say when we shall be able to announce our proposals.
Let me, however, say two things. First, we have made progress since we last debated an Order of this kind. Since then we have had the extensive series of meetings and discussions with interested organisations which I foreshadowed then. This has helped us on a number of aspects of the Report, even if at the same time it revealed even more clearly than before what a very wide variety of opinions are held on it among those concerned with salmon and trout fishing. We have also had the benefit of hon. Members' views in the debate upstairs in Scottish Grand Committee in July, 1967, which again showed a remarkable diversity of opinion. Secondly, I can assure the House that the Report has most certainly not been pigeon-holed; we are continuing the work on it even now to come up with right solution.

1469
The first main reason for extending the drift-net ban, therefore, is to await final conclusions on the Hunter Report. Until we take final decisions the ban remains temporary. The second main reason is one that has increased greatly in prominence since our last debate, namely the growth in catching salmon at Greenland, both in coastal nets and, more especially, from drift-net boats operating in the Davis Strait and elsewhere. The House will be aware of the very rapid development in these fisheries. The coastal fishery reached a peak in 1964, when about 1,500 metric tons of salmon were taken in it. Just as ominously, the catch of the high seas drift-net fishery expanded between 1965 and 1967 from 36 metric tons to 305 metric tons, and the indications are that the high seas catch in 1968 may by itself have been upwards of 500 tons. There are widespread fears about the effect which this toll may have on stocks in the countries whose rivers produce the salmon, including, especially, our own in Scotland.
We are, therefore, greatly concerned at the development of this high seas fishery, for, while there are physical limitations affecting the number of nets which may be set in the Greenland coastal fishery these do not apply to the high seas fishery, which takes place in international waters, can be engaged in by vessels from any country, and is therefore potentially even more damaging. Moreover, as hon. Members will know, high seas fisheries for salmon both by drift-net and by line—some hon. Members will remember the incident last year—have been developing in other parts of the Atlantic much nearer our shores. It would be quite unrealistic to expect that, as fishermen of other countries find out more about the feeding grounds and migration routes of salmon in the sea, as is almost inevitable, these fisheries will not spread and increase in intensity. And unlike the fisheries off Greenland, which do not affect fish that would be grilse on their return to fresh water, these newer fisheries may affect our catches of grilse as well as large salmon.
The Government have been, and are, doing all they can to secure a ban on the Greenland high seas fishery, or at
1470
least, a limitation of fishing effort so that it does not continue to expand. Effective action, however, depends on securing international agreement—the matter is not within our own control as was the drift-net fishery we are discussing under the Order which was engaged in by United Kingdom vessels in Scottish waters—and so far it has not been possible in the discussions in the International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries—I.C.N.A.F.—to obtain this agreement or to persuade those countries whose nationals are profiting from the fishery that dangers exist and that some limitation is essential. Last year, however, a step forward was achieved when the Commission passed a compromise resolution which called the attention of member Governments to the serious concern expressed on the matter, and recommended them to consider urgently the desirability of preventing any increase in high seas fishing for salmon for the time being.
We shall be following up this resolution both in I.C.N.A.F. and elsewhere. The connection with the Order under discussion tonight will be clear. There will, I believe, be no dispute over the desirability of ending, or at least limiting, this and other potential high seas drift-net fisheries for salmon. One of the arguments—and I think it is a cogent one—on which we have based our case is that sensible management of our, or any other country's, salmon resources depends on control of the stocks native to each river system, and that this is not possible if salmon are exposed to indiscriminate capture in the sea, where their origin is indeterminate.
The Hunter Committee laid great stress on this question of management, and the Government could hardly pursue their policy in the international field if at the same time they were to end the ban on indiscriminate drift-netting for salmon by our own nationals in the waters round our shores in a fishery which showed every sign of rapid expansion six or seven years ago. For this reason also, therefore, we see no alternative but to extend the ban for a further period; and against this double background I commend the Order to the House.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Stodart: I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that you must be getting familiar with this subject. It is becoming quite an old chestnut.
I was extremely disappointed with the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. It will be greeted, I think, with disappointment by hon. Members opposite, particularly, perhaps, in view of the cri de coeur of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) the other day when he said, "After three long years, why no action?". The answer is the complete, utter and abject failure of the Government to do anything but talk about this matter.
I do not criticise the Government for failing to come to an agreement about Greenland, because that is not a matter which can be decided unilaterally. I accept the efforts which the Under-Secretary of State says are being made about it. But, as he pointed out, this controversy is very nearly seven years old. Dating from 9th July, 1962, it has been the subject of five debates, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), whom I am pleased, as usual, to see here tonight, played a leading part in the first three of them. He laid himself open to a good deal of badinage which he has been good enough to take with his usual good nature. But we are once more discussing an extension of the ban on drift netting. It is obvious that the Government are drifting helplessly and are unable to come to any decision.
In February, 1965 the Government had received only the interim Report of Lord Hunter's Committee. They felt that they must have the final Report, which was due six months later. I agreed with that entirely, and we accepted the 12 months' postponement. In February, 1966, a further year was asked for to give everyone concerned a chance of commenting and making representations. It was then that all those rather vacuous assurances were given about full and urgent consideration by the Government. After we had accepted that it was reasonable that the Government should await Lord Hunter's final Report, the Government were given a year for full and urgent consideration.
1472
Then we had that memorable night to which the mind of the Under-Secretary of State will easily go back, when he last asked the House to give the Government not one year, but two years. I shall remind him of four things he said on that occasion. First, he said:
"We make no apology for continuing the ban for two years because we prefer to come up with the correct answers in two years rather than rush this through …"
Secondly, he said:
"… it is with very little joy that we have to keep this ban for another two years "—
and in saying that he emphasised his first point
Thirdly, he said:
"… by stretching this to two years, we hope … to bring in legislation in that time."
Fourthly, he said something which seems to me significant now:
"As to whether the ban should be permanent or not, I must stress that that question has not been decided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 1552–6.]
Does that hold tonight? Are the Government still in two minds about whether the ban should be made permanent? It is clear that two years ago the Government wanted to have legislation before us by now. Why have they not produced it?
The Under-Secretary told us in the last debate on this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee in July, 1967, that all the meetings and consultations were concluded and that the Government were considering what action to take. He said, however, that he thought that that Committee should discuss the matter before a final conclusion was reached. And so discuss it we did.
We had two and a half hours of animated discussion of the subject. I remember saying in that debate that if breeding stocks of what, I think, everybody recognises as being an extremely valuable national asset were to be built up, it was essential that fish had to be counted going up the river if it was practical and economic to do so. Therefore, this must entail some kind of a trap.
In reply to that, the hon. Gentleman mentioned many of the practical difficulties—the cost, the construction difficulties, the unsuitability of many of the rivers and the risk of damage to banks and the

1473
flooding of land round about. He expressed the view that it was bad to inhibit the movement of salmon in and out of rivers and he drew attention to the possibility of unemployment resulting from all this.
Despite what the hon. Gentleman has just said, however, about the diversity of opinions expressed in the Scottish Grand Committee that morning, he used these words:
"There seems to be general agreement that we can do with a practical investigation of possible methods of operating a commercial trap for a period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 18th July, 1967; c. 460.]
Those words were uttered 18 months ago. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether any such practical investigation has been made. If not, are plans afoot for it to be started? If they are not, they certainly ought to be on foot. Indeed, such an experiment should, in my view, have taken place because, until it does, no worth-while conclusion can be arrived at.
In his speech to the House two years ago, the hon. Gentleman posed the question whether drift netting had to be banned altogether. In the Scottish Grand Committee, I said that I felt that it would have to be if we were determined to build up stocks to their maximum potential. It would be possible to allow a certain amount of drift netting, perhaps, at the present time under licence if it were found that a figure inside the river of a little below the maximum would suffice. Again, however, one cannot make a final decision until one knows how the trapping experiment will work. That is why information about a trapping experiment should have been available to us by now, which is three and a half years after the final Hunter Report was produced.
The purpose of all these extensions—one in 1965, another in 1966, a third in 1967 and a fourth tonight—is that the Government should be enabled to make up their mind on this matter, but they cannot come to a conclusion without a practical investigation of trapping first. The Scottish Grand Committee was asked for its advice and that is the advice which, the hon. Gentleman says, it gave.
One thing is absolutely clear. The Government are asking tonight for a
1474
two-year extension. This means that on past performance it will fall to my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the next step. That is as certain as night follows day. I assure the House that we shall come to an early decision one way or the other. We shall not waste the time of the House every year or every other year. If it is feasible to have a practical trapping experiment, we shall do so, because without such an experiment we cannot make progress which is in any way worth while. It is progress which has been utterly lacking from all that the Government have been trying to do during the past five years.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. George Willis: I, too, am disappointed that it has been found necessary to introduce the Order and to delay further any action on this matter. Although I assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate all the difficulties, nevertheless, I know from the experience of the fishermen in my constituency that this matter causes them concern. They have felt that for a great many years they have suffered under a ban which affected no one else.
After having spent considerable sums of money on nets and having incurred other expenditure, which they have probably been able to recoup by certain expedients which they have adopted, they are discontented at having been kept waiting for a decision for such a long time. The sooner a decision can be made the better it will be. Fortunately, the inshore fleet has had four, five or six years of very good fishing. Had they been bad years such as we have had before, then the issue would have been raised in a much stronger way. The fishermen want to know how they will ultimately stand. It now looks as though they will not get an answer for another two years, which is an unconscionably long time.
I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) about the necessity for trapping experiments at the river mouth. Salmon cannot be controlled unless it is known what goes up the rivers and it cannot always then be controlled. I understand that two years ago it was intended to make an experiment although I do not know whether the experiment has yet been started.

1475
I would remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that the Government of his party made a decision about this without any inquiry, experiment or anything else. They just decided to impose a ban with little information apart from figures of catches over a short time.
Mr. Stodart: It is surely to our credit that we showed much more perspicacity than did the Opposition of that day.
Mr. Willis: I very much doubt that. The hon. Gentleman has now pressed for experiments and inquiries, but the Government of his party made a decision without the benefit of experiments, and it was only because of pressure from this side of the House, which was then the other side of the House, that a committee of inquiry was appointed. Otherwise, it would have been bundled through the other place by a number of backwoodsmen who descended upon Parliament to stop the catching of their salmon by drift-net fishermen. Some of them have not since been seen in the other place.
I think that an experiment is most necessary. It is necessary, too, for the Government to reach a decision as quickly as possible. There are not many fishermen among my constituents, but in my conversations with them, always they ask me, "What is to happen about drift netting for salmon? What is the position? When will a decision be made? When shall be know where we stand? When shall we be put in the same position as others who catch salmon?"
At present, a small minority have a monopoly to take salmon before they reach our rivers. It is guaranteed to them. There are rules and regulations about catches, but it is a very profitable monopoly. That does not seem to be right.
While I accept that this Order is necessary, I would ask my hon. Friend to use what influence he has with the Government to get a firm decision about the matter as soon as possible.
10.25 p.m.
Sir John Gilmour: The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) illustrated very well how the situation about drift netting for salmon has changed over the years. Whatever doubts were expressed at the time, the
1476
original Order banning drift netting was introduced, quite rightly, on the basis of the information then available, which was fairly straightforward. It was simply that, if salmon were caught in the sea before they had a chance of moving up rivers to spawn, stocks would be depleted.
What the Under-Secretary of State is up against is that he is talking about a situation which we ourselves do not control. The fact is that salmon are being caught in waters which are outside our control, and we are not masters in our own house. In view of that, the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong to assess the situation in the way that he did. He was quite happy to ban drift netting for salmon by our own fishermen, which would deplete stocks in our own rivers. It is only now that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends realise that this is a matter which has to be dealt with internationally. The fact that a Conservative Government had to take the first action only illustrates the need to alert everyone to the dangers which salmon fishing would have faced if action had not been taken.
We are now in a position where, unless we get international agreement, any licensing arrangement that we make for drift netting in a small way would not be worth the paper on which it was written. The whole stock of salmon could be swept away by other nationals in waters over which we have no control. We need to take much tougher action. We must decide whether we are prepared to accept landings of fish in this country from the nationals of other countries who take salmon out of the sea in such a way as to deplete the stocks in our rivers and, incidentally, the stocks in Canadian and Norwegian rivers.
This has to be dealt with on an international basis because, as I have said, it is matter in which we are not masters in our own house—
Mr. Speaker: It may be, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Order, which prohibits drift netting.
Sir J. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I apologise if I have strayed out of order.
My point is that, whether salmon swim up the Tees or some other river which is outside our control, unless the ban on drift-netting can be negotiated on an

1477
international basis any Order that we seek to make is not worth the paper on which is is printed. We can prohibit drift-netting for salmon round our own coasts, but if we do not reach international agreement the salmon will be swept out of the seas and will not be there to come up our rivers.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: At this stage in this many year long debate I think that we must have a certain amount of sympathy for the Under-Secretary of State in his predicament of having to come before the House yet again to explain what appears to be inaction by the Government in dealing with this problem.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has rightly drawn attention to the major problems bedevilling the future of the Atlantic salmon. However, it seems to me that, although my neighbour's house may be on fire and that fire may spread to my house, if there is a fire in my house I must put it out regardless. This is the situation with which we are faced in the drift-netting of salmon off our own coasts.
It would be wrong for the Government to await the conclusion of an international agreement before making up their mind whether the drift-netting ban should be extended or removed. Such an excuse was not offered in the past. Although the problem has been understood more clearly in the two years that have elapsed since the House considered the previous Order, the explanation offered two years ago was of a wholly different kind. The Government then took the view that it would be wrong to change the position about drift-netting for salmon until they had made up their mind on the Hunter Committee's report about the control and management of salmon stocks in this country.
The Government appear to have made no advances on this matter, despite the fact that it has been thrashed out both in this House and in the Scottish Grand Committee with, I venture to say, rather less disagreement than has been suggested by my hon. Friend—at least, on this side of the House. My hon. Friend has had the benefit of advice from the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, which unanimously agreed that control of salmon stocks could best be handled
1478
by taking the salmon fishings into public ownership. I commend this advice to my hon. Friend.
The House has heard the arguments for and against this Order ad nauseam. I have sympathy not only for my hon. Friend in this predicament, but also for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have sat through similar debates on a number of previous occasions. It is time that my hon. Friend admitted that it is not so much a question of conflicting opinions about this matter as the difficulty of taking the kind of sweeping steps necessary to make available the salmon fishings of Scotland to all who would enjoy them—difficulties chiefly of finance, not of principle, nor, for that matter, of science or of management.
I hope that this rather lachrymose debate will nevertheless encourage my hon. Friend in his apparently endless task of solving what is, although important, a relatively minor matter.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has given us his usual line about what he thinks should be done about salmon fishing in Scotland. We should be interested in the Under-Secretary's comments, since last time we had no specific replies to these points. I wonder whether the representations of the Council of the Scottish Labour Party and the others that he has considered in relation to the Hunter Committee Report have had any effect.
One thing which has been stressed in these continual debates is the feeling of the inshore fishermen that they are one section of the salmon fishing industry which is picked upon to be restricted in fishing. But, taking a longer view, it was to some degree accepted that they had to restrict their activities, since they felt they were having to do it while a review was going on and in the long term interests of the conservation of salmon stock.
My fishermen are worried because, far from their being part of a long-term conservation move, they are the only section which will have to make sacrifices to this end. Whether right or wrong, this is a widely held feeling and one with which I have great sympathy. The longer that

1479
we politicians delay—that responsibility is that of the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State—the more protests and troubles we will save up for the future. He should appreciate this wide and genuine point of view.
I reinforce strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said about experiments with commercial traps. I have mentioned this in all these debates and do not want to go into it tonight. I have criticised the amount of research done on the suitability of traps to Scottish rivers, compared with that done in other countries. Since this is a central matter in the Hunter Report, I hope that we will hear what experiments the Scottish Office is doing in this respect, which is fundamental to the implementation of the Report.
Secondly, have discussions with the industry been completed? Are we now merely waiting for the Secretary of State to make up his mind? It is important to us and to the industry to know whether the question is still open to discussion or whether it is by now only a question of the right hon. Gentleman making up his mind.
The question of fishing for salmon off Greenland and on the high seas is fundamental to the conservation of salmon stocks, one aspect of which we are discussing tonight in relation to the attitudes and feelings of inshore fishermen. Indeed, the whole fishing industry is anxious about any action which the Government may take internationally to achieve some form of agreement.
The Minister gave figures for salmon fishing off Greenland and on the high seas. While I appreciate the difficulty of getting agreement, I trust that the matter will be pursued vigorously. I particularly have in mind countries which, like Britain, have a great deal at stake, such as Canada, Norway and the Danish interests in Greenland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going out of order in talking about international agreements. That matter has in the past been ruled out of order when this subject has been under discussion.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that since
1480
the Minister had raised the subject, I would be permitted a brief reference to it.
I simply want to know whether we are getting more co-operation from the countries to which I referred—which have rivers in which salmon breed and industries which they consider worth preserving—than we were getting two or three years ago.
10.42 p.m.
Mr. Buchan: This debate has been described as lachrymose. Considering the vigorous nature of the previous debate, I had expected this one to be more vigorous.
Underlying some of the comments that have been made about delay has been a recognition of the difficulties involved in implementing the Report. It is not true to say that the only reason for delay has been inadequacy on the part of the Government. Indeed, a Conservative Government, when faced with a similar situation, spent three years considering, but not implementing, the Bledisloe Report; and we are here concerned with a more complex subject.
There are a variety of views on this issue. There is the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) does not consider to be an intellectually tenable concept. All these matters must be carefully examined if we are to have a proper management of stocks. If hon. Gentlemen opposite press too hard, one may take draconian decisions in such cases.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are concerned here not so much with intellectual concepts as with the practical problems that are involved in salmon fishing.
Mr. Buchan: The Tightness of an intellectual concept lies in its inherent practicability. I do not intend to rush these matters to please hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we rushed them we might not please them.
The Report does not provide all the answers to the problems that face us. For example, one issue thrown up in our consideration of the Report is that of improving access to fishing waters for ordinary anglers. We are all convinced

1481
that the extent of fishing waters open to anglers must be increased. The Report made certain suggestions about that. We are not sure that those recommendations are sufficiently radical to serve this purpose. In our debate upstairs I referred to my own sympathies. That would be one way of ending exclusiveness. There may be other ways perhaps falling short of public ownership but more rigorous and more radical than any envisaged by the Hunter Committee. It is this kind of issue over which we are prepared to take time to get the right solution.
I have sympathy with those—for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns—who have said that one of the difficulties in this situation is the tendency amongst sea fishermen to believe that they alone have been singled out and penalised on this issue. As I said in our last debate, these are the people whom I know best. These are my people. I understand their point of view. I hear it not only from constituents, but also from relatives, so I know the problem. I cannot say, however, that it is the only kind of problem that is ever raised. There are other problems raised with inshore fishermen. I accept that the help we have given to inshore fishermen over the last three or four years in other directions has tended not to make arguments on this issue quite so sharp as they were under the régime of hon. Members opposite.
The point I made on the Greenland issue was not an excuse. I was saying something slightly different. I made the point that the argument around the problem of the Greenland fisheries was that we were basing our case upon the sensible management of our own resources and we could hardly pursue internationally an attempt to reach an agreement based upon the need for sensible management in a discriminating way of our own stocks if at the same time we were allowing a practice in our own native waters which by its nature was indiscriminate and not calculated to assist in proper management.
On the subject of the trap, this is part of the implementation of the Hunter Committee's Report. I said before, and I repeat, that I think that this Report
1482
should be taken in its entirety and the legislation should, too. The trap is one of its aspects. We cannot experiment in the way which has been mentioned, because we would require legislation before we could make it a permissible method of fishing, for the simple reason that no district body or body of proprietors has volunteered for such an investigation or experiment. Therefore, if it involves the compulsory purchase of land to install a trap, we should require legislation.
Hon. Members opposite say that no decision should be taken without research and experimentation. The prohibition introduced by hon. Members opposite was not done on the basis of experiment or research or even real analysis of the existing statistics. Their earlier decision was taken under pressure by vested interests, so they should be the last people to press us on the need for experimentation before taking decisions.
Mr. Maclennan: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of using the Highlands and Islands Development Act, 1965 as a means of enabling this experiment to be carried out for the benefit of the Highlands? Secondly, has he considered the possibility of conducting some of these tests upon the Department of Agriculture's own rivers, one of which—the Strathy—lies within my constituency?
Mr. Buchan: I do not want to pursue this question too strongly. If I were to do so, I should be under pressure from both sides to give in greater detail than I intend to give the nature of our consideration and discussion. I know the Strathy. I have considered this. It is not of itself at the moment the best of rivers in which an expensive experiment should be taking place. However, I note my hon. Friend's point.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: With this kind of experiment, it is not so much a question of drift-netting. If the recommendation of the Hunter Committee is accepted it would mean that all net fishing on coasts and river mouths would be abolished over a period. It is that important question which really cannot be decided until there has been some experiment, with a trap or some other device.
Mr. Buchan: Strangely enough, I know the point. This is so. I was being asked about providing trap experimentation before we introduce legislation. I was pointing out that we cannot have trap experimentation until we introduce legislation, because we may be involved in a compulsory purchase to obtain a suitable river. The argument is therefore tautologous and falls.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is not a question of the argument falling; it means that it will be even longer before anything is done, and decided. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when any legislation is to be brought forward to enable an experiment to take place?
Mr. Buchan: That is a different question. If the hon. Gentleman had asked me that at first I would have given him the answer, which is that I cannot tell him when we are to introduce legislation, as he knows. It is not a tautologous point, but perhaps an unnecessary one.
When I concluded the last debate I said that in stretching it to two years we hoped, although I made no promises—and I added that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was too long in the tooth to accept promises—to bring in legislation in that time. I regret that we have not done so. I am confident that when we do it will be the kind of legislation which will provide for proper management of our rivers, give the right kind of access for the ordinary people of our country, and deal with one of the thorniest and most complex problems that it has ever been my good fortune to deal with.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-net Fishing) (Extension) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.

EAST ANGLIA PLANNING COUNCIL (REPORT)
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]
10.52 p.m
Mr. Bert Hazell: In the limited time available I want to draw attention to a number of matters highlighted in the first Report of the East Anglian Economic Planning Council. May I say at the outset that the Report is a complete vindication of the creation of this Council. The House will recall that originally it was intended that East Anglia should form part of the South-Eastern Economic Planning Council. It was as a result of pressure from myself and my parliamentary colleagues, when we impressed upon the Government the necessity for a separate planning council for East Anglia, that this Council came into being.
As the Report shows, the problems of the area are quite different from those elsewhere, and certainly different from those in the broader area of the South-East of England. North Norfolk is a delightful area, with broadland, on the one hand, and 40 miles of coastline, on the other. It has, however, many problems affecting the livelihood of those who live there.
In Part I of the Report the Council says that it can act only in an advisory capacity. It says:
"At the national level the effects of the new regional economic planning machinery should be to ensure that regional considerations are taken into account more explicitly than in the past."
It is for this purpose that I put in a request for this Adjournment debate.
For a long time I have been stressing the peculiar problems of North Norfolk, which, in themselves, are different to those even of East Anglia, and, indeed, different in some aspects to those of the rest of Norfolk. The Report itself confirms all that I have said in this direction, and focuses in no uncertain manner the difficulties of the area in many respects.
I was interested, when the Report was summarised by the local newspaper, that it headed its summary, "North Norfolk is the greyest of the grey". This obviously relates to the grey areas which

1485
the Hunt Committee was set up by this House to investigate and to advise the Government what should be done for grey areas.
Now, I am aware that the Hunt Committee has taken evidence from different parts of Norfolk and East Anglia, but we are still awaiting the outcome of that Committee's findings. We have been assured from time to time that in due course they will be presented to this House. We who live in Norfolk, in particular—and certainly myself representing North Norfolk with its many problems—have been anxiously awaiting this Report and one cannot, in the light of the Economic Planning Council's first Report, ignore a situation known to many of us and wait for the ultimate outcome of the Hunt Committee because it is anybody's guess when that will be forthcoming, and how soon—or indeed if—the Government will act upon its recommendations.
The problem of North Norfolk is an urgent one, needing a considerable amount of pressure, and I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will, in view of the fact that his own Department was responsible for creating the planning councils, say tonight that the Ministers of the various departments will be gingered into some action to help to solve some of the problems in my constituency.
Let me deal with unemployment first. In response to a Question I put down last week, I was informed by the Minister that unemployment in the Cromer, Sheringham, Holt area stands at 6·1 per cent., in Fakenham and Wells-next-the-Sea, 4·6 per cent., and in North Walsham and Stalham, 3 per cent.
If we take the 3 per cent. of North Walsham and Stalham it is well above the national average, but when we look at the situation as a whole throughout North Norfolk the position is very serious indeed. Not only is the ratio of unemployment high, but there is, at the same time, a great deal of underemployment Indeed, unemployment would be very much worse were it not for the fact that many people have to travel each way distances of between 20 and 30 miles each day to Norwich or King's Lynn to seek employment.
1486
In the Report it is stated that during the past 15 years the net outward journeys of people from North Norfolk to seek employment elsewhere on a daily basis have risen from 850 to 3,200. This is not surprising, because North Norfolk has relied mainly upon agriculture. Last week, I put down a Question in the House and in reply the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated that the outflow of labour from agriculture in Norfolk in the past 10 years has meant a drop of 14,000 employees. Therefore, the question of employment opportunities, unemployment and underemployment is very acute indeed.
As the Report states, unemployment in North Norfolk is persistently above the regional average and has been for a number of years. It goes on to say that whilst the total numbers may be small in comparison with the country as a whole, those relating to the small isolated communities represent a considerable volume.
From time to time one has stressed the low earnings of male workers throughout East Anglia and Norfolk, in particular. The Report points out that it is likely that in North Norfolk earnings are below the Norfolk average, which itself is 7 per cent. below the East Anglian average which, in turn, is 8 per cent. below the national average. This means that earnings throughout North Norfolk are very low indeed. There is a vital need for new industry to solve the problem of unemployment and under-employment and to raise average earnings throughout the area.
If, in the past—and this is true—some of the small coastal towns have deplored the idea of new industry, such is not the case today. Towns like Wells-next-the-Sea, Cromer, Sheringham, Fakenham and North Walsham are urgently seeking opportunities for new industry. Indeed, the Report refers to the need for industrial growth in order to revitalise the rural areas.
The Report also draws attention to the housing problems in North Norfolk. It states that in the rural districts in North Norfolk housing is among the worst in the country from the point of view of the basic amenities. It mentions that two-thirds of the houses lack a hot water

1487
tap or a fixed bath, and that a quarter have no water closets. This is roughly double the national average for rural areas.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will impress on the Minister of Housing and Local Government the need to make sums available to bring about some improvement in these housing conditions. We often talk lyrically about the roses round the door, and this is a truism in Norfolk villages and hamlets. But behind the facade of the roses around the door exist very primitive conditions. The people who occupy these properties are as much entitled to modern amenities as are people living in the more populated areas.
The problem of communications throughout North Norfolk has been highlighted. It is true that a drive through the lanes and by-roads of Norfolk is a fascinating experience for one who lives in a town, but we must recognise that modern road vehicles increase in size and that to manoeuvre large motor vehicles through the narrow winding roads of Norfolk presents a hazardous problem to the drivers and a constant source of danger to other people who have to use the roads. The Report emphasises this by stressing that the roads are poor, narrow and tortuous. I suggest that that is an under-statement.
All rail services throughout the area have been withdrawn, with the exception of the Norwich—Sheringham line. The buses which have been substituted for rail services are inconvenient and slow, and in many places the roads do not permit of the use of such vehicles. Often a driver must wait by the side of the road to enable another vehicle to pass.
The Norwich—Sheringham line is also threatened by closure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport the fact that if that line is closed it will create great hardship for the commuters from my constituency who find employment in Norwich as well as for the holiday traffic to the Broads and the coastal areas who rely on this line as the only rail service available to them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) wishes to speak for a few moments, I will conclude, and I will do so by emphasising
1488
the paragraph in the Report entitled "Conclusions", which reads:
"The decline in agricultural employment will continue for some time and it is likely that unless measures are taken to improve the opportunities of employment growth, the trends of unemployment, population stagnation, growth of long-distance commuting and low earnings will also continue."
I end as I began. North Norfolk is a delightful area, but its people have a right to live a full life, to enjoy a standard of living comparable with that of the rest of the country and to be housed decently in this modern age. New industries are urgently needed—not large but medium and small ones which will provide opportunities both for the present and future generations. Without these opportunities the young will leave, and we shall be left with semi-derelict villages and hamlets which will be a tragedy for Norfolk and rural Britain.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. Derek Page: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) for giving me a few of his precious minutes in the debate. There are one or two points which I am anxious to make about the Report.
On the whole, I welcome the Report, which gives substance to a point which Labour Members for Norfolk have been making for the last four years—that this is a tragically under-developed area where people have a very hard time compared with those in the rest of the country. The Report also adds substance to our suggestion that one of the main reasons is low earnings. It goes into a number of possible factors for the low earnings, and I agree with its analysis of such factors as it has considered. One or two factors, however, have been omitted, and I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether these factors, too, should be looked at in the future.
For example, the Report contains no review of trade union structure and activity in the area. If wages are low, it may well be that that could have a relevance to the extent and vitality of trade union activity in East Anglia. On the other hand, it may have no relevance. Unless it is looked at, who could possibly say? I cannot understand why it has been ignored and I urge that in its future work, the Council should examine this closely.

