(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the disturbances outside Glasgow City Corporation Chambers yesterday protesting against the sale of corporation houses, and what action he proposes to take to prevent further disturbances.

I wish to apologise for the short notice which I have given on this Question, but, owing to the lapse of time, it has been very difficult to make contact.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend expects to receive immediately a police report on what happened yesterday. My right hon. Friend is assured that the Chief Constable will take all necessary steps to prevent a breach of the peace.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the best action to prevent a breach of the peace is to realise the tremendous feeling which there is in Glasgow, with its huge waiting list, about the injustice in regard to the sale of these houses?

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware, I think, that in taking the decision which it did, the Corporation was acting under an Act passed by the recent Government. The power is given by Section 65 (1, b) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency and the neighbouring burgh of Clydebank there are a number of privately-owned tenement houses? If the sale of these Corporation houses in Glasgow continues, the pressure to occupy these tenement houses while people in Clydebank are being re-housed by the Clydebank Burgh Council will exacerbate the problem of the burgh of Clydebank in re-housing their present citizens.

That, I think, is a different question.

Can the Under-Secretary tell the House who organised these disturbances, and whether an inquiry is being made into this aspect of the matter? Will he say what is his view of this method of proceeding against legislation of which one disapproves?

No, Sir. I have no information. My right hon. Friend will have to await the report which he expects to receive from the Chief Constable.

While not condoning any breach of the peace in a matter of this kind, can the Under-Secretary say whether the Glasgow Corporation are not acting in flagrant disagreement with the assurance given by the Secretary of State the other day, that whole blocks of new houses would not be withdrawn from their original purpose of being let to the people and would, indeed, be offered to people who are prepared to jump the queue?

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter has not yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend, and it would be quite wrong for me to pre-judge any decision that he might reach.

rose—

I think we ought to get on. This is a Private Member's day, and I do not want it to be overtaken.

I want to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations for his courtesy in allowing the subject of this debate to be changed at such short notice. We had originally chosen the subject of Central African federation, but we on this side of the House felt that to have that debate without the Secretary of State being able to speak would be a pity, to say the least, and would cause misunderstanding among the peoples of Africa. So we have changed the subject of debate, and we are grateful to the Minister and his Department in allowing us to make the change at such short notice.

This subject is a second choice, but I believe that it is almost as important, taking the long-term view, as the original one. While secondary education is important, it is also vital that higher education should go side by side with it, because the Africans themselves must in the near future produce many more of their own leaders, particularly doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers and the like if they are to proceed upon their own way to emancipation, as we all hope.

Secondly, I believe that they must have their own universities on their own soil and in their own climate, because, at the moment, many of them are coming over here to alien conditions, living with landladies, some of whom perhaps, are not all that they might be, and, indeed, many of them are going south to the Union of South Africa, where the climate of opinion is not a happy one in this matter of colour. It is vital that we should have as many university colleges as early as possible and that they should be as large as possible.

I want to reinforce that by quoting the Inter-University Council for Higher Education in the Colonies which is, of course, a more weighty authority than myself. On page 7 of its Report it says:

"With the raising in 1951 of the minimum requirements for entrance to the United Kingdom universities, the number of colonial students qualified for admission will decrease. This adds a further element of urgency to the need for developing the colonial universities and colleges and completing their building programmes, so that they can absorb the students who cannot proceed overseas for undergraduate studies."

Our aim should be for our colonial people to take their degrees in their own countries and then to come to this country for post-graduate studies.

What are the figures and what has happened in Africa? In 1950 the number of Africans in their own universities and colleges was something like 1,114 out of a total of 2,763 in the whole of the Colonial Territories. I think over 4,000 came to this country. I have not the figures of those who went to the United States or to the Union of South Africa, but there must have been a very large number. The distressing feature is the alarmingly low proportion of women. Only 43 women were in colleges or universities in the whole of the African Continent, which has a population of 60 million people.

We can give West Africa a medal for what they are doing. They are doing a wonderful job in the university colleges in the Gold Coast, in Sierra Leone and in Nigeria. They are doing a fine job with extra mural work up country, too. But when we come to East and Central Africa it is a somewhat different picture. It is the other side of the medal. Only Makarere has been brought up to university standard, and the figures are most illuminating. In science there are 68 men and one woman. In the medical faculty, there are 30 men and no women at all, and in the education department there are 38 men and no women again. This is a sad picture.

