I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out "have power exercisable."

Perhaps it would be convenient to consider at the same time the Amendment in line 26, to leave out "to." These two Amendments raise a question about pensions. This Clause provides for the guaranteeing of pensions to employees of Cables and Wireless Limited who will be taken over by the Post Office. As the Clause is drafted, the power to preserve their pension rights is merely permissive. The purpose of the two Amendments is to make that provision mandatory on the Postmaster-General. I need not labour the point, because I think the Committee will agree that where people are compulsorily transferred from a corporation, or whatever it is, to the employment of the State, their pension rights acquired in their previous employment should be guaranteed by the State. It is the business of Parliament to make that mandatory and not merely permissive. The acceptance of these Amendments would make Clause 6 (1) read:

"The Postmaster-General shall by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make, with the consent of the Treasury, such regulations with respect to the payment of pensions to or in respect of …."

That makes it completely mandatory on the Postmaster-General to secure the pension rights as they exist to persons who are transferred. I think it is agreeable to all sides of the Committee that Parliament ought to insist upon that.

My right hon. Friend is prepared to accept these Amendments. There is not the slightest doubt that regulations with regard to pensions will have to be made. Therefore, there is not the slightest objection to making the Clause mandatory.

The only question I should like to raise is why, if this is the view of the Government, the words originally did not convey the meaning which, as amended, they will convey. Why should the Post Office give the impression that they wish to have some loophole in order to avoid obligations to people who are transferred to their service? There is a good deal of uncertainty about Government service. This kind of wording in Bills raises doubts in the minds of men who will be transferred to the Government service, and does nothing to allay their fears. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, if they have occasion in future to do this again, will see that they place the obligation fairly and squarely on their own shoulders, and do not leave it to the Opposition to ensure that the rights of the men are properly safeguarded.

I do not want to prolong the discussion, in view of the fact that we have accepted the Amendment, but I would like to say that the Clause as drafted followed the lines of previous socialisation Bills, and that was the reason why it was drafted in its original form. As soon as we were aware of that matter, on examination of the pensions schemes of the various companies which had been integrated, we had not the slightest hesitation in making it mandatory on the Postmaster-General to make regulations.

I quite see the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). For the appearance of the thing, it would have been better if it had been made mandatory at the start, but I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth and I am very glad that the Postmaster-General has so readily agreed to accept the point of view which we put forward.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to, leave out "to him."

The grounds upon which this Amendment is moved are, that it should not be in the power of the Postmaster-General merely to say what in his opinion is requisite or what is not, in order to meet the pension liability. We think that his power should be to frame the regulations to secure that persons having pension rights should not be placed in a worse position by way of any amendment, repeal or revocation of existing pension schemes, which is referred to in line 35 on page 6. The regulations are to secure that persons having pension rights under the scheme are not placed in a worse position by reason of any repeal, amendment, revocation, extinguishment or winding-up. I hope I make myself clear.

If these words are left in, the matter rests entirely on the opinion of the Postmaster-General whether the conditions are worsened, and if a person takes his case to appeal, it appears to us that it would be a sufficient defence for the Postmaster-General to say that it appears to him that the conditions are all right and that therefore they are all right. That is our construction of the wording of the Clause if these words are left in.

In our opinion, if a person is aggrieved and considers that the conditions have not been fulfilled in his case and that his position has worsened, he should be able to go to the tribunal, which should be able to adjudicate on his case and say whether the conditions have been fulfilled or not. It should not be possible for the Postmaster-General to say that the Statute lays it down that it is his opinion that matters. I hope he will agree that, in justice to the persons concerned, the matter should not rest upon the opinion of the Postmaster-General, as would appear to be the case if these words are left in. It may be that these words do not convey the meaning which I have attributed to them, but it is up to the Postmaster-General to satisfy us that that is so.

I hope to carry the whole Committee with me in support of this Amendment to ensure that where a person who has rights under this scheme, takes the case to an appeal tribunal if he considers that the conditions have not been fulfilled, it should not be a sufficient defence for the Postmaster-General to say that it is merely his opinion that matters. He should not be able to say that in his opinion the condition were all right and for that to end the matter. I hope I have made the point clear and that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet it.

I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman in his argument are really justified. The main argument in this matter is that the regulations will have to be defended in this House by the Postmaster-General, who will be entirely responsible for them, so that the words "to him" read all right and it is very necessary that they should be included. If the regulations when made are objected to, there will, of course, be the power of annulment if hon. Members opposite, or hon. Members in the House generally, object to them, and that will be their opportunity of dealing with any of the regulations to which they may object. We think these words are absolutely necessary, in view of the fact that the Postmaster-General is the person responsible for defending these regulations when made.

The Postmaster-General has not really met the point. It is quite true that the regulations are subject to annulment when they are produced, but I have been talking of the case of an individual who is aggrieved by an award to him and who, under the regulations, can go to an appeal tribunal. May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the words on page 6, from which it appears that it is possible for the regulations themselves to contain rights of variation of pensions. It is laid down that, if they are varied, a person having pension rights shall not be placed in a worse position. A person may consider that he has been placed in a worse position and may go to the appeal tribunal. The Postmaster-General, however, goes along and says, "In my opinion, he is not in a worse position," and, if these words are left in the Clause, the tribunal will have to accept that, because Parliament will have left the matter to be decided entirely on the opinion of the Postmaster-General.

We do not think that is right, and the explanation which the Postmaster-General has given—that the regulations can be annulled—does not meet the point. We may get down to individual cases in matters of this sort, and we are here seeking to protect the rights of the individual. I cannot see that the Postmaster- General will be any worse off if these words are removed. He can make the same regulations, and the only difference will be that, if a person is aggrieved and goes to appeal, the Postmaster-General will have to satisfy the appeal tribunal that that person is not worse off, and will not be able to decide the matter merely by being satisfied himself. That seems to me to be an essential protection for the individual. I would like a little further explanation of the point, because the argument of the Postmaster-General that the regulations are subject to annulment does not meet the point which I have raised. I hope the Committee will see the force of the case I am making—that it should not be tenable in law that the opinion of the Postmaster-General goes, whatever happens. That appears to be the position at the moment.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, at the end, to insert:

"In all cases where it is decided that the said result has not been secured by any regulations made under this section, the referee or board of referees making such decision shall fit. Any such payment made by the Post-General shall make such payment towards the costs incurred by the parties to the dispute as the referee or board of referees shall think fit. Any such peyment made by the Postmaster-General shall be treated as a payment which may be deducted from the gross revenue of the Post Office before that revenue is paid into the Exchequer."

The intention of this Amendment is fairly obvious from its wording. Persons may wish to go to the board of referees, which will entail expense, and it may happen in many cases that they will be successful in their appeals. The object of the Amendment is to see that where people go successfully to the board of referees—in other words, when the Postmaster-General has been wrong—that the board should have power to enable them to recover what it has cost them to get justice done. Here, again, I hope I shall carry the Committee with me. It is really only common justice that if a person is put to expense in order to put right an error of the Postmaster-General, it should be possible for that expense to be refunded to him. It will be seen that it will rest with the board of referees whether or not they award these costs, so that the Postmaster-General will not be put to expense through frivolous complaints. But it seems only right and fair that where a genuine complaint is made, and the complainant is successful, he should be able to recover the costs incurred. Therefore, I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept this Amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. The acceptance of such an Amendment would be contrary to all the precedents in previous nationalisation Bills. It is intended that the courts which deal with these questions shall be courts that are not, for want of a better expression, legal courts, and that they shall deal with simple issues on their merits and not from a legal point of view. They will keep down the issue as far as possible to the question of deciding the facts. This kind of court has worked very well for many years.

I do not know whether it is an exact parallel but I have some knowledge of the working of the Ministry of Labour courts under the unemployment scheme. It is quite true that in those courts the man making the claim is represented by a trade union official, and I imagine that in this case much the same procedure will be adopted. We used to put the facts of the case as plainly and simply as we could, and, generally speaking, no legal argument was entered into. We tried to keep the matter on that basis, and, indeed, it was essential that it should be kept on that basis. Because of that, there was no power to pay expenses other than those of the appellant himself or, may be, in some cases, the witnesses. There was power, I think, to pay expenses for loss of time. There has been a long experience in this matter, and these courts have worked extremely well. That being so, I cannot see any necessity at the moment to alter the procedure in the way proposed. Indeed, I think it would only worsen the position.

The right hon. Gentleman has constantly used the word "court"; we are dealing with the board of referees, which is not a court.

I was wrong in using the word "court." It was not a court in the sense I mentioned; it was a kind of board of referees to which the men could appeal. For the reasons I have given, I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.

I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to accept the Amendment so reasonably moved by my hon. Friend. It is true, as the Postmaster-General has said, that in similar circumstances elsewhere it may have been the case that these costs were not allowed, but I think the Committee will realise that in these days more and more people are being pushed about at the behest of the State. That is particularly true of the men affected by this Bill at the present time. If men are to be pushed about by the State, and their lives more and more interfered with, thus creating great uncertainty, it is surely the duty of Parliament to see that they are given all the safeguards and the greatest possible sense of security in such difficult circumstances.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Post Office representative will appear before this board of referees. I have no doubt that he will be a man of legal training, that the Post Office will instruct a lawyer of some standing or one of its own tame solicitors or barristers to represent it at the board of referees before whom the applicant has either to state his own case or incur expense. Where a man is uprooted from his work by the State, it is only fit and proper that the State should provide him with the means of being represented at least on a parallel with the representation of the-mighty organisation of the Post Office. There is no doubt that when men go before such a board of referees and are opposing a gigantic organisation like the Post Office, they feel at a considerable disadvantage, and if they cannot afford the kind of counsel sent there by the Post Office they will obviously feel aggrieved.

In those circumstances, where the procedure of pushing him around like a shuttlecock is so disastrous to a man's sense of security and wellbeing, I should have thought it would be the preoccupation of the Postmaster-General to see that everything possible was done to assure him that he was not going to be victimised or unjustly treated in any way, and that the simple method of allowing costs would be one of the obvious things to which the right hon. Gentleman would have agreed.

The Postmaster-General in his reply made reference to the smooth working of the courts of referees under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Will he say what is the difference in operation between the board of referees and the courts of referees under that Act?

I do not know what the particular difference is; I merely mentioned the court of referees as a parallel to show that we are trying to set up a simple kind of board similar to the tribunals which have operated hitherto in other cases, and still operate.

With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), I do not agree that we have tried to push people about. I should have thought that these people—I am speaking about ordinary working men—who may have to go before the board of referees, would rather do so than go before a court with legal powers. I do not agree that a man would think he was being pushed about. As I have said, this kind of court has been operating for a long time, and, in the main, has done very good work. That being so, I do not think that we should change the procedure at this time.

I am not objecting to the board of referees; in fact, I think that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of having as simple a tribunal as possible is the right one. All I am saying is that these men ought to have, and ought to feel they have, an equal chance against the Post Office.

This is a matter which affects the wellbeing of men who may be put out of employment, and it is vital that they should have every protection, whatever the form of tribunal dealing with the problem. We need to be assured—and I am sure the Minister would desire this—that when a man appears before the tribunal on a question of superannuation or pension rights, he will have the best protection and advice available to him. We should hope that, in the majority of cases, he would be a member of a trade union or a corporate body whose skilled advocacy would be available to him, as is the case at present in most of the industries of this country.

It certainly is a point of some substance that where a man's rights are not properly elucidated, and he feels that an injustice has been done and has to brief some kind of counsel, he should have every possible assistance. Quite rightly he does not wish to feel that he has lost his case because he has been in opposition to a great State machine—a soulless body, as some people imagine it to be. One might put this to the Opposition, however. Supposing a man takes to the tribunal what might be considered to be a frivolous or weak case, and some costs are involved in making clear the sound sense of the Post Office, should the man who has brought that weak or frivolous case be mulcted in costs?

I made a reference to the frivolous case when I was moving the Amendment. The Amendment states that:

"the referee or board of referees making such decision shall have power to direct that the Postmaster General shall make such payment towards the costs incurred by the parties to the dispute as the referee or board of referees shall think fit …."

The power is in the hands of the board of referees, and it is purposely put there. Obviously in a case in which the complaint was merely frivolous the board of referees would not make such an award. That is the protection in the sort of case which the hon. Member has rightly raised. We do not wish to encourage frivolous cases.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point; certainly the board has power to instruct or direct the Postmaster-General to make such payment under the terms of the Amendment. My point was whether the Post Office should be put to a great deal of trouble over weak or frivolous cases and whether in fact rather than that the Post Office should have to pay out, they should be in a position to recoup themselves in such cases. No provision for that is made in this Amendment.

If I understand the hon. Member, he is making the point that if a weak or frivolous case is brought the Post Office should have power to recover costs from the man.

I am asking, not stating

I do not understand the hon. Member. He has made the point that the Amendment does not provide for that, and if he is making the point but has not quite got the courage to come down on the side—

If it is a matter of courage, I would say that in such circumstances we should not encourage the tribunal being asked to rule on frivolous or obviously clear cases. I am only pointing out that at the moment there is that danger; certainly it is a two-way traffic.

Does not the hon. Member appreciate that under the Bill as at present drafted there is no discouragement of frivolous cases which can put the Post Office to expense? If the hon. Member's point is a good one, it is in effect an Amendment to the Amendment under discussion, namely that in addition to what the Amendment proposes a man who brings a case which the board certifies as frivolous should be made to pay costs. There may be something in that point, but only if the Government favourably consider our Amendment; they might then improve upon it. I think that the hon. Member has made a point which is worthy of consideration by the Committee, but it does not arise as the Bill stands at present.

The hon. Member should really make up his mind whether it is right that the man who feels that he is aggrieved and brings a dispute before the board and succeeds in convincing the board that he is rightly aggrieved—that the regulations have not provided for equal pension rights—and wins his case, should then be made to pay his own costs. I think it is unfair. The Postmaster-General should consider whether he ought to make some provision for the man who. in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), has been pushed about—he was not suggesting that the Postmaster-General was pushing everyone about—and who has convinced the board that he had been pushed about. That is the point. It seems to me that a man in such circumstances should be entitled to recover his reasonable costs.

It may be argued that the whole system of having lawyers is wrong, and perhaps there is something to be said for that, in which case we have to go back to justice under a palm tree, with a cadi sitting there. When we have complicated regulations and the whole intricate machinery of modern life, however, it is unfortunately necessary to have lawyers. They are supposed to be cynical. I remember one lawyer saying, "When I was young, owing to inexperience, I lost a lot of cases which I should have won. When I was older I won a lot of cases which I should have lost, so on the whole justice has been done." That may not be quite the right attitude.

There do arise circumstances in which a man must have legal advice when a case is complicated. In many of the cases which will come before the board it will not be needed, but if a man has produced his legal adviser and won his case I think it is unjust for the Postmaster-General to say, "I made a bad regulation, the board has said so, and I have to pay a pension, but the legal costs are the man's responsibility." That is unfair to the man. It is very curious that the Government, in so many cases, do not have the interests of the men at heart. Having got into Parliament and into office, they seem to have forgotten what is in the interests of the men. We make many appeals from this side of the House, pointing out where the interests of the men are at stake, but hon. Members are quite unmoved. It is a remarkable thing.

In all quarters of the Committee we are anxious to see that adequate protection is afforded to the man who unfortunately has to submit his case to the board of referees. There is a vast difference between a board of referees and court of referees. When the workman, under the 1920 Act, had a dispute, and had to appear before the court of referees, he could be represented by his trade union leader or by any friend, but not by a legal representative. I am not quite so sure that the unfortunate person who has to submit his case for pension rights to the board of referees will be adequately protected. I wish to ask the Postmaster-General whether that unfortunate person will be covered by Clause 8 (1, b) in relation to expenses. That paragraph says that there may be paid by the Minister of Labour and National Service:

"to persons giving evidence before any such referee or board, such allowances as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."

Will that payment be to persons who give evidence? Will the unfortunate person who has to submit his case to the board of referees receive payment for expenses incurred. Will he be adequately protected under that paragraph?

Yes, that is so.

I am not satisfied with what the Postmaster-General has said, particularly his remark that this has never been done before; that is most reactionary. It does not appear to us to be any reason why in a matter which is fundamentally just—and I am sure that the principle underlying this Amendment is right—provision should not be made accordingly. The fact that it has not been done before should certainly be no argument against it.

My hon. Friends, and indeed one or two hon. Members opposite, have made various points. The Postmaster-General has not answered the last point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). Perhaps he could give us the answer to that before we leave the Amendment. In any event, my hon. Friends and I are not convinced. Although it is probable that in most cases provided the point about expenses is covered—about which we should like to hear—no expenses will be involved, because there will be representation by a trade union, there may be a case in which someone wishes to call a legal representative. If a man gets a favourable decision from the board of referees, that is an indication that he should not have been put to the expense. I believe hon. Members opposite know that the principle behind this Amendment is a right one and I hope they will support us. At any rate, let us have the answer to the question about expenses, asked by the hon. Member for Ince.

I think the answer is definitely given in Clause 8 (b). The Clause, which is headed:

"Provisions as to referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service"

says:

"The Minister of Labour and National Service may, with the approval of the Treasury, pay out of moneys ….

(b) to persons giving evidence before any such referee or board, such allowances as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."

Is it not then a fact that everybody gets paid except the man who has won his case and proved the justice of his application? The Chairman of the board of referees gets paid, the members get paid, the people who go and give evidence, not only for the applicant but also for the Post Office, get paid; but the man who has proved that he was right in bringing the application and has had a decision given in his favour does not even receive his own expenses.

I think there is no provision for legal expenses.

Will the Postmaster-General tell me, in order to clear this up, whether the man who has to submit his case to the board of referees—whether he wins or loses—will receive his expenses? I am not concerned about the legal side of it, but about the loss which the man may sustain in submitting his case to the board of referees. Will he be paid?

Major Milner, is it not really most unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman not to answer that question? We are trying to expedite the further stages of this Bill in an harmonious atmosphere. I should have thought it would be possible for him to answer his colleague behind him.

I understand he gets paid if he gives evidence.

Which means that every applicant must now be encouraged to give evidence as a witness in his own case. Obviously he would.

If a man has a cast-iron case and can prove it by the evidence of one witness, then if he does not go into the box and say "boo" he does not get any expenses. I think that is a ludicrous system.

The height of planning.