1489
Attention is given in the Report to education and it is pointed out that in many ways the children of East Anglia are under-privileged in this, but I am disappointed that among the many factors comprehensive education was not examined. Hon. Members on this side of the House believe that comprehensive education is an efficient way of educating our children, and the fact that we have not yet got it in Norfolk can be, and I believe, is, a serious factor in dragging down our children below the limit of achievement of which they are capable. It is the duty of the Council to examine this and to assess the advantages which may accrue.
I take issue with the Council on its assessment of the importance of North Sea gas. The Report tends to discard it as something of minor importance. The Council takes the attitude that it will not employ many people, but the evidence of the last few days, since the Report was issued, completely confounds this opinion. We have seen a tremendous contract negotiated by the chemical industry for about one-fifth of the total production of North Sea gas to go into chemical manufacture. It need not be used in Norfolk, but there is no reason why it should not be, with tremendous benefit to us.
These are the reservations I have to the Report. I welcome the improvements it suggests for East Anglia, but in addition to easier I.D.C.s and bigger investment grants, pressure should be put on industry to look at East Anglia before applying for I.D.C.s elsewhere. Too often industrialists are turned away before putting in an application. They should be encouraged to look at East Anglia when they wish to move from London, Birmingham and Manchester, and not only to look at development areas.
The Report is of the greatest value, and if it goes forward to look at other factors, the Council will be of even greater value. We look to the Government to do something about the Report, because only by implementation of what is needed, can something be achieved. We look forward tonight to an assurance that we will get some action.
11.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin):My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) impressed the House this evening by the constructive and vigorous manner in which he put the case for his constituents. I congratulate him on having obtained this debate, and I am grateful to him for having raised the matter of this planning Report, which was published last October.
The Council has stressed that its report is essentially preliminary in character and intended only to serve as a basis for dialogue with bodies and organisations in the region about a wide range of planning problems. All will agree, however, that it is a thorough and useful document. For the first time a comprehensive range of regional facts and figures has been brought together in a form which will assist both local planners and the Government in formulating regional planning policies. The Chairman and members of the Council hope to continue to work to refine the ideas and to develop a more detailed strategy in cooperation with others concerned. Obviously, many of its readers will wish to challenge some of the propositions in the Report, and it is only by discussion and debate of this kind that effective regional policies can evolve.
All who have studied the Report will, I think, agree that the Council has convincingly demonstrated that East Anglia is a distinct entity, with a range of characteristics all of its own. The Report amply justifies the Government's decision to establish East Anglia as a region separate from the much larger South-East.
I understand that the Council is now seeking the initial views and reactions of local authorities and other interested parties to the study. Both my hon. Friends will recall that consultation has already taken place between the Chairman of the Council and Members representing East Anglian constituencies at a most interesting meeting a few weeks ago. The several and varied views expressed will be very fully taken into account by the Government when considering their reply to the study. My hon. Friend asked for action. Ministers will shortly

1491
be meeting the Chairman or the Council and some of his colleagues to discuss at first hand and in detail some of the many important issues which the Report raises. I understand that it will probably be held on 3rd March.
The points raised in this discussion will be taken into account in the Government's reply to the Council's study, and this should follow fairly soon after the meeting to which I have referred. I know that there must be much discussion and other exploration of the Council's suggestions about strategy before it can establish some common ground for planning purposes.
My hon. Friend laid great stress on the problems arising from lack of economic growth in North Norfolk. I am very conscious of the effects of the rundown in agricultural employment in this part of the region, which has led to some unemployment and fairly long-distance travelling to work. The Government are well aware that technological change, which has followed from the massive Government investment in agriculture, has caused and will cause redundancies, and pose problems in various parts of the country.
I appreciate that unemployment rates in North Norfolk have been above the national average. My hon. Friend has referred to certain figures. In 1968 the rate varied between 4·8 per cent. in January and 2·9 per cent. in July, and in January, 1969, it was 4·6 per cent. Clearly the situation is aggravated because of the seasonal nature of much of the employment, particularly that in agriculture and the holiday trades.
Unemployment rates do not, however tell the whole story. The numbers and characteristics of the unemployed are also important in estimating the size of the problem. For an analysis of the unemployment registers in North Norfolk this month, it is known that about 37 per cent. of the unemployed males are aged 60 or over, about twice the size of the national proportion. These are people difficult to place. I do not wish to imply that any man of this age group willing to work should be denied the opportunity of employment, but the numbers involved reduce the effective size of the labour reserve.
1492
In North Norfolk—the employment exchange areas of Hunstanton, Fakenham, Cromer, Aylsham and North Walsham—the numbers unemployed at July, 1968, were 750 and at January, 1969, were 1,200. These numbers are not substantial, though that is not to say that the problem is not important. I readily accept that even a few hundred unemployed represent a serious social problem for a small community.
My hon. Friend has referred to difficulties in communications. I remind him that in reply to a Written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) on 19th December, I indicated that expenditure on roads in the East Anglian region had increased sevenfold over the past four years, during which the present Government have been in power, and further increases are estimated to take place in following years.
My hon. Friend also referred to housing. Here I remind him of the advantages that will accrue to the local authorities in regard to the difficult problem of old housing in the area. The enhanced grants available for improvement should provide a great stimulus.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn referred to the fact that incomes are comparatively low in the region. This is undeniably true. A relatively low wage economy has for a long time been a somewhat unfortunate feature in East Anglia. Latest returns indicate also that there is a sort of inter-regional problem. Norfolk, excluding Norwich, has the lowest income levels of any part of the region, about £940 in 1966–67.
It was to consider the problems of areas such as these that the Government set up the Hunt Committee to examine the situation throughout the country in the intermediate areas. The Planning Council and other authorities in the region have given evidence and put their case to the Hunt Committee. The Government hope to receive the Hunt Committee's Report in the very near future. Only then can we decide, and I assure my hon. Friends that the decisions will be taken as speedily as possible. As to co-ordination between Departments, we are fully apprised of the necessity for speed in relation to the Report. We will then decide whether any changes in existing policy are desirable.

1493
In the meantime, I am assured by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he is following a sympathetic and flexible industrial development certificate policy for the area, where more industry may be needed. In the last three years, no application for an I.D.C. has been refused in North Norfolk. It should, perhaps, be more widely known that most of the industry which has moved into the region in recent years is doing well and expanding.
The nature of the Government's response and the formal reply to the council's study will be very much influenced by the crystallisation of comments
1494
and reactions in the region. It is not possible at this stage for me to predict what attitude the Government will take to the study as a whole and, clearly, time does not permit me to deal in any greater detail with some of the points which my hon. Friends have quite properly raised tonight. I give my hon. Friends the firm assurance, however, that the fullest possible consideration will be given to the points which they have so ably presented to the House in this all too brief debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TECHNOLOGY
  United States Astronauts
  United States Astronauts
  Low-Cost Automation Centres
  Low-Cost Automation Centres
  Atomic Energy Authority
  Atomic Energy Authority
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Shipbuilding Industry Board
  Shipbuilding Industry Board
  Machine Tool Industry
  Machine Tool Industry
  Pressure Vessels (Committee of Inquiry)
  Pressure Vessels (Committee of Inquiry)
  Process Plant Construction Industry
  Process Plant Construction Industry
  Plastic Moulding Machinery
  Plastic Moulding Machinery
  Airbus
  Airbus
  Escalators
  Escalators
SCOTLAND
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Police
  Police
  Influenza (Vaccine)
  Influenza (Vaccine)
  Crofting Tenure
  Crofting Tenure
  Strath of Kildonan (Development)
  Strath of Kildonan (Development)
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Motorway Mileages
  Motorway Mileages
  Official Residence, Edinburgh
  Official Residence, Edinburgh
  Non-Registered Teachers (Dismissal Notices)
  Non-Registered Teachers (Dismissal Notices)
  Forth Road Bridge Approach Roads
  Forth Road Bridge Approach Roads
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Town and Country Planning Legislation
  Town and Country Planning Legislation
  Direct Labour Departments
  Direct Labour Departments
  Housing
  Housing
  Secondary Reorganisation (Sutherland)
  Secondary Reorganisation (Sutherland)
AVIATION
  Aircraft (Automatic Landing Capability)
  Aircraft (Automatic Landing Capability)
SHIPPING
  Fishing Vessels (De-icing)
  Fishing Vessels (De-icing)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Development Area Factories (Machinery Grant)
  Development Area Factories (Machinery Grant)
  Industrial Development (Corby)
  Industrial Development (Corby)
  Employment (Mexborough)
  Employment (Mexborough)
  Cargo Loads (Misleading Descriptions)
  Cargo Loads (Misleading Descriptions)
  Industrial Development (Mosshill)
  Industrial Development (Mosshill)
  Advance Factory, Girvan (Tenant)
  Advance Factory, Girvan (Tenant)
  Exports
  Exports
  Industrial Development (Dearne Valley)
  Industrial Development (Dearne Valley)
  Gibraltar (Air Fares)
  Gibraltar (Air Fares)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Linesman and Mediator
  Linesman and Mediator
  Aircraft Projects
  Aircraft Projects
  Royal Air Force Projects (Cancellation)
  Royal Air Force Projects (Cancellation)
  Women's Armed Services (Retired Officers)
  Women's Armed Services (Retired Officers)
  H.M.S. "Condor"
  H.M.S. "Condor"
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farming Income
  Farming Income
  Mink Trapping
  Mink Trapping
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Land (Development)
  Land (Development)
  Guaranteed Prices and Deficiency Payments (Staff)
  Guaranteed Prices and Deficiency Payments (Staff)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nuclear Power Station Programme
  Nuclear Power Station Programme
  British Steel Corporation (Capital Structure)
  British Steel Corporation (Capital Structure)
PORTS
  Public Ownership
  Public Ownership
RAILWAYS
  Hereford-Newport Service
  Hereford-Newport Service
  Escalators
  Escalators
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Football Crowds (Hooliganism)
  Football Crowds (Hooliganism)
  Radio Telescope, Chilbolton
  Radio Telescope, Chilbolton
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Industry (Noise)
  Industry (Noise)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  St. Vincent
  St. Vincent
  Gibraltar (Referendum)
  Gibraltar (Referendum)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drug Dependence (Report)
  Drug Dependence (Report)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Escalators
  Escalators
  Government Office (New Year's Day)
  Government Office (New Year's Day)
  State-Owned Licensed Premises
  State-Owned Licensed Premises
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
POST OFFICE
  Offices (Closure)
  Offices (Closure)
  Special Stamps
  Special Stamps
  First-Class Mail
  First-Class Mail
  Union of Post Office Workers (Productivity Award)
  Union of Post Office Workers (Productivity Award)
  Pensions (Payment)
  Pensions (Payment)
  Scientists and Engineers
  Scientists and Engineers
HOSPITALS
  Building and Repairs (Expenditure)
  Building and Repairs (Expenditure)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Health Education Campaign
  Health Education Campaign
  Offices (Closure)
  Offices (Closure)
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Industrial Deafness
  Industrial Deafness
  Liquidators
  Liquidators
WALES
  Migrants
  Migrants
  Cardiff-Merthyr Tydvil Road
  Cardiff-Merthyr Tydvil Road

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS
Lord ABERDARE: 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 effect their decision to restrict local authority expenditure has had on the employment of teachers; and, in particular, on the employment of married women recently returned to teaching.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the latest figures are for October, 1968, when, in terms of full-time teachers, there were 12,585 more qualified teachers in service than a year earlier. There were sufficient posts available to absorb all teachers newly qualifying last summer, and looking for full-time posts. The rate of return of married women to full-time teaching has been maintained. Between February and September, 1968, 2,718 married women re-entered full-time teaching, compared with 2,736 in the same period in the previous year. In the same period 2,520 married women returned to part-time teaching, compared with 3,171 in 1967. It is impossible to say how far this fall was due to restraint on local education authorities' expenditure and how far to employers' preference for full-time teachers where these are available.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful for that reassuring Answer, but is the noble Baroness aware that, according to Press reports, the situation is not quite as happy as that? For example, is she aware that in South Shields at the end of last term 25 part-time teachers were dismissed at three weeks' notice? Is she aware that a number of bodies have expressed great concern, particularly about
1162
married women, who hitherto, and quite rightly, have been encouraged to come back to teaching, but who are now finding that there are no places for them?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, I take a great personal interest in this matter and I have watched it very carefully. I am happy to say that so far the effect on the numbers of married women teachers is negligible. The noble Lord will appreciate that the attitude of an employer to a part-time member of staff, as opposed to a full-time one, is something over which the Department has no control. I understand that the situation in South Shields was that the local authority preferred to have full-timers rather than part-timers.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that South Shields is my native town? Is she aware that the dismissal of these part-time teachers was due entirely to the fact that the estimate had been exceeded and the local authority found it was necessary to have full-time teachers in the main rather than part-time teachers?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I have, of course, the greatest respect for the noble Lord and for the town from which he comes, having had some connection with the North myself. I appreciate the point he has made, that most local authorities have absorbed the figure which the noble Lord, I think, quoted originally in a Question last year. But in this particular case the authority obviously had to deal with the matter in a different way.
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, is it not rather early to assess the altitude of authorities in respect of expenditure? I assume that next year we may be in a better position to look at the matter. There is a greater allocation of teachers this year, which means, in effect, that there will have to be an adjustment regarding married women returners and the employment of those coming directly from college. That may affect the position next year more clearly than this year.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord, and particularly so in view of his great experience and knowledge of this subject.

1163
I should not like to enter into the merits of the married woman full-time teacher who is a returner and those coming direct from college, but I agree that next year the situation will be seen more clearly. I think it is very hopeful that authorities have indicated that they hope to employ 13,000 more teachers and are allowing for a decline in unqualified teachers, which was of course part of the policy.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that a large number of married women who had not previously been teaching have been encouraged recently to undergo teacher training; and can she say whether there will be adequate openings for them?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the indications are that there will be. There will, however, always be a slight difficulty about the teacher who is not mobile.

DEMOLITION OF CHIPPING NORTON HOUSES
2.35 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: 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 why the Borough Council of Chipping Norton has been permitted to demolish certain houses in New Street and the Market Place.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I apologise to the House for the length of the Answer I shall give. Oxfordshire County Council, with the support of Chipping Norton Borough Council, want to widen New Street at its junction with Market Place, because a relief road to take through-traffic, which is the ultimate solution for Chipping Norton's traffic problems, cannot be ready for some years, and in the meantime there is a danger to pedestrians. But this corner is a pleasant part of the townscape, although only one of the houses to be demolished is listed as being of special architectural or historic interest. The question thus arose whether
1164
it would be right for my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to use his ministerial powers to interfere with the actions of local government in this matter.
In considering this, he had to have regard to the intentions of the Oxfordshire County Council. They had not at first any plan for the conservation of Chipping Norton. My right honourable friend waited, before deciding whether to intervene over these houses, until the County Council stated, as they have now done, their intention of undertaking a proper conservation study of Chipping Norton this year. My right honourable friend has accordingly decided not to intervene. In the letter sent to the County Council on January 2, 1969, of which I am sending the noble Lord a copy, my right honourable friend noted the readiness of the County Council to undertake the study, and he has asked that in any redevelopment consequent upon the widening, special care should be taken to preserve the character of this historic Cotswold town.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, would not my noble friend think it desirable that the Minister should have the results of these studies available before making up his mind?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think there is no question that the Oxfordshire County Council are capable of doing a good study, and once they had begun it that seemed to my right honourable friend to be sufficient. The House should bear in mind that there is a concrete day-by-day risk to pedestrians, particularly for women with prams, on account of the very narrow pavement.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, would it not be more logical to have the study of the town undertaken before the demolition of houses takes place, rather than to demolish the houses before the survey? Is not this a classical example of stealing the horse before the stable door is closed?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it might be more logical in a perfect world, but it was never suggested that such a study could be completed before a decision was taken on this particular road-widening. I would remind the noble Lord that the houses have been empty

1165
for some years and are deteriorating, and we were not prepared to face the risk of a serious accident while waiting for the completion of the study.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the risk of a serious accident. Has there been any accident there—because this situation has existed for at least fifty years, has it not?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I understand that there has not been a serious accident on that hilly corner, but I would point out that traffic has increased somewhat in the last fifty years. Personally, I would not be prepared to undertake the responsibility for the prolongation of such a situation until there was an accident before taking action.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is intense local feeling on this matter? Would not the Government be prepared to advise that the only proper solution is to complete the by-passing of Chipping Norton, especially where the through-road from Oxford to Worcester is concerned?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, that is the only proper solution; but unfortunately it is a somewhat long-term solution and in the meantime the risk was unacceptable.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, on the question of traffic accidents, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that over the last six years there have been three slight accidents—that is, one slight accident for every two years?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his intervention. I did say that there had been no serious accidents.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the view of many traffic experts the widening of this road is likely to increase rather than diminish the risk of accidents? Secondly, may I ask him this question: Did not the Royal Fine Art Commission, as long ago as 1967, advise all the authorities concerned that the historic core of this town should not be the subject of such alteration until at least a long-term plan for the town centre and its conservation had
1166
been prepared? Does the noble Lord appreciate that what is now being done is entirely contrary to the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I was not aware that traffic experts had held that this widening would increase the risk. Such was not the view of the highways authority responsible for the avoidance of accidents. On the second question, of course it is desirable that nothing should be touched in any of our historic towns until a full plan has beer drawn up for the preservation of that town but, unfortunately, in the real world planning authorities have to take things in order and I, for one, am glad that they are taking Chipping Norton this year.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the opinions expressed in all parts of the House by all Parties, he will consider reviewing the situation again?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I will bring the views expressed by noble Lords to the attention of my right honourable friend, but, as I said in my original Answer, he has conveyed to the County Council the fact that he will not be intervening in their decision on the matter.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, could the noble Lord give a few or more details about the study to be undertaken? Is it to be done by an outside body or by people connected with the Oxfordshire County Council?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is to be undertaken by the Oxfordshire County Council. I expect that it will be in a form something like the study of Witney, no doubt known to the noble Duke, which the Council have already undertaken.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, although only one house in this row is distinguished architecturally, surely the other houses are distinguished by the fact that they are occupied by people. Would the Ministry of Housing and Local Government try to persuade the Ministry of Transport that towns are really for living in and not for driving through; and will the Government try to avoid subsidising the tearing out of the middle of towns for the speeding of through-traffic?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the houses in question are not actually occupied by people: they are standing empty and are semi-derelict. On the general question, I have the greatest sympathy with what my noble friend said, and so, I know, does the Minister of Transport. But while we wait for the by-pass —we must wait occasionally for bypasses—it is sometimes necessary to undertake small demolitions for the sake of safety, even in pretty old towns like Chipping Norton.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the Oxfordshire County Council themselves, 80 per cent. of the 7,000 vehicles a day passing through this town constitute through-traffic? Does he not realise that to enable them to travel a little faster through a part of this town will do nothing but bring destruction, without increasing public safety?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we have had a good long talk about this matter now. I do not think that this action will enable traffic to travel any faster. This is a right-angle bend and we are just widening it, above all in the interests of pedestrians.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is good opinion that this will not help the traffic situation in Chipping Norton? There will remain bottlenecks on approaches to the town from all sides.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, at the risk of being tedious, I should emphasise once again that this is being done not to speed through-traffic but to avoid a concrete risk to life and limb of pedestrians, especially women with prams, on the extremely narrow pavements.

EDUCATION
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to issue a Green Paper on Education preparatory to drafting a new Bill.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is the Government's intention, in connection
1168
with the current preparations for a new Education Bill, to offer opportunities for all concerned to make known their views about desirable changes in the present law. I am grateful for the noble Lord's suggestion, which the Government will bear in mind in considering how best this intention can be effected.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very satisfactory reply. May I also ask whether the Government will particularly take notice of the necessity to seek the opinions and advice of the parents, who do not always have the kind of institution which it is easy to approach officially.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have taken note of his point and will refer it to my right honourable friend. There are 38 various bodies that are being consulted, but I take his point that there well may not be an appropriate national body to meet the need.

PORTS REORGANISATION
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three o'clock my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on the reorganisation of our ports.