The cost per student is remarkably high. It was said in the House last Wednesday that the cost can be high as £500 a year for Indian students. That alarmed me exceedingly. Again, there is a grave defect in the medical faculty. The standard is not sufficiently high and Africans who pass their degrees are not accepted by the universities in this country. In other words, we are only turning out there what might be termed African medical assistants. This is a particularly bad thing.

I would again emphasise the importance of having in East Africa inter-racial universities. Makarere is supposed to be becoming one, but I can only find there three Indians and one European. We want many more of the other races there if we wish to have a healthy society later on. Is the university college there full? Is there sufficient accommodation at Makarere? Above all, why the high cost in fees?

I found some interesting figures about the teaching staff and its ratio to the students. Obviously, it would be most unfair to compare these colleges with those of the United Kingdom, but the figures for the university college of the Gold Coast are as follow. There are 61 staff teaching 213 students, which gives a ratio of 28.64 per cent. In Nigeria there are something like 66 staff for 27 students giving a ratio of 20.18 per cent. But in East Africa and Uganda there are only 31 staff for 237 students which gives the remarkably low ratio of 13.08 per cent.

I would emphasise the need for a high teaching ratio in the Colonies. They have their own specific problems and above all, we need much time for research in the Empire and in the Colonies. Regarding Government bursaries, we find that the Government of Kenya gave 38 university bursaries in 1950 to Europeans to enable them to come over here. They gave 24 to Asians, but only 13 to Africans. I would have thought that the Africans because of their numbers, their poverty and their need to turn out their own leaders, lawyers doctors and the like should be given more if at all possible.

Again, there is no university college anywhere within hundreds of miles of the Zambesi. There is not one in Southern Rhodesia. It means that the Africans there who do not come here or go to the United States go south to the Union. That is not a very happy position when one thinks of Malan and his outlook on the question of colour and race. Above all, I would stress the need for extramural activity in East and Central Africa.

We speak about federation for Central Africa and a constitution for Tanganyika, and the like, and it is important that we should popularise and make plain these changes to the people in Africa. If only we could get something like we have in Nigeria where wonderful work is being done by Mr. Robert Gardiner, who is himself an African from the Gold Coast. He has been responsible for setting up something like 68 extra-mural classes from the North right down to the coast in the South to satisfy the enormous thirst for knowledge of the Nigerians. The position is that 20 million Africans are dependent upon Makarere which is only now being lifted out of its old inferior status.

Lastly, we come to the question of finance. We cannot do much without money. The Colonial Welfare and Development Board has been exceedingly generous. They gave £1,100,000 to the East African college and £400,000 to Nigeria. Kenya has lately decided to increase by five times its annual grant to Makarere. The Government, and, of course, the Colonial Development and Welfare Board are being much kinder. Again, the Cocoa Marketing Board is munificent. In the West, on the Gold Coast it gave £1 million and then another £1 million. Nigeria gave £250,000 and another £1 million on top. But what about the Coffee and Cotton Marketing Boards of Uganda? Could they not help finance an East African college?

And what about some people helping on the lines of the help given by Sir Robert Ho Tung who gave one million dollars to the University College of Hong Kong for women residents? I am told that sisal, for example, is selling at £220 a ton in Tanganyika. Much money is made in these areas, and it would be a magnificent gesture, not merely financially, but also psychologically, if the white population in East Africa gave money for the benefit of the coloured peoples.

I think it is no mere coincidence that the East African predominantly white society is lagging behind whereas West Africa with a predominantly African population has been much more forward in this educational advance. I hope that the East will copy the West in the very near future in this matter. Technical education is sadly and woefully lacking. In fact, one can say almost dogmatically that there is no opportunity for Africans in East and Central Africa of any higher technical education. I know that the first sod has been turned for the building of the inter-racial African technical college at Nairobi.