He should get the allowance for turning up at the place, not for giving evidence. The Minister says he has to give evidence, which is quite ludicrous. Lawyers make enough nonsense of the law. When the Postmaster-General takes a hand, Heaven help us.

There is obviously some confusion over this. It is not absolutely clear and it would perhaps be better if we did not press the matter further at this point. If the right hon. Gentleman will give a firm assurance that he will look at this matter again in the light of the Debate, then we might proceed. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has been supported in all parts of the Committee. It is something which is eminently right and certainly the conclusion that a man has personally to give evidence in his own case, as the only way in which he can receive any contribution towards his expenses, is quite ludicrous. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman or his colleague, the Assistant Postmaster-General, should tell us that they will look at this again before the Report stage. It is not really necessary to have these messages being passed backwards and forwards and contradictory answers being given when questions are asked. Will the right hon. Gentleman give that assurance?

What assurance is that?

May I point out that it would be possible to ask the same questions when we reach Clause 8, although I hope it will not be necessary to have another Debate.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the light of this Debate—which has revealed a certain nonsense in the situation—he will look at this again between now and the Report stage. If he will, I think we can be satisfied.

I shall try to give a definite assurance on that.

Either the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance now or he cannot. What does he mean when he says, "I shall try to give an assurance"?

I give an assurance that I shall deal with it, but I shall try to give a definite answer before then.

In view of the Debate which has taken place and the assurance given by the Postmaster-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, at the end, to insert:

"so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision thereof is to have effect from a date prior to the making thereof shall not place any person in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been made to have effect only as from the date of the making thereof."

I can explain this Amendment very briefly indeed. It appears that the regulations might have a retrospective effect which would be detrimental to the person concerned and, in order to prevent that happening, we have moved this Amendment. Incidentally, I may say that the words of our Amendment follow a corresponding provision which will be found in Section 54 (8) of the Electricity Act and Section 58 (8) of the Gas Act. In this case the Postmaster-General will find that it has been done before, and that may be some argument to persuade him to accept this Amendment.

I am glad to be able to accept the Amendment.

I beg to move in page 9, line 26, to leave out "have power exercisable."

It would be convenient if we could discuss, with this Amendment, the Amendment in line 28, to leave out "to."

That would be convenient.

As the Committee will be aware, Clause 7 deals with compensation to persons who may lose employment or whose position may be worsened by virtue of the fact that they are entering the service of the Government from Cable and Wireless Limited. As the Clause stands, the power to give such compensation in cases of dismissal or redundancy or of the worsening of position is permissive, and we seek to make it mandatory, but as there is rather more to it than that, I shall sketch some of the background.

In Cable and Wireless Limited, between 1939 and 1946 bonuses on salaries rose from 5 per cent. to 70 per cent. per annum and for the five years prior to nationalisation the average bonus was 55 per cent. per annum. During the Debate on nationalisation in 1946, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and, in addition, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—who I see sitting on the Front Bench opposite—gave emphatic undertakings that the existing contracts of service of the employees would not be disturbed. That was when Cable and Wireless Limited was being nationalised which was, of course, the step previous to the present step by which part of the nationalised Cable and Wireless Limited is being taken over by the Post Office. Those undertakings were given at that time.

What has happened since then? As I understand it, some of the contracts have, in fact, been disturbed and the staff manager, who was chairman of the negotiating committee, said in the course of negotiations that the new position

"is that our path must he somewhere between other commercial companies and the Post Office."

That does not seem to be carrying out the undertaking which was given Ministerially that existing contracts of service would not be disturbed.

What happened? Eventually the offer was made to the staff as a whole by the nationalised Cable and Wireless to consolidate the salaries on a taper basis, on increases, varying from 30 per cent. to 65 per cent., on the 1936 rate under the old Cable and Wireless. The lower-paid portion of the staff have been compensated on the higher basis, and they have done quite reasonably well out of it; and I think that in their case it can be said that the Ministerial undertaking has been met. However, there is a number of the more skilled people in Cable and Wireless who really feel very bitter, as I understand, about the present position, because they have been given an award which runs only between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent., which is a lower award than that of the lower-paid people.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but would he say whether that percentage includes bonus?

That is what we are talking about. It is consolidation—

Of the bonus?

I am open to correction. I am giving the information I have had. They have been offered a consolidated rate of from 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. above the 1936 rate. It does not appear to them, and it does not appear to us, that the undertakings, given in the course of the passage of the Measure nationalising Cable and Wireless, have been met.

The point I was making was this. I am not denying what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is a difference between a war-time bonus and what one would describe as a contract of service of an individual in the employ of an organization—that is, between the ordinary terms of employment, and a bonus which is payable at varying rates, and which may come to an end this year or may go on for another, and which is not really a part of a man's basic terms of service.

In reply to that I may say that for five years prior to nationalisation the average bonus of Cable and Wireless was 55 per cent. per annum, yet now some of the people on the higher paid staff are getting only 35 per cent. I think that answers the right hon. Gentleman. That hardly comes within the framework of the undertaking which he and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer gave. That is the position as I have been told it. It arises partly from the fact that these people are a minority. They are the more highly skilled people, and they have fallen into an agreement—they have been gathered into an agreement—which has been made by a majority decision of the trade union, with which they do not themselves agree.

That is the position. It seems to me that it is a very great pity—perhaps, "pity" is much too mild a word—if a Ministerial assurance is not fulfilled in both the letter and the spirit. If we have a number of people in the higher grades who, rightly or wrongly—I believe here rightly—consider that they have not had a fair deal, it will react on the operations not only of the nationalised under taking, but, of course, on the operations of the Post Office when it has taken over. After all, we have already seen in the workings of Cable and Wireless during the first year of nationalisation, the profits fall by a half, although the undertaking was taking the same traffic and making the same charges; and in many cases the earnings of the staff were lower, as I have already indicated.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him, for the sake of our understanding the matter better? He referred to a bonus, and he referred to the year 1936 and to subsequent years. Is this bonus a bonus based upon trading receipts, on the profit and loss account, or is it a cost of living bonus, or is it something regarded as an ordinary increment? Could he tell us? Because we are rather confused on these benches. So far as the lower-paid men are concerned, the bonus may have had something to do with the war and the increased cost of living. In that case, this consolidation would be a different matter.

I understand that it is not a war-time bonus. It is a permanent thing. I believe it was partly bound up with participation in profits. However, the broad picture I want to draw is this. The average bonus for the five years before nationalisation was 55 per cent.—made up however it may have been. That was the average. Then there was a Ministerial assurance that contracts would not be disturbed. Well, I think that that implied clearly that one could expect to receive more or less the same earnings as before, if continuing to do a similar job. I should have thought so. Of course, it may be possible from a legalistic point of view to argue that it did not. However, it would strike me that that is what it meant, by and large. Now, since nationalisation, people on the lower grades have been awarded up to 65 per cent. which is above the average figure, but some of the higher, skilled grades have been awarded an amount below the average figure.

As I say, I think they have reason to feel aggrieved about this. Apparently, as I understand it, they have not been able to establish their case, because the thing has been done by a majority decision of the trade union. That is the information I have. I am perfectly open and the Committee, no doubt, will be, to hear what has to be said about it, but there is not the slightest doubt that at the present moment some of the higher, skilled staff consider they have had—if I may use the expression—a raw deal in this matter, and that they consider, rightly or wrongly—as I believe, rightly—that a Ministerial assurance, which was given during the passage of the Measure and nationalising Cable been ant wireless, has not been fulfilled—an assurance given, by both the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Financial Secretary. That is the position.

Here we come along to Clause 7 which is designed to give the Postmaster-General power to compensate persons who suffer loss of employment, and who suffer diminution of emoluments or pension rights. Our first point is, that that power is only permissive, and that by Parliament it ought to be made mandatory. It is the same point as we had on the last Clause, and which the Postmaster-General accepted. I hope he will accept this one. I think I shall take the Committee with me in this case as I did in the last case. The Postmaster-General himself has an Amendment down later to make regulations providing a right of appeal. By these means, I think we can give these people a chance to bring their case before Parliament again, and, if necessary, to appeal, and to see to it that they do get compensation if they are discharged, or compensation for loss of earnings through transfer, to which they are entitled, and which they were led to expect they would receive under the Ministerial assurances. I think that is probably all that we can do, but I do suggest to the Committee that these two Amendments should be accepted for the reasons which I have stated.

I want to say at the outset that these two Amendments were anticipated, because of the statements that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech on Second Reading. Thus we have looked at the implications of these Amendments very carefully indeed. We are unable to accept the Amendments. We do not think that regulations will be necessary, but if regulations are necessary, they will be made, and made quickly. Why do not we think regulations will be necessary? The hon. Gentleman himself referred to the words in the Clause which deal with redundancy cases. We are absolutely convinced that, as far as the transfer of staffs is concerned from Cable and Wireless when integration takes place, there will be no redundancy whatsoever. If, however, there was redundancy, my right hon. Friend, at the earliest opportunity, would make regulations which were necessary for dealing with the question of compensation.

12 noon.

We now come to the question of the reduction of emoluments. So far as that is concerned, there have already, in view of the contemplated merger, been consultations with the trade unions concerned. I do not wish to enumerate all the trade unions. They range from the Association of Scientific Workers to the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Union of Shop Assistants and Distributive Workers. They are consulted at all stages with regard to the wages and salaries which should be paid.

Let me come to the example which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has given. He dealt with a case, which I have no reason to believe is hypothetical, of some salaried official who is getting a fairly high salary, and a 65 per cent. bonus was, I believe, referred to. He has suddenly found that if this individual were taken over he would be suffering a loss of salary and emoluments. In that case, he would obviously make representation to the Postmaster-General. If representation were made, my right hon. Friend would have to make the regulations. Not only would the man make a personal application, but, in my submission, he would be backed up by his organisation. If that position arises, I have not the slightest hesitation in stating that, so far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, he would, at the earliest opportunity, make the regulations.

I think that we can appreciate the reason why the hon. Member for Westbury has brought this matter forward. I think that not only has he his own considered view on the matter, with which I disagree, but he has in mind certain of the other socialisation Acts. Let us take the subject of electricity. It is true that so far as the Electricity Act is concerned there was provision of the character mentioned in the statement of the hon. Member for Westbury. There is all the difference in the world, however, between taking over all the various companies and municipal authorities which comprise the electricity undertaking and taking over these people from Cable and Wireless, which is one company. The conditions are vastly different. In the case of the electricity undertaking there had to be mandatory power whereby the regulations were not permissive. Here there is no parallel. Because of these reasons, my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that he fails to see the need for the regulations, regrets that he cannot accept the Amendment.

I am very disappointed with the reply given by the Assistant Postmaster-General. I feel that there must be many hon. Members on the other side of the Committee who will share my disappointment. The hon. Gentleman says that these regulations are not necessary because there is only a small number of people involved and it is only one company.

I stressed the fact that there was one company; not the number of individuals. I do not care whether there is one individual or a thousand individuals.

The hon. Gentleman says that there is only one company, which I should have thought would have made the regulations even easier to frame. He might have added that it was not necessary to have the regulations because already considerable damage has been done to the original employees of Cable and Wireless Ltd.

If that statement were true, I think that we should have had representations from the trade unions concerned in this matter. These people are not defenceless.

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is aware of precisely what happened in these negotiations. If he were aware of that, he would know that there was, on the part of the trade unions concerned, the sacrifice of a large number of the employees of Cable and Wireless who joined the organisation since 1939, to get as a quid pro quo some advantage for those who joined the organisation prior to that date. There is already an immense amount of dissatisfaction at the way in which the original employees of this company have been treated. I should have thought that in view of that, the hon. Gentleman would have been anxious to see that there was no further ground for suspicion of their treatment.

I do not complain about the stabilisation. I think that after the experience in the Post Office, after the first world war, when the refusal to accept stabilisation led to postmen being employed at wages on which they could not live, the unions were perfectly right in accepting a measure of stabilisation, but I am convinced that it should be put upon the Post Office as an absolute obligation that they should see that regulations are made to safeguard the men. These men are just tossed about like corks. Only a short time ago they were working for Cable and Wireless, and now they have been transferred, and all the other arrangements have been pushed over.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, after a day's grilling upstairs in Select Committee, was not prepared to say that he would maintain the emoluments of the employees of Cable and Wireless, and I am sorry to say that that attitude has remained and they have not been maintained, although I do not complain in general terms of stabilisation.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong as usual, and he gives no facts to substantiate what he is saying, again as usual. I am here to say that what he has said is quite incorrect.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has gained some confidence in this House, he seems to have become very offensive. I did not make this statement without having a clear recollection of what happened upstairs, and I put to him in precise terms this question: would he give an undertaking that as the result of the transfer of these employees to the national Board they would not suffer any loss of emolument. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that he could not give such an undertaking.

Clause 7 provides that where it is quite impossible on a transfer to put a man in exactly the same position as formerly, compensation can be claimed.

The right hon. Gentleman is apparently not aware of all the stages that have been gone through. There has been a loss of remuneration by these employees of the original Cable and Wireless Limited. They have been transferred from Cable and Wireless Limited as a private concern to a publicly owned concern, and they have suffered loss of remuneration. They have suffered a loss and nothing contained in this Bill is going to affect the loss in which they have been involved. All that we are concerned about now is any potential loss of remuneration that arises from their transfer from the publicly-owned Cable and Wireless to the Post Office. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who says that I am always wrong, would have a much better grasp of this matter than he appears to have.

I say in conclusion that I am intensely disappointed that the Post Office take this niggardly view of their obligations. I want to see them going out of their way to instil confidence in these men because many of them have no confidence about their future in the Post Office. I should have thought that this gesture might have been expected from a great organisation like the Post Office.

The reply of the Assistant Postmaster General has gone a short distance in explaining to the House what it is proposed to do in the event of one case or a number of cases being affected by the change-over. He made reference to bringing in the regulations. I have had some experience and I know that the House has had some experience of regulations brought in by Ministers. If my right hon. Friend has brought to his notice one case or a number of cases which have to be covered by regulations, will the regulations be applicable retrospectively? When they come before the House they are dated, and when accepted become operative on a certain date; but the case or cases may be brought to the Postmaster-General's attention long before that date. Could we have an assurance that in the event of such cases being found, the regulations will be dated so as to bring in those cases affected under this Bill?

I think there has been a misconception about the nature of the bonus. The Financial Secretary rather suggested that it was a cost-of-living bonus. As I expect he has now informed himself, it was not. The Cable and Wire- less bonus was a kind of profit-sharing bonus, founded on a very complicated formula. To put it simply—although this is not quite accurate—it had relation to the standard revenue of £1,200,000, which had to be earned by reference to the original agreement setting up Cable and Wireless. After the standard revenue was earned the employees got what was in effect a share of the profits; as the profits of Cable and Wireless went up the bonus of the employees increased; it was a standard percentage of what they earned. It was increased in certain parts of the world by reference to the cost of living and the exchange position with regard to the £ sterling.

Leaving aside the bonuses for the staff abroad, which were related to the cost of living, we are here talking about a bonus which, in effect, speaking quite broadly, was a kind of profit-sharing bonus. After nationalisation the new managers of the business consolidated the bonus at a standard percentage. I think the Financial Secretary will find that a saving was made by this consolidation; it was not a great saving, but a saving was claimed to be made by the Post Office. Naturally that saving would come largely out of the pockets of some of the employees. I believe that there would be somewhere between 150 and 185 of 190 employees who suffered by this consolidation. The most typical employee who suffered was the skilled telegraph operator in the top category. The categories in Cable and Wireless went largely by seniority, because it was the kind of business in which it could be said that the longer a man was there the more experienced he was, and the categories were not therefore based purely on skill, as in other trades; the categories of pay went by seniority.

I am rather guessing now, but I think that the people who have been affected are those who earned between £12 and £8 a week—quite a high salary. They are the people who compose the large majority of the 190 or 200 people affected. All that this. Amendment seeks to do is to make it mandatory on the Postmaster-General to issue regulations as regards these people. There has been an unfortunate experience in the nationalisation of the coal industry, where although the Government have power to make the regulations, there is no power of forcing them to do so. I know of one case where, because of that, a man is unable to get the compensation to which he is morally entitled. We are here trying to make it mandatory on the Postmaster-General—and there does not seem to be any harm, if he means to do it, why it should not be—to issue regulations to compensate this class of person.

I should be very grateful if the Financial Secretary would indicate whether he agrees broadly with the statements I have made: that there is a class of person who has suffered, that their number is somewhere between 150 and 200, and that they have had quite a considerable drop in remuneration. My recollection from seeing the figures some time ago is that one person suffered a loss of as much as £250 a year, £5 a week—although I may be exaggerating slightly. We want to make certain that such a person is bound to have a regulation issued for him. This is a matter of common justice. These people have a real grievance, and if the making of these regulations were mandatory, the grievance would largely disappear.

12.15 p.m.

As I understand it, the regulations would apply even if the trade union cannot carve out a proper basis of remuneration for these particular people. In other words, the reason this has happened is because the trade union acted largely for the majority of their members and were unable to fit this particular small section into the general scale in their negotiations. I am not certain about that. I merely ask whether that is, in effect, how it has happened. We merely wish to achieve a measure of justice for a minority in the trade union of whom I understand the trade union cannot take care, because it would put out of focus the scale which applies to the majority.

I understand that the Post Office cannot see their way to make proper provision for these people, because it would put out of step the rates paid in the Post Office. The reason these people are in this position is because of the history of Cable and Wireless, the way it grew up, and the way it was amalgamated with the old companies. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would tell us whether what I have said is broadly true, as I believe it to be, and whether the Government could not give an assur- ance that they are bound to issue regulations to take care of those in this industry.

What the hon. Member says is broadly true, but the inferences he draws from the facts he has given are not correct. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) made great play with the fact that the consolidation of the profit bonus had been made at a percentage level which did not give to the recipients the same emoluments by way of bonus as they had previously had. That is true; but it does not come into Clause 7 at all, because the consolidation took place in 1947, and was done by agreement with the staff; the associations acting for the staff accepted it as reasonable and just. However, the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for Westbury are quite right in saying that there were a few—I do not know the exact number—who, when the consolidation took place felt that they were not getting the percentage they should have had.