SOCIAL SERVICES: THE SEEBOHM REPORT
2.47 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services [Cmnd. 3703]; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am submitting that a day of Parliamentary time should be devoted to the work of the Committee which was set up three years ago
"to review the organisation and responsibilities of the local authority personal social services in England and Wales, and to consider what changes are desirable to secure an effective family service."
Their Report was published last summer and everyone concerned is warm in praise of the thoroughness and energy reflected in it. Within two and a half years they produced a wonderfully comprehensive document, with no packing to

1169
fill it out. It is full of rich meat. The Committee deserve thanks for all their work, and we have an opportunity to-day of thanking personally one of the members, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. Knowing her capacity for work, I am sure she must have made her full contribution, until she had to resign because of being appointed to her present position in the Government. We are also indebted to Lady James of Rusholme, another member of the Committee, whose husband we look forward to hearing later in the day.
A great deal has already been written and spoken about the Report, both in the Press and at conferences specially convened to discuss it. I know this to my cost, for I have tried to read it all, as well as to study the Report itself. But so far there has been hardly any reference to it in Parliament. It was mentioned in the debate on the Address in another place, but at no great length; and up to now the Government have remained stubbornly mute. I would call it a black and white report. There is no compromising grey or off-white about it. Under its immensely vital and experienced chairman, the Committee worked intensively on the multiplicity of problems that faced them, made up their minds, decided what they wanted and then formulated more than 200 specific recommendations.
We often talk about broken homes and the break-up of families. The matter which the Committee had to grapple with was that the various social services which try to help the family are broken up, too. For instance, there is the children's service, dating back to the 1948 Children Act, to help children deprived of a normal home life. There are the personal social services provided by the health departments of local authorities, such as district nurses, health visitors and home helps. There are the welfare services provided by the welfare departments not only for old people but also for the blind, the physically handicapped and the homeless. Then, linked with the schools are the education welfare services, including the school health service, the child guidance clinics and so on. In addition to all this, there is a welfare side to the work of the housing departments which is brought constantly into contact with the needs of the family, as I have every reason to know, having
1170
once been chairman of a London borough's housing committee.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the idea which underlies the Seebohm recommendations: that the family is one, and ought to be thought of as one in helping its needs, and that there is something wrong in this present fragmentation of the services which are trying to do that. What the Seebohm Committee want is one family service geared to meeting as many as possible of the needs of the family. These needs may be different, but they all spring from one background—the background of that family and its home. To take the simplest example that occurs to me, if a child is persistently playing truant from school, no officer of a local authority may be able to get at the root cause of the truancy unless he or she can find out a great deal about life in that home from all angles.
The new provision in Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 helped, but it was still a matter of coordinating the different local authority services, whereas what the Seebohm Committee want is that these different services shall be amalgamated into one. They want this for the sake of every household: not only the families with children, but the childless couples, and individuals, often old people living on their own. As the family or household is one, so they maintain that the social services designed to meet its needs should be one. They would merge a variety of services into one department which they call the social services department of the local authority.
I think there is compelling force in the decision of the Committee to recommend that this new, unified family social service should be the responsibility of the local authorities. They are much nearer to the family needs and requirements than some remote area-based board selected and directed from Whitehall could possibly be. We want personal decisions and actions taken by committee members and officers and field workers who live on the spot, or near enough to it to be in touch. We want to avoid long-range examination of impersonal paper problems, and instead to have human contacts which will convey the human's needs.
A strong local team of social service workers with adequate resources in training, buildings and finance is a Ix sic requirement for the set-up of this new

1171
department, together with the friendliest co-operation and support of all the voluntary services already in the field who have done so much pioneer work in the past, and without whom a community service in its fullest sense could not exist.
It may well be argued that these family services are already satisfactorily administered by the local authorities, who provide the welfare department, the children's department, the domiciliary care of the elderly, the sick, the maternity cases and so on. There are housing managers and rent collectors; health visitors and district nurses; domiciliary midwives and education welfare officers. But they all spring from different sources, and are answerable to different committees and different chief officers. Some division of loyalties is inevitable, and in spite of the excellent work that has been undertaken by many of the enlightened local authorities in providing as good services as can be available under the present arrangements, and in spite of the successful collaboration that has been effected between some of the local authority health departments and other branches of the National Health Service, there remain deficiences and anomalies.
Some of the deficiencies seem to stem from lack of imagination. Furthermore, far too little is known by most of the public as to what is available. What sometimes happens is that some of the services are hidden away in forbidding-looking buildings where is would almost seem it was not intended that they should be easily discovered. Sometimes they are dispersed in distant corners of the local authority area, with scant instructions as to how to get from one to another. Publicity and directions are needed, attractively presented, readily available and comprehensible to all. An end should be made to the exhausting trek from one office to another which the present fragmented services too often entails. Mothers with small children should not have to trail around from office to office to find the right services that they need.
Take an extreme example, of a not very bright mother with a mentally subnormal child who has to be with her all the time, another child at a primary school who has to be taken and fetched, and a baby needing diphtheria or polio
1172
immunisation at the child welfare clinic, as well as an elderly, blind, sick father, who is also living with her, requiring the help of the district nurse and the chiropody service, and the whole household is calling out for the services of a home help. There is no telephone in the house, and several different welfare departments need to be notified. How does she cope? The answer is that often she does not; she gives up. In Seebohm's Utopia, we are led to believe that one social welfare worker member of an area team might be the answer. If that is really so, it would open up a wonderful new era for harassed persons hopelessly overburdened with such home problems. This is an imaginary family, but real ones like it in lesser or even greater straits are to be found all over the country. They are the Pilgrim Mothers of to-day.
It is often only when a practical and thoughtful member of the public happens to come on the receiving end of welfare services that an intelligent appraisal of existing conditions gets made from the recipient's point of view; and even that, by itself, is not enough. The appraisal having been made, steps should then be taken with real intelligence and drive to make representations to the appropriate authority as to what further could be done towards more humanising of the arrangements.
At present, the waiting lists for residential care of the mentally ill and subnormal, the handicapped and the old, are lamentably long in many parts of the country. Often there are shortcomings in the meals-on-wheels service—and this is not a criticism of those who supply as good a service as they can; it is just an example of the present situation. After all, not many of us would like to approach the week-end with little hope of a hot meal of any sort throughout Saturday and Sunday. But there are rarely meals-on-wheels on those days for those dependent on the service. There is nothing like a sufficient number of home helps available. It is easy to imagine the consternation of some elderly person living alone, dependent on the regular visits of a home help, suddenly to have her taken away because some other person is judged as being in even greater need of her help.
While on the subject of home helps, why cannot we have many more male

1173
home helps? There is scope for men, as well as for women, in this field. I remember so well the opposition that was aroused when I wanted to introduce male district nurses. But those of us who were convinced that there was a place for them plodded on, and to-day there are 600 of them in the domiciliary field. Last November, the Queen Mother presented the first long-service badge, representing twenty-one years' work, to a male Queen's Nurse.
I hope everyone will agree it is right that, if we are to have a family social service of this sort, it should be the responsibility of the local authorities. How they can best tackle it is a big question for discussion. It needs examination of the present organisation of each local authority department responsible for these personal social services. After serving as a member of a local authority for eighteen years, I believe that it would be better to allow for a fair amount of flexibility in local administration, rather than to impose detailed control or mandatory committees upon it.
It is reassuring that the Seebohm Committee have such confidence in the value of local democracy. But is it consistent to accept the principle and, at the same time, to seek to impose upon its democratic framework a mandatory committee insisted upon from Westminster? If the main recommendation is accepted, the local authorities should be left to work out and carry out the administrative work appropriate to the setting up of the new department. I believe that the local authorities will rise to the challenge and voluntarily set about the necessary new organisation. I know that there is concern in some quarters that before and since the publication of the Report some local authorities have been taking piecemeal action by reorganising their social services in ways which are thought to be contrary to the Seebohm Committee's proposal. I expect the Government are aware of this concern too. From now on, I hope there will be no further reorganisation except such as will fit in with the Seebohm scheme.
In Scotland legislation on the Kilbrandon Report has been passed and the new service there is coming into being. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, is involved in the setting up of
1174
the new service there. She is a devoted and experienced exponent of the best for social welfare. I believe she is hoping to give us the conclusions from her own experience later in this debate, and this will be of great value.
But to return to our own Seebohm Report, the first chief officer responsible for the suggested new social welfare department must be of comparable calibre to the other chief officers already in the field—in finance, housing, the medical officer of health, the chief engineer, and so on. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether sufficient men and women up to the job will be forthcoming, but I am not pessimistic about this. To me, the one thing that must he avoided at all costs is the unsuitable appointment of an existing local government officer simply because lie may be in danger of becoming redundant if he is not given the new post. This has been known to happen in the past, with disastrous results locally. Much better to retire such a person with proper compensation than imperil the future of the new department.
One of the most dramatic changes Seebohm envisages with the setting up of its new social services department is the break-up of the unity of the existing public health and welfare services in such areas as mental health and the care of old people, where co-ordination is of the greatest importance and it is difficult to draw lines of demarcation between health and social interests. I will not enlarge on this point, for I know that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is going to discuss it from his very considerable exprience and knowledge.
The Committee's recommendations would inevitably reduce the powers and the status of the health department and take away from the medical officers of health a sphere of work in which many have developed a great interest and in which some first-class work has been done. By proposing the new social service department, and by making it separate from the health field, one would think that the Committee were creating a fresh need for new co-ordination and co-operation. I must confess that the rather cavalier way in which the health department, its chief officer and its work are referred to in the Report seems to

1175
me ill-calculated to create a climate of medical opinion in which co-operation is likely, at least at the start, to be wholehearted. I hope I am wrong.
The success of the new departments will stem at the outset from the personality and experience and administrative skill of the chief officer. I am strongly opposed to chief officers being appointed by Ministers. If there must be ministerial supervision, I would far rather see something comparable to the practice already in being for chief constables, where the police authority submit a short list of names to the Home Secretary, who may approve it in toto or may delete the name of someone not considered adequate, or may add one or two names to it, and then returns it to the police authority to make their final choice.
This brings me on to the question of training for this new department. At present there are three main training bodies, three national councils for training in social work, all responsible to Ministers: the Central Training Council in Child Care, the Council for Training in Social Work and the Advisory Council for Probation and After-Care. One is bound to ask whether this is educationally right and whether it is likely to make the best use of scarce resources. Each Council is fishing for students in the same pool and each needs its own separate teaching staff. Each is promoting separate courses, sometimes in the same building. The case for unified planning of social work training seems overwhelming, and that is something that can be started upon straight away. It is a Government responsibility, and it is in their hands to start unification without delay.
I am not clear whether the Committee thought out the question whether a wider training in the whole social welfare field could be achieved without lengthening the period now required for the present separate and more limited training courses. Can more breadth be obtained within the same time without loss of standards? The recommendation to provide more courses for married women would have been warmly welcomed by me if it were not for the sorry development that is poisoning the process of bringing married women back into teaching. That idea, having received Govern-
1176
ment acclaim, and thousands of married women having made the considerable effort to return on a part-time basis, they are now among the first victims of the Government's policy of squeezing educational expenditure, for local education authorities are sacking or not replacing their part-time teachers as a means of keeping their expenditure within the Government's limits. Once bitten, twice shy!Middle-aged married women may be wary of being caught again.
Whether unified social service departments can justify themselves will depend almost entirely upon the quality of the initial staff. At first, unevenness in the amount of training and experience will be inevitable. But, given inspiration and the right leadership from the top, it should not be impossible to get the right contribution from every member of the staff, whether he or she is one of the professionally trained people taken over from the separate departments, or the old-time social worker without academic training but with much experience, or the new type of social worker emerging from the new type of training. I am sure that great wisdom will be needed to get the team to work together—wisdom and patience and faith. But I have no doubt it can be done.
Training leads me on to the necessity for a satisfactory career structure to encourage the right type of recruits into training in the first place. The main resource of the personal social service in going about its work is not plant but manpower; and the Seebohm Committee believe that a unified department will have the advantage of attracting sufficient numbers of recruits by providing a better career structure, because it is going to be a much larger, more interesting and worthwhile service. I am sure the career structure is as important in social work as it is in the teaching profession.
My Lords, a keynote of the Report is urgency in implementation. Personally I have every sympathy with the Committee's enthusiasm, but I am not sure that on the long view this immediate haste is wise. It might prove to be a case of "More haste, less speed". We have had the Minister of Health's Green Paper reviewing the National Health Service; we have had the Seebohm Committee's Report. We are awaiting the

1177
Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England and Wales. There are Seebohm recommendations that do not need to wait for legislation and can be put into force straight away, such as the use of greater imagination in the presentation of the available services, the unification of training, further consideration of the future of the psychiatric services and further study of the implications of the Report as they affect the Probation and After-Care service. These should be in train already. I think we are justified in looking to the Government for a broad statement of their policy towards the main recommendations of the Report. It is essential that the Government should now be guiding the local authorities as to whether the Seebohm structure is to be the plan for the future.
As soon as the Report of the Maud Commission is available for study the Government should come out, as quickly as possible, with their combined plan for the future organisation of local government and of the National Health Service and of the personal social services, drawing on the tremendous amount of work and research that has been undertaken by the members of all three bodies. I am sorry to have to say it, but at the moment there is an atmosphere of uncertainty, productive of despondency and shrinking morale in all these three fields of work. Until a clear picture of the future emerges—and here lies the overwhelming need for speedy decisions —this sad state of affairs will continue. "On! Maud, on!", should be Seebohm's battle cry. In the meanwhile, let the imaginative brains in local government and among the voluntary organisations and in Mr. Crossman's new Department examine constructively all that is practicable in the Report, so that, their homework done, they will be ready to get on at the first possible moment after the Maud Report has been presented and digested.
My Lords, I am no professional social worker. I am not a medical officer of health—I am more like the not very bright housewife, to whom I have referred. It is inevitable that I have only been able to skim over the surface of this long and closely packed Report. Noble Lords of much greater experience and knowledge than mine are intending
1178
to speak to-day, who will make good the gaps in my sketchy introduction. There is no Party political issue, so far as I am aware. The welfare of every family in the community merits universal care and consideration. Whether we are dealing with social casualties or normal, healthy individuals, I see the community itself as a family where the strong should support the weak and where the weak should be encouraged to help themselves.
Seebohm has woken us up. It has opened many eyes and alerted many ears and has made people think. It is up to us to continue where the Report leaves off and to examine how far and how fast and by what practical action we can travel forward to the goals which it has set before us. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.14 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us such a good and comprehensive review of this rather complicated Seebohm Report. I do not intend to follow her along those lines, but I want to pick out one or two points from the Report on which I hope the Government will be able to give me some reply.
In the first place, I wish to say that I join in the general welcome given to the Report by the noble Baroness. It is one of a series of Reports dealing with local authority services which have been coming out at quite long intervals. There was the Jameson Report or Health Visitors, in 1956; the Younghusband Report on Social Workers, in 1959, and now this present Report. I believe one can complain at the piecemeal way in which the services have been tackled over quite a long period of time, and I am afraid that the criticism I have made about the piecemeal nature of the Reports must also apply to the Report of the Seebohm Committee, because there are two most important types of social worker not included in the terms of reference of the Committee. The Committee cannot be blamed for that; indeed, they referred to it themselves. I refer to the medical social workers and the psychiatric social workers who are employed by the National Health Service and not by the local authority. If one is dealing with children or with old people it is very difficult indeed to draw a dividing line between the work of the

1179
National Health Service and the work of the local authority.
I should like to say a few words about the medical social workers, because they are the people with whom I have had particular dealings over a long period in the past. I think one has to make up one's mind whether they are primarily social workers in the social service or medical auxiliaries. If the first alternative is taken and it is decided that they are primarily social workers with a medical interest and background, and must therefore work with the medical side, they will surely be out on a limb, as one might say, if the social service committees do not include them.
I should like to suggest to the Government that the medical social workers and the psychiatric social workers should be part of the social service department but that, instead of being given general training and general duties, they should be seconded to the medical departments and the psychiatric departments of the hospitals; and when I say that, I mean seconded for long periods of time; I do not mean that they should be changed every six months. In my view, that would overcome some of the difficulties connected with the National Health Service social workers at the present time, in the sense that they are not paid as much as the local authority social workers and it is therefore difficult to maintain recruitment.
Furthermore, the value of hospital work in the training of social workers, particularly the medical social workers, may follow from their attachment to the department. If they are to continue to be purely hospital-employed workers, working entirely in the National Health Service, I do not see how they can survive in a satisfactory way as a profession if they are to be cut off entirely from the main body of social work and workers. I know that an inquiry is being held in York at the present time, partly financed by the Ministry of Health, into the future role and function of the medical social worker, but I do not think it will be ready to report for quite a long time—I believe it will probably be several years—and I do not think we have that long time to spare before we can make up our minds what is going to become of them.
1180
Again, I believe there is a need for a link between the residential homes (I am referring, of course, to residential homes run by the local authority) and the hospitals. This is dealt with in paragraph 307 of the Report. The Committee expressed the hope that the medical staff, and particularly the geriatric services, should be called upon to assist in deciding which people should go into residential homes and which need a period of treatment in hospital to see whether they can be restored to a greater degree of health in that way. I very much hope that some arrangement will be made to achieve that objective. This is something which does go wrong at the present time. The other day I came across a patient who had been for four years in a small local authority home for confused people. Her condition was deteriorating and the local hosital consultant was called upon to examine her. It was found that she was suffering from a thyroid deficiency, which was probably the cause of her breakdown in the first place, but it had not been spotted. She was treated for this in hospital and she made a gradual recovery. That is the kind of danger one sees.
I know quite well that joint appointments are not popular. They are not popular with the authorities, and they are not really popular with the medical staff of hospitals, because they fear—and I think their fears are quite justified—that if they are going to be partly appointed by the local authority and partly appointed by the National Health Service a considerable amount of local pressure will be brought upon them to admit people out of their turn into residential homes or to hospitals. That is something at which I do not take particular offence or worry about: it seems to me a normal thing that one should try to get one's senile grandmother into a home as soon as possible. But it may lead to uncomfortable pressures. Supposing there is not some kind of medical vetting or examination of these people going into residential homes, we are going to be back to the old mixed workhouse of the Poor Law, and a great many people will be admitted because they are in trouble or infirm and no one knows what is wrong with them, and will be simply kept in bed till they die. That is the sort of thing we thought had gone in 1945, certainly in 1948 when the Health Service came in;

1181
but I rather fear that it may come back if some provision is not made for such people.
I think there is a great deal to be said for the linking, of the social service department with the housing department. I read the other day in a long report by the Government Social Survey that about 20 per cent. of people admitted into Part III accommodation under the local authority could really be in sheltered housing. Therefore, I wonder whether it would not be possible for the social service department to take on the sheltered housing and not leave it with the housing committee.
One must not hope for too much or for things to come along too quickly. The Committee seemed to me to be rather optimistic about the amount of money that would be poured into their coffers, and that sort of thing. But I think quite a lot of good work will be done. The fact that the home-help service is to be transferred from the health department to the social service department does not mean that there will be many more people available to be home-helps. I would support what the noble Baroness said about getting male home-helps, because we served together on the Council of the Queen's Institute and I know what a great success the male nurse has been on the district nursing side. I do think that is a reasonable thing to do.
I do not object to this committee or department being a statutory one. There are quite a number of other statutory committees in local authorities. County councils have about 10, I think; and there are quite a number of statutory officers. There are the clerk and the treasurer, the surveyor and the medical officer of health; and in the county borough and urban district councils there is the chief health inspector. So I think it is quite a reasonable thing that the committee should be a mandatory one, or a statutory one. What I would suggest is that some kind of inspectorate might be set up by the Ministry. I do not mean a nasty inspectorate, going snooping around looking for trouble, but something like the inspectorate under the Ministry of Education. The H.M.I.s are first-class people, who do excellent work and give advice and encouragement. In the same way there was an inspectorate service under the old Poor Law which did not go looking for trouble but was encouraging and helpful.
1182
I am pleased that the children's department is going to be included in the social service department. When I looked up the debate on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House of the 1948 Bill I was pleased to find that I had expressed a certain amount of disquiet that the deprived children were going to be put in a separate department run by a separate Government Department. I am glad to see that they are now coming under the same local authority department, and I hope that the probation service will come in in due course. But I think there is need for the Government, to-day if they can, to say what their intentions are. It may be that we shall have to wait for the implementation of that until the Report of the Maud Commission comes out, but certainly at the present time there is a good deal of discomfort among the staffs of the social service departments and there is difficulty in getting recruitment for them. One has seen in the papers and heard elsewhere that certain local authorities are taking their own steps to forestall the Seebohm recommendations, and that is going to cause some confusion in the future if ii has to be undone again.
My Lords, I want to say this, in conclusion. I am not quite sure what is going to become of the medical officers of health. They have had a long and distinguished service. I quite see that much of the work they do will be absorbed into the work of the new social service committee. The Report talks about a community physician. I do not know what that means and I doubt whether people outside the Seebohm Committee know what it really means —indeed, I sometimes wonder if the Committee themselves knew what it meant. I want to end on a rather sad note, having touched on the medical officer of health. It does look as if the status and responsibility of the doctor, of the medical profession, in the social service work is going to be reduced, and I would ask whether that will be in the best interests of the patient; and I refer particularly to the young patient and to the old.
3.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I am sure that we are all greatly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, for creating this

1183
opportunity to debate the Seebohm Report. We are also grateful to her for her speech, which was a survey which I found by no means sketchy but indeed a very comprehensive one compressed into 25 minutes. I would also thank the noble Baroness for the manner in which she set out the problems and even for her highly critical and even caustic comments, not all of which I agreed with. I will not at this stage enter into detailed arguments about the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, except to say that it would be unthinkable that in the social services the medical services should not continue to play a full part. Exactly how that part would be labelled would no doubt depend on circumstances in different places.
Seebohm is already recognised as constituting a major contribution to our thinking on the lines of advance in the social services for decades ahead. It is a monumental Report, and I should like to add my tribute to that paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, to the Chairman and members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lady Serota, for the breadth of view and care which they brought to their comprehensive study of the personal social services and the sheer hard work which in two and a half years produced this closely reasoned Report of more than 700 paragraphs and upwards of 200 recommendations.
Your Lordships will recall that the Committee were charged with the task of reviewing:
"the organisation and responsibilities of local authority personal social services in England and Wales, and to consider what changes are desirable to secure an effective family service".
The idea of a family service has naturally developed in the context of the care of children. I believe there is general agreement that the organisation of the children's service set up by the Children Act of 1948 has succeeded in ensuring that children in the care of the local authority are well provided for. Our present problem is to find the best organisation for ensuring that children living with their own families are well cared for, and unquestionably this involves promoting the welfare of the family as a whole. Precisely the same point has emerged in consideration of the care of
1184
the elderly and of the handicapped: family support has been increasingly seen to be the key to their life at home and thus statutory and voluntary support for the family is no less important than support for the individual.
From 1948 onwards Government Departments have given guidance, severally and jointly, to local authorities about coordination of services for children. In 1960 the Ingleby Report on Children and Young Persons led to the further powers conferred by the Act of 1963 to cover advice, guidance and assistance to forestall or repair family breakdown. Ingleby commended further study of the idea of reorganising local services to provide a family service, and this idea gained further support in the Labour Party's study report for which my noble friend Lord Longford, was largely responsible. The next step was the Government's decision announced in the summer of 1965 in the White Paper, The Child, the Family and the Young Offender, to appoint an independent committee to consider the organisation of the local authority personal social services, and the Seebohm Committee was established at the end of the same year.
This was the immediate point of origin of the Report we are considering, but it is right for me to acknowledge that there had been a growing conviction among many of those concerned with a wide range of personal social services that a fresh and comprehensive examination of these services was urgently required. Since 1948 the services had expanded greatly in terms of staff and work done, and their structures and methods of work had been modified under the influence of changing needs and changing concepts of how these needs should be met. Moreover, important powers and duties had been conferred on local authorities by the Mental Health Act 1959, by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, and, since the appointment of the Seebohm Committee, by the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 which, when implemented, will, among other things, enable local authorities to provide or promote any welfare service for the elderly which is not already within the competence of some other statutory body. Furthermore, during the present Session the Government propose to enlarge the functions of children's departments by the Children and

1185
Young Persons Bill, which would give effect to the proposals in the Home Office White Paper, Children in Trouble.
In addition, over the years different parts of the personal social services have come under examination. I am thinking particularly of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency, the Younghusband Working Party on Social Workers in the Local Authority Health and Welfare Service, the Ingleby Committee and, of course, the notable series of reports from the Central Advisory Council for Education. Again since the appointment of the Seebohm Committee there have been Reports from the Williams Committee appointed by the National Council of Social Service on the provision of staff for residential homes and from the Summerfield Working Party on educational psychologists. None of these Committees, however, was permitted by its terms of reference to examine the organisation of the local authority personal social services as a whole, although most of them emphasised the need to improve coordination between the various services.
I thought it right to sketch in this background just to emphasise the amount of work and degree of thought which has already been expended on these matters and the wealth of experience which already exists to help us in weighing the Seebohm recommendations and considering how best we should now proceed. The noble Baroness gave what I thought was excellent advice when she said that she was doubtful that immediate haste is wise, and then almost immediately afterwards she urged the Government to make a broad statement of their attitude to the Report. I do not know how desirable this is, because she said, "On, Maud, on!", not "Come into the garden, Maud." At least we have to wait for Maud and a lot of other things, before we can be so definite, particularly as in the two speeches we have heard already we realise the wide variety of opinion, and indeed well-informed opinion, there is on these matters.
Central to the Seebohm recommendations, and much of the thought which has preceded them, was the question of the organisational structure of the personal social services, and I will return to this later because it is here that the critical decisions for the Government will
1186
lie. But we should not forget that these are questions of means to the end of better care for all the socially deprived and that, within the context of their structural recommendations, the bulk of the Seebohm conclusions are concerned with ways in which the services for people in need—for children, the elderly aid the physicaly and mentally handicapped—may be improved.
The further development of these services must, to a great extent, depend on available resources—of skilled manpower as well as money, as the noble Lady said—but it should not be overlooked that, even with our present forms of organisation, steady progress, not ill-co-ordinated, has been achieved. Indeed, I think it will help us in the forthcoming discussion if your Lordships take cognisance of and acknowledge some of the achievements in the field of social welfare in the four years since this Government took office, achievements in which, considering the constant financial difficulties, the Government and the country have the right to take pride.
One of the first services to consider is housing. The Seebohm Report states categorically that the Committee do not consider that an effective family service can be created by changes confined to the personal social services alone. They recognise that one of the basic requirements for that family service is better housing. In the public sector, the number of new dwellings completed in England and Wales rose from 102,400 in 1963 to over 158,000 in 1968—that is over 50 per cent. more in four years—and the total number completed, including both public and private sectors, rose from over 270,000 to more than 371,000. If we look at the total number of unfit houses in clearance areas demolished or closed, there is an increase of 25 per cent. in the same period. Later this Session your Lordships will be turning your attention to a major Bill which the Government propose to introduce to implement the proposals in the White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes, in which my noble friend Lord Kennet played such an important part, and which will seek to raise the upper limits for housing improvement grants, widen their scope and make them more flexible, and introduce a new grant for environmental improvement.