I appeal to my own teaching profession that many more British teachers and university lecturers should go out and help these peoples in Africa. I myself am a teacher and geographer and I am proud of the work done by many geographers and anthropologists who have gone out to Africa, among them Dr. Audrey Richards of London University and Professor Hamilton Whyte of Bristol University. I am told that the occupants of chairs at Edinburgh and Cambridge have gone out. There is here a magnificent chance for wonderful work to be done for the people of Africa.

I know that the proportion of locally-born teachers is increasing year by year, because the post-war harvest of graduates in the home universities are going among their own people. If the 19th century was famous for men like Livingstone and other pioneers going out to Africa in the field of religion so the 20th century should be equally famous for people going out in the field of education and leading these backward peoples towards a fuller and richer life in the future.

I am sure we all welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and his colleagues have given us to debate this important subject. I agree with many of the things which the hon. Member said, and particularly with his appeal to members of the teaching profession here to go out and help in the many difficult educational problems which exist throughout Africa.

But I hope he did not intend to give the impression in his earlier remarks that we did not welcome African students to our universities and university colleges here. There is obviously a good case to be made for the development of universities and university colleges in Africa. At the same time, until those are available, I am sure we would not wish to withhold from those Africans who wish to take up higher education the opportunities which our educational system in this country can provide for them.

I should like to take up some of the points the hon. Member raised with regard to higher education in East Africa and in particular his references to Makarere University College. That college has made great strides during the last few years. We welcome the introduction and development of the department of anatomy and physiology and the opening of the medical school which took place when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was Secretary of State for the Colonies. We must be careful that the standard of teaching and of the degrees given by those schools are on a level with the standards we demand in our country.

It is all very well to demand that when those degrees are given they should be recognised by our own medical authorities here, but at the same time we must be certain that enough time is allowed to elapse for the teaching to develop in these medical schools so that they may produce something that is really equivalent to the standards of medical teaching in this country and not merely equivalent on paper for degree purposes.

It is right to remind the House that the development of this medical school follows the pioneer work of the Church Missionary Society at their medical school at Mengo and continued since by the Government Medical School, founded in 1928. At the same time I am sure the House will welcome the development of the Institute of Medical Research at Makarere, which gives that college the opportunity of studying what is obviously an important aspect of African problems at present.

I should like to ask the Minister of State for the Colonies whether there is any prospect of an engineering faculty being introduced in the college. In view of the development now taking place in Uganda and the prospective development in the years ahead it is absolutely vital that we should have a body of trained African engineers able to help in the development of East Africa generally. I am well aware that the technical college in Nairobi, which again the right hon. Member for Llanelly played a substantial part in bringing into being or getting started, will give engineering diplomas, but I think that equal facilities should be available at Makarere.

In his reference to finance I do not think the hon. Member for Rugby quite did justice to the Kenya Government and to East Africa generally and the European section of the community. The Colonial Development and Welfare Fund contributed £150,000 towards the technical college at Nairobi, and the Kenya Government, from taxation largely raised from the European and Indian communities have given £120,000 in addition to the valuable site on which the new buildings are to be erected.

May I remind the hon. Member for Rugby that this technical college is a development of the pioneer work done in the Nito at Jeannes School under the inspiration of a leading settler, the late Lord Delamere. I cannot think it would be helpful to the atmosphere in East Africa if we did not bear in mind that in the past there were people among the European community in the earlier days who realised the potentiality and importance of higher technical training for Africans.

I hope I am the last man to appear churlish. I said that the Kenya Government were financing these efforts, and I specially mentioned that within the last year they had decided to increase by five times the annual stipend towards the upkeep of Makarere College.

I was merely emphasising, as I am sure the hon. Member would like me to do, that that money is primarily a contribution from the European taxpayer in East Africa. From the point of view of East Africa, and bearing in mind the different conditions which exist in East Africa as opposed to West Africa, I think the development of technical education is more important, not in the long run perhaps, but at the present moment than the training of lawyers and—

Doctors?

No, not doctors; they are very important, but I think that the training of the men to whom I have referred is more important at the present moment than the training of the arts type of student.