The point is that with a bonus which fluctuates according to profits it may well be that in future lean years they will not get any bonus at all. Therefore the staff had to consider whether to take something worth while now and let it go at that. The staff decided that they would, and, as has been indicated, the percentage was stabilised at a pretty high level. One must also remember that that percentage added to the salary makes both the bonus and the salary—which become one, of course, after consolidation—rank for pension. I think that the settlement was a pretty good one, although I do not doubt that there were one or two in the higher reaches who felt aggrieved. That is something I cannot help, and I freely admit it. But the overwhelming number of those concerned accepted the settlement as reasonable, proper and just to them.

In any case, that was in 1947, and this Bill does not touch them. This Clause deals with a situation that has arisen since that consolidation took place. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. and learned Member the assurance that this Clause should be made in such terms as to re-open the settlement that was reached in 1947. Here we are dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances. The Post Office in future will have to negotiate terms with the staff. This Clause deals with compensation which may fall to be paid under regulations yet to be promulgated, where a man has for one reason or another not received what could be said to carry out the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I can assure Members opposite that we have no desire whatever to be unjust to the staff who have been taken over. But we have to remember the history of this matter. It was not only this Government but the Dominions that wanted to see Cable and Wireless taken over and become an inter-Commonwealth organisation. That being so, it is quite obvious that where staff is taken over who were previously spread all over the world it is impossible in the new set-up to put everyone in exactly the same position as he was in before the change took place. In spite of what the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) said, I am positive that we are being just and fair to those concerned, and where it is impossible so to be this Clause will help to take care of them.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that what he said about consolidation is rather hard? The vesting date was, of course, January, 1947, but it was the new masters, the Government, that arranged this consolidation. I understand that the only matter with which this Clause deals is the changeover from being employed by Cable and Wireless to being employed by the Civil Service. It seems to me that that is a mere bagatelle compared with the first step the Post Office took, namely, to consolidate the salaries.

The Bill does not deal with that.

I do not think that that has been appreciated. It certainly was not appreciated that the Government do not propose to do anything about the injustice I have mentioned. When Cable and Wireless was formed, by taking over all the other companies, those that were not put in exactly the same position got full compensation. Surely, when the Post Office has reduced a man's salary by £5 a week and does not give compensation, that is a very terrible thing, although the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to think that it is.

That does not arise on this Amendment.

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for having made clear the relationship of the consolidation of the bonus to pension rights. That has not been properly appreciated. I have taken part in negotiations where diminution of present income was cheerfully accepted by the negotiating body on behalf of the workers because it meant a long-term gain in the form of better security. The Financial Secretary has made it clear that this Amendment does not really affect the position. There is another point I should like to underline, which arises from the remarks of the Assistant Postmaster-General, and that is that it will be very difficult, even were it possible to accept this Amendment, because of the dual nature of the classes of people referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). The first are

"persons who suffer loss of employment in consequence of the giving of effect to Clause 5."

I was particularly happy to hear that this provision, wise as it may have been when the Bill was drawn up, is now unnecessary, because it would appear from what the Assistant Postmaster-General said that there will be no persons covered under that category since all the employees of Cable and Wireless can he found places under the new set-up. Therefore, the real question that we are discussing is the people who fall under paragraph (b)—

"persons who suffer diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of their entering the Civil Service."

I feel that the whole basis of salary negotiations would be imperilled if, on a second change such as is contemplated under this Bill, previously negotiated agreements under a different set of circumstances were again brought under discussion. The changes of which the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) complained were fully discussed and agreement was negotiated between the previous employers and the trade unions concerned. I submit that we cannot be concerned with that and that we are concerned only with the conditions of transfer as at the time of this Bill.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about this matter. There is obviously disquiet on both sides about it. The Financial Secretary agreed that in 1947 many people thought that an injustice had been done to them. That was implicit in the remarks he made. The fact that injustice has been done and this Clause cannot remedy it, is no excuse for making a further injustice, even though it be of a limited kind. The right hon. Gentleman said that those who had lost as a result of transfer could be compensated, and that of course is the whole purpose of the Amendment—there is nothing mandatory about it; it is merely permissive. In view of the widespread uncertainty about this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman look at it again between now and Report, in which case we shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment?

I am very sorry, but my right hon. Friend does not see his way to reconsider the Amendment largely for the reasons that have already been indicated. With all due respect to what has been said by Members opposite, I do not think they have proved there is any likelihood of redundancy occurring. That is admitted all along the line. As far as paragraph (a) is concerned, there is complete agreement. But if there is any injustice, even in a single case, I give the assurance that my right hon. Friend will lay a regulation before the House of Commons. We now come to the second class of persons, where exactly the same position arises. If anyone thinks he is aggrieved, a regulation will be made by my right hon. Friend. I appreciate the spirit in which Members opposite have put forward their case, and I hasten to assure them that they need have no fears whatsoever, because should the need arise we shall use this Clause and make the necessary regulation. With that assurance, I hope that Members opposite will see their way to withdraw the Amendment.

Would my hon. Friend answer the question I put to him about the regulations?

The regulations will not be retrospective; there is no equivocation about that statement. When they are made the losses already sustained will be considered.

Let us not be confused about this Clause. We agree that it can have nothing to do with what has passed between the old Cable and Wireless setup and the new nationalised set-up, but a legacy has been left behind. A number of the more highly skilled workers are aggrieved. If I may say so without offence, the Financial Secretary seemed to say, "I am sorry, but this particular class have 'had it,' and there it is." These men feel that they have had a raw deal, and it cannot be good for the running of Empire communications that there should be a body of men in the highly skilled trades who are suffering under a sense of grievance. That being so, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have made a gesture, that he would have reconsidered the matter in the interests of running his own show. For that reason, I press him to look at the point again between now and Report.

If my right hon. Friend were to endeavour to do that, he would be upsetting the whole consolidation arrangement which had been come to previously.

rose—

This discussion is really outside the Clause and the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has already made his speech and plea to the Minister, and I cannot let him go on any further.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out from "instrument," to "to," in line 28.

I think that the Government Amendment in page 10, line 20, can be taken with this Amendment. Both deal with the question of affirmative resolution procedure rather than procedure for annulment.

I understand that the Chairman has decided that there can be a Division on this Amendment, but no discussion as the point it covers has already been dealt with.

The right hon. Gentleman has already said that he would look into it between now and Report, and in those circumstances I do not propose to move the Amendment.

On a point of Order. I understand that while my attention was temporarily distracted that the Third Reading was given to the Commonwealth Telegraphs Bill. Was that done deliberately, because we understood we had received certain assurances from the Postmaster-General and it was our intention to discuss certain points at a further stage? If by inadvertence the assent of the House was given to the Third Reading, it is a very grave breach of the understanding which we had across the Table. If, in fact, that is what happened, is it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, within your power to say there was a mistake?

The position is that we had the Committee stage of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Bill until about 12.30. Then I had to report it to the House, which I did, and as there were no Amendments down for the Report stage I said so and put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." It was so read. There is surely nothing wrong with that. The Postmaster said that he would look at various things, and he will have an opportunity of looking at them.

I might help if I intervene to say that it is likely that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) did not hear all that the Minister said. My right hon. Friend indicated that he would look at some of these things during the Bill's passage through another place and he indicated that in his view the House might give the Bill a Third Reading. That would not prevent certain matters, to which he had promised to give consideration, being looked at during its passage in another place. I hope with that assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.

I cannot allow any more discussion on this matter. The Bill has now been read the Third time and it is out of Order to discuss it any further. I allowed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to raise his point of Order, I said what had happened and the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury also explained the position from the point of view of the Postmaster-General.

I understand the answer to my point of Order is that there is nothing that can be done. I can reserve my own view on the matter, but I think it was a piece of sharp practice on the part of the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman should not say that. There is another place to which this Bill is going. I cannot allow any further discussions or accusations of that kind.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out "28, 735, 184," and to insert "28, 623, 184."

This Amendment reduces the aggregate of the gross amount of payments in respect of undertakings in the harbour group by £112,000. Claims from undertakings in this group were acceptable up to the time of the introduction of the Bill, but there was one claim which was then still under discussion and which has now been settled.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:

"(4) Nothing in the said Regulations or Order shall prohibit before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, milk which has been treated by heat at one licensed establishment from being bottled at another licensed establishment."

We may pass on now to the more harmonious subject of milk. The Amendment which is down on the Order Paper is one which no doubt the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will accept and it hardly requires any discussion because, in point of fact, the point which it raises was discussed at considerable length in the Committee stage upstairs. It was on an Amendment originally moved by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Battley). The point at issue was that in certain districts there are certain firms in the dairy business who have their milk pasteurised in one establishment and then bottled afterwards when they retail it in their own name. The point was that these were old established businesses and that they should have a period of transition during which this could go on.

The proposals were put up by an organisation representing the distributors called the Central Milk Distributive Committee. The right hon. Lady was a little at fault on that subject, because she said that the Co-operative societies were not on the Committee, nor were some other big people but that it represented most of the small people in the business. I understand that the Committee was set up a good many years ago and represents everyone, concerned, including the Cooperative societies.

indicated assent.

Be that as it may, the point is quite simple and no doubt the right hon. Lady will concede it, because she said that the trade had had warning on 31st July, 1946. That was nearly three years warning already. I am now quoting from the Standing Committee Report:

"We shall make this provision—"

that is to say a five year provision from the time of the first notice being given—

"in the Regulations, but we recognise that there is a shortage of bottling plant and that this cannot be effective forthwith, and after having heard the Debates on this Committee I am now prepared to assure the small distributors that this provision"—

that is to say, a break from the existing system—

"will not become operative until 1st October, 1954. The Committee will no doubt agree that that is a generous compromise.

For any part of the country?

Yes. In the first place, therefore, the trade was warned in 1946 and this provision will not become operative until 1954."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 22nd March, 1949: c. 27–28.]

The right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend are entirely in agreement on the point, and the only issue raised by the Amendment is that as we are legislating at the moment we think it would be better to make the position abundantly clear by putting the words of her assurance into the first Clause. While we recognise that if the Minister gives an assurance we are entitled to accept it without doubting either the Minister of Food or the right hon. Lady, we think that it would be better in this perfectly simple Clause to say what exactly the assurance is. We should like to put it into the Bill at this stage, and I hope the right hon. Lady will agree to it because she is going to do it. She told us that in Committee and she will no doubt repeat it in the House today. To put it into the Bill would be just that much more security for the persons concerned.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has correctly summarised the position. I made it clear in the Committee upstairs that we had no intention of being harsh to the small man. Everybody knows the trend is to pasteurise and bottle milk on the premises. In the regulations we intended to insert this provision, but we are fully conscious of the fact that the bottling plant is very limited at the moment. Therefore, in response to requests from both sides of the Committee I agreed to postpone the date until 1st October, 1954. I stand by that now.

I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to agree to one thing—which I am sure he will do, because on the Committee we recognised that many of the provisions would be put into the regulations. I suggest to him that he should allow this to be inserted in the regulations in the appropriate place dealing with the matter. I will assure him that the same date will be put in. he will recognise that it is very difficult for the trade or anybody else to interpret this Bill without the Special Designation Regulations which cover all the details. If he accepts that I am only too willing to put it in.

I should like to suggest that my right hon. Friend makes this positive. In other words, I would suggest that not only should the regulations state that they will not come into force before 1st October, 1954, but that they will come into operation on that date. The trade will know exactly where they stand then, and it will be a positive decision.

My hon. Friend has asked me something which administratively, is a little difficult, because the regulations may come into effect beforehand. In the regulations, however, which must be read, of course, by people who are concerned with this matter, there will be the specific assurance that that provision will not come into operation until 1st October, 1954.

Will there be the specific assurance that it will come into operation on that date?

I am sorry, I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I thought he was asking for what I took to be an assurance to the trade that they need not operate this provision. Yes, I can assure him there will be a positive assurance of that kind, that that is the last date. As the right hon. and gallant Member has reminded the House, I said in Committee that the trade, had, in effect, already received a warning in 1946, which means that we are giving them nine years grace.

I quite see that point. All we are seeking to ensure is that they should not be prejudiced in the meantime, in view of what the right hon. Lady had said upstairs. I still think it would be better if this provision appeared in the Bill, for it has, of course, to appear in the regulations; but it seems that it is merely to be, so to speak, mandatory that it should appear in the regulations. However, the fact that the right hon. Lady has, in sight of all the world, given us this assurance in the House this morning is sufficient really for the purpose we have in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the Amendments appearing in my name, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "Food and Drugs," and to insert "local," and in line 31, after "area," to insert:

"other than the council of a county,"

are being called?

They are not selected.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out from "which," to the end of the line.

The House will remember—there are many hon. Members here today who served on the Committee—that there was some confusion over Clause 3. I was not present at that particular sitting—I had influenza.

That was why there was confusion.

I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The reason for the misunderstanding in the interpretation of the Clause was, I think, that it was felt that the Clause was too restrictive. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General interpreted it and said it might be interpreted as limited, so far as the Minister's powers were concerned, to the breakdown of a plant. We had no intention, of course, of limiting the powers of the Minister in this way. We were anxious for him to have power to grant exemption from the requirements of the Bill to meet any difficulties that arose. That is the reason for the Amendment. I think it will meet the wishes of the House.

The right hon. Lady is very kind to those who made mistakes upstairs. This is the really important Amendment on the Report stage. All through the discussions on the Bill, both in another place and upstairs, it was constantly being said, "Well, the Minister has real power to deal with this or that little difficulty as a result of Clause 3." That was frequently said, but when we came to the Clause and examined it further I took the view that its words were limited purely to certain things the Minister could do if there was "a failure of plant." Next come the words" or otherwise," and I thought, naturally, that in that context they must refer to something connected with a breakdown of plant or similiar matter. The Minister of Food disagreed with me—the right hon. Lady would not have done so—but the Solicitor-General supported my point of view. The Amendment, therefore, has been brought in to justify all that had been said by the Minister and spokesmen in both Houses on the point of dealing with emergencies.

We cannot, of course, discuss all this now, but as some hon. Members are here who were not on the Committee I think I am entitled to say that the reason why we were particularly interested in this point was the difficulties we foresaw under Clause 1 (3). There it is made possible for milk to be sold

"by a producer of milk from cows to persons employed by him in or in connection with such production or employed by him otherwise in agriculture, if he does not engage in any other selling of milk. …"

That is to say, the practice which up to now has existed, by which a farmer who is not in the milk trade but who provides milk to those whom he employs, is safeguarded. We wondered, however, whether the difficulty might arise of the case where, for example, he had always sold milk to a man in his employ and the man dies and the widow continues living there. Can the farmer sell the milk to 'her in future? The second kind of case we have in mind was that of remote areas with no possibility of pasteurisation until such time as the cows had been cleaned up. Would the people living on that remote farm, who might not actually have been employed by the farmer himself, never be able to use the milk of those cows? Or, because there was no delivery of milk from anywhere else, were they to be condemned all their life to living on tinned milk?

The right hon. Lady was not present at the sitting when these matters were discussed, but these are the sort of points we had in mind and on which we thought there should be some power of the kind we suggest, subject, of course, to all the safeguards anybody desires. We are not suggesting any wide gateway through which people could obtain a lot of impure milk, but anyone with experience of the remote areas of Scotland and Wales, and small parts of this country also, knows that because of long distances, bad roads and so on there is no delivery of milk. That is why we thought there should be power for the Minister—not himself, but through his food officers—to give certain exemptions. We could not find that this was covered in the Bill.

Then we came to Clause 3, when the Solicitor-General told us, "All you had expected out of this Clause is impossible. It deals only with the breakdown of pasteurisation plants in some particular dairy or other kind of establishment." That was the difficulty, and I am very relieved that the right hon. Lady has found it possible to overcome it by a most simple Amendment, by taking away the limitation of these powers only to the failure of plant. As a result, the Clause now makes it possible for the Minister—while the words are fairly wide, he retains control—to give consent

"either generally … or restricted to a particular retailer or establishment …"

Even then, he can do so

"either unconditionally or subject to conditions …"

If we are to allow exemption by which the Minister retains the right to specify, even in one establishment, the kind of conditions which are to be effective in that establishment, none of us, enthusiastic as we all are for the quick development of clean milk, need have any great anxieties about the door being open too wide. On the other hand, it seems to me that she has provided a means for dealing with some of the difficulties which we foresaw upstairs. For that reason I welcome the Amendment, and I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady for the steps she has taken.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, at the end, to add:

"(4) The provisions of section eighty-three of the Food and Drugs Act. 1938, shall not apply to any proceedings under section eight of this Act if the breach of condition was in connection with milk sold to the defendant."

I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow). The object is to do away with the position which arises whereby if a retailer commits an offence he has two opportunities of passing the responsibility back to the wholesaler. We consider that Clause 16 (3) should be sufficient without having recourse to previous Acts. We do not want to protect the wholesaler who may have committed an offence, but we suggest that the retailer and the public are sufficiently covered under this Bill. One of the arguments of the Minister may be that if this Amendment is carried, the wholesaler who has committed an offence may escape. We do not think so. I am not an authority on milk. I am acting as a stop-gap. I am told that certain tests are applied to a retailer which are not similar to those applied to a wholesaler. Therefore, if a retailer has committed an offence because a certain test has not been complied with, it would be unfair that he should pass the responsibility to the wholesaler who is subject to a different test. A wholesaler who has a licence issued and who takes every possible precaution is sufficiently liable to prosecution for an offence without making him liable for an offence which a retailer might pass back to him.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that the House will accept this suggestion. The Food and Drugs Act has been introduced into this Bill for purely administrative purposes. Milk retailers and wholesalers through their licensed organisation have a perfectly reasonable and proper channel of what might be called punitive administration. There is a perfectly proper way in which any breaches of their licences can be dealt with. It is not necessary that, in addition to the sanctions which are available to the local authorities under the Food and Drugs Act, there should be penalties imposed by that Act in respect of matters which were never intended to be subject to the imposition of penalties under that Act at all. I suggest that in this Clause there are already ample sanctions to ensure that milk retailers as well as wholesalers, carry out their obligations in an adequate and proper manner. It is not necessary to have this additional channel open to inspectors and local authorities.

It may be helpful if I try to explain exactly what will be the result of this Amendment. Putting it in non-technical phraseology, under the Food and Drugs Act if it is found that a retailer has sold an article which does not comply with the proper designation, he is entitled, if he can prove that it was not his fault, to pass on the responsibility to the person from whom he got the article, namely, the wholesaler. Likewise, if the wholesaler can prove that he was not responsible, he can pass on responsibility to his supplier. Then we come to a point in the milk industry which we do not find in other industries to which the Act is intended to apply. The ultimate suppliers may be very large indeed in number. The milk is collected from the producers and pooled. It may be impossible for the chain of distribution to be traced back from the retailer to the producer. Therefore, the result of the application of this form of administration will be complete chaos.