1187
Another basic requirement for an effective family service which Seebohm mentions is adequate social security benefits. Here again there has been substantial progress in the four years. The basic rates of unemployment, sickness and retirement benefits have been raised twice, in January, 1965, and October, 1967, to new record level in terms of purchasing power. War pensions, industrial injury benefits, widows, maternity, death grant and other benefits have also been increased.
The Government proposals for a new National Superannuation and Social Insurance Scheme were published yesterday. It is the most fundamental change in social security since Beveridge. Short-term sickness and unemployment benefits have been related to earnings since 1966. It is now proposed to extend the principle to retirement pensions and at the same time provide an adequate level of benefit for all. Furthermore, for the first time ever it is proposed that a guarantee should be given of a regular review of benefit rates to ensure that the real value of pensions is not eroded by inflation.
The Report's third basic requirement for an effective family service is good health services. Again, very encouraging progress has been made.
I would also invite your Lordships' attention to a quite different field—the increased provision of services for elderly people of 65 and over. Once more there are advances to record. The number of elderly people for whom local authorities were providing residential accommodation, either direct or in homes run by voluntary organisations, went up over the last four years from 82,809 to 95,433, and the number of homes for the elderly provided by local authorities rose from 1,552 to 2,050—another quite substantial advance. The number of elderly people receiving home help, a subject mentioned by the noble Baroness, increased from 266,000 to 338,000—an increase of 27 per cent. There were increases, too, in the numbers of elderly people receiving home nursing care and visits from health visitors, and 25 per cent. of local authority housing programmes now consist of small units suitable for elderly people.
A word, now, about services for the mentally disordered and physically handicapped, which the noble Baroness also
1188
mentioned. Regrettably, some of these are relatively late developers among the social services, and in the past they have lacked the help of trained professional staff. The Council for Training in Social Work has done and is doing much to make this good. Substantial numbers of certificated social workers have already been trained and 600 finished their training last year. We look for further growth as economic circumstances permit. The Council is also turning its attention to the training of staff of residential homes, and hopes to promote three or four courses for the staff of homes for the elderly and mentally handicapped this year. The number of local authority child care officers has also increased remarkably, from 1,773 in 1964 to 3,036 on March 31, 1968. The output of training courses in England and Wales for these officers has increased from 166 in 1964 to 400 in 1968.
My Lords, I think you must agree that these examples prove beyond question that we have made substantially increased provision for the care and well-being of those in need, although in the same sentence I acknowledge that provision is still not nearly enough. The Government are not in any way complacent about what has been achieved. We know only too well how much still remains to be done. Nevertheless, there is solid progress being made, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge it. The process continues because, as my noble friend Lady Serota said last week on the Second Reading of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Bill, the Government are now actively considering community development projects to tackle by new methods poverty and deprivation in selected areas.
This kind of project which the Home Office is pioneering marks a new departure in the development of the social services in this country. I am not quite sure whether I heard the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, aright, but I can assure him that so far as central control of the children's social services is concerned the Home Office is continuing. In the first place, this new project would take a number of assumptions, or hypotheses, about the nature of poverty and deprivation and build on them a strategy for finding the best ways of tackling these problems. For instance, its approach will reflect the view that families suffering from

1189
chronic poverty or dependence on the social services are, for the most part, not found here and there, dotted about in prosperous and self-sufficient areas: they tend to be found together, in fairly large concentrations, in areas which are physically decaying and perhaps suffering industrial decline and other troubles.
Second, it seems perfectly clear that "more of the same", in the sense of additional help of a traditional kind, provided through the existing structure of the social services, will not be effective in bringing about a lasting improvement in the life of these families, useful as it may be as a temporary support. Third, is the very important belief that there are resources of self-help in the community which, if ways could be found of mobilising them, could be of enormous value in supplementing—perhaps even replacing, in some instances—the help provided by the professional: and therefore what is needed is to experiment with ways of generating more mutual help and more voluntary activities which will, we hope, take some of the load off the shoulders of the professionals.
Again, this project will be concerned to find ways of helping those in need express their needs to the relevant services, and to influence the services to be more responsive, more sensitive to the feelings, as well as the needs, of the client. This reflects the belief that there are, even now, many whose needs are not perceived by the social services, because they do not know how to communicate them or whom to communicate them to. I think the noble Lady described people like that as the "Pilgrim Mothers" of to-day. Finally, we are acting on the belief that we do not yet know the answers; we have to experiment, to be prepared to look at quite new, unconventional approaches to the problems of poor people in poor neighbourhoods and ways of helping them to stand on their own feet.
What the Government have in mind, then, will be a co-ordinated experiment in a number of areas which appear to contain large numbers of people suffering from poverty and deprivation, aimed at finding out how to make the social services more effective in supporting them both by better co-ordination between services and by making the services more accessible and comprehensible in their
1190
dealings with those in need. I should remind your Lordships that I am speaking within the limits of the Bill which I mentioned, but would emphasise the breadth of this approach. We shall not only be concerned with those services reviewed in the Seebohm Report. The scope will be considerably wider. It will bring in all the statutory services, whether central or local; and any voluntary organisation which can contribute to the aims of the experiment and offer resources of its own, whether people, money or buildings, to back up the local programme of action, will be welcome to take part. We hope to start soon and there will be a full Government statement whey negotiations with the local authorities have made further progress.
The Government act in constant awareness of the fact that the social services we are discussing must be looked at simply as the moat highly organised expression of the concern of the community at large for its least fortunate members. Outside the organised services there is, as all of us know, a great wealth of personal service rendered without any thought of its being labelled in any way as social work, or indeed labelled or recorded at all. The housewife who keeps a close eye on her elderly relative, the neighbour who comes round to help at a movment of family crisis, are all making their contribution in this field, and so, of course in a very special way are those great voluntary bodies who canalise and direct the efforts of so many volunteers and those out of whose efforts the welfare services have almost literally grown. For my part, I am sure that there will always he a place for voluntary service in a fruitful partnership with the statutory services. It is the experience of most of us that because society is constantly raising its standards, the more we do by statutory provision the greater the field for voluntary participation. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said, without the volunteers a real community service can scarcely exist.
But, as I have said, the Seebohm Committee's central recommendations relate to the future structure of the local authority personal social services and in particular to the creation of a new local authority social service department spanning the present services provided by the children's departments and by the welfare services under the National

1191
Assistance Act 1948, and including also certain social work services now provided by health and education departments and in some cases by housing departments. This is a matter upon which some division of opinion has already made itself felt in public comment, and indeed in this Chamber, notably as regards the division between health and welfare, and it is upon this question of organisation that the Government have been particularly anxious to obtain the comments of interested bodies.
More than fifty organisations, covering local authority professional and voluntary opinion, were specifically asked to comment by the Departments concerned, and a more general invitation was issued in the Press. Comments, or et least preliminary views, have now been received from well over seventy bodies. These are now being studied and it would be premature for me to forecast what conclusions may emerge from this consideration. It will be a colossal task to digest and correlate all the reports which have been received, and the very important report which still has to be received, and the opinions expressed upon them by so many bodies, and indeed the opinions which will be expressed in to-day's debate, following as it does hard on the heels of the Report.
Comment has been sought and received both from professional bodies who are properly concerned in their several ways with the reaction of the Seebohm recommendations upon professional needs as they see them, and also from the local authority associations who have a particular interest in the administrative aspects. Much of this comment was conscious that the Seebohm Report, in the field which it covers, is but one element in the major process of restructuring which lies ahead of us. Seebohm does not and cannot stand alone. It has to be considered in the context of the reorganisation of the Health Service, on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is now considering the comments received on the entirely tentative proposals advanced in the Green Paper. One must have regard to the proposals regarding the size and function of local authorities which we are eagerly await-
1192
ing from the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, whose work is now drawing to a close. Also relevant and already issued and under study, is the Report on the Management of Local Government, from which the Seebohm recommendations differ in a material respect. It is no accident that all these Reports should be coming before us at about the same time: all affect the same large question of the future organisation of the administration of the social services; and your Lordships will, I believe, agree that it must be wise to weigh all these topics together before seeking finally to conclude upon any one of them.
I realise that, as the noble Baroness said, they have ordered these things somewhat differently in Scotland where, following the Kilbrandon Report of 1964 and the October. 1966, White Paper on Social Work and the Community, and the resulting Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, preparations are being made to bring into being local authority social work departments with comprehensive powers covering the whole field of child care, welfare, social support of the sick, supervision of offenders and after-care of prisoners, and with a duty to promote social welfare and to give advice and help to people who need it. But it does not follow that the organisation of these services need necessarily be identical throughout Great Britain, and when the Scottish White Paper was published the Government made it clear to the local authority associations that these proposals had regard to the particular circumstances of Scotland and that they were not to be taken as creating any presumption that the form of organisation of the local authority personal social services there presented would be applicable to England and Wales.
This process of consideration is bound to take some further time and I realise that this may be held, and probably will be held, to run counter to the Report's recommendation for swift action without waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission or of other inquiries. I particularly recognise the uncertainties to which the Report may give rise, and probably has given rise, in this interim period in the minds of many local authority staffs, the strains on morale which this may

1193
cause and the dangers, of which some signs are already apparent, that some local authorities will seek to reorganise their personal social services in a way different from that which Seebohm had in mind or that which may emerge from current discussion and consideration as the best solution of the problem. The Ministers concerned when answering questions in another place, have already urged upon local authorities the wisdom of not making changes in organisation which might pre-empt the Government's conclusions, and this has been drawn specifically to the attention of local authorities. This remains the Government's view. We do not think it right, on account of these anxieties, to try to take piecemeal decisions in this complex of problems without viewing and weighing up the other elements. After all, the pattern which we shall be moving to establish may well govern the personal social services for a period stretching into the next century. We must do all we can to get our decisions right. In doing so, we shall have in mind that we are serving not only administrative and professional efficiency but the happiness and well-being of millions of people who are among the most vulnerable in our society.

PORTS REORGANISATION
3.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with the permission of the right reverend Prelate and your Lordships' House, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has made in another place on the Reorganisation of the Ports.
The conclusions the Government have reached and the policy they propose to pursue are set out in a White Paper being published this afternoon; copies are available in the Printed Paper Office. This White Paper follows extensive consultations, based on a working document issued in July, 1967.
The rapid rate of technological and economic change which has affected the ports industry in recent years has greatly increased the urgency of the long recognised need, emphasised in particular
1194
by the Rochdale Committee in 1962, for a properly planned programme of port development and for the concentration of ownership and operation of port and related undertakings. The increased scope and rate of change demand an even greater degree of concentration of central control of policy than visualised by the Rochdale Committee.
The Government have decided that a radical reorganisation is essential: a National Ports Authority must be established to carry through the necessary changes and reshape the British ports industry. The new Authority will have a complex task of fundamental importance to the nation's economy. Its first remit will be to take over the harbours now handling more than 5 million tons of goods a year. It is thus expected to take over London, the Mersey, Milford Haven, the Medway, Manchester, the Clyde, the Tees and Hartlepools, Bristol, the Tyne, and the Forth. It will also take over the British Transport Docks Board harbours, of which the main ones are Hull, Southampton and the South Wales ports. These harbours together handle over 90 per cent. of our overseas trade and over 75 per cent. of our coastal trade, and the vast majority—over 95 per cent.—of our registered dock workers are employed in them. They include those harbours on the main estuaries at which, as the Rochdale Report said, development (except that to serve certain bulk cargoes) should be concentrated.
The Authority will be required to manage the harbours through subsidiary authorities, set up in accordance with a scheme of organisation which will require my right honourable friend's approval. These authorities are expected to be based, in the main, on the principal estuaries, and they will be encouraged to plan the developments called for by the needs of the regions, working in close consultation with the Regional Economic Planning Councils. The provisions proposed for the transfer of assets and for compensation, which is not expected to exceed £25 million, are set out in detail in the White Paper.
The new Authority will have a duty to see that efficient and economical port facilities and services are provided at the harbours for which it is responsible. For this purpose the operation of the main common-user port services (such as

1195
stevedoring) is to be concentrated in the hands of the nationalised authorities. The compulsory take-over of these businesses will follow from schemes which the Authority must put forward as a first priority for my right honourable friend's approval within one year of the vesting day. It will be able to put forward supplementary schemes subsequently if necessary. In the interim my right honourable friend hopes that existing authorities, and the new Authority when it is formed, will acquire businesses voluntarily.
The new Authority will be required to establish effective machinery for negotiation and consultation with its employees on the lines of Section 137 of the Transport Act 1968. But, more than this, it will when putting forward its scheme of organisation be required to pay particular attention to the means of ensuring that workers' interests are adequately presented to it in its deliberations.
Furthermore, from the outset the nationalised port authorities will be given a dominant voice on the employers' side of the machinery on employment matters affecting the industry as a whole; and the private port employers will be required to observe terms and conditions not less favourable than those observed by the nationalised authorities for similar work in the same area. In this way the Authority will make the running for the whole port industry in the improvement of productivity and of conditions of employment.
Under the proposals in this White Paper the National Ports Authority will, as the first necessity, concentrate its resources on the management and development of the major harbours where the great bulk of our trade is handled. It will be armed with powers and duties enabling it to bring into its own hands, speedily and in an orderly and manageable way, the main port operations. And it will be able to extend its control to other harbours if this is shown to be desirable in the interests of the efficient and economical movement of our imports and exports.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that important Statement which I am sure
1196
noble Lords will wish to debate, together with the accompanying White Paper, at an early date. But I cannot hide my dismay at these proposals. We on these Benches recognise the need for a national programme of port development and for greater concentration, but these objectives can perfectly well be achieved without further wholesale nationalisation. In any event, all of our larger ports, save one, are already in public ownership, and to re-shuffle the whole port pack now, with all the upheaval that it must cause, can only do damage to our export trade and to our economy as a whole. Moreover, the uncertainty involved for the smaller ports—which have shown commendable enterprise in recent years—by this Sword of Marsh which will now be suspended over them can also only do damage to the public interest.
May I put three questions to the noble Lord? First, in view of the obvious weakness of the existing nationalised industries, do the Government really believe that this further large slice of nationalisation will help to get our economy out of the red? Secondly, can be tell us what the compensation terms are designed to cover? I realise that this may be in the White Paper, but at first blush the sum of £25 million for these vast enterprises appears somewhat derisory. Thirdly, can the noble Lord inform us when and how this ageing Administration propose to carry out these proposals? What, in fact, is their programme?
LORD WADE: My Lords. I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating the Statement. In the course of the Statement he referred to the "urgency of the long-recognised need". I am sure many people would agree with those words so far as the improvement of port facilities is concerned. But would the noble Lord agree that two of the priorities are capital expenditure on redevelopment of the ports, and improvement in industrial relations between employers and em-employees? And what certainty is there that nationalisation will lead to a solution of either of these problems? Of course we must study the White Paper before commenting in detail, but is there not a very real danger that the creation of this new nationalised Authority will lead to an unnecessarily large bureaucracy, without achieving the ends desired?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I rightly anticipated the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade. As long as I have been in your Lordships' House, there has been a series of debates on the question of policy. But this scheme is not being put forward in any doctrinaire way. I do not think there is any doubt that our docks do not compare well with the major docks in Europe and in many other parts of the world, although we, as a country that lives by imports and exports, perhaps need efficient ports more than other countries. Clearly, we have not had them in the past and the Government do not believe that under the present system, which I understand the noble Earl still supports, we shall get the type of ports that are needed. But we shall no doubt debate this whole subject at some date, which can be arranged through the usual channels.
The National Ports Council have done a good deal of work, but we are not able at this present moment to see through them the proper concentration of resources in the ports that is undoubtedly necessary. This is the real reason why we feel that we should take this major step to-day. In regard to compensation, the £25 million refers to the harbours and not to the businesses and facilities that will be taken over in due course after vesting day. The £25 million refers merely to the privately owned ports, and I am thinking here of Manchester.
As regards legislation, one does not of course wish to prejudice the position, but it is our intention to introduce legislation in the next Session; and perhaps I may say to the noble Earl that this is being issued as a White Paper, and that between now and the presentation of a Bill there will he opportunities to discuss these matters not only in Parliament but also with the interested parties—although, of course, many detailed consultations have already taken place. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I would say that I do not anticipate any increase in bureaucracy because of this piece of legislation.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating this very important Statement. Obviously, we shall have to debate all this when the White Paper has been seen. I should like to ask one question. Nearly
1198
all the port authorities concerned are already public authorities subject to national planning, and it is not clear, in that context, just what nationalisation will mean. But I should like to ask whether the Government appreciate the disastrous effect of the long period of uncertainty that has already existed for some years among the privately owned stevedoring and wharf-operating businesses with very widespread ramifications, who do not know where they are or what part of their businesses will be taken over, and so on. The present uncertainty inhibits modernisation of their cargo-handling and other operations. Can the noble Lord give us any indication on this, and will he draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the importance of taking specific decisions on these particular questions as a matter of urgency?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Clearly we should not wish to see any slowing down of modernisation in the ports; and, in the case of private companies, when the compensation they are to receive is considered all new developments will be taken into account. I will certainly see that the point which the noble Lord has made is drawn specially to the attention of my right honourable friend.

SOCIAL SERVICES: THE SEEBOHM REPORT
4.13 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I must begin, by custom and by sincere conviction, with a word of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, for her initiative in provoking this debate. Obviously someone had to do it at some time, but the decision to embark on the task—demanding, as it obviously did, the mastery of an enormous document and the expression of opinions on many delicate and disputed matters—cannot have teen an easy one. Then I should like to lay my own little tribute of gratitude at the feet of Mr. Frederic Seebohm and his collaborators. They have done, in my view, a remarkable piece of work, and one which will take its place in the long line of reports which stand out as milestones

1199
in the social history of this country. From the Elizabethan Poor Laws to Beveridge was a long pilgrimage (although in my view it was as creditable to take the first steps in that pilgrimage as it was to take the last), and we may surely think that the name "Seebohm" will be associated with the next great event in this series, only to be surpassed in its turn by other developments as yet not visible to our eyes.
I have no difficulty in affording a warm welcome to the main provision of the Report—and an important feature of it is the way in which the whole project is brought into relation to this main provision—that of providing a unified social service department with responsibilities extending far beyond the limits of existing local authority departments. It fell to me to forward evidence to the Seebohm Committee on behalf of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility. It is naturally gratifying to see the proposals following closely the pattern set out in the evidence we submitted. If I may quote a brief extract from that evidence, it was:
"After the pruning off of services which are historical anomalies, local authority personal social services should all be gathered up into one department with a committee structure of its own directly responsible to the council and a specialised staff of social service administrators and workers headed up by a chief officer directly responsible to the council through a main personal social services committee."
I quote those words not to claim any particular credit for the evidence submitted, but only as an indication that the general trend of responsible opinion, both in the community at large and in the churches, is running in very much the same direction. I may mention that those giving evidence were encouraged by the Committee to cast it in a certain mould, which I think suggested that the Committee had a fairly clear idea at the start what kind of evidence they wanted.
I must say that when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was speaking I was struck by the extremely cautious—indeed, cool—reception which, on the whole, he gave to these proposals. It seemed to me as though he was very anxious that we should not attach more importance to this Report than he thought it deserved. In fact, at times I thought he was almost asking us to look at it, so to speak,
1200
through a reversed telescope in order to see it as something comparatively unimportant when set in the midst of all the other proposals that were under consideration at that time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate, perhaps I could remind him that one of the first things I said in my speech was that this was a monumental Report which would affect our thinking for decades to come. That is hardly a cool reception, or advising the House that it should be ignored.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, nor did I say that the noble Lord suggested that it should be ignored. I merely recorded the subjective impression that I had at the end of his speech. No doubt it was my fault if I did not consider every word that he said. But I was going on to say—and perhaps the noble Lord would not have been so anxious to interrupt me if he had known this—that I do not entirely criticise him for this because I think that a rather cautious attitude on such a proposal as this is absolutely necessary to any Government which has the responsibility of making these very difficult decisions.
I should now like to turn to a number of particular points in the Report on which I wish to comment in slightly more detail. First, I draw special attention to the chapter on Housing, Chapter XIII. The first essential for good family life is a place to live in, a home. Many of the problems with which social workers have to deal arise from inadequacies of family housing. Dealing with housing requirements is therefore central to the concerns which occupied the Seebohm Committee, particularly on the preventive side. Chapter XIII elaborates this concern and recommends that local housing authorities assume responsibility for all aspects of housing within their areas, including the nature and quality of provisions made in the private sector and by housing associations and societies. The homeless family, the large family, the handicapped and the aged should be included. These considerations do not imply that local housing authorities should themselves directly provide all the necessary housing, but that they should exercise general oversight.

1201
Apart from the aged and the handicapped, needy people are frequently both highly mobile and poor. They consequently do not reach local authority lists; nor can they pay the normal rents charged for local authority dwellings. These facts lead to the conclusion that subsidies should be related to tenants and not to dwellings. The really important point made in this chapter is the urgent need for a combined housing advisory service and a housing aid service. Citizens need one central agency in each area to which they can go to with their own housing problem and which is equipped to give them the help they need. It is only necessary to seek to find a way through the maze of housing legislation to appreciate that this service cannot be rendered by the ordinary citizens' advice bureaux. Add to these the Rent Acts, the local authorities' system of housing allocation, the Industrial Selection Scheme, mortgages and bank loans and the fact that family needs and potentialities vary, and it can be well understood that an expert housing advisory service is needed. Linked with it should be a housing aid service to help those who can, with care, purchase their own dwellings. Such people need assistance with savings, mortgages, property assessment and with the law. Both these services require that those giving the advice and help should know about the housing situation in other parts of the country as well as their own.
Add to these reflections the urgent need for a person or a family making an inquiry to secure an answer and not to be told to go to another address (which is often miles away) and it becomes quite clear that all the relevant knowledge and guidance should be concentrated in one place in each local authority area. Such a service can help a lot of people to solve their own problems and can identify those who will need more continuous care.
Shelter, in co-operation with the Catholic Housing Aid Society and the British Churches Housing Trust, is considering the establishment of a housing advisory centre in London. The pioneering work has already been done by the Catholic Housing Aid Society and its experience and that of the British Churches Housing Trust will be available in setting up this new independent Shelter housing advisory centre. The intention behind this proposal is to devise a service which can be
1202
developed all over the country by local authorities and their housing departments. It will provide experience for future local authority action and in the meantime will assist a large number of families whose problems might not otherwise be dealt with.
Before leaving the subject of housing, may I draw your Lordships' special attention to paragraph 403 of the Report. It says that families
"should not, in any circumstances, be split up on reception into temporary accommodation."
It also stresses the importance of privacy for families even in the most temporary accommodation. We have seen some of the unfortunate results of such separation in cases under the control of the Kent County Council; but it is a problem affecting all areas of the country where there is homelessness. I must remind your Lordships that there are on any one night some 3,000 homeless families in England and Wales; and one-third of them being received into temporary accommodation have to be split up. It is strange that society has been so ready to admit the need for food and shelter for each member of a homeless family but has been comparatively blind to the need to keep that family together at all costs.
My Lords, I now turn to a subject in which the churches are particularly interested: the part to be played in the new situation by the voluntary organisations. I stress "organisations", because the part of individual volunteers is a separate question. The paragraphs where this matter is dealt with are paragraphs 211, 495 and 496. The later paragraphs are the more general in their application. Here the pioneering work of voluntary organisations is recognised and a "major role" (paragraph 495) is still envisaged for them. But the same sentence draws attention to the problems which the voluntary societies may offer to the local authorities. Paragraph 496 states:
"The social service department should play an important part in giving support, both financial and professional, to vigorous, outward-looking voluntary organisations which can demonstrate good standards of service, provide opportunities for appropriate training for their workers both professional and voluntary and show a flair for innovation."
Progressive thought among voluntary organisations will recognise the shrewdness with which these conditions have

1203
been listed and will not quarrel with their main import. There may, however, be some lack of proportion in the way that the Report sets out the problem. It might have been better if they had begun by saying that such a vast work is at present being carried on by the voluntary organisations—by the Red Cross, by the W.R.V.S., by the associations for the blind, the deaf and the handicapped—that no scheme could be devised which could rapidly supersede them. But that is by the way.
My Lords, paragraph 211 makes three points about the services for unmarried mothers. It states clearly that there is no intention that the voluntary bodies should be superseded. This is perhaps wise, for the Church of England alone deals with some 30,000 cases a year in this field, has 5,000 cases annually in its residential homes, and arranges some 2,500 adoptions yearly. The Church welcomes the view that there should be:
"a clear assignment of responsibility to the social service department for ensuring adequate social care and advice for both the unmarried mother and her child."
It expects that in many cases, and for a long time to come, the community will be glad to use the voluntary organisations as agents for this community care in view of their unrivalled experience in this field. It has no objection to the request that there should be:
"a realistic alternative source of assistance to those unmarried mothers who do not wish to approach religious bodies…"
But if this suggests that religion is to be pushed down the throats of clients in this field, I am sure the view is usually mistaken. When the Diocesan Moral Welfare Organisation in my own diocese had that name—it is now, as nearly everywhere, the Council for Social Work —the girl clients had their own way of secularising it: they just called it "the Welfare". I do not think they worried very much about anything else.
My Lords, may I now address myself to one of the most important chapters in the Report, Chapter XVI on "The Community". This is where the Report really strikes out into new territory. It is here, if anywhere, that it shows some promise of fulfilling the third sentence of paragraph 2 in the introductory summary on page 11, where it says:
1204
"This new department will, we believe, reach far beyond the discovery and rescue of social casualties; it will enable the greatest possible number of individuals to act reciprocally, giving and receiving service for the well-being of the whole community."
This possibility is explored more fully in Chapter XVI. Although the Report rightly says that it is not seeking nostalgically to reproduce small rural communities in large urban areas, it is clearly motivated by a desire to produce some sense of identity, some feeling of belonging, some network of privileges and acknowledged duties not unlike that which has frequently sustained smaller communities, given their members something to live up to, supported them in trouble, and increased their joy in times of happiness and prosperity.
The Report envisages a quite new form of social responsibility for local authority departments, a responsibility to encourage and stimulate forms of community awareness by helping groups of all kind to be aware of the needs of the community and to demand from the community, usually through the authority, the services which they need. For this purpose some areas will be seen to present a claim for special help. It is interesting to see "social development areas" coming into the picture corresponding, in some way, with developing nations on the world scale. Here is place for volunteers, and the Report foresees the appointment of area officers alongside the departmental head with special aptitude for and training in the right use of volunteers. It is impossible here to go into more detail, but I would respectfully urge noble Lords and, of course, the Government, to pay special attention to that chapter. How far a true community sense can be developed from the local town hall without a quite unacceptable new kind of paternalism will appear only with time, but the effort is certainly worth making. It is one in which the churches will be specially interested and where they can undoubtedly make their own distinctive contribution.
My Lords, as I have been, in the main, handing out "chocolate drops" to members of the Seebohm Committee, I hope they will not mind if I end with a few "acid drops". I notice, for instance, that the words "churches" and "clergy" or "ministers of religion" do not appear in the index and I found only one brief