I greatly welcome the initiative which has been taken by Sir Phillip Mitchell, the present Governor, in the development of this type of technical education, not only in Nairobi but also in the Institute of Muslim Education at Mombassa. The financing of that Institute is an important aspect to bear in mind. A sum of £100,000 has been given by the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund, and a private donor, the Aga Khan, has given £100,000 in addition. The Sultan of Zanzibar has turned over, if I may use the expression, a further £100,000 which was given by the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund for the development of Zanzibar, and further, the Kenya Government has given £50,000 for this purpose.

I am certain that the development of this Institute of Muslim Education for the provision of facilities not only for East Africa but the whole of the coast right from Somaliland to the far south is not only of immense value in training and providing education and technical opportunities for a hard working and intelligent section of the East African communities, but is also a tribute to the cultural work which the Muslim world has done for many centuries in that part of Africa.

There are three points which I should like to raise with the Minister, and they are in some ways parallel to those points which the hon. Member for Rugby raised. First of all, what about the development of higher education in Central Africa? I am just as concerned as he is about the apparent lack of facilities which exist at the moment in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In Southern Rhodesia the facilities at Fort Hare are available, where the educational facilities are extremely good. But in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland those facilities are not available. I was glad to note that in the proposals with regard to Central African federation the development of higher education was to come under the federal government, and I believe that would assist in a development which I believe hon. Members in all quarters wish to see.

The second point which I should like to raise is with regard to the education of women. I am of the opinion that many of the problems which we face in Africa can only be solved provided we can elevate the status of African women in the African community. I received last year some figures which bear out the figures produced by the hon. Member.

In East Africa, with the exception of Uganda, there was one woman as opposed to 49 men undergoing university education in the United Kingdom, and there were five women as opposed to 184 men undertaking university education outside the United Kingdom. The disparity between those figures is obviously lamentable. I believe that the Colonial Office and the Governments not only of East Africa but of West Africa as well should—with great value to the solution of African social and economic problems—pay special attention to the whole problem of female education in Africa, and in particular to the provision of better facilities for those who wish to undertake higher education both in this country and elsewhere.

One of the reasons why there are so few African women available to undertake higher education is because of the deficiencies which exist in primary and secondary educational facilities for women in colonial Africa. We must therefore apply our minds and energies to ensuring that those facilities and systems are improved.

My next point, which I believe is just as important as the development of African higher education, is the necessity to ensure that those who receive the facilities and opportunities which education of that nature gives should have a prospect of suitable employment after they have finished their education. I have seen many times—and, indeed, it is, I think, well known to the House—numbers of people who started their educational careers with great promise, and who gradually moved into a period of disillusion and frustration because they were unable to use their training and qualifications in order to contribute, as they had intended, to the improvement of the conditions of their own peoples to whom they were prepared to dedicate their energies.

It is wrong for us to say that we do not want to see these men and women leaving the universities and merely looking for opportunities of employment in Government service, because I believe that, in fact, in the majority of the Colonies there are no real alternatives to Government employment for these men and women to obtain the sort of employment which they need. The circumstances there are very difficult compared with those of our own country.

I ask the Minister to consider, with the Governments concerned, when dealing with the expansion of higher education for which we are all pressing in this House, not only the theoretical needs but the actual possibilties of employment for those who have finished their education at universities or university colleges. Every effort should be made to create opportunities for the proper and suitable type of employment in Government service in the Colonies concerned.

It is not merely a question of making jobs. It is a question of ensuring that we do not lose the great capital asset which this improved education provides for Africa by allowing all the money and the energy and enthusiasm which is generated during the period of education to run to waste as a result of the failure to provide opportunities for that education to be used after it is completed.

Although the subject which we are debating is rather less controversial than the one which was first proposed, I think we should all agree that it is in itself a very exciting subject because, after all, it is the struggle of the peoples of Africa towards the light—not merely for subsistence but, in this higher realm with which we are concerned, to become themselves the heirs of learning and fresh seekers after truth.

The founding of the university colleges in Africa is a milestone in educational progress and we welcome it very warmly, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has pointed out, the educational map is as yet far from complete. Not only have we only one college in East Africa to serve Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika and Zanzibar but, as has already been stressed in this debate, we still await proposals for higher education in Central Africa.