I understand that the Government objection to this Amendment is primarily based upon the fact that they hold that it would let out many retailers from liability and render it impossible for them to be prosecuted. The retailers adopt exactly the opposite argument and say that if this Amendment is accepted they will have no defence at all. That, I think, is wrong. For once, the dairymen are in error. The defence provided in Clause 9 will still be open to them. All that is taken away by this Amendment is the alternative defence provided for them by the Food and Drugs Act which I submit they ought not to have. The argument of the dairymen is wrong, and it goes without saying that the argument of the Government is wrong They are both wrong, and I hope that the House will hold that the Amendment is right, and that they will accept it.

With all due respect to the mover and seconder of this Amendment, I think that they have come here this morning without obtaining legal advice of any kind, and certainly without asking what is the opinion of certain sections of the milk trade. This is a most dangerous Amendment. I am sure that if it were accepted and if it operated, hon. Members opposite would be the first to jump up and to say, "This really is grossly unfair." The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was very brief. It was quite clear that he did not understand the implications of this matter. I observe from his smile that, for the first time, he accepts what I say.

I hope that the right hon. Lady is quite sure that she understands.

Women have learned that they always have to know much more than men. Therefore, I never come to this Box without knowing all about my subject.

I think the House will agree that it is significant that this Amendment was put down on Report stage in another place, but no Member of the other place felt that he could move it although it was on the Order Paper. Apparently the same people had briefed another place. This Amendment was not moved, for the reason that, having put it on the Order Paper, the people concerned with it made further inquiries and realised that it was very dangerous and that, in operation, it would be grossly unfair. And under Clause 8, we can of course take certain action against a retailer who has contravened one of our regulations, and the retailer may prove his innocence by producing evidence that the man who has sold him the milk is guilty. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite have with them the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. This Amendment says:

"(4) The provisions of Section eighty-three of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, —"

which gives us the power to take action against a defaulting wholesaler—

"—shall not apply to any proceedings under Section eight of this Act if the breach of condition was in connection with milk sold to the defendant."

In other words, if a retailer could prove to the satisfaction of the court that the wholesaler was the guilty party, then, under Section 83 of the Food and Drugs Act, we could take action against the defaulting wholesaler, but this Amendment would cut the ground from under our feet.

It was intended to.

It cuts the ground from under the feet of Justice, who is always represented as a woman. I am quite sure that hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who have, in a rather irresponsible manner, moved this Amendment, do not really desire it. If a man is guilty, whether he is a wholesaler or a retailer, there must be provisions which can be operated so that action can be taken against him. With all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, this is something which the farmers would all accept very gladly—

No.

Well, yes. If accepted, we would find it difficult to proceed against the defaulting wholesale producer, and I ask the House not to accept the Amendment, because it would be very dangerous in practice.

May I ask the right hon. Lady a question? Does not her argument apply equally to the wholesaler who can put the responsibility on his supplier, when it will be quite impossible for the Ministry's representative to discover who the supplier is in the circumstances?

Certainly, they can try to put it on him, but they have got to bring evidence.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, to leave out:

"and in the principal enactment."

This Amendment and the two which follow—in line 33, and in page 12, line 22—are drafting Amendments. We have had second thoughts about the Bill, and we have recognised that Clause 14 as it stands, governs the meaning of the principal enactment, namely, Section 21 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. This is wrong, particularly in regard to the definition of milk. If hon. Members will look at the definition of milk in the Bill, they will see that it does not include cream, but we wish, so far as the Food and Drugs Act is concerned, to have a reference to cream. Although there are at present no special designations for cream, we are anxious that when the times comes we shall be able to take some action in that matter. It is, therefore, proposed to define milk separately, and the House will see the definition in the Amendment to line 22.

1.15 p.m.

The third Amendment is concerned with defining selling. It will be seen that the Clause provides that selling means selling in the course of a business. We are anxious, that for the purposes of Section 21 of the principal Act, to make a sale under Section 21 include the free supply of milk.

I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Lady for listening to what I said in the Standing Committee. It was a little ridiculous not to have milk defined as including cream, when everything which the Ministry of Agriculture is doing is directed towards encouraging the production of milk which contains more cream. I think the Amendment meets our point to some extent, but I would like to ask the right hon. Lady why, instead of saying in the Amendment that milk means

"cows' milk, but does not include cream, or separated, skimmed, dried, condensed or evaporated or butter milk,"

the important point—that milk includes cream except when the cream has been separated from the buttermilk—is not covered. I suggest that a better wording would have been an indication that milk does not include separated cream, and I am very surprised that the word "separated" has been left out.

I understand that under Section 100 of the Food and Drugs Act, cream means

"that part of milk rich in fat which has been separated by skimming or otherwise;"

I should also say that where we describe milk as such, it means full cream milk.

I am sure that is very satisfactory. I want to ask the right hon. Lady a question on a much more elementary point than what milk means. Why should we have such a curious arrangement in drafting? Here we have Clause 14 (1), which says that the meaning of certain words is as set out there, and we then expect to find a definition of milk. It does not do that at all, but says that milk will be defined in a special subsection. While everybody is prepared to accept the new definition of milk in the new subsection, why does it not do it in the place where we expected it, instead of saying that milk is something which is defined somewhere else? It is a quite unnecessary complication.

It is quite simple, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will examine the principal enactment. I think hon. Members opposite are not paying sufficient attention to the principal Act, where they will find most of these definitions. The reason why we have this definition of milk separately in the Bill, is because it applies to this Bill and not to the principal enactment.

I do not understand. It may be that it ought to be changed in the further stages of the Bill. In this Bill, Clause 14 (1) has nothing to do with the principal enactment. It is a definition of milk for this Bill and not for the principal enactment, and therefore it ought to be in line with the definitions in subsection (1). I do not make any great point of it; I only suggest that it might be looked at again.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is really concerned with tidying up the wording; he thinks that it might perhaps look better. We want to give some emphasis to the importance of milk. After all this is a milk Bill, and I would have said—and I think I may have a little support from the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) who raised the question of cream—that it is important to define clearly what we mean by milk, that is why it is given special emphasis in the new subsection.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 21, after "milk," to insert:

"not so produced or subjected or other things."

This Bill, as has been said on many occasions, is not merely concerned with the retail sale of milk, but, as I have just mentioned to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, with retail sales of full cream liquid cows' milk. Many farmers, of course, sell separated milk or skimmed milk to the public, and, under the Milk and Dairies Regulations, the containers in which separated or skimmed milk are kept must be marked with the words "Skimmed Milk" or "Separated Milk." The dairyman who is selling besides designated milk, skimmed and separated milk, might be a little careless and keep those milks, which are often sold for cooking purposes, in the neighbourhood of the designated milk. We are therefore anxious to introduce a further safeguard so that the designated milk will not be exposed to contamination from the skimmed or separated milk, and that is why we are asking that this Amendment be accepted.

I can see the point of what the right hon. Lady has said, but I cannot understand the meaning of the words "or other things" which she did not mention. If this Amendment were accepted, the paragraph would not even make English. It would read:

"Measures for securing that milk"—

I am leaving out the unnecessary words—

"is kept away from, and free from admixture with, other milk not so produced or subjected or other things."

How can milk be made free from admixture with other things? What are the things? I should imagine that in order to mix something with milk, one must have something liquid, and liquid is not a thing. Therefore, I do not understand what the right hon. Lady has in view, and I hope that she can clear up what those words mean. The essential purpose of the Amendment, as she described it, is one with which I entirely agree, but I cannot understand the value of the last two words.

I must agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that those words are a little confusing, but I am informed that "other things" simply means skimmed or separated milk.

Surely, reference to any dictionary will show that skimmed milk is not a thing?

I should say that a container of skimmed milk is a thing.

That might be, but one cannot mix milk with a container. I do not know what the result of that process would be.

I will undertake to look into the words "other things."

I am sure the House will forgive me if I say a few words on the Third Reading because hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), have been so helpful in giving this Bill a speedy passage. On the Second Reading, I recalled some of the difficulties which my hon. Friends and I had encountered during the past years in trying to obtain a sympathetic hearing for the principles embodied in this Bill. Therefore, I am very gratified to find that throughout its various stages this Bill has commended itself to both sides of the House.

I wish to say two or three words on points raised during the Committee stage, but which were not raised on the Report stage. One was on the matter of compensation to local government officers. One of my hon. Friends felt rather strongly that, as a result of the provisions of this Bill, certain local government officers might find themselves out of a job, and would therefore suffer as the result of the operation of the Bill. There is no evidence for believing that will happen. We feel that the enforcement officers concerned will be kept on for other work by whatever local authority employed them in the first place, and I want to reassure my hon. Friend on that point. Another thing that was raised was whether we would be prepared to consult with individual local authorities before areas were specified. Again, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman concerned that that will be so.

I think the House will agree that all will benefit from this Bill. The consumers will benefit because they will be assured of a safe milk supply, and will be encouraged to drink what is a very good food. I believe that the dairyman will benefit because, at long last, he can distribute a milk which he will feel is no longer suspect, and the producer, I feel certain, will benefit, even though, perhaps, in the past he has been reluctant to accept the principles embodied in this Bill, because he will know that, having produced good milk, it will, during all its stages of distribution, be carefully guarded and be distributed in the best possible condition.

My last word is that—and I am quite sure the House will endorse this—the passage of this Bill will be regarded by all those concerned with the health of the community as a landmark. I believe it is a charter to safeguard young lives from the crippling and sometimes fatal effects of bovine tuberculosis, and, of course, to safeguard the whole community from the risk of milk-borne disease. Therefore, I want to thank the House for helping me in what to me has been not only a pleasant duty, but an inspiring one.

I should like to thank the right hon. Lady for the references which she made to the assistance which the Opposition have given during the passage of this Bill. Unlike some of our political affairs, this has not been a contest but a joint endeavour to make the best instrument that could be produced by this House for the purpose which is in the heart and mind of every one of us, namely that the milk which is sold in this country shall be the cleanest and purest that can be obtained.

The real answer, as the right hon. Lady would be the first to acknowledge, is to clean up the herds. Parliament cannot do that as quickly as it can pass this Bill, which will certainly serve its purpose in the interval until that happy achievement can be reached. We are very conscious that this is a matter very dear to the heart of the right hon. Lady, and that she was very able in her conduct of the proceedings on the Bill upstairs. We certainly regretted her absence through indisposition, which we hope was not due to faulty milk. If so, I hope that as a result of this Bill, she will no longer have any cause for keeping away from our deliberations and discussions, at any rate until after the electors have given their next verdict.

I hope that I may be excused for saying a few words about this Bill, because I have been concerned with the subject for many years. I have been astounded that so little interest has been taken in it in the country. I have had very few communications except from anti-vaccination societies, which seem to have a special grouse against the domestic cow, presumably because through her aid Jenner discovered the important principles of vaccination. This Bill is a good one and seems to me to be particularly British in its character because it carries out great and important changes by a series of easy stages.

I do not know whether the House realises that as soon as the Bill becomes law, presumably on 1st October next, improvements will immediately occur, because on that date it will be illegal for producers of accredited milk to derive that milk from two or more herds. As most people know, accredited producers, those producers of relatively clean milk, sometimes have a surplus—it may be that schools are not in session—and they have to get rid of this. They sell it to other accredited producers, and besides an accredited producer may use milk from two or three herds and mix it before bottling. While that is legal today, it will become illegal when this Bill comes into operation. That is, as I see it, a very real advance.

Accredited milk is not safe milk. It may be infected with tuberculosis or with other diseases through those handling it. If milk from more than one herd is mixed, two things happen: the distribution of any possible infection is widened, and the difficulty of tracing that infection to any given herd and cow is increased. So, even at first, a considerable improvement will accrue.

Then, as stated in the Bill, this misleading term "accredited" goes in October, 1954, and all those who desire to improve the quality of milk will be glad to see it go, because "accredited" does not imply pure milk but only milk produced under clean conditions. Then, in one area after another, as pasteurising plant becomes available, an order will be issued that only designated milk, that is to say pasteurised, tuberculin tested, or for the time being, accredited milk, may be sold. That is a great advantage.

But even pasteurised milk is not safe unless we are sure that it is bottled immediately after heat treatment; if pasteurised milk is put into churns and transferred to another bottling plant, the possibility of infection arises. I regret that, at any rate, for the time being, this is permitted under the terms of the Bill. I regret it particularly because if infection takes place in this way, and if it can be shown that pasteurised milk is actually a source of danger, albeit through being transferred to the bottling plant, the whole idea of pasteurisation may be discredited. As has already been stated this morning, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food told us during the Committee stage of the Bill that she was proposing to issue a regulation that after 1954 all milk must be bottled on the spot immediately after being pasteurised. As I have already said this morning, I wish that this was definitely stated in the Bill. I look upon this as the one weak point in the Bill.

Milk is said to be a food for the brain, but the experience of this House is that milk has a very bad effect on the memory of Governments. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in her Second Reading speech gave examples of how again and again legislation for the improvement of the milk supply had been shelved. She pointed out that in 1938 a Bill was introduced which went no further; and that in 1943 there was a valuable White Paper on measures to improve the quality of milk. That was followed by an Act of Parliament in 1944, but that Act was never put into operation. Then, during the war there was Defence Regulation 55G, which gave power to the Minister of Food to order the pasteurisation of milk. That, too, was never made use of. I am afraid that a promise given, I agree in all good faith, by the Government today, that something shall be done in five years, may never come to maturity.

I would again ask my right hon. Friend not to delay for five years the issue of this regulation which she proposes, but to issue it at once, telling the trade that in five years time it will be illegal for milk to be pasteurised and then bottled in some other district, and which will enforce the provision that milk, after pasteurisation, must be bottled immediately. I am sorry to raise this somewhat discordant note, but it is because I appreciate the value of this Bill and because I desire that it should come into operation fully and corn pletely that I make this request today.

In my opinion, we are going the wrong way about tackling tuberculosis. I believe that this Measure, in the course of 10 or 15 years, will fade out just as the accredited milk will fade out in 1954. The way to tackle the trouble is to compel this country as fast as possible to become T.T., not only with dairy cattle but with beef cattle. I make that point for one reason. I have some experience of using insecticides and weedicides, and I believe that they kill not only one's enemies but one's friends as well. It is my firm conviction that the pasteurisation of milk, the heat-treating of milk, must be a clever process if it kills all that is wrong in milk and leaves all that is right in milk. I am confirmed in the views which I hold by what the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) said both today and in the Standing Committee, namely that heat-treated milk is more dangerous than T.T. milk.

May I say, on a point of personal explanation, that if I made such a statement—which I cannot conceive—it was in error.

I am not very happy about the turn which the Debate is taking. Hon. Members are entitled to deal only with matters which are in the Bill and not to make suggestions as to what might or might not have been in the Bill. I hope that will be borne in mind.

In order to clear this up, perhaps I may be allowed to explain that in Standing Committee I raised a question during the speech of the hon. Member for Barking. I asked if:

"… the risk of the germ getting into heat treated milk is more likely than in the case of T.T. milk?"

The hon. Member for Barking said:

"Yes, I think so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 22nd March, 1949; c. 23.]

If there is more danger in pasteurised milk than in T.T. milk, I think it is a very dangerous thing to encourage. In my opinion, the danger of contamination from milk is greater after the milk leaves the doorstep of the house on to which it has been placed. If the hon. Member for Barking did not understand what I asked in Committee, I hope that this point may now be cleared up, because if heat-treated milk is more dangerous than T.T. milk, we should seriously consider our position.

I had hoped that the right hon. Lady would have found a better definition of milk than "raw milk." That is a very bad definition and it could give the public a wrong idea of what milk is. So frequently the word "raw" means dirty. I had hoped that that word might have been deleted from the Bill.

This Bill is introduced for the purpose of launching an attack against dangerous organisms of disease. We have heard that 30 per cent. of the milk in this country is unsafe, and we know that milk can convey undulant fever, diphtheria, scarlet fever, typhoid fever and other diseases, including tuberculosis. We have heard that the deaths due to bovine tuberculosis are estimated at 1,500 annually, and we know that there are many thousands of people who are deformed and disfigured by this dreadful disease. Those who have seen bones eaten by the disease, abscesses oozing pus, distressing cases of tubercular meningitis and other manifestations of tuberculosis, will welcome this Bill which I feel sure, will eradicate this disgrace from a civilized nation. In conclusion, I should like to add my congratulations to the right hon. Lady on the manner in which she has guided this Bill through its course up to its Third Reading.

As one who was not a member of the Standing Committee on this Bill and who, therefore, has not had the opportunity to hear so much of the discussions upon it as some other hon. Members who are present today, I should like to add my own expression of support to the Bill. At the moment it is only a Bill; it is about to become an Act, but not even an Act of Parliament can produce clean or tuberculin-tested milk. That is up to the farmers and I am perfectly certain that it is the general desire of all farmers by their efforts to implement the intentions of this Bill.

There is, however, one word of warning which I should like to utter. I am by no means happy about the machinery for the administration of this Bill. I was hoping to initiate a Debate upon an Amendment to the machinery, but unfortunately I was unable to do so. Might I ask the right hon. Lady whether, during the administration of the scheme, after it comes into operation, she will pay particular attention, through her Department, to the way in which and the success with which the Bill is administered in practice? As the House is aware, the administration is done very largely through the food and drugs authorities and, as a result of the introduction of those authorities into the general scheme of milk supervision, we are cutting out some of the existing authorities who, hitherto, have done the job and are giving certain of the powers hitherto vested in them to new authorities for that purpose—the county councils.

In the one case of which I have knowledge, Chichester, I think it is an undoubted fact that the personnel and machinery available for the supervision required by this Bill is already in existence and is working most satisfactorily—the City Corporation. As a result of this Bill, however, these powers will be removed from the City Corporation and transferred to the county council, who as I understand it, have not at the moment the experience, the machinery or the personnel to carry out the job. I am, therefore, doubtful—and I do not put it higher than that, for the transfer is being made to highly competent authorities—as to the wisdom of this form of machinery for the administration of this scheme and the success it will have. I ask that the right hon. Lady should watch it with great care and, if she should have reason to think that the old system is better than the new, that she will have the courage—and she has never given an indication that she has not—to come back to the House and ask us to make a ohange in this, aspect of the Bill.