1205
reference to churches in the whole Report. This is strange when one remembers that the churches are the most widely supported form of community activity in the country and that there are 18,000 Anglican clergy alone, most of them in daily touch with people in trouble and distress. With rare exceptions they reside in their parishes and this is unlike anything that can be said of almost any other profession. No individual minister of religion is listed as giving evidence, although I make no complaint at all of the weight given to church organisations. But a man like Canon Norman Power, who has put up such a fight for the actual people involved in the re-housing of the Ladywood area of Birmingham, would have had a lot of important things to say. The churches realise that they themselves have to do a lot of new thinking about the social implications of their work, and in February the Church Assembly will debate an important report on the Church and the social services.
One does get a little tired of the continual harping that the day of charity has passed. The Report says:
"The day when voluntary organisations could act as vehicles for upper and middle class philanthropy appropriate to the social structure of Victorian Britain is now passed."
That is in paragraph 496. Well, yes indeed it is, if anything so anachronistic still exists. But almost every voluntary organisation that I have ever known—and Leicester is exceptionally rich in such organisations—depends a great deal on upper and middle class philanthropy, and it would be a sad day if those who are better off lost their sense of responsibility in these matters. The family service units have pioneered the very form of family care envisaged in this Report, and for their financial backing have relied on the very form of support from professional and business circles which is here relegated to an outworn past. I think we have to face the fact that nature has ordained that strong can help weak. Parents are stronger than children; middle-aged people are stronger than old people, and we can never rid ourselves altogether of the responsibilities of various kinds of hierarchies of strength and resources, not only financial but also personal. But these, my Lords, are very small "flies" in a large pot of very precious ointment, and, having mentioned
1206
them, I end with renewed gratitude to the authors of the Report and an expression of hope that rapid progress nay be made towards the implementation of the proposals.
4.35 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, as other speakers have said, we must all feel grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, for initiating this debate on a subject of great importance. Like them I join in welcoming this Report. It covers a wide field wind, overlaps and interlocks with that covered by a number of other Reports, notably the Green Paper on The Administrative Structure of the Medical and Related Services to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, referred; the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government which we eagerly await and that of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, with its recommendations on the administrative structure of the Health Service. The list is not exhaustive. If my remarks stray on to matters not perhaps strictly within the terms of the Seebohm Report itself but closely related to and interlocking with them, I am sure your Lordships will bear with me.
It is the Health Service aspect with which I am particularly concerned. The general trend of all these Reports, except that of the Royal Commission on Local Government which we have not yet seen, is towards unification aid regionalisation. Let me make clear that when I use the word "regionalisation" I mean government on a basis of region, area, district, locality—whatever you may choose to call it. Regionalisation is fashionable to-day. It is part of the same trend of which the desire for Scottish and Welsh self-government are other manifestations. A desire for political and administrative fragmentation is rather curious at a time when, in the world of commerce, mergers are the most striking feature. But in the field of administration regionalisation has a good deal to be said for it, so long as it is not carried too far.
Unification, on the other hand, is something about which, in the field of the social services—and I take that phrase to include, as Seebohm does, housing and education and the health services—is something about which we can a I unreservedly agree in principle. We can

1207
all agree with the recommendation of the Seebohm Committee that the social service department and the housing, education and health departments must be the undivided responsibility of the same local authority; just as we can all agree with the desire expressed in the Green Paper that there should be ideally a single authority for medical and related services in each area.
My Lords, the question is what this really means; how far it can be carried; how far it can in practice be achieved. If it means—I quote from the Minister's foreword to the Green Paper:
"in each area a new type of local authority such as may be created after the, Royal Commission on Local Government has reported"—
and the suggestion is only tentatively put forward by the Minister: if it means that, then those of us who remember the old municipal hospital service would almost unanimously deplore a reversion to anything of that kind. I was myself a member of the old Hospitals Committee of the London County Council and I am not without some little experience of the whole picture of the transition from the municipal hospital service to the national hospital service. I had the good fortune to be for seven years chairman of the Regional Hospital Board. I was for some years a member of the board of governors of an undergraduate teaching hospital, Middlesex, and I have been for twenty years a member of the board of governors of a post-graduate teaching hospital, Hammersmith, of which I am at the present time the chairman. So, my Lords, I have seen this matter from a number of different points of view.
When the National Health Service was brought into existence twenty years ago there were widespread fears, natural enough, that it would result in the levelling down of the service given to the public, more particularly by the hospitals. Those fears have not been realised—indeed, precisely the opposite. So far from there having been a levelling down, there has been almost everywhere a most notable raising of the standards of the hospital service. This has been due not so much to any particular virtue in the setup, which is in many ways open to criticism: if it were not, there would have been no need for the Green Paper nor for those parts of the Seebohm Re-
1208
port which deals with the health services. It has been due in part to the unification of the hospital service under the general control and direction of a single Ministry, and even more to the development, at the instance of that Ministry, of a very much higher standard of consultant staffing.
Speaking broadly, the pattern of the administration of hospitals in a number of large regions—14 in England and Wales—by Regional Hospital Boards under the Ministry seems to work, and, on the whole, to work well. There are, of course, difficulties and frustrations. Some regions are better administered than others, but the local inequalities are far less than in the days of the old municipal service, and the general standard is far higher. We should, it seems to me, be very careful to make sure that we shall have something better before we reorganise the whole affair for the sake of a further unified administration, unified on the basis of perhaps 40 or 50 Area Health Boards covering much smaller areas, such as is envisaged in the Green Paper. It may be right to do so, but we may well in the process lose a great deal more than we gain.
I am particularly concerned with the place of the teaching hospitals in the new pattern for the social and health services that is contemplated in these Reports and especially with the place of the postgraduate teaching hospitals of London. All hospitals have as their prime purpose to serve the interests of the patients in their care, but the teaching hospitals have also a responsibility of no less importance: that of training the doctors and consultants who are needed for the service of the public, both in and outside the hospitals, and also for the great bulk of the research that constantly carries forward the endless battle against the forces of sickness and disease.
The provincial teaching hospitals can, I think, fit without great difficulty, and without detriment to their teaching activities, into a pattern of regional or area administration. They serve as the natural focus on which the health and the hospital services in their area are centred; and they have close ties with their universities. The great metropolitan concentration of undergraduate teaching hospitals, such as St. Thomas's and Westminster, Bart's

1209
and Guy's, the Middlesex and the rest—there are a dozen of them, with world-famous names—present more of a difficulty, owing to their concentration in such numbers in a limited metropolitan area. But if they can work together in groups, as I am sure they can, they too can fit into an area pattern without great detriment to their work, and possibly indeed with some advantage to it.
It is the post-graduate teaching hospitals that do not fit into this pattern. Before I go into the reasons for this I must deal with a common source of misconception, the misconception that is due to a failure to differentiate between two entirely different kinds of post-graduate teaching, a differentiation that is not made at all clear in the Todd Report. There is, first, the post-registration training of consultants and general practitioners all over the country, as it is carried on for the most part in the regional hospitals. A great extension of such further training is desirable, and indeed necessary, and is recommended by Todd.
But that is something quite different from the advanced specialist teaching and research that are carried on by the 14 London post-graduate teaching hospitals. These hospitals are training every year some 3,600 doctors, already qualified, two-thirds of them from overseas, many of whom eventually return to positions of responsibility and leadership in their own countries. The advanced teaching and research carried on in these 14 hospitals is something quite different, in its range and its depth, from the further training of general practitioners, and it is virtually ignored by the Todd Report and the Green Paper.
These post-graduate teaching hospitals are all specialist hospitals, some large and some small, but almost all with the highest international reputation. Hammersmith, indeed, is a general hospital, but it is organised on a basis of highly integrated specialist departments. These 14 hospitals draw to London doctors from all over the world in large numbers and the work they do does much to fertilise the arts of medicine throughout the world. It is said that the Todd Commission were told in evidence that the drawing power of London is losing strength. This evidence, I believe, was directed specifically to the undergraduate medical schools. It
1210
may be that the attraction of the United States is increasing, but the demand for special post-graduate education in London certainly shows no falling off in either the number or the quality of applications from doctors from overseas. The brain-drain of teachers from London to the United States is, however, serious, and it is basically due to inadequate finance—not so much, perhaps, to salary differentials, though they are serious, as to inadequate buildings and equipment This is the aspect of this particular matter which calls for the most urgent attention.
These special hospitals, the postgraduate teaching hospitals of London, cannot from their very nature be fitted conveniently into a regional pattern giving a district service, since they give a specialist service to patients referred from many different parts of the country, and from overseas, too, as well as from their own district. The Todd recommendations and the Green Paper proposals simply do not apply to them. The Royal Commission on Medical Education did not really face this problem at all. They evaded it by recommending the disappearance a these special hospitals as independent entities by their absorption in the London undergraduate teaching hospitals.
Perhaps I am a little off the Seebohm Report, my Lords, but I shall shortly be finished and I hone that your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes more. A close association with the undergraduate teaching hospitals is indeed desirable, and in most cases already exists; but if the arrangement by which these post-graduate to aching hospitals are administered by boards of governors directly under the Ministry is to he altered at all (and it is very easily understood that the Ministry might prefer not to deal directly with the problems of a number of highly individual hospitals, some of them very small), then they should in my view, with ate possible exception of some of the smaller hospitals that might become integrated into the precincts of general hospitals, be federated as a single and separate group of post-graduate hospitals for the purpose of administration by the Ministry while retaining their separate identities. That is the only way in which they can be fitted into the new pattern without grave detriment to the value of their work in the international field.

1211
It would be quite wrong that such major specialist hospitals as the Maudsley, for example, should, for mere administrative convenience, be administered by a single board with a general hospital. The same applies to Queen's Square, to Great Ormond Street, to Moorfields, to Stanmore, to Queen Charlotte's, the Brompton and others. Even though a close working association of the special post-graduate hospitals with general hospitals is agreed to be necessary, their efficient administration demands boards that are immersed in their particular problems and requirements markedly different from those of a general hospital.
One or two of the small special postgraduate hospitals might well be administered by special committees of the hoards of governors of the general teaching hospitals with which they are associated. But however closely integrated they are with those hospitals, it is as essential that their individual identity as special hospitals, and indeed their names (most of which are known throughout the world), should be retained as it is that the post-graduate teaching institutes that depend on them should preserve their separate identities. What is really required appears to be some arrangement parallel with the British Postgraduate Medical Federation, that extraordinary organism that comprises the teaching institutes of these hospitals, and provides these hospitals with their medical staff. It is a single school of the University of London, with 3,700 qualified doctors from all over the world as students, with nearly 600 recognised teachers, and more than 70 professors of the University—a school that is, incidentally, most happily free from the student unrest that nowadays bedevils so many teaching establishments.
There is one further point to which I must draw the attention of your Lordships before I sit down. Todd recommends that the Ministry should pay for the post-graduate teaching done in hospitals. This may well be appropriate—indeed I think it is right—in respect of the further training of general practitioners and junior hospital staff in regional hospitals; but it would quite stultify the more advanced teaching and research carried out under university
1212
leadership in the London post-graduate teaching hospitals.
I say that for this reason. The British Postgraduate Medical Federation and its institutes in the individual hospitals depend for their revenues, in the main, on two sources. About £2 million a year comes from the University, and more than half as much again, more than £1 million a year, from voluntary sources, in the form of research grants and the like. They also receive from time to time very large capital grants from voluntary sources. Quite apart from the essential need for the closest possible ties with the University of London—ties which happily exist to-day—if this work were to be taken over by the Ministry, or to depend on the Ministry for its finance, it is quite certain that these vital revenues from voluntary sources, and the capital sums also, would dwindle away. Donors will still give to universities for teaching and research who would not dream of subsidising a Ministry. The work of specialist teaching and research in the post-graduate teaching hospitals, which is one of the great success stories of the nation since the end of the last war, would be almost completely stultified, and that is something which we should all agree cannot be allowed to happen.
My Lords, if I have talked perhaps too much about hospitals, I can only say that the service given by hospitals is certainly a personal service. It used to be a local authority service in this country, but I hope that it will not be again, because I am sure that that would be to its detriment. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that when the Government are considering action on the very complex and difficult issues that are raised in these Reports that we are discussing to-day they will give full weight to the particular aspects that I have raised this afternoon.
4.55 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity of discussing what must be one of the most vital Reports that, as a community, we are likely to consider for some time to come. I think I ought to make it quite clear that I approach the matter this afternoon from

1213
the standpoint of someone who worked for many years as a professional social worker, professionally trained, and who has assisted in recent years in the training of social workers. I find myself in some difficulty, because, in principle, I favour the suggestion of the creation of a "comprehensive, community-based, family-orientated, social service" which is to be available to everyone in the community, but instinctively—and I want to make this quite clear—I am apprehensive of the establishment of a monolithic social service department as envisaged in the Report. The idea that there should be one door through which all who are seeking help should enter I find very attractive, but this in itself is no guarantee that those seeking help will, when they get on the other side of it, find skilled, competent and expert service.
I am also concerned that throughout the Report there is—at least, it appears to me to be so—a strong undercurrent of emphasis on the multi-purpose social worker, generic trained for that purpose. In the Report there seem to me to be too few concessions to specialisation at the actual working front level; and if this is so (I admit that I may be wrong in my assumption) it could be harmful to the client from the treatment point of view. At the moment—and let us take some pride in the fact—those of us who have spent a fair amount of time in a number of countries abroad have, I think, always returned to this country profoundly grateful that we have enjoyed here for many years a vast and comprehensive network of social services, statutory and voluntary. And I think we have to face this fact also: that for many years many of them have been providing a marked degree of specialist help. I fear that this may be watered down if there is too great an emphasis on the multi-purpose social worker, who might turn out to be a Jack-of-all-trades and master of none.
It should be recognised that there must—and I want to emphasis the word "must"—be limits to the capacity of the generic-trained social worker; and I find it difficult to believe that even a highly trained social worker could deal effectively with the range of problems envisaged for the multi-purpose trained social worker. These problems include
1214
mental health, adolescent difficulties, social inadequacies, children and families, unmarried mothers, matrimonial problems, adoptions, the educationally subnormal, to mention only a few. I think we have to keep in the forefront of our minds that we are learning more and more about people every day—about their behaviour and their problems s—and if it teaches us anything at all it teaches us that we need great specialisation if we are to understand those problems and to give adequate help to the client. I believe that the generic trained approach could prove to be not only administratively inefficient but in many instances unhelpful to the client.
All this is going to be put at the foot of the town hall authorities. The town hall, which is to be the supreme authority, to be responsible for the social work department, is not everybody's idea of a Mecca, and to many the town hall image leaves much to be desired. I understand it is even regarded by some as the dead hand of precedent, full of political prejudices and revealing too much red tape. If this new social work department is to provide a service for all, then mar y local authorities will have to undergo a change, be less authoritarian and more approachable and more understanding, and be capable of attracting all sections of the community to use its services, and not lust the lower socio-economic group. This will he best achieved if there is recognition of the contribution which is already being made by a number of voluntary societies and by retaining them wherever possible as agents of the local authority, rather than attempting to absorb them in the local government setup. I do not think we ought to encourage local authorities to become empire builders, but indicate to them how to use the various skills outside the town hall, of which there are a considerable number.
I find that the role of the voluntary organisation is not clearly defined in the Report. To put it mildly, I think it would be unfortunate if the local authority social work department attempted to take over all voluntary effort in the field of social service. Generally speaking, voluntary societies in this country are doing a good job. Many of them are open to criticism, but so are a good many of the departments in our local authorities. I

1215
venture to suggest that the majority of our voluntary organisations are doing a very good job. Many are doing it not only effectively but much more cheaply than it could be done by local government. The financial aspect is of supreme importance, for it has been the lack of adequate financial resources which has made it impossible for some local authorities to develop adequately their existing social work responsibility, without taking on more. It is the lack of adequate financial resources that has caused a fair number of local authorities up and down this country to employ social workers who have not been adequately trained.
Paragraphs 495 to 500 of the Report do not make it clear, at least not to me, whether reference is being made to voluntary organisations or to voluntary workers working for statutory agencies. An organisation just because it is a voluntary organisation does not necessarily lack professionalism, either in its approach or in its skill and competence. Many voluntary organisations would have no difficulty whatsoever in meeting the requirements referred to in paragraph 496, of being
"vigorous, outward-looking voluntary organistions which can demonstrate good standards of service."
There are voluntary organisations functioning in the field of social work to-day with a higher standard of selection and training for their voluntary workers than is given to some full-time social workers employed by some local authorities.
Voluntary social work has always been a part—and, I want to suggest, an important part—of our way of life. I believe we have more voluntary workers in social and community work to-day than we have ever had before. I hope nothing will be done to discourage that vast army by mobilising them to the suggested newly-established social work department, which appears to be the suggestion in paragraph 498, for it states:
"it will be more and more necessary for local authorities to enlist the services of large numbers of volunteers to complement the teams of professional workers, and the social service department must"—
"must", your Lordships will notice—
"become a focal point to which those who wish to give voluntary help can offer their services."
1216
I am inclined to think that there will be a substantial number of voluntary workers who would prefer to make their contribution outside the setting of the local authority rather than within it. The assumption in paragraph 499 that volunteers cannot replace professional workers I believe shows a lack of understanding of what some voluntary workers can do, and are doing at this moment, in the field of social work to-day. Many are already professionally qualified, but they prefer to work without payment for the community through voluntary organisations.
My noble friend Lord Amulree made reference to the Probation Service, so perhaps I have an excuse to bring that in, although in the ordinary way I do not require any encouragement. Although the Committee were precluded from reviewing the operations of the Probation and After-care Service, some of the Committee's recommendations, if carried into effect, would affect that Service. I hope the Government will not be tempted, when framing legislation to implement the Seebohm Report, to change in any way the Probation Service. I recognise that this is not the appropriate time to discuss the future of the Probation Service, but I ask the Government to recognise that the Probation and After-care Service must remain an integral part of the administration of justice and be totally involved in the treatment of the offender. We are moving towards the integration of all those agencies responsible for dealing with offenders, and we accept this as a good and desirable thing, but in view of the very special nature of probation and after-care work I hope that its uniqueness will be recognised, and that it will be allowed to stand apart from the concept of a general personal service. I hope, my Lords, it will not be necessary for me to argue this more fully at some future date.
I acknowledge that the Seebohm Report makes an important contribution to new thinking on the social services and that it reflects a detailed investigation. Nevertheless, I would again say to the Government that I hope they will resist any pressure to introduce legislation too quickly and will not be in a hurry to implement the recommendations of this Report until further consideration has been given to certain proposals.
5.9 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I must admit great distress because I can think of no words in which to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, or the Seebohm Committee, in terms different from those which have already been suggested. But as a woman who works very hard herself, I should like to pay tribute to the immense amount of hard work which must have gone into this Report, which in itself is so stimulating and exciting to those of us who work on the ground. This Report is not only a splendid document; it is also of such first-class thought-provoking shape that it should be read and considered by everyone working in the field of social service, and after being read it should come back again and again to one's mind so that one could make certain that one had not only considered but understood the implications of the recommendations made.
To my mind, the objective of a family service is a great move forward because of the principle that lies behind the proposals, namely, that in the future work will be based simply on the family and not on the symptoms. The aim from start to finish in the whole of the Report is to secure an effective family service. I am quite certain, as many other people must be, that this is a gigantic undertaking—much bigger than people realise at first—and that the various services involved will have a great deal of reorganising to do before they are able to meld in anything like a worthwhile degree.
To those who work on the ground, by which I mean within the community with individuals at the local level, the advantages of this breakdown are not only very apparent but extremely welcome. To a woman with a family, a series of different social workers visiting her leave her completely bemused. Her mentality (which often demands the visits) finds it well nigh impossible to distinguish between the social service visitor from the welfare department, the children's officer, the school welfare officer, the probation officer or the health visitor, and so she refers to them all vaguely as "the welfare lady" or "The welfare gent". The advantage of having one person visiting the family, in whom confidence is really felt, would be beyond words, and overcoming all the difficult-
1218
ties and obstacles (which would be many) would be more than worth while.
If in fact, as recommended in the Report, there were to be a complete change of local government machinery in regard to their personal social services, the transition from to-day's workings to to-morrow's methods would certainly entail changes for many responsible persons as well as dislocation of hopes, aspirations and ambitions; and this, I am quite convinced, must be taken into account from the outset. The advantage of ending divided responsibility and the possibility of ultimately developing one adequate career structure should not in any way be under-estimated. The criticism of a monolithic structure can he overcome only by those of good will who believe in real and honest delegation, and who would in every way act with generosity and with wisdom. I am a little afraid that in those local authorities which have not grasped the real value of the recommendations it may be only the clear-sighted and visionary who will he able to grasp these facts, and one must be ready to help those persons who are perhaps more shortsighted.
Recently a senior local authority official is said to have declared that he hated the whole Report from start to finish but he recognised that in his hatred there was a great measure of his own personal feelings and he realised to the full that the man who sat in his chair in some years' time would be operating the scheme with ease and with complete certainty that this was the right way to proceed. I cannot help feeling that we should all aim to speed up this forward-looking approach. Recommendations which simplify complicated and outmoded methods should surely he welcomed, and it is so tiresome that everybody is always ready to accept a change for somebody else but never for themselves. I feel that those who are organising and operating must certainly be deeply aware, from the outset, of the human ambitions and inevitable personal disappointments which will present themselves and may seem to be almost insurmountable obstacles. I am convinced that unless those who steer are of strong character and great understanding, human relationships could wreck many of the recommendations. The hazards must be recognised in order that they may be met and overcome.

1219
As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said, as a nation we are proud of the welfare that is available to our citizens. But such welfare should undoubtedly make the community in which they reside realise that welfare is more than just available. History has taught us this, and we know that what we are aiming to achieve is not something which can be bought just for cash. Welfare workers are not clock-watchers; they spend themselves unstintingly because of their belief in the work they are doing. And if, by participation—and I mean real participation—local residents can be involved, a great depth of understanding, as well as recognition of true values, can be achieved within the community as a whole. This makes me feel very much in favour of the suggestion that the forward viewing of areas should not be greater than could be undertaken by teams of up to 12 social workers.
The team, as envisaged, is of highly skilled professionals, and the voluntary workers on whom it is proposed they should call could be best forthcoming if, as has been mentioned more than once this afternoon, they were provided by a responsible and trusted body. This means that voluntary organisations should be forward looking and preparing their members to be valuable helpers and, indeed, often (as has been mentioned) "sub-contractors" to the professionals, each clearly understanding—and this is important—their relationship one to the other.
Careful preparation by the responsible organisation would make the volunteer much more worthwhile to the professional, and the fact that someone is responsible for the volunteers will guarantee replacement in the case of illness or enforced absence, and a standard of performance which, as in all other walks of life, has to be watched in order to be maintained. If professionals set out to collect their own volunteers they are either doomed to disappointment and frustration or are embarking on an undertaking which will demand too much of them, personally, away from their professional work, because (as I know from long experience), volunteers, like all other personnel, have to be handled carefully; and that takes time, thought and energy.
While my responsibility (and I declare an interest) is in the field of voluntary
1220
service, my outlook, of necessity, takes cognisance of a much wider field. Many years of work with local authorities has convinced me that if volunteers are realistic and reliable and constant in their work, statutory bodies will use them to the full and encourage them in experimental fields of endeavour. This involves more and more individual interest in the community, and this is surely what we are aiming to get. Work to-day in the whole field of voluntary service is very much more real and practical, for those who care to participate to the full; and I believe that there are more and more people to-day who are ready to make a contribution of their own individual energy, and who will, by that contribution, make their participation within the community a real thing. Greater leisure will provide such opportunity, and if only wisdom could prevail, tremendous good could come to the community, and indeed to the country, through the recommendations of this Report.
The implementation of the Seebohm Report must of necessity be related, as so many speakers have said, to decisions on local government and the Health Service, but if a statement of intent could be made by Her Majesty's Government it should be done as soon as possible, because uncertainty breeds restlessness among all concerned. It is quite obvious that translating so complicated a Report's recommendations into legislation, let alone into operation, must of necessity take time. I would urge that during this inevitable time lag moves forward may be made continuously and with definite purpose; otherwise I fear that much that is supremely good may be lost.
5.20 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, this debate has already ranged over a very wide field, perhaps wider even than that covered by the Seebohm Report. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has made out a strong case for a full-scale debate on the Todd Report on Medical Education and it is to be hoped that the date when such a debate may be held is not too far distant. But certainly the complete reorganisation of the social services in conjunction with the existing health services is long overdue.
The proposals of the Seebohm Report have by the general consensus of opinion,

1221
we have heard this afternoon, been warmly welcomed. Many of them are excellent; some indeed are magnificent. But their whole purpose will fail unless the humanising of the National Health Service and the whole structure of our social services is put in the forefront. This point must be rammed home to the people of the country. It is far more important than the efficiency of the services, or the economy of manpower, or the saving of cost. Of course these are vitally important issues in themselves, but far more important is the recognition that it is the patient, the person in need, who counts first and foremost, and that the interests of the patient will be best served by these new proposals.
There are just two or three points, out of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, has described as a mine of information, that one would like to single out and stress this afternoon. First, I feel that much more can be done to bring the health services and the social services closer together, both through the hospitals and through the general practitioner. It has been said that the Seebohm Report was given a frosty welcome in certain sections of the medical profession. I do not believe this to be so. I feel that the more the proposals of the Seebohm Report are investigated the more they will receive a generally warm welcome, not only among social workers but also among the medical profession themselves.
I think that many now condemn the endless amount of time that is wasted to-day by highly skilled surgeons and consulting physicians on the various hospital committees. If, as a result of this Report, taken in conjunction with the Government's Green Paper, something can be worked out so that this needless waste of time can be eliminated, and so that all this valuable mass of manpower —perhaps the most skilled in the whole of our social services—can be directed to the purposes for which it was originally intended, it will be worth while indeed. The Area Boards, once they were constituted, would invite representations and advice, and in that way a good deal of this needless waste of time that I have mentioned could be avoided altogether. That would be one of the most desirable results of any reorganisa-
1222
tion of the National Health Service and the local authority social services.
Equally, I feel that a great deal can be done to bring about the closer working of the health services and the social services if the general practitioner himself is brought more closely into the revised proposals. Reference has been made to the existing schemes of postgraduate education. Here I feel that the general practitioner could be given far greater facilities than he new enjoys of closer contact with recent advances in medicine, research in medical work. If some post-graduate courses of instruction were geared more to the actual interests and the welfare of the patients, not only would access to the hospitals be more open and freer to the general practitioner, but the implications of the work of the hospitals in terms of the social services could be brought home more closely to the general practitioner, and great advances would be made in the interests of the patient.
I should like the care and the welfare of patients admitted by the general practitioner into our hospitals to be not less than that of a wealthy patient admitted into a nursing home, who receives the utmost care and attention not only from consultants but from the general practitioner himself. If clinical courses could be arranged specifically on the patients admitted into hospital by the general practitioner, then I think enormous advances could be made to help the patient after his discharge from hospital in terms of rehabilitation and his return as a useful member of the community.
The third point I would stress is the doubts that exist in the minds of so many people that these proposals may result in the creation of a new form of bureaucracy in place of the existing bureaucratic machinery. As we all know, there has grown over the National Health Service a mass of dead wood, accumulated over a period of twenty years. A great deal can be done to-day in terms of not only laying down a clear policy but improving the efficiency of the existing service. I am particularly concerned about the uneasiness that exists in the minds of parents of children who are mentally handicapped and who have to be admitted into a hospital or an institution. These children are cut off from their home surroundings, and from their

1223
parents. Many of the existing barriers have now been broken down. In many hospitals the children can be visited freely; the medical staffs and the nursing staffs are readily available to help the child, to advise the parents, and generally a good friendly relationship has been created. But there are natural fears of the parents that if a new reorganised system is set up, they may be more removed than they are at the present moment from access to the nurses and doctors who are looking after their children. Many of them feel also—and these are natural fears in the case of parents whose children are kept in a hospital over a long period of years—that their complaints are likely to go less heeded in the future than they are at present.
Although we know that these fears may be largely unfounded, I feel that an integral part of any new health structure should be, as envisaged in the Green Paper, the appointment of health commissioners attached to the Area Boards. In the same way as Parliament has seen fit now to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner, an Ombudsman, so I think a great deal could be done by giving free outlet to the complaints, whether founded or unfounded, of so many parents who are uneasy about the welfare of their children, by the appointment of these Health Ombudsmen. To my mind the essence of a new democratic structure is not the election or appointment of any new officials by democratic means, but the provision of a free outlet for the expressions of opinion and, if need be, of complaints (to the widest extent) down at the grass roots, so that any parents under a sense of grievance have immediate access to an outlet by which their grievances can be redressed.
My Lords, I would conclude as I began. The aim of any new centralised authority must be to humanise the whole system, and the whole approach to these social and health problems from the point of view of the mass of the community, of the ordinary patient, of the ordinary child who is in need. So far from creating a new bureaucratic machine or, as many people seem to dread, a machine in the form of a bureaucratic juggernaut, the Government should seek to stress above all that any reform suggested in the Seebohm Report will be carried out in
1224
order to humanise existing social services.
May I endorse the plea put forward by Lady Swanborough, by quoting these words from the Seebohm Report:
"Pending legislation, we urge the Government to make a clear statement of their intentions, so that local authorities and any other bodies concerned can start making preparations accordingly."
That, I think, is an opportunity which presents itself to the Government at the conclusion of this debate. I would urge upon the Government to make now a clear statement of their intentions and to state categorically that they accept, in general principle, the implications and recommendations of the Seebohm Report, so that any existing doubts in the minds of the medical profession, in the minds of social workers and in the minds of the people of this country, may immediately be set at rest.
5.34 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to take part in this debate, and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, for having initiated it, and also to say that I agree with the general principles of this Report, the Seebohm Report. There seems to have been no reason—it is only historical in fact—for the build-up of our social services in this country in such a departmental and fragmentary way. The last of the committees, the local authority committees, designated to deal with children were, after all, set up only in 1948, and if you study the historical progress of social work, starting in the medical field and spreading right through the community, there seems every reason why now, in 1969, we should try to co-ordinate and make a simpler form of administration for the social services. I say "simpler", but of course nothing is simple and the reorganisation is going to be difficult. Nevertheless, I agree with both Seebohm and the equivalent of Seebohm in Scotland—that is. The Kilbrandon Report—in which my activities take place, that it is a good plan to start now.
I speak with some experience because I have been chairman of two of the committees involved in this type of reorganisation, the children's committee and the probation committee, which in Scotland will form part of the new social work

1225
department. I was asked the other day, and was elected, to be chairman in my own county council of the new social work committee. I have chosen as my vice-chairman (this, I hope, will please Lord Segal) a general practitioner who is a member of the county council. So in the area in which I live we are going to start from the grass roots up. Whether or not we shall succeed, I have no idea; but this is going to be the great challenge and I have agreed to take it on.
Looking back on the twenty years during which I have been chairman of the children's committee and the probation committee, I have many times realised how much better it would have been if the cases with which one was dealing, the family case, the children's case, could have been dealt with by one person or a group of people, because often cases would pass from department to department, and, unless a careful check was kept between one department and another, vital information was not passed on, and quite often muddle took place which might have been avoided had there been a more co-ordinated social service department in which we were operating.
I agree, too, that it is most important to get all the help we can from the voluntary organisations. We in local government have been doing that for many years, and there is no doubt at all that without help from voluntary organisations many of the things we try to do would be far less effective. I support very strongly indeed the proposal to work closely with the voluntary societies. If in the new social work department everything is to work harmoniously (and that is a big "if"), the family, with its many problems, will in all probability need to deal only with one person, and that person will be in touch with many different agencies and types of help.
I agree with Lord Wells-Pestell, when he says that in the voluntary organisations there are many highly skilled professional people who prefer to work in voluntary agencies but whose skill and advice is made available if a local authority asks for it. This, I think, may well be the better pattern of working with voluntary organisations than trying to enrol them as members of a social work department. I am sure we all agree that the important thing in social
1226
work and in the social work department is that we must do as much preventive work as we possibly can. In 1948, when the children's committees were set up under the first Act, we were not allowed to do preventive work; we had to deal only with the care of children when, so to speak, the damage had been done. But since 1963, under the new Children Act we have been allowed to do preventive work. This has been invaluable in preventing family breakdown. In fact in some areas, in my own in particular, preventive work by the children's officer takes far more time than any curative work or treatment which may be undertaken later.
In the new social work departments, if they are really comprehensive, I believe it should be easier to find out the weaknesses in the community and to try and remedy them before a total break up of the family. From the individual's point of view he or she can get in touch with one centre, which should be much easier for them, and easier to contact in any part of the area. Of course there are snags. In setting up the social work department there must not be a takeover bid by one of the existing departments for the other two, and then call his a new social work department. It is not, and it never will be. One is afraid that, because old people's welfare departments are so big, they may make a bid to be transformed into the social work department. I believe this would be wrong. We must not forget that the genesis of the children's work in local authorities came via the Curtis Committee and its Report. That was because in those days children who were homeless and deprived were being housed in Poor Law Institutions because there was nowhere else for them to go; no children's homes or anywhere where they could be taken in.
There are those in the medical profession who think that the health visitors, plus the nursing services or the almoners, can do all the work. I am quite sure that this is wrong. I have the greatest admiration for the health visitors, for the almoners, for the district nursing services and all the rest of them, but this is not social work in the sense in which I believe family social work should be done by a social work department. I am convinced that if this new plan is to work it must start on the level as a

1227
new department and must bring in, again at the same level, the wide range of children's work, old people's work, including home helps, old people's welfare, mental health, and all the other things which are listed in the Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, made a very strong plea for omitting the probation service. As you know, the Seebohm Report particularly omits the probation and after care services, but we in Scotland have been given the job of incorporating the probation service through our social work departments. I will not go into that matter now, but that is one of the differences between what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in England. I should like to see the structure of the department consisting of one chief officer and then the other specialist officers—heads of what were all the old departments—working at the same level but under his direction, and in that way there would be no jealousy or takeover attitude among the officials.
Access to the departments will be all-important, and I like the suggestion in the Seebohm Report of decentralised offices where people can take their problems. In a rural or a sparsely populated country district, an area office in a market town would serve the purpose. It might be open only once or twice a week, but so long as people knew that they could go to that office, could find there the answers to their many queries, that would save them travelling long distances perhaps into a central area, because in Scotland many of our rural areas are very scattered indeed. The same situation would apply to the rural counties in England. I also like the suggestion that voluntary organisations in the community should also help to supplement the statutory services and bring in those outside interests to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell referred.
What are the problems? The first, I should say, is the lack of trained people. How we in Scotland are to find chief officers to the number of about fifty is really hard to visualise. I hope that women will have as good an opportunity to apply for these jobs—provided that they have had the training and experience—as men. I am sure that
1228
I should have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, were she in your Lordships' House tonight. I also hope that makeshift appointments will not be made—people appointed because there is nobody any better. That would be fatal. It would be much better to carry on as we are than to start a new scheme with the wrong head. If social workers are to be trained for this new orientation of social work, there will have to be a general re-thinking of social work training and social work courses.
Here I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Institute of Social Work, which under the able Chairmanship of Mr. Seebohm himself, can be of great help in this matter. In the short time in which it has been in existence, the Institute has provided social works studies, many social works conferences and discussions, books of great value in the social work field, far more than any other institution, not excluding the London School of Economics and other universities. I hope that the Government will look towards the Institute for advice and help in setting up their advisory council, or whatever method they use to extend the training facilities.
Both the Carnegie Trust, which financed the first generic social work training course at the London School of Economics quite a long time ago (I forget the year), and more immediately the Gulbenkian Trust, have made great contributions to the improvement and value of social work training. The Gulbenkian Trust have just issued a Report on Social Work Training for the Community which is of enormous importance. But just as new methods are put forward, new problems arise; and the community problems of my early student days are no longer—as I well know—the problems of to-day. So it is essential to have a body of people—like those in the Institute of Social Work Training—who can work on changing methods and make experiments without disturbing academic syllabuses until changes are proven and can come into effect.
The most difficult thing, of course, will be to find the people with a wide outlook and experience. This is bound to take time. People could be helped by refresher courses and discussions between one specialist group and another,

1229
between different areas. There are those already trained in child care who will have to learn about different social problems. There are those in child care (I speak of this particularly, because it is the thing I know most about) who have been probation officers or have been in the education service, or had other experience, and this learning about each other's specialisations will, of course, have to take place among the officials if they are to work a really satisfactory and successful social work department. Clearly, it will not run smoothly unless it is handled with enormous tact, great care and patience.
I expect that everyone in this House has received the memoranda from a variety of social work agencies and social work groups, all of which have welcomed the Seebohm Report, with some reservations which naturally one is only too glad to appreciate. I think that it is therefore up to the local authorities to consult with these people, with the associations to which they belong, and to work out the best administrative set-up together.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, has said —and I entirely endorse his words—that we must bear in mind that we are setting up an administration which must be as akin and tuned in to the people who are the users of this service as it possibly can be. He talks about the patient. It is not the patient I am concerned about. I am concerned about the ordinary person, who is perhaps not at all ill but has just fallen on bad times, or got into difficulty. For such a person the help of the social worker is absolutely vital. But it must be help which is easily accessible; it must be help which is understanding and encouraging to the person who is seeking good advice.
I return to where I started. This scheme will not work if one department is allowed to take over another department and then call itself a new social work department; because it will certainly not be that. This has to be a genuine merger into a real social service for the whole community: young, old, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped—anyone who can live in the community with help and assistance. This is our task. It is up to the local authorities, with the help of all those voluntary organisations who are anxious
1230
to help, to carry it out. I only hope that we can fulfil it, because it is a great challenge and will be of enormous benefit in the local authority services.
5.52 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, it would seem only right that I should preface what I hope is going to be a very short speech by a declaration of interest. The noble Baroness, to whom we are most grateful for initiating this debate and for initiating it with so much clarity, was kind enough to point out the fact that my wife was a member of the Seebohm Committee. I can assure your Lordships that no improper influence has been used on me to cause me to modify any views which I might have. I have, alas; even written my own speech. I say "alas" because it would have been much better had she written it. What I have learned from this personal knowledge of the creation of this Report has been to appreciate the quite exceptional and, in my experience unusual amount of hard work and hard thought that has gone into it by the Chairman and his Committee, which, included, as has been said, a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House the noble Baroness, Lady Serota.
There are moments in our social history when one feels that, given the will, the slow piecemeal progress of reform can be rapidly accelerated; when different lines of thought in different fields seem to come together to provide a quite new impetus for a general advance. We have, I believe, now reached such a time. The Seebohm Committee's Report is evidence of a new climate of opinion about some aspects of our social organisation, a climate which, in some ways, the very existence of the Committee has done something to stimulate. There is a new emphasis on the community rather than simply the individual, shown, for example, in the work low starting in certain development areas. There is the new attitude shown by the White Paper, Children in Trouble. The Seebohm Report is perhaps the most comprehensive statement of this new approach and therefore a most profoundly important stimulus to advance in social welfare.
It has obviously two main aspects. The first is administrative. As we all know, and as has been said several times this

1231
afternoon, our social services, admirable though they are, staffed as we know them to be by often devoted men and women, are less efficient than they should be simply because of their fragmented character. If one considers the individual who may need help, say a child or an old person, the variety of provision is bewildering enough. When it is the family that is involved—and it is towards the family and the community that the Seebohm Committee so rightly forces us again and again to look—then even one who is not altogether unfamiliar with the field is baffled by the number of possible agencies involved and by their often overlapping functions.
The very fact that the Committee which we are discussing had to be set up by no less than four Ministries is itself witness to this complexity. The very chapter headings in their Report, covering as they do among other topics the old, the young, the physically handicapped, the mentally ill and certain aspects of housing, all show how diverse the areas they had to cover, and yet that fragmented pattern must be unified if a more positive approach to social welfare is to be achieved, for it is clear how all these elements interact in any given social situation. It seems now the plainest of common sense that the Committee should have reached the conclusion they have reached; that a great body of social services should be brought together both at local authority level and in Central Government.
That such a massive unification can be brought about without some departmental rivalries, some professional jealousies and some comprehensible frictions cannot be imagined. Even our debate this afternoon has occasionally shown evidence of a certain little rustling like the grindings of axes in the background at times. It is not to be imagined that this should not be the case. But I am convinced that it is still less possible to imagine, if one reads the Report, that the Committee could have reached any other possible conclusion. At the heart of those conclusions is the belief that one Ministry must be responsible for the services with which they have been concerned. Some of us would prefer this Ministry rather than that. There is all too much room for argument here, but I myself have come to believe that a
1232
decision as to which Ministry should ultimately be responsible for the unified service is far less important than that the unification should take place and that the decision to bring it about should be taken now.
The second aspect of the Report that makes it a document of quite exceptional significance is that it embodies the new attitude to the social services to which I have referred. It is not simply concerned with social case work; it is not confined to remedial action. Through it there runs a determination to provide for a positive provision for family and community wellbeing which will prevent some of the grosser evils with which we now have to deal and which, one hopes, may generate a greater sense of social participation in the life of the community among our citizens. Let me take one example which has an obvious appeal to me, the strengthening of social services in schools by putting greater responsibilities upon school welfare officers and in other ways. This kind of idea has been urged by some of us in a rather woolly and indeterminate way for a long time. There are some experiments and courses on it already in existence, but when one sees the success of a properly developed service, say in Australia where it has run for years, one cannot but be grateful for the realistic and sensible suggestions made by the Committee on this matter. The provision of such care as part of a family service would help to save many children from later requiring much more elaborate and, incidentally, much more expensive forms of care.
What about the difficulties facing the Seebohm recommendations? The first is that it is clearly so easy to find excuses, many of them specious, for delaying the implementation of those recommendations at all, as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, so comprehensively demonstrated. At one point in his speech I thought I heard the phrase "the next century". My heart leapt up, for I thought that here was a firm date and a firm promise! But, in fact, that turned out to be a delusion. It was one of those delightful rhetorical embellishments, and if he were here I should tell him that I would never hold him to the promise that the Government would be doing anything by the next century.

1233
But, to be fair, it is of course true that the whole structure of local government is now under examination by the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. Should we not then wait until that report? The answer is, No. This particular argument for delay was clearly very much in the minds of the Seebohm Committee. They are not all that simple-minded and they deal with it quite specifically and, in my view, quite decisively, for they have obviously taken the greatest care to put forward proposals for unification which could be applied to the present structure of local government and subsequently adapted to any proposed reorganisation when it happens. And who knows when that will be? The Government have so far maintained an unbroken silence since the Report was published six months ago, and this in spite of the fact that when the Committee was set up it was urged to report with all possible speed—cost what work it might.
I believe that further delay in announcing their general intentions, still more any suggestion that we should go on "waiting for Maud", would be deplorable, for three reasons at least. The first is that, as we all know, some local authorities are already putting into operation schemes of their own for unification, based on plans which were specifically rejected by Seebohm and which, once adopted, will be very difficult to reverse. In other words, delay may mean that we end with schemes which, under the name of "unification"—and it is a very nice name—go wholly against the considered recommendations of this Report and may well be worse than the present set-up.
Secondly, the effect of delay and uncertainty on the morale of social workers will be lamentable. During the past few months it has been very striking, and even surprising, how warm a welcome the Report has received, not only in the serious Press generally—I remember, for example, one very fine article on it in the Economist—but from most of the various professional bodies concerned. They have welcomed it with few exceptions. The people who will have to work in this new unified profession that is proposed have given it their whole-hearted support. There has built up an impetus of genuine enthusiasm for the changes proposed. If we delay any longer a positive
1234
statement about the future, that impetus will be dissipated in disillusion.
The third reason why delay is deplorable is that the changes proposed by Seebohm cannot, in any case, come about overnight. A unified, and in some cases more skilled, profession of social workers takes time to build up and we have to be encouraged in our efforts to develop appropriate methods of training. Thanks to the inspiration of Dame Eileen Young-husband, we have over the past few years seen a considerable development and improvement in our social work training. But Professor Donnison is expressing a comprehensible fear when he says:
"The Seebohm Committee say these departments should eventually be headed by someone trained and experienced both in administration and social work. Such people scarcely exist, and we have no systematic procedure for producing them."
That is a legitimate fear. In fact, my colleague, Professor Kathleen Jones, is pioneering a course for just such people, but there is no doubt that the extension of such work needs some very positive stimulus.
I am all the more sure that the Seebohm Committee have again made a most important recommendation, when they urge that the University Grants Committee should make available earmarked grants for post-graduate training and research in this field. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said, the shortage of adequately trained social workers is going to be an inevitable obstacle to the rapid realisation of all the ideals for which Seebohm stands. But that very shortage provides one of the strongest arguments against delay in a general declaration of intent. If a real wave of enthusiasm and a surprising measure of agreement is not to be frittered away, people who might consider further training to become advanced social workers will have to be reassured.
We must know the Government's attitude, the general attitude, to this Report. We must know whether or not the' are going to take or reject this opportunity for a real step forward in providing a new structure for our social services. It will be new because it will be unified; new because positive in its aims and looking towards the overall needs of families and communities. It will be "acceptable, available, accessible and accountable".

1235
Is it too much to ask that the Government should grasp this opportunity for an improvement in the whole quality of our national life, and tell us all that they intend to do so not grudgingly, not reluctantly, not with an endless emphasis on the difficulties, but with some of the practical idealism that has inspired the Report itself?
6.7 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I share the sense of indebtedness which has been expressed by a number of noble Lords to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, for having given us the opportunity of this debate this afternoon. I must express my apologies and regret that a long-standing and inescapable commitment deprived me of the opportunity of hearing her introduce the debate. I share, too, the sense of indebtedness of the whole community to the Seebohm Committee for a Report so outstanding for its humanity, its breadth and its vision. I address myself to it with some diffidence, because I cannot claim to have the long experience of local authority service, nor the deep knowledge of social service work itself, which has been possessed by many who have spoken in this debate or who have commented upon this Report elsewhere. My own work has fallen in a rather different field, but still one in which one is bound to be constantly conscious of the immense range and variety and complexity of the problems of individuals with which the social services, in their broadest sense, must seek to deal.
Nobody who has that consciousness can be unaware of the degree to which the very variety and extent of our social services can lead to frustration and bewilderment, can lead to loss of energy and loss of time, when an individual has to go to a variety of services with different locations, different staff and sometimes implying quite different courses of action on behalf of the person who needs that social assistance. Indeed, it is very often those who are in the greatest need of the support and guidance of the social services who have suffered most severely from their present form of organisation. Of course, we all realise that we cannot combine in one single unified service the whole range of services—some on a local
1236
basis, some on a national basis—which are necessary in a complex community. But I believe that the combination of the personal social services provided by local authorities worked out by the Seebohm Report can lead to that needed humanisation of our social services of which the noble Lord, Lord Segal, spoke earlier, and, further, can provide a focus, a link, by which the whole range of our social services can most effectively be made available to those who are in need of them.
Perhaps I may take as an example the recommendations which are made in the Report in respect of unmarried mothers. Much of what is said, of course, applies with equal force to mothers who are for any reason inadequately supported, whether it be through the death of the husband, through separation, through divorce, through a long period of imprisonment of the father or for any other reason which may have rendered the families fatherless. One feature of this Report, of course, is its general emphasis upon the provision for children under the age of five. Provision for a child born out of wedlock can often best be made in the context of provisions for children as a whole, but the Report makes specific reference to the fact that there should be a clear assignment of responsibility to the social service department for ensuring adequate social care and advice for both the unmarried mother and her child, and also emphasises in the same paragraph that help is necessary in the form of guidance and accommodation, and in ensuring adequate income.
My Lords, many examples could be given of the degree to which the division of responsibility between our social services can lead to less adequate support being given than the services should in the aggregate provide, but at the local authority level, of course, there is in this case frequently a division between the responsibilities of the health department, the welfare department, the children's department and the housing department, to take only those which come most readily and most obviously to mind. I know that those who have been particularly concerned with these matters are of the opinion, for example, that a division of responsibility between the children's department, on the one hand,

1237
and, on the other, the department concerned with housing—the housing department in some cases or, in the case of the homeless family, the welfare department —may itself be responsible for inadequate preventive work which can in fact result in the child in question finally having to be placed in care. Indeed, I believe that illegitimacy is one of the largest, if not the largest, of the causes of children being placed in care. This, I think, is an illustration of the degree to which the perspective must be that of ensuring that our social services as effectively as possible enable people's problems to be dealt with at an early stage, before they become acute to the point of breakdown.
In this particular field, I am sure that the proposed social service department can do much towards providing a comprehensive service of guidance and assistance to each mother in the light of individual circumstances, and can help to ensure that other services outside the social services department itself are mobilised adequately for this purpose, so ensuring for a greater proportion of children born out of wedlock a fairer chance in life, and for more mothers a real choice between agreeing to adoption or continuing to bring up her child on her own responsibility in a way for which our present services do not adequately provide.
My Lords, reference has been made to the important and stimulating Chapter XVI on the setting of the social services in the community, on the part which the community as a whole can play in this regard; and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, speaking earlier, referred to the passage in the Report which speaks, again in this field of unmarried mothers, of the pioneering work which voluntary bodies, and particularly religious organisations, have done. But I believe it is of value that in such cases as these there should always be what the Report calls
"a realistic source of assistance to those who do not wish to approach religious bodies".
My Lords, the question now before us, in the light of this Report is: what are the steps now to be taken? I had intended to say a little upon this subject, but the noble Lord, Lord James, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, have
1238
spoken so fully, so convincingly and with such deep knowledge on this subject that there is, I think, very little that anybody can add. However, if I may I should like to add my plea to theirs, that the Government should recognise, and recognise right away, the need for positive action in this field. There are always admirable reasons for delay; there are always admirable reasons for postponing action.
When one looks at the spectrum of our social services and the intimate connection of so many of the most important personal services with the structure of local government, it can no doubt be said that the fact that there is to be a substantial recasting of local government in the next few years makes this an inappropriate time to act. I hope the Government will be very far from taking that view. The matter is an urgent one from the point of view of those who require the assistance of the social services; the matter is an urgent one from the point of view of those dedicated, devoted and experienced people who are employed, whether in a voluntary capacity or in a full-time capacity, in the social services themselves; and I do not think that one can neglect the dangers of the anxiety and uncertainty which proposals as radical as these are likely to bring to many who are actually engaged in this field of employment.
Nor, my Lords, can we neglect the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord James: that there is the danger of developments taking place in this field which are not truly based upon the concepts and recommendations of the Report. I myself have heard, for example, of the fact that a number of Landon boroughs have established joint departments under the medical officer of health, which seems, at any rate to me, to run counter to the recommendations of the Report. No matter how admirable a man of medical experience and training may be, he is not necessarily the type of person recommended so clearly by the Report as required for the heading of a social service department: someone who is himself, or herself, trained and experienced specifically in social welfare work. But, as I have said, previous speakers have covered the point so fully that I will conclude only by expressing the hope