As a representative of one of the big milk-producing counties in Scotland, I should like to give a cautious welcome to the Bill. I welcome it not with a great deal of enthusiasm, because I believe that we in Scotland have been largely overlooked and that insufficient account has been taken of our experience in trying to attain a reasonable standard of purity in milk. I believe that insufficient account of that experience has been taken in the framing of this Bill. We had last year the Philips Committee, which went round the milk-producing areas of Scotland and took evidence very carefully as to how milk could be made cleaner. We very much regret that this Bill has been introduced without that Committee's recommendations having received the consideration that they should have received. I think that the Committee, composed of people very eminent and experienced in agriculture and in milk distribution, went round all those different areas in Scotland. We did not have the Report of that Committee until the very last Sitting of the Standing Committee, which considered the Bill.

What we fear is that this Bill is too much of a patch-up. In this Bill we are considering methods of distribution, whereas we ought to tackle the question of obtaining pure milk on the farms. In Ayrshire last year we produced 30,654,900 gallons of milk, and 86.31 per cent. came from tuberculin tested herds. We are afraid that, instead of attempting to obtain tuberculin tested herds throughout the country, which is the way to cure the trouble, we are taking advantage of pasteurisation in order to shirk what we believe is the real problem. This point of view has been put to me by one of the leading milk producers in Scotland, who is as anxious as anybody to see that pure milk is produced on the farms and cleanly transferred from the farms to the consumers. He puts it this way:

"I entirely agree with the objects of the Bill; but I feel, so far as Scotland is concerned, it is not giving any impetus to farmers to go ahead and clear their herds of tuberculosis. In fact, I fear it will have a slowing-up effect in this respect. Let me explain what will happen. A lorry will uplift the milk at the farm; one farm tuberculin tested, the next ordinary, and so on. The driver will deliver it at the creamery, where it will be bulked into another container. After that, all the contents of the man's lorry will be ordinary milk and will have to be pasteurised. The fact that the Bill does not enforce pasteurisation for tuberculin tested milk is only a blind, other than in the case of the producer-retailer and the small retailer who draws his supply from a T.T. farm. Why should a farmer bother with T.T. milk when this happens to it?"

We feel that a good deal of the machinery of this Bill will be used to sidetrack what is really required, and that is the building up of tuberculin tested herds. We do feel that we have a genuine grievance in Scotland because the recommendations of the Philips Committee were not carefully taken into consideration. A large part of this Bill refers to Scotland, although there are certain reservations. I suggest that the matter should again be referred to the Scottish Office, so that we may have a special Bill for Scotland, and in order that the recommendations of the Philips Committee shall receive the serious consideration they deserve and be embodied in legislation.

There is one short point I should like to make about the Bill as it stands. We debated at some considerable length upstairs the question of bottling pasteurised milk on the premises at which it was pasteurised, and whether it could and should properly be bottled on other premises after being removed from the pasteurisation centre in bulk. As the Bill stands at the moment, it will be essential for the milk to be bottled at the point where it is pasteurised. This brings up the problem which I raised on Second Reading, in the hope that we should be able to solve it upstairs, and that is, that although there are so many excellent points in the Measure, we have to be very careful in applying it to see that we do not add to the cost of milk, because nothing would be more detrimental to the health of the country than deterring people from drinking milk because of its additional cost. I feel that, inadvertently, we may be adding to the cost, as the Bill stands.

The position now is that a great many small dairymen are in the habit of bottling milk themselves, in what may be called their spare time. They have small plants for bottling; they receive the milk in bulk; and when they are not engaged in selling other products, and so on, they use their time to bottle the milk themselves—and at practically no expense at all. Under the Bill as it stands these men, so far as I can see, will now have to put their hands into their pockets and pay out to the pasteurising and bottling centres definite sums for a fixed bottling charge. That will, undoubtedly, add to the cost of the bottle pasteurised milk.

I do not quite see how we are to get over that difficulty, but equally I do not want to see the dairymen involved in loss as against their present position, or have power to raise the cost of milk which they have not bottled themselves, but which has been bottled at the pasteurisation plant. I hope the Minister will find some means within his powers under the Bill to meet that difficulty. I am quite sure that there is no serious intention to damage the small dairymen, but equally I cannot see how we can avoid their being damaged as the Bill now stands. The Bill had dangers in it, and it has been improved, but I should like to endorse strongly what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, that if this Bill turns out in any way to be a deterrent of the development of tuberculin-tested herds, it will do far more harm than good to the country.

I am afraid I cannot associate myself with some of the misgivings that have been expressed. Misgivings can always be expressed about a Measure, however excellent. It would seem to me to be more appropriate on this occasion for the House to congratulate itself on the co-operation amongst hon. Members on both sides which has allowed us to produce a Measure which will be of the greatest possible value in safeguarding the health of thousands of children and adults. It will do a great deal to diminish risks of diseases, including tuberculosis, and it will be of immense value.

In any case, this Measure is necessary at the present time, whatever may be the views of hon. Gentlemen about the production of tuberculin-tested herds. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) knows perfectly well that the substitution of tuberculin-tested herds for the herds existing at present cannot be done except after the lapse of a considerable period of time. Meanwhile, whatever we do, we must protect people against diseases. That is what this Bill does. It is an excellent Bill. I think the Minister is to be very heartily congratulated on having brought it to fruition, and, instead of asking the Minister to think again, the House should itself remain very vigilant in this matter, to see how, without heckling the Minister or interfering with the administration of the Bill, it can make suggestions for the improvement of its administration in the future. I believe that this Bill will prove an historic landmark in the progress of the health of the people and especially the health of the children of this country.

I desire to raise on the Motion for the Adjournment certain, as it seems to me, glaring anomalies in the system of payment of allowances to teachers working in the London area. It is a question which concerns a substantial number of teachers in a substantial number of schools in the Home counties, and one in which, I think, my own constituency furnished the most glaring of all the anomalies. I believe that in saying that I shall not carry with me the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), who, I think, will, if she has the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, desire to put a somewhat different emphasis upon this matter.

The position is clearly highly anomalous in a substantial number of places, and I will put that point of view as briefly as I can to the House. Since 1945, under the Burnham award of that year, the London allowance, which I do not think will be disputed, is an allowance specifically paid to compensate teachers for the higher cost of living in the Metropolitan area, has been paid only in those areas in which the old Scale IV, before the 1944 Act, was paid. That has produced geographical anomalies of a complex and fantastic nature.

For example, so far as the south-western side of the Metropolis is concerned, the London area allowance is paid in Richmond, in Wimbledon and in the whole of the county of Middlesex, but it is not paid in the boroughs of Kingston and Surbiton, which are all but surrounded by the areas in which the allowance is paid. To be precise, these two adjoining boroughs find themselves bounded on the west across the river by the whole county of Middlesex in which the allowance is paid, bounded on the north by Richmond in which it is paid, and bounded on the east by Wimbledon in which it is paid. They are a kind of peninsula of academic poverty in a better remunerated ocean.

The geographical anomalies can be appreciated very easily. If the Parliamentary Secretary were to take from the courtyard of this House the stately limousine which no doubt awaits him, and were to proceed in that impressive vehicle in a south-westerly direction, the hon. Gentleman would find himself proceeding through an area in which this allowance is paid, through Putney and Wimbledon in which it is paid, but he would leave this area as he approached Kingston Vale only to rejoin it on going over Kingston bridge into Middlesex. He would then find himself still in that area as he proceeded to drive further out of London in a westerly direction. I think that illustrates the geographical anomalies which exists at the moment.

In this small area, particularly in Kingston and Surbiton, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, there is a substantial number of schools of the highest quality. The Parliamentary Secretary made a most agreeable speech on speech day at one of them some two years ago, and I can assure him that it is still recollected with great appreciation. Those teaching in that area are deprived of the allowance, while it is paid to those teaching in schools which almost surround that area. To make the matter more anomalous, in view of the grave housing difficulty in that area, a number of those who teach in those schools are forced to live in areas in which, if they taught in the schools of those areas, they would themselves get the allowance. As the whole object of this allowance is to counteract the high cost of living in those areas, the position is perfectly ludicrous.

One school, which has communicated direct with the Minister, has pointed out that 35 per cent. of its teaching staff do in fact reside in areas where the schools themselves, if they happen to teach there, command this allowance. That serves to underline the extreme anomaly of the present position. If the anomaly required to be further underlined that could be done by comparing what is happening in other occupations. The House will be familiar with the fact that not only in many Governmental services but also in wage agreements between employers and trade unions specific provision is made for the payment of higher rates in the London area. In point of fact, these London rates operate by agreement in Kingston and Surbiton in so far as the employees of local government are concerned. They also operate for bank officials, for the police, for building workers who are getting London rates, for printers, for firemen, and for engineers. Therefore, it does appear that the Government Departments, the trade unions and the private employers concerned have thought that the undoubtedly high cost of living in the area justifies that area being treated for the purposes of remuneration as being within the London area.

If the anomaly needed to be underlined further, there is the fact that certain people who are actually paid out of educational funds receive London rates. The cleaners in the schools receive London rates, the canteen workers and the administrative staff who are concerned in the operation of these identical schools and who are paid out of educational funds receive the London rate; but the teachers who teach in those schools are denied it. I will give one further example. As a result of the Rushcliffe Report, unqualified teachers teaching in nursery schools receive London rates. Further, if a qualified teacher is allotted to one of these nursery schools, he, or usually she, will find himself working opposite an unqualified colleague who, by virtue of being unqualified, receives the benefit of London rates. That is surely an absurdity which calls for early remedy.

The House will no doubt recollect the story of the proud mother watching her offspring marching with his regiment, who pointed out, with a happy smile, that all his colleagues were out of step except Bill. One may say with respect that the attitude of the Minister of Education seems to be that all his colleagues are out of step except himself. The Home Office, the Ministry of Health, the great trade unions, local government and everyone else adopt a different attitude, and it is only the Ministry of Education who have maintained, with otherwise admirable consistency, their attitude in this matter. It is so obvious an anomaly that most of the people concerned have for years been trying to obtain a remedy.

Before the war, before the change under the Education Act which will always be associated with the name of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), Kingston Borough Council was a Part III education authority, and it raised this matter. In 1942, the Surrey County Council took the same view. In that year, under the standstill agreement through the war, the matter was not further proceeded with. I emphasise that to show that this is not a new matter, but, on the contrary, has been a pressing matter for many years. In 1945, and again in 1948, the Surrey County Council took the same attitude. In this connection I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall), who at the material time was chairman of the county council and its education committee. There has been a steady expression of local opinion on the subject. Passing to my own efforts, the House will recollect—and I apologise for it—that I have made myself perhaps infinitely tedious on this subject, both during the time of the much lamented right hon. Lady who formerly occupied the post of Minister of Education and during the tenure of the present Minister. So far we have not been able to obtain any specific action.

I think it would be fair and right—although I do not desire to weary the House with all the occasions upon which this matter has been raised—to invite the attention of the House to what was said by the Minister on the last occasion this subject was raised. It was on the 7th of this month, when the hon. Lady the Member for Epping and I put separate Questions to the Minister. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what action he was taking on representations which he had received from a particular school, and the right hon. Gentleman replied:

"I have received various representations about the London area allowance, which it is the function of the Burnham Committee to consider in the first instance. The Committee gave it full consideration when preparing the present Report and, as I stated in the House on 20th January last, I do not find sufficient grounds for asking them to reconsider the position at present."

I then, in a supplementary question, ventured to invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to certain anomalies, and he said:

"I know there are anomalies, but there always will be wherever a line is drawn. These teachers should approach the Burnham Committee through their association."

Then the hon. Lady the Member for Epping asked a supplementary question, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied:

"Whether they are surrounded by other areas or not, a line must be drawn; otherwise they would be included."

I am not very clear what that means. He went on:

"As I have said, representations should be made by the teachers to the Burnham Committee through their association, and not to the Minister."

In answer to yet further supplementary questions the right hon. Gentleman repeated that assertion, and said:

"In my original answer I said that I saw no reason, in what has been put to me, for asking the Committee to consider the matter again at this time. But this does not prevent the teachers' association from making representations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2206–7.]

I should now like to comment on those answers. In the first instance the right hon. Gentleman says that the teachers concerned should apply through their associations to the Burnham Committee. I wish to make two points on that. First, this is not a matter which is solely the concern of the teachers. It is a matter affecting the parents of all children in the areas, if it adversely affects, as I shall seek in a moment to show, education in those areas. It is not a matter solely of the interests of the teachers, but is one—and I shall venture to quote expressions of non-teacher opinion on the matter—for people other than the teachers.

Secondly, there are in fact certain difficulties in the teachers pursuing the line which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The present position, as I know the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware, is that, the two sides having failed to agree in the last negotiations they decided to accept the mediation of Lord Soulbury. That mediation was accepted, and as I understand it the ruling that the noble Lord then gave was that the status quo should be preserved until the Local Government Boundary Commission report had been implemented. I understand that, were the teachers to seek through their associations to raise this matter again they would be informed that they were bound by their acceptance of the Soulbury award, and that the matter could go no further.

A vital matter has, of course, arisen since the Soulbury award, and that is the delay over the Local Government Boundary Commission. It was thought at the time of the Soulbury award that the Local Government Boundary Commission would report quite shortly; but later in the year concerned, last year, it was announced that the Local Government Boundary Commission would not report until the Commission on Local Government had itself reported. It is now clear that the report of the Local Government Boundary Commission will not be implemented for a very substantial time. That was a fact not know at the time of the Soulbury award; and there is no reason to assume that it was known to the noble Lord himself at the time he made the award. That is, of course, a very material factor in the situation.

That, however, does not, as I understand it, affect the teachers' position were they to approach the matter in this way, and it therefore seems to me that this is a matter upon which it is right for this House to press upon the Minister the taking of initiative. There is no doubt—and it is perfectly clear from consideration of Section 89 of the Education Act—that the Minister can, if he so wishes, refer the matter on his own initiative to the Burnham Committee. Indeed, by implication he so admitted in his own answer, which I have already quoted to the House; he said that in this case he did not feel called upon to do so—a very clear indication that in other cases he could. Consequently, I desire to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter in which he not only can but should intervene, inasmuch as there now exists, with no prospect of early redress, a fantastic situation which causes great hardship to the teachers concerned, and which, as I shall seek to show in a moment, is already tending to have an adverse effect upon education in the area.

Such a matter is surely one which comes within the overriding responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He is concerned with, and is indeed answerable to this House for, the maintenance of proper standards of education throughout the country, and if there is brought to his attention a matter which clearly affects that responsibility it is, in my respectful submission, undoubtedly his duty to take action. It is noticeable that so far he has not, on any of the numerous occasions upon which this matter has been raised, sought to suggest that the present position is satisfactory. He has merely sought to suggest that other and more dilatory machinery should be used. Now I do stress the point of other and more dilatory machinery, for this reason. The key to the time factor for an amendment, as I am sure the House will appreciate, was, under the Soulbury award, to have been not the report but the implementation of the Local Government Boundary Commissions' recommendations. That has now become a matter which will not arise for a substantial time. In support of that I quote from a leading article in the "The Times" of 30th December, last, which said:

"Through 1948 the Boundary Commission have had to go on with their preliminary tinkering without taking any decisions about particular areas."

Because of that I urge that, whether the Soulbury award was a reasonable or an unreasonable one at the time it was made, the situation is now different, and it is that different situation which imposes upon the right hon. Gentleman the duty to take remedial action.

I did say at an earlier stage that there was strong local feeling on the matter. I am perfectly certain that the files of the Ministry of Education confirm that feeling. I am aware that, not only the teachers themselves in a number of the schools, but the parents' associations of those schools have written personally to the right hon. Gentleman, and in at least one case to the Parliamentary Secretary. I need not, therefore, weary him with them. He may be less aware that other opinion, outside the strictly educational world, has taken the same view. I should like to quote to him an authority which might perhaps appeal to him, and which he will at any rate acquit of acting in close political collaboration with myself, and that is the Kingston and District Trades Council. That body met on 8th April and passed this resolution.

"This Kingston and District Trades Council have noted with grave concern a decision of the Burnham Committee by which school teachers in the North-Central Division of Surrey, which includes Kingston-upon-Thames, have been refused payment at Metropolitan rates although such rates are general applicable to trades and other employments in the Kingston area. The Council feels that such discrimination against an area, as compared with adjacent parts of Surrey and Middlesex where the teachers receive London rates, must result in grave difficulties in recruiting and retaining teachers with adequate abilities and qualifications, and that in consequence school children in the area are receiving less than the fair deal intended by the Education Act of 1944. The Council asks that the decision of the Burnham Committee may receive the closest consideration of the Minister so that obvious social injustice may be remedied without delay."

I will also quote a different line of opinion—the leading article from the local newspaper, the "Surrey Comet."

"One can hardly imagine schoolmasters going on strike: were they to one section of the community at least might not be unhappy. Although such a happening cannot be visualised, those in this part of North-East Surrey have far sounded grounds for such action than the majority of those who currently take it to draw attention to less just demands. No members of a trade union would for so long have as meekly borne such unfair treatment as Kingston schoolmasters over what is technically known as London 'weighting'."

Finally, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the very cogent and powerful letter which was written to him by the headmaster and staff of the Tiffin Boys' School, that very ancient and extremely fine institution.

"The absence of any allowance to off-set the special difficulties of this area has had and is having a most unsettling effect on the staffs of the schools. Of the staff of our school, numbering 32, only eight of the pre-war members remain, and 21 have been here for less than five years. Men seek employment either where the London scale is paid or in the provinces. The rapid increase of the population of Kingston has very greatly added to the difficulties of what has long been part of the London area by its housing situation, its rates and its shopping prices. Many of us are compelled to live in districts where the London allowance is paid and travel daily to provincial' Kingston, and have been driven to heavy additional evening work to supplement inadequate salaries."

I think that that makes clear the extent to which not only the rights of the teachers but the public interest is involved.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that a large number of the younger teachers whom he is now enrolling are married ex-Service men. Such men have great difficulty in managing at all on the present scales of salary, with which I am not at the moment concerning myself. I say that because it means that they cannot afford to live in an area where the cost of living is at the metropolitan rate and they are not receiving the compensating London allowance. Therefore, with the best will in the world, they are compelled to move to areas where the London allowance is paid, or out to the provinces where the cost of living is lower. That is the reason why the different organisations which I have mentioned have all referred to the damage, potential and becoming actual, to education standards in the district.

Teachers are left not only with a justifiable sense of grievance, but teachers are lost to local schools as a result of the operation of this system. I appeal very strongly therefore to the right hon. Gentleman to take the initiative. I hope that we are not going to be met today, as I have been met now for the last three years, simply with reference to alternative and dilatory procedures. I hope that we are not going to be met with administrative obstacles. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that if his right hon. Friend draws this matter to the attention of the Burnham Committee as being a matter calling for urgent solution for the sake not only of the teachers concerned, but of the educational standards in the areas affected, speedy action will be taken.

He also knows perfectly well that unless he takes that action these anomalies will be perpetuated for a substantial time to come. It therefore seems right to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take the initiative and set the machinery in motion. There is no reason why he should not do so, and if he does he will not only be properly and effectively discharging his duty as one of the most responsible Ministers of the Crown, but he will also give great satisfaction to a substantial number of people who are doing an extremely good job under conditions of great strain, people who are sometimes living under conditions of inadequate accommodation and are a section of the community to which all Members pay tribute.

It is true, as stated in the leading article from the local paper, it is inconceivable that teachers should go on strike. If they did, I am advised by certain younger members of my family that there might be a section of opinion which would regard that prospect with stoical resignation. It is of course the fact that the very high sense of duty which actuates the teaching profession makes such action quite impossible, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to take advantage of that sense of duty.

I shall detain the House for only a short time, but in that time I hope to put clearly and definitely the view of the National Union of Teachers, the main body represented on the Burnham Committee. Before doing so, I should like to welcome the aid of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who has spoken more particularly on behalf of his constituency. There is no doubt whatever that teachers not only in the London area but in the extra-metropolitan area, as well as teachers throughout the provinces, would like to have an increase in their salaries. But that is not the main issue. The main issue is the rights, privileges, freedom and initiative of the Burnham Committee.

The Burnham Committee is one of the finest examples of conciliation that has been set up for settling salaries in this country. It is one of the best embodiments of the policy pursued by one of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished predecessors—the Whitley form of settling wages and salary disputes. While the National Union of Teachers welcome the aid of public opinion and particularly of Members of Parliament for an increase in salaries, they are quite clear and definite that nothing should he done to impair the prestige of the Burnham Committee.

I was one who had something to do with the framing of the Section dealing with the powers of constitution of the Burnham Committee as embodied in the 1944 Act. The initial Clause gave more powers to the Minister than the teachers desired, and we got it modified in the sense of leaving the initiative and freedom of the Burnham Committee unimpaired. While we welcome any aid for increasing teachers' salaries in any area in the country, we do not desire, even on this specific issue, a directive from the Minister of Education. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make it quite clear that he will maintain the inviolability of the Burnham Committee.

By "the inviolability of the Burnham Committee" I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that he can see any objection to the Minister, for good cause, referring a specific matter to that Committee for their consideration and report.

I believe that the Minister must be very careful as to what issue he gives a directive about to the Burnham Committee. For instance, if there is a directive on this issue, what would be said if there was a directive about the salaries of infant school teachers? There is a great shortage of infant school teachers, and there are very bad conditions in many infant schools. There can be directives from all sorts of directions, but as a matter of practical politics, and, certainly, of principle, the Minister must be careful as to what directives he gives to the Burnham Committee. I happen to know that the teacher representatives on the Burnham Committee—the National Union of Teachers and the Secondary School Teachers' Association—fought for what the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames desires. They made out a very strong case; indeed a stronger case than the hon. Member has put forward today. But opposition came from those bodies which are employers of the teachers—the local authorities.

I do not wish to go into the private dealings of the Burnham Committee, as I do not believe that would be proper, but the truth is—and it might as well be said now that this matter has been raised on the Floor of the House—that opposition came from provincial authorities against any London addition at all. They took the view, with which the National Union of Teachers and others disagree, that there should be no distinction between the London authorities and others. Their argument, as I understand it, was "A higher rate of pay in London has the effect of attracting teachers there, to the detriment of the provinces. The best teachers will go to London, and we cannot have that." No opposition came from the teachers at all. Indeed, it was the opposite; they pressed this matter, but the local authorities took the other view.

Some of them.

The majority. The matter had to go to arbitration. The teachers' side resisted, and the matter went to the Burnham Committee, whose Chairman was Lord Soulbury, who gave their decision.

I can remember 1931, when a directive was issued to cut teachers' salaries by 10 per cent. I am, therefore, very chary of Government interference with a negotiating body which has been set up by Act of Parliament and given freedom and power to initiate. I want that body to remain free to settle these difficulties by conciliation and, if necessary, by arbitration. I hope the Government will today take the view that nothing must be done by them to impair the power, prestige and initiative that lies in the hands of the Burnham Committee.

I think the House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for having raised this question today, and having dealt with it so fully and explicitly. As an old member of the Burnham Committee myself, I should not disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in saying that nothing ought to be done to disturb the rights, privileges and freedoms of that Committee. I do not believe for a moment that the Parliamentary Secretary would make any such suggestion; certainly, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has said nothing about the Parliamentary Secretary giving a directive to the Burnham Committee. I am sure that that is the last thing that either he or I would suggest. There are, however, ways in which this matter can be publicised and I have reason to know that the National Union of, Teachers is extremely grateful for this publicity. There are ways in which it can be used tactfully at least to get this problem re-examined

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon has said that this is no new problem and, of course, it is not. I do not want to weary the House with the history of this matter, but we should remember that before 1945 there was a London scale and that it was generally acknowledged that teachers living in London itself should receive higher salaries than those in the rest of the country. At that time there was a great deal of bitterness among teachers living in the Metropolitan Police area. They were constantly forcing this issue, and it was not surprising, therefore, that in 1945, when the geographical scales for teachers were abolished, the problem should be raised sharply in the Burnham Committee. The position has greatly deteriorated since that time and particularly during the past year.

The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames mentioned some of the areas in Surrey. For the consideration of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary I want to refer to some areas in Essex. If this were a class, and if I placed the map which I have in my hands before it, there would be no difficulty in seeing that what the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has said is completely true. His constituency is like a peninsula surrounded by an area which has the London allowance; the Chingford area of my constituency is another, and so is that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) who, I am sure, would sympathise with my views today. The map which the Parliamentary Secretary has been kind enough to hand to me, is a complete justification of the statement that there are teachers living and working in those areas who ought to be receiving the London allowance.

What will happen to the Burnham Committee if every Member of this House pleads for the salaries of teachers in his or her constituency?

Every Member is not pleading, because it is not every Member who has the justification that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and I have today. Middlesex alone was successful in putting their case, but Surrey and Essex were not; and, that being, so, we are justified in asking the Parliamentary Secretary today what steps he intends to take in this matter. We do not ask him to give any directives. We do not want the prestige and the freedom of this great negotiating body, of which I was proud to be a member, to be interfered with, but we can see that there are ways in which this matter can be approached with tact.

It is true, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames pointed out, that the impasse in 1948 was settled by putting this matter to Lord Soulbury for his award, but he would never have reached the kind of decision he did, if it had been known how long the Boundary Commission was going to take to report. It is because of the dilatory methods of the Boundary Commission that we now find teachers who are living in the Metropolitan Police area of London receiving less salary than every other kind of employee in those areas, including in the cases I have raised, the officials in the Forest Division, responsible for education in these areas who are themselves receiving the London allowance. This is not only an anomaly; it is positively fantastic.

I want to press one point which has hardly been mentioned at all this afternoon, and that is the damage which this state of affairs is doing to the children in the schools. Because of this damage to the education of children, this is a matter which the Minister of Education, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry of Education should take up and should have some share in pushing to a satisfactory conclusion. There is not a parents' association of standing in these two areas I have mentioned, which has not written to me on this subject. I should like to quote from a letter which I received from the Chingford County High School Parents' Association in which they say:

"The Parents' Association of Chingford County High School is anxious to have your assistance in a matter which is causing its members grave concern. The school is experiencing serious difficulties in respect of teaching staff. Applications for vacancies are extremely limited in number; changes in the personnel are so constant and so frequent as to have a most adverse effect on the education of the pupils. We are convinced that the basic cause of these difficulties is the scale of salaries in operation since teachers in Chingford schools do not qualify for the London allowance."

This comes from the parents of boys and girls who are at the high school period of their work. Many of them are preparing for extremely important examinations and are going on to the University. They find themselves faced term after term with a different teacher. How can we expect them to have the same chance in their preparation, as boys and girls in schools which are only two minutes' walk away but where the teachers are content to remain, because they have more satisfactory salaries? The whole position is one which cries aloud for immediate remedy. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that it is a matter for the Burnham Committee alone, but that he will find some way in which Lord Soulbury's award, which was never intended to put this matter off for three years, can be reconsidered and thus help, not only the teachers but the children attending these schools to receive that measure of justice, which today they are denied.

I am very grateful that this matter has been raised in the House. I am sure the National Union of Teachers will be grateful that it has been raised and the parents, teachers and children will have cause to be much obliged to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, if as a result of this short Adjournment Debate, something can be done to press this matter forward without delay.

Many of the things that have been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House arouse sympathy at the Ministry of Education. I can understand many of the difficulties which have been pointed out this afternoon—difficulties which affect the prestige and salary of teachers in particular areas, but I should like to spend a few moment in replying to the speeches that have been made and in pointing out the difficulties which face my right hon. Friend in this matter. We would do nothing which even lightly would interfere with the prestige and the independence of the Burnham Committee. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) quite rightly stressed the tremendous importance to the whole educational world of the independence of this Committee. We must do nothing to impair or interfere with its rights and freedom.

I do not intend to go into the history of this matter, but I should like to begin with the main Burnham Report which took effect from 1st April, 1945, and was to run for three years to 1948. In paragraph 8 there is provision for additional payments for teachers in the London area, and as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out, this meant a drawing up of a list of areas to which this additional payment would apply. I do not know for certain how this list was compiled except that the general guiding principle was to base it in the main on those areas which in the past had been paid Scale 4 salaries. There followed from that a certain modification in the list because of the grouping of areas in the divisional executives. The list of territories included in the London area in 1945 was to some extent arbitrary, because it depended partly on historical considerations and partly on the administrative layout which followed the passing of the Act of 1944.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has asked us to pay particular attention to the area of Kingston and of Surbiton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), using a map, has asked us to pay particular attention to Chingford, Wanstead and Woodford. It is quite obvious, as has been pointed out, that if we begin to pay particular attention to all areas, in very many of them a similar case could be made. We would be presented with the same old problem of knowing where to draw the line. It is not true that Kingston and Surbiton represent a large isolated area. In fact, they form a divisional executive area with Malden and Coombe on the one side and Esher on the other. May I proceed to the terms of the present Burnham Report, which took effect from the 1st April, 1948?

To avoid any misunderstanding I should point out that I said that the case of Kingston and Surbiton is an extreme example of absurdity in this matter, but in a lesser degree substantially the same arguments apply to other divisional executive areas.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that his arguments would apply also to Esher and to Malden and Coombe—

Up to the Metropolitan Police boundary.

—up to the Metropolitan boundary that is used for educational purposes.

I want to proceed now to the effect of the Burnham Report, which took effect on 1st April, 1948, and goes on for three years to 1951. It has been said by the hon. Member for Aberavon that when this Report was being prepared a great deal of thought and discussion were devoted to the question of the London area from the viewpoint of salaries. I am extremely grateful that the point of view of teachers in the provinces has also been mentioned today. I am not sure myself about the cost-of-living argument. I live some 40 miles from London, in Sussex, and I have lived in London and in one of its outer suburbs. There seems to me no distinction in the cost of living in an area 40 miles from London in my direction from a London suburb not far from the area mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping. The argument, therefore, is an extremely difficult one to use, and makes this drawing of a line more and more difficult if we are to do so with justice to all concerned, and if it is to be drawn solely with regard to the cost of living. The provincial point of view—which refers to the area outside the Metropolitan Police boundary—has, therefore, an equally good case as far as the cost of living is concerned. I think the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will agree that this argument is reasonable and that this question raises difficulties for the Burnham Committee, however thorough their discussions may be.

When discussion took place on this question in the producing of the Report of 1948 it was recognised—I am giving no secret away—that the list which then existed was to some extent arbitrary. All parties, I am assured, were anxious that a solution should be found which was defensible upon logical grounds. The attempts to find a logical solution fell into two parts. There was the view that the special allowance to London teachers should be confined to the London area as it exists for educational purposes plus the two adjacent county boroughs. There was also the view that if the London area was to be extended at all it should be extended to the outer boundary of the Metropolitan Police area. It was found impossible to reconcile these two viewpoints and it was decided to continue the London area as it had existed since 1945 until—as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, and as has been emphasised also on this side—the findings of the Boundary Commission regarding the London area had been not only published, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, but also implemented.

Undoubtedly—and this has happened in other parts of the country also—when the Report of the Boundary Commission was made known, it was expected that implementation would follow pretty quickly. There has, however, been delay in the implementation—or, indeed, in ally thought of an immediate implementation—of the Boundary Commission's Report in this matter. I want to point out that when this matter was referred to Lord Soulbury he did not make an award. He did not, as the hon. Member for Aberavon suggested, make a decision or, as the hon. Member for Epping said, make an award. What he did was to offer a suggestion. It was simply a suggestion that the implementation of the Report of the Boundary Commission should be awaited.

Reference has been made this afternoon to procedure under Section 89 of the Act of 1944 in relation to Burnham Reports. Under that Section the Committee is allowed to make proposals to the Minister on their own motion and the Minister in turn is empowered to require the Committee to submit proposals. The present Burnham Report operates until 1951 and thereafter from year to year, subject to termination on one year's notice by either panel. Thus, either panel can terminate the working of the present Report at the end of three years—in 1951—or give their year's notice and terminate it at the end of that year. Whatever new proposals are made, I am confident that in preparing them the London area allowance will be considered once more. It has been thoroughly considered in the past, but that is no reason at all why it should not be gone into again.

The possibility of the. Minister requiring the Burnham Committee to submit proposals is, however, a very different matter. On two or three occasions, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has pointed out, my right hon. Friend, in answering also Questions from the hon. Member for Epping, has said that there are no sufficient grounds for asking the Burnham Committee to consider this matter afresh. His reasons are first, that the whole question was explored 18 months ago and second, it would be a most unusual course to require the Burnham Committee to submit proposals unless there were clear grounds that such proposals could be satisfactorily framed. I think my right hon. Friend can be allowed judgment in this matter when he believes, and expresses the belief, that a satisfactory solution cannot at present be framed.

The two areas in Surrey to which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has referred are only part of the problem. When we look at the map there are, as has already been pointed out, other areas which have an equally valid case. As my right hon. Friend has said in answer to Questions, whenever the line is drawn anomalies will exist. Until the whole question is examined as a complete problem I do not think that any line drawn arbitrarily to include certain areas would be at all effective. The Burnham Committee can report this matter at any time after suitable notice. It is my view, and also that of my right hon. Friend, that the right course is to leave action in the hands of the panels. When they think the time is appropriate, it is for them to act.

While acknowledging the difficulties and the dilemma of this problem, the line I must take today is that I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to the drastic action on behalf of Kingston and Surbiton which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. The Report has only recently been received from the Burnham Committee—about 18 months ago a complete examination of the problem took place when the Report was being framed. We must leave it to the democratic initiative of those on the Burnham Committee to take action at what they think is the fit and appropriate time.

I welcome the assurance by the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not the Minister's intention to issue any directive to the Burnham Committee.

I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon used the same phrase. I never asked the Minister to issue a directive. I asked him, as he is empowered to do, to refer this matter to the Committee for consideration. There is all the difference in the world between this and a directive, which would, undoubtedly, affect the prestige of the Committee. My suggestion in no way interferes with the prestige of the Committee in asking them to consider a matter in which there is room for consideration.

At present either panel of the Burnham Committee has the power to ask for the Burnham Committee to be recalled to consider any salary question. I have no doubt that if either the teachers' panel or the authorities' panel of the Burnham Committee were to ask for a reassembling of the Committee to consider modifications of the scales that that request would be granted by the Burnham Committee and modifications would be considered. It is one matter to give a hint, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary has done this afternoon, to the two panels of the Burnham Committee that it would be well for them to reassemble and to consider this question of the London allowance: it is quite another matter for the Minister to give a directive to the two panels of the Burnham Committee that they must reassemble to consider this question of the allowance.

I think that this is very unfair both to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and to myself. Neither of us used the word "directive." I specifically said that I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames did not mean a directive and did indeed use almost the same phrase which the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) is now using.

If the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) did not mean a directive—

I never used the word.

He did not use the word "directive," but he said that the Minister had the overriding responsibility for the decisions of the Burnham Committee.

The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I never said that the Minister had the overriding responsibility for the decisions of the Burnham Committee. I said that the Minister had the overriding responsibility for the efficiency of our-national system of education. That is quite a different matter.

Yes, I know. But I do not think that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames realises the implications of his own argument. He certainly used the words "overriding responsibility." He was talking about the overriding responsibility in respect of the London allowance on teachers' salaries. The undoubted inference which anyone will draw when they read his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the undoubted inference which all teachers will draw, is that he wanted the Minister to ask the the Burnham Committee to reassemble to reconsider the London allowance. He wanted the Minister to take the initiative and to give a directive to the Burnham Committee about what their future decision should be.

The Minister has gone some way along that road. He has been wise. He has merely made a suggestion that it would be well for the Burnham Committee to reassemble to consider the question of the London allowance, whereas if he had given a directive to do so, he would have upset both panels of the Burnham Committee and would have prejudiced subsequent negotiations. Perhaps I might declare my interest if the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has sufficiently recovered from his coma of surprise and disgust to be able to pay some attention to what I am about to say. I was a member of the Burnham Committee during the time which led to the salary settlements of 1945 and that of 1948. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has made an eloquent and lucid speech in favour of the extension of the area of the London allowance. I agree with all his arguments but I assure him that all of them, and even more besides which were quite as weighty and relevant, were put by the leaders of the teachers' panel on the Burnham Committee, Sir Frederick Mander and Mr. Ronald Gould.