1239
that the Government will at as early a date as possible declare their unequivocal support for the main recommendations of this Report, will act to work out the guidelines which can be followed by those who want to see these reforms brought into effect, and so ensure that we secure in this country at the earliest possible date the benefits which can flow from this great social document.
6.22 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, it is natural that some of my remarks will be made from a medical angle, but I can assure your Lordships from the very beginning that I am not one of those who scrutinise every new Report in search of the veiled or overt threat to the status of the medical profession. I have given considerable attention to this Report and I am myself convinced that the main recommendation, the setting up of a new local authority social service department, which should, as we all hope, lead to the development of a real family service, is right and that it should increase the effective use of our social services. I also accept fully and unreservedly that the department should not normally be under the medical officer of health.
It is to be hoped that these departments will lead to better collaboration between the social services and our own profession. In this connection I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Segal, in hoping that we shall get general practitioners as fully involved as we can. In parentheses, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Segal, entertained me a little, for after admonishing the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, for dealing with the Todd Report rather than the Seebohm Report he went on to take us through the Green Paper on the reorganisation of the National Health Service.
This collaboration with the medical profession, which is so very necessary, has not always been tremendously conspicuous in the past; and this is pointed out in the Report. As a past medical educator, I am hound to think once again that it is the early training of the medical student which makes him less—what shall I say?—interested in broad social questions than in the fascination of the medical or surgical diagnosis and treatment of the individual patient. I think this is
1240
natural to medical students, natural to people who take up medicine as a profession. I think this is primarily what they want to do. Attempts to introduce social medicine departments into medical schools have also not always been conspicuously successful, partly because of the shortage of good teachers in these subjects, partly because their approach is sometimes too academic and statistical and not human and individual enough to suit the average medical student, and partly because the student so quickly becomes bound up in the individual problems of the sick patient in hospital. Of course, one must realise that most of his teachers nowadays have never practised medicine outside a hospital—and you cannot really teach social service, any more than you can teach the full practice of medicine, from an ivory tower.
My Lords, the doctors, if they have been critical of this Report in some statements—although I do not think they have been very seriously critical—have to realise that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot go on ignoring the social services and the behavioural sciences in the education of medical students and then expect to direct how those services should be used. None the less, I think there are some areas in which we in our profession must be very vigilant; notably, I would say, in adult psychiatry, but even more particularly in the field of child psychiatry in which the doctor, even if he does not direct the service (which does not matter so much) must be the head of his own clinic and must take—he and no one else—the final responsibility for the diagnosis and treatment of his patient; and his records must be confidential. I think we must look after those things when the Report is implemented, as we all hope it will be as soon as possible.
Child guidance is perhaps not one of the most successful parts of the Report. There seems to be an incomplete realisation that it is very largely a matter in which psychiatrists, psychologists and highly-trained psychiatric social workers collaborate together; that it is, in other words, something very much more than mere guidance. In this area, at least, I hope that there will be plenty of consultation between the medical profession and the local authorities before any plans are put into action. There is also a

1241
danger in this area of too close a relationship between the services which rely on voluntary collaboration as between doctor, parent and children in a child guidance clinic and those which have an element of compulsion and penal action, such as the management of approved schools, remand homes and so forth.
My Lords, at best, the recommendations from this Report can improve the status as well as the efficacy of social service, and thereby lead to a more attractive career structure and aid that recruitment of good people into social service which is so necessary to build up the numbers which will be needed. I cannot see that this threatens the medical profession in any way. Indeed, the status of doctors who work for local authorities in various capacities could improve if many of them were employed partly in hospital service and partly in the clinic in collaboration with the social workers. Barriers between hospital and community might be broken down a little more.
I was going to refer to the paragraph on the care of unmarried mothers, which I think is tremendously important, but the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has already done this quite fully and eloquently and there is no need for me to go on with it. What alarms me a little—and here I echo other speakers—is that the implementation of the Report may reveal a tremendous shortage of the right kind of people. It would be tragic indeed if departments were set up in which poorly trained or half trained social workers were under the direction of someone who had academic knowledge of sociology and psychology but knew little or nothing of human behaviour from the school of experience. For those reasons there could be merit in proceeding—I will not say more slowly, because I do not want anything I say to interfere with prompt action on the part of the Government—perhaps more experimentally; trying this out where it is known that enthusiastic and highly trained people exist to set patterns for the best type of service as it then later spreads through the country. My Lords, I think that concludes my part in the debate.
6.31 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I should like to join with those noble Lords who have expressed their appreciation to the
1242
noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, for having selected this subject for our debate. I should like to add to that my appreciation of the manner in which the debate was introduced. In different circumstances I have had some experience of the powers of exposition of the noble Baroness, but I have never heard them used to better purpose than in her speech this afternoon.
My Lords, the personal social services with which this Report deals have come into existence haphazardly, in a fragmentary fashion, without any comprehensive background for their administration. The local authorities will, I am sure, welcome the attempt which this Report makes to set them against some discernible administrative background of their own which will present them as a major local service comparable with the other major services for which local authorities are responsible. For the notable contribution which this Report will make to the ordered, consistent, administrative structure which, as the Report says, the services so badly need and at present so completely lack, the local authorities will, I feel confident, be most appreciative, even if at times they find themselves not in full agreement with the recommendations in the Report.
But, my Lords, there is one recommendation which seems to me to be or primary and fundamental importance. The Report comes down firmly and unequivocally in favour of these personal services remaining services for which the local authorities will continue to be fully responsible. It was not that voices were lacking to put an altogether different plan to the Committee. It was suggested to them that these personal social services should cease to be functions for which the local authorities were responsible and should be administered by the central Government, perhaps with the assistance of some local advisory boards. That was the alternative put to the Committee and that proposal the Committee have most emphatically rejected.
I think that the reasons they give are significant and compelling. Your Lordships will find the whole matter discussed in paragraph 137. The Committee express the view that a high level of what they call "citizen participation" is vital to the successful development of these

1243
services which are so sensitive to local needs. The Committee further express themselves unable to see how at present this participation could be achieved outside the local government system. I need not say that this recommendation gives great satisfaction to the local authorities. It is very gratifying that after the prolonged investigation which the Committee undertook they should have reached the conclusion that the citizen participation so necessary for the success of these personal services can best be found in local government. That, of course, is a view which the local authorities have pressed for many years, usually without much success.
My Lords, I hope that this Report will prove something of a turning point in the matter. Local authorities have passed through a long period of uncertainty and, let us be frank about it, denigration; of indecision and criticism, often not very well informed. It has surprised me sometimes that persons could be found to join local authorities or to enter their service. The forthcoming Report of the Royal Commission will, I hope, mark a change and that the public and, indeed, some Departments of central Government, will come to recognise that local government is an essential part of our political democracy, not to be readily or lightly dismembered.
I hope that the Minister who will respond for the Government will be able to tell us whether the Government accept this part of the Report; and particularly whether the present Minister of Health and Social Security, to whose predecessor the Report was addressed, accepts this part of the Report. It is difficult to reconcile it with certain parts of the Green Paper, where it would appear to be clearly contemplated that some, at least, of these services, if not all, should be administered by some new central authority set up by the central Government—and I suppose consisting of persons nominated. If we cannot get an answer to that question to-night, I hope that the answer will not be too long delayed.
I do not think one can say much in this debate about the operation of these personal services. A number of noble Lords have spoken about the operation of a particular service about which they have special knowledge and experience;
1244
but although the Committee made exhaustive investigations into the operation of the services, notably those for children, and the Report is filled with suggestions for their improvement, the Committee actually made very few positive recommendations. The principal recommendations which they made are in the field of administration and not of the operation of the services; and I therefore propose, in the few moments for which I shall address the House, to turn to the administrative recommendations.
Before doing so I should like to say that the Report presents what is really a new approach and a new view of the place which these services should occupy. Most of these services came into being in order to meet the special needs of a particular class or section of the community, and since then they have been so administered. The Committee present a much wider conception of social service directed to the well-being of the whole community and not restricted to one class which they refer to as "social casualties". This new conception seems to me to be the most valuable, as it is indeed the most novel, aspect of this Report. It leads inevitably to the proposal to group all the services together into a single administrative whole, from which all needs, be they medical, educational, social or domestic, are to be met from within the group. This conception underlies all the Committee's administrative proposals. The social service department must be, in their view, a recognisable administrative unit, administered through a chief officer under the supervision of a social service committee who have no other obligations but the steering and guiding of the social service department. No doubt the single social service department which the Committee recommend will be the pattern upon which the majority of local authorities will reorganise their services.
The single social service department and a single committee are what the Committee recommended and what they desire to see. But the Report goes a little beyond that, and at this point I think the Committee will find that they no longer carry the local authorities with them. The Report goes on to recommend that the social service department and the appointment of a special committee and of a chief officer should be

1245
mandatory. The local authority, whatever the local conditions may be, are to have no alternative but to reorganise themselves on these lines. Mandatory committees have not been a great success in the past. Indeed, Lord Redcliffe-Maud's Report on the organisation of management in local government emphatically condemns them, and recommends that the statutory obligation to have certain committees, such as the children's committee, should now be withdrawn.
I am sure that the modern approach to this question of mandatory committees and mandatory chief officers is that when an obligation to provide a service is placed upon a local authority it is best to leave the local authority to decide for themselves how to carry out that service according to their own local circumstances and conditions, which, after all, they know best. Members of local authorities and their officers are likely to work much more enthusiastically in an organisation of their own fashioning rather than in one that has been forced upon them from outside.
The conception of a single social service department must involve the appointment of a chief officer who will enjoy the status and independence of a senior chief officer. That, I think, is one of the fundamental recommendations which the Committee made. The position of the chief welfare officer to-day varies in different authorities. His functions are sometimes confused with those of the medical officer of health. In some authorities he combines in his own person the functions of the two chief officers. There is no reason why the medical officer should not be the chief welfare officer, if he possesses the qualifications for that post, but he ought not to be at the same time medical officer of health and chief welfare officer.
The importance which the Committee attach to the chief officer in this new service leads them to recommend that the Minister should be consulted on the appointment and that the first appointment should be made subject to his approval. I think that in that recommendation the Committee have gone astray, and I hope that this recommendation will not be persisted in. Local authorities ought to be left to choose
1246
their own staff, without control from the Central Government. A local authority will never settle down under a chief officer who is not their own choice. The Redcliffe-Maud Report recognised that the chief officer appointments should be the responsibility of the local authority and recommended that where there is a statutory obligation requiring ministerial approval, as in the Children Act, it should be withdrawn. That was going a long way, and I hope that this proposal that the appointment of chief officer should be controlled in this way by the Central Government will not be persisted in.
My Lords, it will be some time before these recommendations can be carried into effect or, indeed, before the resources necessary to implement them are likely to be available. But I hope that the Government will be able to tell us before long how much of this Report they will be able to accept. They have been pressed to do so this afternoon from several quarters. Local authorities are already beginning to reorganise their welfare services, some upon the lines recommended by the Report and some otherwise. It is essential, too, that housing functions, welfare functions and the education services should be administered by the same tier of local government. They are not so administered to-day. Local authorities themselves recognise the importance of this change. No doubt the Royal Commission will recommend changes along the lines of this Report.
It is not easy to see how the reorganisation of these social services which these proposals would involve can be planned without some knowledge of what the future pattern of local government is likely to be. This Report, the Green Paper and the forthcoming Report of the Royal Commission ought to be studied and implemented together. Obviously the new pattern of local government cannot be worked out until the recommendations of the Royal Commission are known. The local authorities ought not to be encouraged to begin the reorganisation which these proposals will involve if they may before long have to undertake fresh reorganisation to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission.
I have no wish to delay the Government in reaching their conclusions about

1247
what the future shape of the social services should be; nor do I see any reason why some delay in the implementation of the new services should do so. I hope that we shall not have to wait too long for the Minister's decision on the principles which this Report raises. I can assure him that he will have the full co-operation of the local authorities in re-planning the administration of these vital services, and I hope that where the local authorities have reservations they will not be lightly brushed aside.
6.49 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF GRASMERE: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships long at this time of the evening, but I feel bound to say one or two things on the occasion of this debate, for which, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, for initiating. I should declare an interest in certain aspects of the Report because I am Chairman of the Statutory Council for Training in Social Work and also Chairman of the Local Government Training Board, which is feeling a good deal of concern about the whole situation of training for social work.
As I am coming to the end of a period of six years as Chairman of the Statutory Council, I should like to offer one or two observations to your Lordships on my experiences during those six years. Before coming to training, about which I mainly want to speak, and quite briefly, perhaps I may say a word or two about the timing of decisions. When I decided to refer to this point, I did not realise that I should have the Chairman of the Royal Commission sitting so close to me on my right, but I still propose to say what I was going to say. It is perfectly true that several things are bound up here; and it is also true that in the present state of discussions about the implementation of democracy, about participation, devolution and local government, there are certain basic difficulties of principle which the Government will have to face. Therefore, there is good reason for not deciding anything until you can decide everything. There always have been good reasons for not doing that, and here there are special reasons.
If you look at the difficulties of timing, the Green Paper came out at the same
1248
time. If the Green Paper takes away the local health services from the local authorities, this will, of course, leave the health departments of local authorities with very truncated departments, and each authority will find itself in a complicated and difficult position with regard to its personnel, the chairmen of its committees and its general history of dealing with these problems in its area. It will be subject to all sorts of temptations. The Maud Commission Report also has a bearing on this. If the Commission reports in a direction (and many people think that it may report in this direction) which makes the number of authorities at some tier negotiable—and a number of authorities are referred to in the Green Paper by the Ministry as prima facie suitable authorities for Area Boards, roughly of the order of something like forty authorities—then it is difficult to see how in the main trends of opinion about Governments, about participation, local government and so on, the question will not arise whether the Health Service should go to the local authorities. These things are, therefore, very badly bound up.
I used to be not many yards away from the Chairman of the Maud Commission, a student and a teacher of politics, and I tried to tot up for myself last evening when, if all went well, the Maud Commission recommendations could come into operation. This was a personal effort, but I have heard other people, who should be able to do the sum, tot up to much the same effect. It seems to me that if all goes well it is probable that the main recommendations of the Maud Commission could hardly come into operation before 1974.
There are all sorts of political difficulties about great reforms in local government. Everybody expects that this is going to be a great reform, and it seems hardly possible that this could be done at an earlier date. Those who are working in the social services say (and the Seebohm Committee no doubt heard them say) that they have already been waiting for seven years, and this will be another five years or so. This is pretty difficult. There is a great deal of unsettlement among the social workers, the health visitors and the more specialised kind of workers, like the psychiatric social workers; there is great unsettlement in

1249
the health departments of the local authorities. And great unsettlement, of course, affecting recruitment. I will say a more important word about this in a moment.
There are grave difficulties, and the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has referred to one of them. The Seebohm Committee think it important (and I agree with them) that this comprehensive committee should be spread over the nation, and should have in hand the control of the administration of the social services. The Committee also attach importance as to who the chief welfare officer should be, and, therefore, while they are moderate about their suggestion, they think that the Minister should have some hand in the appointment of the chief welfare officer. Both those points are of very great importance.
Yet everybody supposes that the Maud Commission are going to say that, probably at present, but above all when local authorities are reformed, there ought to be no nonsense about ridiculous interference on detail—and, indeed, on more than detail—with the authorities when they emerge in the new model. It is of course impossible to rebut that. The swing of opinion is in that direction, it is trying to press Whitehall to recognise that new model authorities, and certainly a great number of old model authorities, are capable of doing perfectly well many of the things on which at the present moment they are still tagged at every detail by the central Department. The pressure of opinion on this point is irresistible, and quite rightly so. On the other hand, it is also true (and this partly for a reason which I shall give again in a moment when speaking of training) that it is of fundamental importance that the Seebohm department for social work should come into existence in authorities all over the country, and that the chief welfare officers should be the right people.
The Government have a problem because there are several things that are not just local difficulties but difficulties of principle. But surely it should not be beyond the wit of a Government with the best Civil Service in the world, and themselves not without experience—the Houses of Parliament are not without experience of this kind of work—to find some way of seeing that these departments are set up; that the initial appointments, above all, are the right appoint-
1250
ments; and that no-one succumbs to the temptation, because of various local difficulties, of showing loyalties and making the wrong appointments. It should be possible to ensure that this change takes place without necessarily offending against the great principles of the relative independence and autonomy of the new model local government authorities. I know that some scholars think—and I believe they are right—that in the past the Ministry of Health have been less forceful in dealing with local authorities than have other great Whitehall Departments that deal with local authorities. The Ministry of Health have been less forceful than Whitehall would have been over education, less forceful than it would have been about almost anything else. But the fact remains that it is of great importance that these departments should be set up and that the right people should be appointed.
It is extremely important that the Government should say something. Surely they must be able to say something. If, instead of beginning to give their minds too much to the question of what in detail the ultimate set-up is going to be, they gave up their minds to the question, "When can we announce so-and-so, and what is the best thing to announce first?", and so on, I cannot help feeling that, even in recognition of these great difficulties of principle, they could say something. It really is important to say something. I feel tempted to remind your Lordships of a story of a friend of mine from this House. He is in India at the moment, so I can borrow his story. It is a well-known, story, I suppose, and perhaps he has not very great proprietary rights in it, but one of the stories, of which we know many, about the young officer who was drilling troops and getting into rather a mess is the one of how he got them into a position where they were heading straight for a precipice and he seemed to be incapable of any further instruction. The sergeant-major got more and more worried, and eventually said, "For Heaven's sake, sir, say something, even if it's only 'Good-bye'". The Government really must say something, even if it is only "Good-bye".
Now my brief words about trailing. In thinking about training, the Council of which I am Chairman, when considering what it ought to say to the Seebohm

1251
Committee—and the Seebohm Committee have agreed with it about this—thought that the basic thing about it was that we are, as trainers, at the present time in at the birth of—or only just after the birth of—a great profession, one of the great professions of the future. The social worker is able to do what he or she is able to do because of modern developments. Some developments we owe to the medical profession, some to the human sciences, and some to the development of politics. Far more is known about society through modern statisticians and sociologists, and all sorts of things are possible that used not to be possible at all. Social work as it now exists, no doubt largely arising out of the work of institutions dealing with criminals and out of the work of the medical profession, is something that is possible only in the modern age. But it will grow.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said, it is a very important point in the Seebohm Report that we are dealing here with workers. We are not dealing with just the submerged tenth of the population, the most unprivileged, which means, and must mean in general, the poorest part of the population. We are dealing with workers who increasingly are dealing with the whole population. Children's officers are dealing, not with small sections of the social structure; they are dealing very widely, and increasingly widely, with the entire population. Parents are going to schools to look after and bring up their children; they are seeking advice about their families and expecting more of the schools than ever. Of course, the wise middle classes always handed over to teachers their children at the age of eight and then never dealt with them except as guests thereafter. But, of the great masses of the population, more and more are going to the professionals, with all the developments of modern knowledge, about the bringing up of their modern families.
And this is true also of the social worker. More and more people in all classes are going to the social worker. Old people belong to all the classes of the community, and the people who are grateful for the help that they can get from the great social work services in dealing with old people, or with
1252
their physically handicapped, come from a very wide section of classes. I do not say they come from your Lordships' families in very great numbers, but in some cases they do come from your Lordships' families. They certainly come from a very large section of the population.
The social worker is a professional. He or she is a professional in the sense that the doctor, the lawyer or the teacher is a professional. Social workers have to use their own judgment to bring their body of knowledge and training and experience to bear on individual and family problems. They have to go into the family. They have to recognise things that may not be on the surface, and they have to adjust their knowledge, their training and their experience to giving advice; and it has to be taken as personal advice. When I said that this profession had only just been horn, I meant this. As has been mentioned many times in this debate, social workers have come into this great work through a number of different avenues; they have had a number of different titles. But increasingly in the last year, indeed increasingly in the last seven or ten years, they have realised that a great many of them have a lot in common; that they are all brothers in one main work, and that is the social work.
It is true that there are some people with elements of social work in their daily occupations, like teachers and health visitors who will have to stay in the educational services or the medical services. They are taking greater and greater interest in getting together with social work training authorities in introducing that element in their own initial training which has a social work content. But a great number of people with different titles — psychiatric social workers; almoners, as they used to be called; the social workers in the health services; probation officers and many such workers—have been drawing together and saying to themselves, "We are really all part of the same profession". They are gathering together in a national professional body. They have had a great deal of discussion and deliberation in doing this, but they are gathering together in a great national body.
The happiness and welfare of this country will depend a very great deal on

1253
the fortunes of this profession. Bear in mind that a great number of the things its members do will in many cases prevent some people from being ill; and such people will not reach the medical profession and will not reach the hospitals. In some cases action will prevent them from being really very ill. It is the way of society that in the future this is going to be an enormously influential profession, at least as influential as the teachers or, in future, the doctors. On the preventive side, the amount of work that will fall on the prevential workers—whether in the prevention of various kinds of ill-health or of other disasters—will to a very great extent turn on the social workers. Therefore our future depends to an immense extent upon the future of this profession.
In order to feel happy about themselves as a profession its members depend a great deal, of course, on a sound, solid, well-guaranteed and sustained system of training. Training is recognised as essential and enormously helpful to the job. Upon training depends carrying through a large volume of social work of high standard. Also, all the various employers in the services should be able to know where they are about employing people. All this is absolutely essential to the profession.
The Seebohm Committee have put up an immensely strong case for saying that it is absurd that when there is a basic professional training it should be in the hands of a great number of training authorities. Obviously there ought to be a comprehensive training authority. But I would add just one point. I think we have learned a great deal in latter years about the form that training ought to take. Lawyers have contributed to it; the chairmen of local authority committees, medical officers, social workers of great experience and distinction have all contributed a great deal to it. I could speak at some length on all the things we have learned, but I will not do so at this time of the evening.
However, there is another point. A profession which is, after all, a demanding one, and cardinal to the health and happiness of the community, has always tended in this country to seek to ensure that it should be governed by a professional body, and that part of the training and qualifications for the pro-
1254
fession should be under the control of a professional body. Again, one of the great trends of modern opinion is that in these days the country cannot really do, as it used to think it could, with the professions entirely under the control of the professional bodies. Whether or not it will ever think that about the doctors and lawyers, we do not know; but this is another of the great modern trends of opinion.
I believe that the social workers would be perfectly happy—no; "perfectly" is too strong a word: the social workers would be happy—if they felt that the training and establishment of qualifications for their profession were in the hands of a national comprehensive Council with a certain degree of independence. I speak here again with some experience, because the Council of which I have been Chairman is not, as I think the Seebohm Committee said, and as several people have said during the course of this debate, an advisory Council to a Minister. It is a statutory Council set up by an Act of Parliament, which in fact set up two Councils: the Council for Training in Social Work and the Council for the Training of Health Visitors. Its independent Chairman is appointed by the Privy Council. A good many members of the two Councils are appointed by the Minister of Health and some are appointed by other people—in the case of the social workers, for instance, they are appointed by the local authority. This has enabled the people who come under the ægis of the Council to feel that they are entering into the professional heritage, and it has helped them a good deal.
The Council has been a wonderful forum for the discussion of all the main principles that are involved, and it seems to me that, if I am right in thinking that we are in at the birth and early growth of a great profession that is going to be one of the fundamentally important professions in the future, then the comprehensive body which is to be responsible for the training of social workers should have something like the standing that the two Councils to which I have referred, with their special Act, already possess. After all, the workers are not employed by the Government Departments: they are employed by the local authorities,

1255
the hospital authorities, or whoever it may be. And the independent Council seems to me to be a rock on which the future of the profession could be well built.
It has been said that one of the great difficulties—and I am now very near the end of my speech—is the difficulty of finding people. It is of course perfectly true that when a service is expanding greatly it is difficult to find a large number of good, senior people because they only grow up and attain the necessary experience at a certain pace, and with expansion the posts cannot be filled. But it is not true in the social work professions at the moment that it is difficult to attract the right people.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave the figures for the increase in the training of social workers under the Council for Training in Social Work. The figures are quite impressive. The bottleneck is not the dearth of suitable people. The universities, colleges and schools of this country are turning out plenty of young people who want to work in this area. They are keen to do it, they feel called to do it, they have the intelligence to do it and a great proportion of them—not all, but a great proportion—have the necessary personalities and characters as well as the necessary intellectual ability and previous general education and training. There is a certain shortage of health visitors, but by common acceptance I think the shortage is now considered to be in the health services and not in what we are referring to as the social work department, and I need say no more about them. On the social work side there are plenty of candidates.
In so far as there is a bottleneck limiting the rate of expansion of trained social workers at the moment, it is not because of a lack of suitable applicants but because of the difficulty of finding top people, of good enough supervisors for the practical part of the training. This being professional, the practical part of the training is fundamental.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way and allow me to ask him if he can explain the shortage of psychiatric social workers throughout the country, and also the shortage of probation
1256
officers, which is felt particularly in London?
LORD MORRIS OF GRASMERE: My Lords, I must not claim knowledge which I do not possess and, of course, the psychiatric social workers have other methods of control of training. But I believe my noble friend will find that it is pretty well accepted that the slowness of the rate at which the numbers of psychiatric social workers are increasing is primarily due to the shortage of places for training at the present time and not to the numbers of people coming forward who wish to be psychiatric social workers. I think my noble friend will find that that is so, but I must not claim to speak with authority on this subject. I can speak with authority about the social workers in the local welfare service.
I was saying that the practical part of the training of the professional workers, such as the bedside training of doctors, is absolutely vital. Just as the bedside training of doctors depends for its quality on the experience of the clinical teacher who takes the students round, so the practical part of the training of social workers depends on the quality of the older, experienced social worker who supervises the work. The danger is now emerging that there may be a certain shortage caused by the educational economies. We do not yet quite know, because there has not been time for this danger to emerge, but there have been signs that some of the colleges running the courses will find they have not got the necessary money, and we may run into a difficulty there. But at the moment the bottleneck is the shortage of supervisors for the practical work.
I want to emphasise—and I had better leave it at this—that the question of the growth of the profession, which matters so much to the community in the coming decades, depends on having the right arrangements for training. I have indicated what I think experience shows to be the very good arrangements for training, but it will be seen also that in the interests of the profession, the growth of the profession, the stability of the profession, the solidarity of the profession, the public spirit of the profession, it matters enormously also that in these departments of social work there shall