The opposition came from the other side of the panel. First, they wanted to abolish the London allowance altogether. Then they modified their attitude and suggested that the allowance should be confined to the L.C.C. area and to West and East Ham. On the other hand, the teachers' panel put forward the suggestion that the London allowance should be given to all teachers within the Metropolitan Police area. There was a deadlock in the matter and, because there was a deadlock, the question had to be referred to arbitration under the chairmanship of Lord Soulbury. In this country once a matter is referred to arbitration one accepts the arbitrator's award. We on the teachers' side of the Burnham Committee were in honour bound to accept the award of Lord Soulbury. Lord Soulbury made that award thinking, I believe, that the report of the Boundary Commission would be available within a short time.

There is evidence that the report of the Boundary Commission will not be available for some years to come, and that is a good reason why the Burnham Committee should re-assemble. I am quite certain that the hint which has been thrown out by the Parliamentary Secretary will be taken up by the teachers' leaders in this country, who will make an approach to the Burnham Committee so that it might again assemble and consider the question of the London allowance, and in that respect, the hon. Member for Kingston will have done well in bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

In conclusion, I might tell the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that there are other teachers in the country beside the teachers in the metropolitan and extra-metropolitan areas. They, too, have definite grievances with regard to salaries.

They have not got such good Members as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.

Not Members who are so consistently vocal, but consistence in speaking is not always a sign of expert Membership. Teachers throughout the country have grievances. There is a feeling among them that, as compared with the salaries now enjoyed by doctors and dentists, their own salaries are not as comparable as they ought to be, in view of the respective importance of the three professions. Teachers also see that the policeman is now going to have a happier lot in future, because he will start on a minimum of £330 a year, whereas the male teacher starts on a minimum of £300 a year. There is also the difficulty of getting infants' teachers and women teachers, because women teachers have not yet obtained equality of pay with men. All these things are very much perturbing the minds of teachers, and I have no doubt that an approach will shortly be made by the teachers' leaders to the Burnham Committee so that all these things may be considered, not merely the question of the London allowance in isolation, but all the grievances of teachers. We believe that a meeting will take place in the near future, and I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and the teachers of the country will find that a satisfactory result will come from the next meeting of the Committee.

By the happy coincidence of our Business having ended early, the Minister being still present, and I having been fortunate in being able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. allows me to raise another subject connected with education, in which I wish to lift the eyes of those interested beyond the horizons of Middlesex, Surrey and Essex to those of the whole world, because the subject which I wish to raise is that of U.N.E.S.C.O.—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

It is high time that we had a Debate in this House on this subject. This organisation has now been in existence for about three years, and only recently it issued its third annual report, following the Conference at Beirut. Subsequently there was a further Conference in London attended by representatives of various bodies interested in U.N.E.S.C.O. which dealt with its subject very fully. But there has been no recent Debate in the House on this subject, although we do, in fact, pay quite a considerable sum to this body—£250,000 for this year-and although the objects of U.N.E.S.C.O. are important to the whole of our foreign policy and to the British way of life which we are trying to extend in the world.

In addition, I think it is true to say that U.N.E.S.C.O. has been the target of a great deal of very irresponsible and unjust criticism in the past. I am going to make some criticisms of it myself, but there is always a part of the Press, both in this country, in America and elsewhere, to which any organisation which is calculated to improve our civilisation is instinctively repugnant, presumably because such organisations might reduce the amount of scandal or tragedy or other type of sensation in the world, and therefore reduce the amount of news in which that type of newspaper deals. Newspapers of that character have on principle attacked U.N.E.S.C.O. on every possible opportunity. But even much more reputable newspapers in this country, such as the "Manchester Guardian," have, in fact, made what I think are very irresponsible criticisms. To give just one example, when U.N.E.S.C.O. held a conference on biology at high altitudes—which they did at the request of Chile and Peru who needed assistance in developing their agriculture, which in this stage of history one would have thought desirable—the "Manchester Guardian" came put with a derisory article headed "Sex at High Altitude." The sub-editor responsible for that heading may have got a kick out of writing it, but it was very unfair to U.N.E.S.C.O.

Even in another place, when U.N.E.S.C.O. was debated not very long ago, there were a great many ill-founded criticisms made, partly due to the fact that there had not been much information available, but also because the noble Lords did not read the information available to them. Lord Simon made a long speech about the faulty accountancy of U.N.E.S.C.O., but ignored the fact that, although that was true in 1945, a special committee of inquiry had sat and had since that time overhauled the whole system of accountancy to the satisfaction of the very best accountants.

The same sort of criticism was made about salaries and staff. We have all heard about the fleets of motor cars which used to stand outside the headquarters of U.N.E.S.C.O. in Paris, of the exorbitant salaries paid and the little work done, with the result that a lot of people got the idea that U.N.E.S.C.O. was art organisation which provided a lot of jobs for second rate people and produced nothing at all. Yet only last year the administrative costs of U.N.E.S.C.O. were reduced by about half a million dollars, and an inquiry into the whole scale of salaries was made. Although, no doubt, many improvements can be made in that direction, the general picture has never been fairly painted at all. Nevertheless, with such a body which must deal sometimes with what can only be rather vague projects, one is entitled to ask what has been done.

Rather surprisingly, when one comes to try to answer that question, one finds that really quite a lot has been done during the three years of U.N.E.S.C.O.'s existence. Its work, I suppose, could be divided under two headings. There was, first of all, the work to be undertaken for reconstruction after the devastation caused by the war. That work has, more or less, come to an end, but when one looks at it, it is really a remarkable achievement. First of all, there were the surveys which had to be carried out—essential work—in 16 countries to find out what books and other educational facilities remained. At the end of the war I myself saw several hundred thousand books burned in Germany and other countries, and one realised then what a tragic dearth of all educational books there was going to be. Those surveys gave the countries of the world which still had a surplus of books some idea of the desperate plight of those who had been devastated.

Through the organisation known by the initials T.I.C.E.R.—I hate initials—some attempt was made to supply those deficiencies—of books, radios, cinematograph projectors, and so on, but it is when one looks at the figures, that one gets an idea of how much was done. For example, 230 million dollars worth of goods and services connected with education, including fellowships and scholarships, were provided by one method or another by the United States under the aegis of U.N.E.S.C.O. in the past three years. Only last year, one million dollars was subscribed by Canada, and, what is more, the money was spent and these services and goods have been provided.

Affiliated to U.N.E.S.C.O. has been the appeal to help children all over the world, to which this country subscribed £500,000, of which £60,000 was devoted to scholarships. Then there is the scheme of book coupons under which, when a student wants a book which only exists in a dollar country, he or she sends a coupon to U.N.E.S.C.O. which exchanges it for the book, and itself supplies the dollars. I think that system is spreading, and it is of most practical and valuable assistance to the countries who are short of books due to the war. All that is very good, and when the reconstruction period comes to be looked back upon U.N.E.S.C.O. will be judged to have done a really useful job in this particular field.

It is when one passes on to the long-term work that some criticisms begin to arise, and one wishes to ask questions. In connection with long-term work there have been some useful conferences of librarians, museum keepers and universities, which have been very valuable, and some seminars, which have been less valuable because so many people never answered the invitations. It is when U.N.E.S.C.O. itself seems to go directly into the field of education that I would begin to criticise it. Like most people who had experience of mixed troops during the war, those who were interested in U.N.E.S.C.O. were obviously impressed by the possibilities of what was at one time known as mass education.

When the West African troops returned to West Africa for instance, those who had commanded them were hopeful that some scheme would be devised by which they could "set the bush alight," or in other words, try to start a literacy campaign by getting the Africans who had learnt to read and write to pass on their knowledge to their neighbours. It was a most attractive idea, but when it was gone into it was not only found impossible to get the Africans under peace-time conditions to sit down and do it, but also that the mere fact of literacy raised so many other problems affecting education in its true sense that it could not be done on a mass scale. There were not the people who were technically qualified to guide people to use their new-found literacy, and there were not the books in the vernacular to help those being trained to continue to read when they had learned how to do so, nor were there even books in English.

By trying itself to provide what one might call fundamental education in the world, U.N.E.S.C.O. was making a mistake. They ignored the experience of those pilot projects which had been undertaken and the difficulties into which they had run. It does not seem to me that U.N.E.S.C.O. can itself directly teach the world. I should have thought that Dr. Beeby's thesis for the educational rôle of U.N.E.S.C.O. that it was to be the broker, the means of exchange for ideas and equipment, was a much sounder conception of its functions. In science—and I speak here with great ignorance—I am told that U.N.E.S.C.O. has done most valuable work, and that apart from supporting a great many scientific institutions the mere fact of its being able to bring together a thousand scientists in one conference and another has been a great benefit to science in the exchange of information, the standardisation of scientific terms and making available scientific literature. In a world as distracted as ours, these services may appear trivial, but in the long run it is work such as that which can lay the foundation for great improvements.

I am a little worried, on reading the report of the conference, and the report which my hon. Friend, as leader of our delegation, made to the Minister on the Beirut conference, about the danger of overlapping. Take for example the heading "Natural resources." If U.N.E.S.C.O. is to constitute itself a food authority it will overlap with the Food and Agricultural Organisation. Science has obviously an important part to play in the development of our food resources, but I should have thought that the job of organising and co-ordinating food production in the world was rather one for the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which is also connected with the United Nations, than for U.N.E.S.C.O.

It is when one comes to the social science and cultural side and even the communications side of U.N.E.S.C.O.'s work that one becomes more critical. Reading some of the projects under the heading "Social science," I began to have the feeling that U.N.E.S.C.O. was in some way usurping the functions of the Almighty. It seemed to me that members had sat back and surveyed this planet, had found that a great deal of it was not very good, and had then thought of how they might try to devise ways and means of putting it right.

Perhaps I can give a couple of examples. One reads about the project to study "Tensions affecting international understanding." I am aware that this type of project arouses a great deal of interest among our very good friends the Americans and that on the other hand some of our own delegation may have been little more sceptical about it, but surely the tensions affecting international understanding, or indeed human understanding of any kind, are a problem which has existed for at least 5,000 years. I should have thought that in that time we had not only learned a great deal about what those tensions are but in our philosophies, codes of ethics and our religions, if you will, we had also evolved a good many means of dealing with them and that our problem was less how to deal with them than how to put into practice what we already knew.

But even if we need a new philosophy or a new religion, I rather doubt whether U.N.E.S.C.O. is the body to give it to us. I should have thought, again, that the job of broker was the correct one in this connection also. I am told that there have been valuable psychological experiments carried out in the United States and elsewhere to do with man's reaction to his environments. If there is valuable information of that sort, by all means let it be passed through the universities from one country to another, but I do not think U.N.E.S.C.O. will succeed if it tries itself to act even as one of the Almighty's lieutenants in this field.

To give a more trivial—or perhaps a more obvious—example, U.N.E.S.C.O. called for a study of the techniques used by the Nazis and Fascists. Yet surely there are tens of thousands of people in Europe and a great many thousands in this country who have detailed, first-hand experience of all the techniques used by the Nazis and the Fascists. One could describe in great detail the whole system of what was called terror—and I do not mean only shooting but the elaborate organisation by which dictatorships of that kind establish themselves and make themselves popular through various blandishments and social policies and so on. I think that if my hon. Friend, who may or may not be in agreement with some of what I have been saying, inquired at the Foreign Office, he would get a very detailed and very accurate report, as I am sure his American colleagues would if they inquired of the State Department, of what were the techniques used by the Nazis and Fascists. If U.N.E.S.C.O. intends to spend time on that sort of thing I think it will be wasting a great deal of its energies. When looking at the communications side of the report I had a little of the same feeling. I notice that on page 19 of my hon. Friend's report, under the heading of

"Removal of Obstacles to the Free Flow of Information,"

there appears this sentence:

"Such obstacles are high prices of newsprint or radio sets, high tariffs, restrictive currency controls and transport difficulties."

That is all perfectly true but, again, are they really the subject for action by U.N.E.S.C.O.? I should have thought that every government in the world, and particularly in Europe, has, through series of sub-committees after another in the last four years, been studying ways and means of overcoming all these difficulties, and if my hon. Friend will consult the authorities of O.E.E.C., to name only one, he will get even fuller reports of the difficulties and the methods by which it may be possible to use to overcome them, than he would if he inquired at U.N.E.S.C.O.

It is in these fields, the rather vague and long-term fields, that I think one has grounds for criticism, but I should like to end by saying that in spite of that, both the work that has been done and the tremendous amount of practical work that is under consideration in the field of education and science in particular, particularly bearing in mind the comparatively small cost—and I think small cost of this organisation to this country needs emphasizing—are of the greatest value. I think it is time that the idea that U.N.E.S.C.O. is a wholly and useless body, which is expensive and unproductive, was exploded.

Finally, I would say one word of congratulation to the late Director-General, Professor Huxley, who undoubtedly gave great inspiration to U.N.E.S.C.O. in his first two years of office. Whatever alleged shortcomings he may have possessed in administration, I should have thought his intellectual inspiration has put U.N.E.S.C.O. on the right road. We are fortunate in having as his successor M. Torres Bodet, who was Foreign Minister and Minister of Education of Mexico, and who has already set about work on the administrative side of the Organisation in no mean fashion. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to say something about some of the criticisms I have made, and reassure us a little about some of the vaguer projects. I congratulate him and our delegation on the part they have played, which is testimony to the fact that U.N.E.S.C.O. is trying to build the sort of world we in Britain and the democratic countries want.

With permission to speak again, I should like to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley). I am very grateful to him for raising at last in this House some questions concerning the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. He has certainly put his finger on a number of weaknesses, which we would all admit; but I am most gratified that he has also been good enough to emphasise the strength of this comparatively new Organisation.

He began by referring to the many ill-informed, uninformed, inaccurate criticisms that have been made in the Press, and, indeed, in another place when a Debate occurred there lately, and elsewhere, too, in regard to the programme of the Organisation. He referred to the salary scales which, it is true, have been described as abnormally high by our standards. It is, however, important to remember that those salary scales are scales agreed upon within the United Nations Organisation itself, and that those scales apply to the United Nations Organisation and to all the specialised agencies. The salaries are intentionally attractive, because the Organisation and the United Nations itself feel that, in order to get the highest grade staff, and in order to compensate for the very high cost of living in Paris, and for what is, undoubtedly, a strain, the strain of international life, the salaries should be at a very high level.

Reference has also been made to the questions that have been raised about the so-called accounts of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. It is now well known, since the Debate in another place, that the criticisms of those accounts apply, not to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, when set up, but to the preparatory commission which worked out the details for the establishment of the Organisation. I think it is only fair, now one has an opportunity, to remind the House that, after the first report from the auditors, to which reference has been made in the Press and elsewhere, there came a second auditors' report from the same auditors, Price, Waterhouse and Company, 11 weeks later. The second report says:

"It will be seen from the foregoing that important improvements in the controls and accounts have been made, and that further improvements are being introduced."

Elsewhere in their report the accountants say:

"The present state of the accounts and records appears to be generally satisfactory."

So I hope we shall hear no more criticism—inaccurate criticism, uninformed criticism—on a matter which, in fact. is not the concern of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation at all, but of the Preparatory Commission.

Then I was glad that my hon. Friend referred to the rather facetious gibe that has been made in this House to my right hon. Friend about "sex at high altitudes." Nature is not, after all, as benign and benevolent in other parts of the world as it is in Wordsworth's poems and in the English Lake District, and this question of biology—to give it its proper name, research into biology at high altitudes—in Peru, Venezuela, and Chile, and all the countries of the Andes, is a question of life or death. I have gone to some trouble to discover what in fact the problem is in a country like Peru—a country which I will, with respect, remind the House is five times the size of Spain, and a country which, I understand, is potentially one of the greatest oil producing countries in the world. The problem is simple when one looks at it upon paper. Animal stock are short lived at high altitudes and the fertility of imported animals' rapidly declines at high altitudes. The stamina of all livestock is a matter, therefore, of the greatest importance to those who have to live above 10,000 feet or 11,000 feet in the Andes. The problem also concerns the living conditions of those who belong to the higher altitudes and who marry those who come from the tropical valleys at the foot of the mountains; and to look upon this as a facetious matter is to ignore the tremendous importance of investigation into this problem from the point of view of a great many millions of people and a great many countries in Latin America.

I was delighted that my hon. Friend gave me an opportunity of saying that the world is, to those of us who think at all, a very much bigger place than when merely looked at North from Brighton or South from London. These are problems which are life and death to a great many people in different parts of the world. It is certainly true, as my hon. Friend has said, that in the realm of science U.N.E.S.C.O. has done a first-rate job of work. After all, it is an organisation which has only been at work for well under three years. There was the Paris Conference of 1946, which established the Organisation, the Conference in Mexico City in 1947, and the Conference in Beirut in 1948. In fact, the effective working time of the organisation is very little over two years, when one thinks of the time that had to be employed in getting representative staff. representing countries from all over the world.

I have considerable sympathy with the distinguished leader of the Indian Delegation who, in Mexico City, made the point that the majority of the staff of U.N.E.S.C.O., which at that time was about 512, came from England, America and France. We can all sympathise with him in his view when he pointed out that, after all, U.N.E.S.C.O. was a worldwide organisation and there had been civilisations for a very long time in the Far Eastern parts of the world. It took time to get the staff together, so the effective working time of the organisation has been little more than two years.

In the building up of the programme, there is another point which I should like to mention. That is that one can conceive a programme in two parts. There are the items in the programme which are urgent and require immediate attention, and there is the long-term policy. We have discovered, as, I understand, all the other specialised nations have discovered, that we know very little that is accurate and authentic about most countries of the world. I think that it was at the Statistical Congress in 1947 that the Secretary-General of the United Nations' organisations made a plea for more accurate information to enable policies to be enacted, and he pointed out, if I remember rightly, that we had very little accurate information indeed about the people of three-quarters of the area of the world. So the long-term policy has, as my hon. Friend indicated in speaking of the educational side of U.N.E.S.C.O. work, to be a clearing house for the collecting of information and its dissemination where it can be most valuably used.

Certainly in the realm of science, during its short life, and having the International Council of Scientific Unions already established to help it, the scientific section of the organisation has done extremely good work, in permitting the travel of nearly 1,000 scientists annually from all countries to meetings which they would not otherwise have been able to attend, permitting the publication of some 60 international scientific bulletins, giving a limited number of short-term travelling fellowships, contributing to the upkeep and the functioning of international laboratories, stock rooms and bureaux operated by the International Council of Scientific Union, and then in the Field Science Co-operation Offices, four of which are being maintained at the present time—for Latin America in Rio de Janeiro, for the Middle East in Cairo, for South-East Asia in New Delhi, and for East Asia in Shanghai.

Looking through the effective programme of the scientific section of U.N.E.S.C.O. I think that there is a good deal of which we in Britain should feel extremely proud, first of all because the organisation itself was born in this country out of the efforts of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) when he was Minister of Education, and the work of the right hon. Lady who preceded my right hon. Friend as Minister of Education. From the work of the Preparatory Commission we can say that this organisation is, in effect, a British child. When we look at what we have done in the realm of science—and I have given only a few samples of it this afternoon—we can feel extremely proud.

We can also feel proud, I think, though not to the same extent, about what U.N.E.S.C.O. has done for reconstruction. My hon. Friend mentioned the £1 million worth of goods and services that have passed through U.N.E.S.C.O. to the devastated areas. There are also the contributions, totalling another £1½million, which have come from Canada, Australia. Belgium, Norway, New Zealand and France. Through our own Lord Mayor's Fund we have contributed one-tenth, some £70,000, towards reconstruction in Europe and the Far East. The organisation has just allocated £5,000 to help in educational rehabilitation of the Arab refugee children, of which we saw something at the Third Session in the Lebanon.

My hon. Friend referred to the seminars and conferences which U.N.E.S.C.O. has been responsible for organising. In the educational field it is of tremendous value that experts in the sciences and the arts and teachers should get together and be able to discuss their particular problems and the methods they employ in their professional work. The view of the British Delegation at the Beirut Conference was that those seminars and conferences should have adequate and thorough preparation to get the most out of them, and although we have had, not wholly successful but reasonably successful seminars and conferences so far, we look to better achievements in this particular field in the years that he ahead.

It is also, I think, fair for my hon. Friend to comment upon some of the curious items that appear in the programme—curious because we feel they are perhaps rather high-flown, because the wording is not very clear, and because perhaps in some instances we can honestly say that we do not understand what they mean. As hon. Members will appreciate, we represent but one country—our own and the Colonial Empire; at these commissions and at plenary sessions we have but one vote. Other countries have many ideas which in many respects differ from our own.

As my hon. Friend said, the United States has been extremely enthusiastic about this study of philosophical concepts. I would point out to my hon. Friend that there is a very strong case to be made out for this being put into the programme of the organisation. First of all there is a general feeling among professional philosophers and social scientists that a considerable part of the tension between the Communist countries and the countries of western civilisation arises because of the different meaning each side attaches to words like "liberty" and "democracy." To the American delegation, and to many other delegations, it seemed a suitable task for the philosophical experts of U.N.E.S.C.O. to examine this problem. I am not here to say that U.N.E.S.C.O. has tackled the problem in the right way, but I believe it can learn by experience. After all, a new organisation like this is bound to make mistakes in the initial stages. I am prepared to defend the resolution as passed, but I suggest it will take a very long time to get this information and find out how it can be used. Nevertheless I think it is worth doing.

Moreover, it need hardly be pointed out that when we are in a minority, and that in this particular instance there was an overwhelming majority in favour of a study of this particular problem, it is our democratic way to accept it. In other words, the vote was in favour of this examination of tensions being included in the programme. Much play has been made in the Press of this particular side of U.N.E.S.C.O.'s work and the difficulty experienced by the ordinary man or, indeed, the educated man in understanding what many of the resolutions mean. I feel however that we should recognise the difficulty of translation. Resolutions will appear in the first instance in Arabic, in Spanish, in French, in English, or perhaps in some other language.

There then comes the question of translation into the official language being used. Let us be frank about this. I think it is generally admitted that in the realm of aesthetics the English language has not got the finesse of some other languages. When one translates or tries to translate into English matters which appear in one language and are concerned with philosophical concepts or aesthetics, or involve cultural problems, then the translations can be very clumsy indeed and can appear to be quite meaningless; whereas in the original language, in French for instance, the meaning is perfectly clear.

I notice that the very week "The Times Educational Supplement" was referring to this particular problem, its opposite number, "The Times Literary Supplement," contained a letter which pointed out that to render exactly in English matters of aesthetics is extremely difficult because our language is ill-adapted to the mysteries of aesthetics. It went on to point out that in German such matters would be crystalline and concise whereas if read in our language they would be extremely complicated and perhaps meaningless.

My hon. Friend referred to the realm of social sciences, and this particular part of the U.N.E.S.C.O. programme offers an interesting comparison with the realm of the natural sciences. It is suggested that an international council should be established on the lines of the International Council of Scientific Union, but here the natural scientist is dealing with facts and measurable phenomena, whereas the social scientists, in the programme U.N.E.S.C.O. has defined for them, are dealing with immeasurables. They are dealing with human attitudes of aggressiveness, conflict, misconceptions and prejudices—those very international tensions to which I have already referred. I will only say this about this section of U.N.E.S.C.O.'s programme: the simple and pressing question is, can the social scientist by skilful analysis and trained judgment, release us from our present international predicament? Can he reveal to us the source of our political science? Above all, if wars really begin in the minds of men can he make our minds any clearer in order to build more surely the defences of peace?

My experience of the building of this organisation since the days of the Preparatory Commission convinces me that there are tremendous possibilities in the hands of U.N.E.S.C.O. for good and for peace. I can remember, in the days after the First World War, attending conferences, in a rather lowly capacity, of a new organisation, then under the League of Nations, known as the International Labour Office. I remember spending three weeks attending a conference which discussed the question of night baking; I remember attending another conference which discussed the use of white lead in paint. I can also remember the question of the prevention of the use of phosphorus in the manufacture of matches being discussed at great length. I can remember, also, the general face- tious and sometimes patronising remarks which could be noticed in the Press and elsewhere in the early years of that organisation. Who, it was said, was interested in such a question as the abolition of night baking? It did not seem to be anything which could make a contribution towards world peace. That organisation had to go through its growing pains, but I think we would all agree that after many years it has established itself as a worth-while organisation. We cannot imagine the international field of activities which is concerned with peace being able to expand without the work of the I.L.O. I feel that the same kind of things will be said in a few years about U.N.E.S.C.O. We must break down the barriers, the high walls, which separate one country from another.

Is it possible that in the future we in this House may get to know more about the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. and of all the specialised agencies? I have found it extremely difficult to obtain information about the work of these agencies, and no doubt those who are not particularly conversant with, or have experience of, U.N.E.S.C.O. also find it very difficult. Great strides have been made in making known the work of this organisation, but perhaps a great deal more could be done to let us know what is being done by all these specialised agencies. Is it possible that these agencies can in far greater measure do more in the way of combined operations? I am bound to admit that overlapping exists, certainly in connection with the organisation we are now discussing today. Can we eliminate that overlapping, and can the specialised agencies go in for combined operations? Though I have had only brief notice of this Debate, and I would have liked a fuller discussion on so important a problem, I am very gratified that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has raised this subject, even though it must have been embarassing to him as well, to have had to raise it at such short notice.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley) for having seized the opportunity which presented itself this afternoon, and which unfortunately so rarely occurs in our Parliamentary timetable, to initiate a discussion on U.N.E.S.C.O. Both he and I as well as a number of other Members have for some weeks past been searching for an opportunity to ventilate some of the many problems which are associated with U.N.E.S.C.O. When I asked the Lord President of the Council a few Thursdays ago whether there would be an opportunity in this House for discussing the U.N.E.S.C.O. Report, which many of us read with the greatest interest, he said he thought it would be an appropriate subject for discussion in the House, and hoped that the Opposition might make use of a Supply Day in order that we might have a discussion. I do not know whether these facilities are to be provided, but I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this question this afternoon. It is a disadvantage that when these opportunities occur that it is not always possible to give all the hon. Members who are interested the necessary notice to enable them to take part in a discussion on the subject, which is one of great importance.

We know that the Parliamentary Secretary, with the blessing of the Minister, has during the last two or three years devoted a great deal of his time to the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. In 1947 he went to the conference in Mexico City, and in 1948 to the one in Beirut, on each occasion as the leader of a strong and powerful United Kingdom delegation. His attendance at those conferences has meant considerable absence from this country. In some quarters I have heard criticism of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education have spent so much of their time abroad attending U.N.E.S.C.O. conferences. Those criticisms are not well founded. The work of U.N.E.S.C.O. is of great importance, and the time spent by the Permanent Parliamentary Secretary and the permanent head of this Department can, I think, be justified. But it follows as a corollary from that that the work which they have done and the work which has been done by U.N.E.S.C.O. should be adequately followed up and understood in the country.

I well remember raising the subject of U.N.E.S.C.O.—I think, for the first time in this House—about 2½ years ago. That was also on a Friday, when we had two or three hours available for Debate, and when my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, made an important speech in this House about the objects, hopes, ambitions and ideals of U.N.E.S.C.O. What we in this House have to ask ourselves today, and what those in the country who take an interest in this subject are asking themselves, is how far those hopes, ideals and aspirations which were put in U.N.E.S.C.O. as one of the specialised agencies of the United Nations are being fulfilled; and what, if anything, we can do to strengthen their purposes.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has recited, and as is always recited on any discussion about U.N.E.S.C.O., its objects derive from the theme that peace begins in the minds of men.

War, not peace.

I am sorry—that war begins in the minds of men. As a corollary, if we are to have world peace, the ideas and the concepts of world peace must be firmly founded in the minds of men. It is unfortunate that U.N.E.S.C.O. has been boycotted by the countries behind the Iron Curtain.

If my hon. Friend is referring to the Beirut Conference, I should like to point out that Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland were not present; but that if he is referring to the Iron Curtain countries as refusing to play any part in the work of U.N.E.S.C.O., Czechoslovakia and Poland have representatives on the Executive Board and have, of course, attended previous conferences. I am not now going into the question of why those three countries did not send delegates to Beirut, but there has not, in fact, been a boycott of U.N.E.S.C.O. as a whole.

Of course, I accept that correction. When I spoke of the countries behind the Iron Curtain I had in mind the predominant country which we always think of being behind the Iron Curtain—Soviet Russia, who, unfortunately, has never sent a member to U.N.E.S.C.O. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has said, that some of the other countries which are now, but formerly were not, behind the Iron Curtain such as Czechoslovakia and Poland, have maintained their membership of U.N.E.S.C.O. I think it is worth while drawing attention to the fact that the reason why Poland, at any rate, among those countries of Eastern Europe, felt unable to attend the conference at Beirut, was the rather tenuous reason that there was no diplomatic relationship between Poland and the Lebanon, which is another ground of criticism, as was reinforced by the United Kingdom delegation, for their original objections to Beirut as the meeting place of the Conference. I have criticised that venue in the past, but since criticising the choice of Beirut as the meeting place of the Conference I am bound to admit that there may well have been some advantages in the choice of Beirut.

I hope we shall find that as a result of this international conference at Beirut a suitable impression was made upon the Arab States of the Middle East about the intentions of Western civilisation to improve not only social conditions, but educational conditions also, which exist in those countries.

I hope that suitable opportunity was taken of the occasion to show our profound sympathy not only with the hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees suffering in the Middle East, but also our conviction that a tremendous amount of work must be done in the Middle East to remove the conditions of illiteracy which constitute one of the prime reasons for the backward nature of those States. We in this country have a full recognition of the importance which the Arab countries of the Middle East—Syria, the Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the others—have to play in making their contributions to world progress and prosperity during the next generation.

I believe that there is one field in which U.N.E.S.C.O. can play an important part in removing some of the illiteracy and backwardness which exists in those countries. We must never lose sight of the fact that not only does U.N.E.S.C.O. exist for some of the—I was about to say grandiose—ambitious and academic projects of which the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken, but it also exists for the more humdrum, limited and pedestrian objective of trying to increase the standard of education and intelligence throughout the world, for making a mass attack on illiteracy and for providing the essentials of knowledge—literature, text books and so forth. I shall always regard that as one of the most important of the objectives of U.N.E.S.C.O. I hope that it will not be overlooked in these rather more rarified discussions about scientific and philosophical subjects which take place at the international conferences of U.N.E.S.C.O.

There is one other aspect to which it is important to draw attention. I should like to welcome the presence here today not only of the Parliamentary Secretary but also of the Minister of Education. I do not know whether he proposes to take part in our discussion, but I was very glad to see that he was present in person at the conference which took place a week or 10 days ago at Church House for the purpose—for the first time, if I remember rightly—of trying to provide some kind of public forum to listen to the reports of the members of the United Kingdom Delegation and offer criticisms and suggestions. The matter of importance at the moment is that if U.N.E.S.C.O. is to be a success and a reality—and unless it is, I think these long visits abroad of Ministers and eminent civil servants will be largely wasted—it is essential that there should be built up in this country a responsible and independent body of opinion for the purpose of supporting U.N.E.S.C.O.

In America, they have a kind of commission which is not centralised and does not derive its strength merely from the centre, but aims at bringing together spontaneously from all parts of the United States in a common membership people who are prepared to think and talk about U.N.E.S.C.O. and to criticise it, because it is very important that the activities of any national degelations at U.N.E.S.C.O. should feel that they are responsible and responsive, not only to their own Governments, but also to informed and enlightened public opinion in their own countries.

On this particular point, the co-operative bodies—I know that my hon. Friend knows the position and that I need not describe them—consist of some 250 places, and the Ministry of Education, which is often criticised for being the controlling body and wielding the power, occupies only half-a-dozen of these places. Other Government Departments occupy more places, but I would point out that the co-operative bodies do provide an ample representation of various interests in U.N.E.S.C.O. If we look at the list, we find that it includes the British Council, local authorities, universities, the arts, industrial design, music, films, the drama, the acting profession, agricultural interests, the T.U.C., the iron and steel industry and so on. I have no need to go right through the list. There is no truth in the suggestion that my right hon. Friend has centralised the efforts of the country concerned with U.N.E.S.C.O. In fact, they are very widely distributed, and we have the magnificent and admirable services of distinguished representatives of practically all the cultural organisations in this country.

I am quite sure that the whole House will be very glad that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity of making that clear, because there has undoubtedly been a good deal of misunderstanding about it. I am very glad that he has explained that these co-operative bodies are not dominated by the Ministry of Education. I myself was puzzled till now to know how this national Commission was constituted. For example, when they had this meeting at Church House about 10 days ago, I only heard about it two days before it met, when with his usual courtesy my hon. Friend, extended to me, as an interested person, an invitation to go, which unfortunately I was unable to accept.

Nevertheless, there is a public misconception about it, and it is important that the public should know that machinery exists for enabling anybody interested in the matter to join this co-operative and co-ordinating organ, and thereby to make a contribution to the national policy that will have to be worked out during the interval between one biennial conference and another. There are numbers of people interested in this subject, not only at the level to which my hon. Friend referred, but, apart from the universities, schools and industry, in the churches and in various other walks of life. As I have tried to show, if the hand of the Minister is to be strengthened, it seems to me vitally necessary that a vocal body of opinion should be built up drawn from as wide a circle as possible and prepared to study the reports of U.N.E.S.C.O. and to direct the policy which should be recommended to U.N.E.S.C.O. by the United Kingdom delegation.

Broadly, I think that my criticism of U.N.E.S.C.O. at the present moment would be that it is attempting to do too much, and that it is in danger of failing to take advantage of its opportunities and to fulfil the ideals with which it set out by having too vast a plan of objectives. It would be very much better if it confined itself to a smaller number of objectives which are specifically and immediately practicable.

I also very much doubt whether it is really wise for U.N.E.S.C.O. to impinge on the activities of some of the other specialised organs of the United Nations. For example, I notice a large part of the report of one section of U.N.E.S.C.O. is devoted to the work of the Commission of Human Rights which has been meeting, and still is meeting, as a department of the Economic and Social Conference, and is doing valuable work. Suggestions are made in the Report that U.N.E.S.C.O. should also concern itself with the production of what appears to me to be some rather philosophic disquisitions about human rights. I have no doubt that they will be very interesting when they are prepared, but I do not know whether they are really of great practical value. I should have thought it better to leave matters of that kind to the Commission of Human Rights which is in the process of trying to work out first a Declaration and now a Convention of Human Rights and which has to consider the matter not only from the point of view of legal principles, but also from that of what are practical politics.

I also hope that the Press will feel able to give the same kind of attention to popularising the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. that goes on—for example—in the American Press. Only two or three days ago, I happened to be reading one of the leading daily American papers which reported on its front page a speech made by Sir John Maud, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Education, when he was addressing—which I am very glad he was able to do—a widely attended meeting of the American national organisation supporting U.N.E.S.C.O. According to the report, his opening words were, "Fellow Unescans," and after a lucid and enlightening speech he concluded with the words, "Let us Unesc." That is the right spirit if U.N.E.S.C.O. is to be made a success. I conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning, that I wish it had been possible to give other hon. Members adequate notice that this important subject was going to be raised this afternoon.

It would be a pity if some one on this side of the House did not say a word in view of the extremely interesting Debate which we have had. I am one of those who, for a considerable time, have entertained a feeling of doubt whether we were getting value for our money from U.N.E.S.C.O. The original concept of this great international project appealed to everyone, but I have felt from time to time that perhaps these journeyings to Paris, these long discussions, this translation into a variety of languages of the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, were perhaps a slightly heavy burden on the British taxpayer. After the interesting speech of the Parliamentary Secretary I am satisfied that U.N.E.S.C.O. performs a practical and hopeful part in influencing the international outlook of the times.

I would say how gratified I am that the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to give so much time to attending meetings at U.N.E.S.C.O. I do not know whether all the other nations which are contributing to this great organisation have someone who is giving the same amount of time, thought and constructive intellectual force to the interests of U.N.E.S.C.O. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that that is so, because this organisation can play a most important part in international relations in the future. We have had reference made to the concept of peace, and these lofty aspirations are always welcome in this House. Are they borne out in actual practice in the organisations to which reference has been made? I am satisfied that U.N.E.S.C.O. is performing a very valuable part in that re- spect, and I am glad that this discussion' has taken place this afternoon because what U.N.E.S.C.O. is doing is not familiar to a great many Members of the House.

I was pleased to note from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary that he is giving a great deal of thought to this work, the importance of which we all realise. After the speech he has made this afternoon many of us will change our view from one of being a little critical of U.N.E.S.C.O., in view of the plain and wholesome way in which he has presented the situation to us. Any contribution which this House can make to the success of an organisation which can soften the asperities which prevail in Europe today, and which brings nations closer together, will be a most gratifying element in the outlook for the future. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has made the statement we have heard today. I am certain that his colleagues in this House will appreciate it and give him substantial support in the future in continuing the great work which he is doing.