1257
be the right welfare officers. Without the right arrangements for training you cannot go on, in spite of the work of the schools and colleges, attracting the right young people into the social work profession.
7.20 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, first I should like to add my own humble congratulations and applause to Mr. Frederic Seebohm and his colleagues for this Report. I will not choose quite the same words to express those congratulations as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham did, because when I hear the word "monumental" I think of burial grounds, and when he had finished his speech and I had peered through his various smokescreens and realised just how little he really said in the way of indicating what the Government's response was to be I felt that there was perhaps some slight connection. This is a very workmanlike Report and I think it deserves a more wholehearted welcome than the Government have so far felt able to give it. What I particularly like about the Report, and what I find so commendable and fascinating, is the way in which the philosophical and the administrative and the professional aspects have been woven together throughout.
If there are some criticisms—and I shall have some to make myself in a moment—I think we ought to recognise the very great difficulites under which the Committee have laboured. They have been mentioned during the debate. The first is the dilemma laid upon them in wishing to establish a new local authority service, the dilemma of choosing between strong central control, which I think all of your Lordships would agree is necessary in order to achieve high standards and to make a clean break, and on the other hand allowing that degree of local choice which I am sure is going to be one of the things which the Royal Commission on Reorganisation of Local Government will recommend, so that the whole idea will gain acceptance in local authority circles; it will give scope for variety and will ease experiment, of which there must be a good deal. The other difficulty is that there has been this huge number of bodies investigating and reporting in overlapping fields: the Plowden Committee, three separate committees on various aspects of local gov-
1258
ernment, staffing, reorganisation and management, the Report on Children in Trouble, the two non-Government Reports, highly relevant, the Williams Committee Report and the Aves Committee Report which is still awaited, and then on top of that the Green Paper on the reorganisation of the National Health Service and, for full measure, Lord Todd's Report. All these have a bearing.
In addition, I think their difficulties have been increased by the limitation of their rather awkward terms of reference. They were asked to report on local authority services, and this has meant that they were not able to deal as fully as perhaps they would like with the whole business of income maintenance, which has a very strong link here, or with probation and after-care, which was brought into this field in the case of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill. They were asked to deal with social services, and this has inhibited them from considering and reporting upon health services.
Before leaving the subject of thanks and appreciation, I should like to voice appreciation of the statutory workers already in the field. If these services are not at the moment all that we would desire, the fault certainly does not lie with them. As my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte pointed out, it is mainly this splintered, uncouth set-up under which they are trained and in which they have to work, the meagre resources available to them, that are responsible. I believe our thanks are due to social workers for all they manage to achieve in spite of the confused and old-fashioned structures under which they have to live and do their work.
I would turn to the Report itself and reiterate the welcome that it has already received from my honourable friend Lord Balniel, who is the spokesman for the Conservative Party in the other place. The Conservatives have given the Report a warm welcome and urged the Government to implement it. But having done that, I want to go on to voice a mild criticism about the Report as a whole, using words taken from the Report itself. Paragraph 152 says:
"There is a lack of any clear statement about the aims of social action".
And again, on page 180:
"…a clear and compelling idea of the aims of the new service"

1259
and of the new department is required. The Committee say that but they do not supply the answer. The nearest we get to a single clear statement of aims is in paragraph 2, where we read:
"The aim of the new service will be to enable the greatest possible number of individuals to act reciprocally giving and receiving service for the wellbeing of the whole community".
I would agree with that statement and hail it as a rather fine one, but it is not reiterated anywhere else and it is certainly not developed. The right reverend Prelate pointed out that this marks a radical departure, as he put it; it strikes out into new territory from all the existing statutory services. This idea of ordinary people being encouraged by the service and through the service to give service is, in my judgment, far too lightly treated in the rest of the Report, with the exception of Chapter XVI where it is treated separately.
Having said that, there is indeed in this Report very much to applaud. I should like to single out an aspect mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith; namely, the emphasis in Chapter XIV on prevention and early warning, for surely without effective early warning and prevention the social problems of the community, as has already been demonstrated, clearly get out of hand. The whole problem of drug abuse and drug dependence is a case in point. We did not get anything like sufficiently early warning of this problem until it was upon us. I believe that the social service area teams will need antennae dispersed throughout the 100,000 people in the communities they are supposed to serve. Is not this one of the primary roles for suitable selected lay members of the community, people serving as the eyes and ears of the service, attuned for the first signs of trouble in their own street or neighbourhood? Incidentally, in this connection I cannot see how the social service area teams can afford to be without the early warning intelligence of young children in trouble at home that comes the way of the health visitors as they go about their ordinary duties. They must, if not under the same roof, be linked into this service in some direct way.
I believe the Report is right to give a prominent place in the next chapter,
1260
Chapter XV, to research, and it is right to distinguish between central and local research, both of which are needed and right, too, to emphasise that research, to be of any value, has to be a continuing process.
But my special welcome is for Chapter XVI on the community. This, I believe, is an excellent chapter so far as it goes, but the fact that this rather novel aspect is filtered out and treated separately in a chapter on its own is to me a sign that the statutory professional social worker, or at any rate those members who brought influence to bear upon this Committee, have yet to come to terms with the fact which we are constantly reiterating in Conservative social policy, that in caring for those who are lonely, in trouble or in adversity, it is families, neighbours and friends and voluntary bodies who have the greatest contribution to make, and that professional members of the social services are auxiliary and ancillary to them rather than the other way round. I particularly welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had to say on this point, because it convinces me that he, at any rate, shares my opinion. This last point is the truth which is glimpsed in paragraph 2 of this Report, when it claims that this service will enable the greatest possible number of people to act reciprocally, giving and receiving service for the wellbeing of the whole community. My complaint and my criticism is that that is a truth which, after paragraph 2, disappears from sight and is never fully developed. I believe it is this truth which, when it has been carried through to its logical conclusion, will develop our ideas on words from that of a Welfare State which is designed to provide a minimum service for the specially needy on to a Welfare Society, a community giving optimum care for all its members, which is a rather different thing.
May I now turn from the Report as a whole to the specific and particular plan which it proposes for adoption, and give it an unqualified, or very nearly unqualified, welcome? I refer to the plan for a social service department for each local authority and for area teams of around a dozen social workers under one roof, serving communities of about 100,000 people each. It is here where I believe the Committee have done their most workmanlike engineering job, on

1261
merging the various fragmented bodies that are operating at the moment; and it is particularly good when one considers how awkward were their terms of reference.
But acceptance of this plan leaves a number of difficult questions. What about the local authorities in which health and welfare have already been merged for some time? I am not talking now about the various London boroughs and others who have "jumped the gun" and have gone down the course in the wrong direction. I think that is most unfortunate and reprehensible, and I hope it will not be continued. It is that kind of action which makes it difficult to resist the demand from Governments when they come to Parliament and ask for mandatory powers to intervene and correct this kind of situation. No; what I refer to is those local authorities, I believe about one-third of the total number, who have already got their health and welfare departments combined. Are these links going to be broken? I think it would be unfortunate if they were.
The second question is, what is the logic—and here I am following the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, introduced—of excluding probation and after-care in this scheme for England and Wales, and including it in the Scottish social work department? I fail to see the reason for that. Thirdly, a question has been raised by several noble Lords already: what about the relationships between the area teams and social workers on the one hand, and the general practitioners, health visitors, home nurses, et cetera in the same locality, on the other hand? I think everyone, except perhaps some members of the two professions concerned (and the medical noble Lords who have spoken in this debate are exceptions here) can see how important it is for the patient that there should be this close liaison. But so much of this plan at first sight seems to have the effect of building up local social work departments against the health sections as though they were preparing for battle together rather than joining in the dance. I hope this impression is a false one, because from the patient's point of view I think it is essential that they should work together.
I have a few notes about the implications of the content and nature of train-
1262
ing, but I tremble to deploy them in full in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I will take just a few extracts. What I should like particularly to welcome and emphasise is the need to go a stage further and incorporate into these generic syllabuses work with groups, work in residential establishments on the lines proposed by the Williams Committee, teaching and training to give a capability for working in and with communities when the committee under Dame Eileen Younghusband has reported upon that. Coupled with this, I believe, there is more to be taught and learned on how to develop in social workers the skill in building up more fruitful partnership between the statutory and voluntary workers. Here again, we have another Committee, under Miss Geraldine Ayes, which will give useful guidance on this aspect.
But there is still more to be thought about in this generic kind of training, and that is the whole business of community development—a different thing from working in communities, because where we are now creating new towns, building new estates, tacking new housing on to old country towns and villages, there is the whole problem of creating a community, bringing it into existence, before we can start thinking of caring for communities. This requires different skills which have to be taught. Also of this question of training (perhaps I have overlooked any reference to this in the Report, but the noble Lord, Lord Segal, certainly mentioned it) it would seam to me that we shall need something rather special in order to impart to the senior officers in charge of these social work departments a special kind of sensitive touch for managing such delicate departments. This is something I have not read or heard much about, but as one visualises the way in which these departments and area teams are going to have to work, this delicacy in touch seems to be something that needs to be thought about a great deal.
My final point on training is this. I hope that it will not be thought that this single door of the local authority social service department is the only point from which the skills of social workers will be deployed in the community. My hope is that many other bodies—such as, for instance, charitable organisations, the

1263
Churches, voluntary bodies and a whole range, perhaps, of private profit-making organisations—will find their ways of deploying these skills in their own ways, and thus bring further resources of money and of manpower to the service of society. It seems to me that this is the way we shall avoid the danger, which several noble Lords have mentioned, of building up a single, monolithic, bureaucratic statutory kind of paternalism of the worst sort.
Lastly, I come to implementation. We have been faced to-day with the choice of the Seebohm proposals, which might be called the "instant plunge", of an urgent, wholesale imposition of the whole scheme on a certain appointed day, with mandatory powers and all that. On the other side we have from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the "never, never" line, with hundreds more Reports which will have to be awaited, read through and so on and so forth, and no indication—certainly we have had none to-day—of any shred of Government policy.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there is only one Report that has to be waited for, not hundreds. But they have all to be read and considered.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, seventy answers to the questions you have already asked, and the Maud Commission Report, I thought, was a start.
I think there are grave objections and difficulties to both these plans. I think the chief difficulty to the "instant plunge" is that at this moment there simply is not the cash to do justice to the operation. Secondly, I think there is the logical objection that if you are working for a community-based service you have to put your roots in the community and let the service grow up out of it. It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms to talk about a community-based service and then "plonk" it down from on high. The objection, on the other hand, to the line taken by the Government so far has been eloquently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, when he emphasises how unsettling this is among the professions. It has been emphasised by other noble Lords, who point out that local authorities are "jumping the gun" in various ways and going off in the wrong direc-
1264
tions. I would add that there are growing queues of patients and clients with serious unmet needs, and for this reason I have ventured (and I hope these suggestions will not weary your Lordships) to devise a brief scheme for the consideration of the Government as to what they might do between these two alternatives. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, provided me with a title when he used the phrase "accelerated piecemeal evolution" because that is what I believe to be perfectly possible at this stage.
These are the things which I suggest could be done. The first has already been eloquently advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere: to set up the Central Council advocated in the Report, at paragraph 640, and to do it forthwith, to develop further all the work done by the three Training Councils already in existence, and at the same time provide a focal point at which advanced planning and advice can be brought into one body. The second thing (and so far as I can see this can be done immediately, without waiting for further Reports or having any further consultations is to set up the central inspectorate, which is also advocated in the Report at paragraph 649. In the new Minister of Health and Social Security we have a suitable Minister for bringing that about. As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, pointed out, this is not an inspectorate to regulate, to ask for a whole string of further statistics and so on, but to get around, to consult and to promote various developments which ought to be under way at this stage.
Thirdly, surely we can give a very warm welcome to the plans, already fairly well advanced, for the unification of all the separate branches of the profession, and also, in passing, a welcome to what I think is known as the "Social Workers' Action Group" dedicated to extracting from the Government some small shreds of policy statements. Fourthly, can we not, without further delay, encourage the National Institute for Social Work Training, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, in co-operation with the Social Work Advisory Service, in getting more of the generic training courses proposed by Mr. Seebohm's Committee actually on the stocks? And could they not be encouraged to bring into this planning the local

1265
government training board, which it seems to me would have a great deal to contribute at this stage, and at this point to take into consideration the probation and after-care service, because that could be done without prejudice to whether they are coming into the area teams and the social service departments?
Fifthly, is it not possible to encourage the establishment here and now, not overall but here and now, and up and down the country, some area teams on the pattern suggested by Seebohm? This again, it seems to me, could be done without pre-empting anything that the Royal Commission on Local Authority Reorganisation is likely to recommend. There must be some places where there is now a willingness among the social workers in the field, and where it would be practicable from the point of view of the buildings and so on, to bring these area teams into being. They could then serve as test-beds for the ideas which are put forward in the Report for universal application. If we were to do that, would it not be possible to apply some of the money which the Government will be empowered to apply through the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Bill to build up area teams of this kind in those areas where there is the willingness to do it, but where nothing practical can be done without the injection of funds from outside? It seems to me that the Bill is drawn sufficiently widely for that to be Possible.
Having said all that, my Lords, I would entirely agree that, for all the reasons which have been deployed this afternoon, it really is not possible to set a "D-Day" for the implementation of the Seebohm Report before the publication of the Maud Report. But surely it might be possible to reach it before that Report is fully implemented. Coupled with these various steps which I believe could be taken in the statutory field, surely it is possible to expect a wide and vigorous response, independent of statutory action, from local voluntary bodies. It seems to me that they can take, and ought to take, a number of steps in order to be ready for the full implementation of this Report. First of all, there should be local directories of who is doing what in the social service field in each locality; a local assessment, by the voluntary bodies acting jointly, of social need;
1266
a local assessment of the resources of voluntary manpower in the Churches, in the schools, on the lines that have already been pioneered by Task Force, and in existing clubs. When that information is available ought it not to be possible for local voluntary bodies, through councils of social service, or councils of churches, to evolve new patterns of co-operation on comprehensive lines and having evolved the patterns to launch them, train the volunteers to work in them and make plans for further development?
I just throw these suggestions out for the consideration of the Government while they are hesitating about the line they ought to take on this Report but before we reach the moment for the plunge which the Seebohm Report points us to in the future.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down may I ask him a question concerning the exclusion of the probation services? I wonder whether he is aware that when the social Work (Scotland) Bill was before the House and was in Committee an Amendment to exclude the probation services was narrowly defeated by the Government. As it was a case of calling in the English to defeat the Scots on that occasion, I must say we were extremely grateful for the support we received from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. May I just add that I personally hope that the Seebohm Report in this respect will be followed.
7.49 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this has been a most useful debate. When the topic for discussion is a document such as the Seebohm Report, covering so many interests and so wide a field, many views expressed are found to focus on some one or two of the many individual subjects covered in the Report, and it is no easy matter to single out for further comment individual points raised in debate. Before I turn to any of these points I ought to say, as other noble Lords have said, how important a field it is that the Seebohm Committee have surveyed for us. Many of us, while well acquainted with individual parts of it, did not know in detail the extent of the many-sided activities included within the personal social services. It is not the least of the

1267
services rendered by the Seebohm Committee that they have given us this valuable and detailed conspectus of them.
I now turn to some of the points which have been raised in to-day's debate. Let me say something on a point of detail which there was not time for my noble friend Lord Stonham to take up in the presentation by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke. I should like to say how grateful I, too, am to her for having given the House this opportunity of discussing this matter. She mentioned the point about the Social Survey Report on Home-Help and asked when we could expect that Report to be in hand. I expect it to be in the hands of the Department of Health and Social Security in the spring of this year.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, may I correct the Minister? That was not a question which came from me; it must have come from somebody else. But I am sure that whoever asked it will be delighted to have the noble Lord's reply.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg the noble Lady's pardon for having pinned upon her a question which she did not ask, but I hope that the answer will be useful to somebody. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said that it was a continuous journey from the Elizabethan Poor Law to Beveridge and from Beveridge to Seebohm, and that they were milestones. Every Member of your Lordships' House will agree with this as a fair assessment of the situation. This enormous Report which we have before us to-day is indeed a milestone. I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of the right reverend Prelate about where, geographically, to concentrate the maximum social effort in this field. I hope that what he thinks about this matter will be met by developments in community development projects, about which I hope that an announcement will be made by the Government quite shortly.
A great many points were raised in the debate, and all were valuable. I do not want to jump about to say that the Government agree with this, or that they disagree with that, or that they do not
1268
know what they think about the middle ones, since it would be absurd to attempt to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, raised a point about sheltered housing ("sheltered" is the Seebohm Committee's word, which they define), about old people, and about the need not to split up families when, unfortunately, they get into temporary accommodation. On the housing side of the Seebohm Report, the point about sheltered housing is one of the most important with which the Committee deals. As to not splitting up families in temporary accommodation, this is fully Government policy. Central Government at present do what they can to urge local authorities not to do this, and we believe that local authorities now do what they can to assist on this matter. There has been a considerable change in the practice in this field over the last two or three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, made most valuable remarks about the hospital service in general and its relation to the field of personal social services. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, spoke about the division between the personal social services and the probation service—that is to say, the personal social services, which were within the terms of reference of the Seebohm Committee, and the probation service, which was not within its terms of reference, although they said something about it. And who shall blame them for that, because it is contiguous.
In regard to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, about the advantages of having a unified "welfare lady", that is to say, one lady from the welfare, this is what it is all about. The House to-day, and the Government in the following days and weeks, will attend to what she said with all the deference which is due to somebody with her vast experience in this field.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Segal, who first raised, at length and in substance, the relation of the general practitioner to this matter. This was later taken up in the complicated question of how one should relate personal social services to the general practitioner and, beyond him, to the hospital. This is certainly one of the main areas which will have to be taken into account in settling

1269
what to do in the matter which has been under discussion in to-day's debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, laid emphasis in her speech upon getting the right people. This has been one of the main threads in this debate. One can easily devise roles for an ideal personality, but it may not always be easy in all parts of the country to find the personality to fit the role. This is a topic which is closely related to the training of people. I was glad to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, because schoolmasters, and those whose experience is with schools and universities, often seem to me to be held to be somewhat above the battle in the matter of the social services. He made the point as to how much more could be done by the schools as such and the welfare persons associated with schools. I think that this also is a most important matter in the decisions which will have to be reached in setting up the new system which we shall get.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was not alone in raising the importance of early warning. This is one of the keys to the whole question. The earlier one can find out that something is going wrong, the more likely one is to be able to prevent its getting worse. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, spoke about the need for people with human qualifications as well as academic ones. This point was related to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said about getting the right people, because in this field nobody is right unless they have the necessary human qualifications.
If I may come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, he felt that it would be wrong to accept the Seebohm Committee's recommendation about the mandatory social services committee, and wrong to accept the recommendation that the chief officer of this committee in each local authority should be a person approved by Whitehall. The House and the Government, in taking up their position, should give considerable attention to the weight of the noble Lord's experience in the local authority world. Of course, to adopt this recommendation of the Seebohm Committee would seem to be going against the recommendation of the Report—which is called in the business "mini-Maud"—on management
1270
of their own affairs by local authorities, which tends away from the idea of mandatory committees and mandatory officers and goes towards the idea of leaving each local authority to carve up its business between committees and officers as it thinks fit.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, if I understood him aright, seemed to be saying that the Central Government ought to be able to choose chief officers without in fact appearing to do so. I do not know whether I misunderstood him, but that was my impression of his speech.
LORD MORRIS OF GRASMERE: My Lords, I certainly did not wish to say that the Central Government should choose officers. Indeed, I commended Seebohm for being moderate in its suggestion as to the way in which the Central Government should take, some part in the process. I wanted to say that it should not be beyond the wit of man to find some way of seeing that all local authorities attach the greatest importance to appointing the right person, perhaps without offending against the principle of freedom to rule in their own house.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry that I mistook the noble Lord's purpose. It was not quite clear to me. Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—and I am sure that everybody would agree with him on this matter—spoke of the reciprocal giving and receiving of service, quoting paragraph 2 of the Report. This is the banner headline which spreads over the whole idea of reforming and improving our local authority personal social services. He spoke also of the delicacy of touch needed in managing these affairs, which I connect with the formulations of other noble Lords and Ladies about getting the right people with human, as well as the other qualifications. Every one of the suggestions which I have mentioned, and every one of those points which I have not mentioned, will be taken into account by the Government from now on in the period—which I hope will not be too prolonged—before the Government can come to a conclusion on this matter.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said that my noble friend Lord Stonham seemed to be looking at

1271
the Seebohm Report through the wrong end of a telescope. I hope he will agree with me that he was only looking at it with a diminution of focus sufficient to accommodate the two or three other Reports which also have to be looked at through the same lens. My noble friend Lord Stonham said that it would be wise to consider together the topics raised by the Seebohm Report, by the Green Paper on the National Health Service and by the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. To this I would add also the former preliminary Report by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud—the one which we call "mini-Maud" as opposed to "maxi-Maud". The debate to-day has amply demonstrated the importance and complexity of the matters with which all these Reports are concerned. I think this emphasises the impossibility of dealing with them separately and attempting to reach conclusions on any one of them in isolation.
I should like to say a word about the timing of the Royal Commission's recommendations. I believe—and the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, will correct me if I am wrong—that his Royal Commission is in fact on the point of completing its Report. After that, printing will go forward as quickly as possible. This stage may take two or three months. It would be misleading of me to offer any precise forecast of the publication date, because the Royal Commission's Report is a bulky one. But the time interval which I have just mentioned is so short as to indicate that the Government should not attempt to reach final conclusions on Seebohm or on the Green Paper until we have all three Reports available for consideration together.
Several noble Lords have spoken in various ways of the possibility that something ought to be done by the local authorities even now before the Government have come out with their view on the matter. I refer to experimentation. Of course, it could be said that it is already going on and that it is in the minds of some authorities, and that where it is going on or is contemplated it is not always on the lines which the Seebohm Report recommended. It is also true, as has been noticed in this
1272
debate, that the Government are planning an experiment in community development on a national co-ordinated level, which I recently mentioned. This would certainly accord with the Seebohm Committee's thinking about co-operation between services and involvement of the people concerned.
But the essence of the Seebohm recommendations, to which these suggestions relate, is that they are about the form of organisation for local authorities' work—the comprehensive social service department. It may well be that some experimentation will prove a sensible way into the complex of problems involved, but the Government need to have some clear idea of the form in which one would like to see this work organised before embarking on or facilitating experiment in formal organisation. This, I think, is my answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who asked: why do we not make money available now up and down the country? I think the right way to do this is through the community development project. That is why, as my noble friend Lord Stonham mentioned at the beginning of this debate, the Government have been at some pains to urge that local authorities would be best advised not to "jump the gun" on Seebohm, but to await the Government's conclusions, which we shall make known just as soon as we can.
We have had a most interesting debate and I am sure we must all be grateful, as I said earlier, to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very large and important Report. There can be no doubt of the vital importance of the topic. Every one of us here and outside must feel a concern about the way in which our community cares and provides for those in need and those unable, for one reason or another, to fend for themselves. With a Report as far reaching in its scope as this, it is very natural that much comment should have been aroused. Not all of it is favourable, of course; the Committee made over 200 separate recommendations and it would be idle to suppose that there are not several important fields in which weighty opinions have been voiced, disagreeing with the Seebohm views. They have been voiced here to-day.

1273
The Government are anxious that there should be the widest and frankest discussion of the Seebohm recommendations. That is well under way and will continue; this debate is part of it. The Government welcome the views that have been expressed to them by the interested organisations in this field, and they welcome particularly the comments that have been made by your Lordships in the course of the debate to-day. I think I may say that we have had a very well-informed exchange of views—it is extraordinary how our House provides, time after time on different topics, people who have spent their whole life in the thick of it; it happened again to-day—and an exchange of views which the Government will consider very closely as they consider what the next steps should be in dealing with the Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, told a story about a sergeant-major marching troops over a cliff top. Actually it was not a sergeant-major; we all know that it is a naval story, but I will not dwell on that. The training noncommissioned officer or petty officer said to the eminent young officer trainee, "Good God, sir, aren't you going to say something, even if it's only, Goodbye?"; and the noble Lord said to the Government, "Aren't you going to say something to the Seebohm Report, even if it is only Goodbye?". I say to it neither "Goodbye", nor, "I embrace you in holy wedlock here and now". What I say to it is, "Stick around for just a little bit longer. There is one more important guest that we are waiting for."
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes his speech, may I
1274
put one question to him which I but earlier in the debate? Is the noble Lord able to say whether the Government have decided that these social services are to continue to be local authority services for which the local authorities are solely responsible?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is one of all those matters which, in the view of the Government, ought to be considered when we have all four relevant Reports before us. I refer to the first Maud Report, the Green Paper on the Health Services, the Seebohm Committee Report and the Report of the Royal Commission on the future a local government itself.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reply.
8.8 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I am most grateful to Members of this House who to-day have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to it as a most useful debate. I must confess that I shall be prepared to say that it is a most useful debate only when I see what the Government intend to do as a result of it. But I should like to thank those noble Lords who have taken part. We have been here for just over five-and-a-quarter hours and I like to think that perhaps some good will emerge as a result. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.