I think we are all agreed that at the moment we are in a transitional stage. At present we have in this country a fairly large number of African students. We are certainly glad to see them here, and I know that the Colonial Office in the last few years has been making very considerable efforts to see that their period of stay here is worthwhile and that they are able to settle here happily. There have been some difficulties, and I know that some students who have come here have had difficulties through being inadequately prepared before they arrive. Some of them have language difficulties as well as subject difficulties. They have sometimes not been able to complete their courses here satisfactorily. That is a most disappointing thing, not only for them personally but very often for the communities from which they come and which have placed great hopes in the young students who come to this country.

I urge that when these people come here the greatest possible care should be taken, both in selection and in cases where a promising student has imperfect knowledge of English. In the latter case, he should be given extra tuition before embarking on the main university course. I speak with some knowledge of this, because the University College at Aberystwyth, with which I have personal associations, and where colonial students are very happy, has had one or two instances of students having to be turned down at the end of the first year, which is a very humiliating and disappointing experience for them and for their families and friends.

We should regard this as a transitional period because, while we are very glad to have students here as undergraduates, the pattern which is being worked out in Africa at the moment is the right one—that normally undergraduate training should be done in the students' own territory or in a neighbouring territory, and that students coming to this country or going to the United States or other countries should be post-graduate students or those seeking some specialised training or education after their primary degree course is over.

I am thinking, for example, of the course run under the auspices of the Institute of Education of the University of London, where experienced teachers who wish to fit themselves for posts of higher responsibility attend the course after they have had some experience of teaching. They attend for extra training, and I am sure that is exactly the kind of facility we ought to continue to provide in this country.

Generally, it is less desirable for students to come here at undergraduate age. At that period they are particularly sensitive emotionally it is before they have reached some stability in their own outlook on life. They mix with people of a similar age here who, naturally, are extremely sympathetic emotionally towards them but who may not have a full knowledge of the home conditions of these students. Such a situation may lead, perhaps, to difficulties for the students themselves—difficulties which they might not experience if they came here when they were a little more mature.

I was very pleased to observe that during the debate special stress has been laid upon the education of women. If I were to confine myself strictly to the subject with which we are concerned—namely, higher education in the sense which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has suggested, university standard education—then, as far as the African territories are concerned, I should have very little to talk about. There are only 38 women receiving education at university standard in Africa at present. My remarks, therefore, would have to be very limited.

There are, of course, other aspects of higher education in the sense of vocational training, with which I want to deal in a moment. It is quite clear that if we are to increase the number of women students at the higher levels, either the university level or the vocational training level, we must seriously tackle the question of primary and secondary education for girls. The Minister will know how unsatisfactory the position is, with the exception of West Africa. Even there, difficulties exist in the Mohammedan parts of the country. Apart from West Africa, where I think as much progress is being made as resources will permit, we have a very serious situation. That is certainly the case in Central and East Africa.

In Northern Rhodesia there is one small secondary school catering for girls. In Nyasaland, with a population of about five million, there is no secondary education whatsoever for girls, except for the occasional girl who goes to a boys' school, when she can find a place there. It is a most serious matter that such a situation should exist in Nyasaland, for which, after all, we have sole responsibility.

In East Africa, in Kenya itself there is only one secondary school catering for girls where they can take the full secondary course. There is one in Zanzibar, and there are two in Uganda, and efforts are being made, I understand, in Tanganyika to provide at least two secondary schools for girls in which the full secondary course will be available.

It is obvious that we cannot expect to have more women at universities or teacher-training colleges if we cannot provide adequate secondary education. I know that in the whole problem of education in the Colonial territories we have the dilemma which always exists in these matters—quality versus quantity; should we spread primary education very widely at a low level or should we provide the fullest possible opportunities for the most capable people in the community? We have to strike a balance between these two possibilities, and it seems to me that at the present stage in Africa there is much to be said for at least making certain that we provide the leaders for the future, because they themselves will then help to raise the standard all round.

I am sure we shall be very much interested in the report which will be made some time next year from the Nuffield Commissioners, who with Colonial Office officials are now in Africa studying this problem. We remember the advance which was made after the Phelps-Stokes Mission after the First World War, and we hope for a similar advance this time.

We have a vast task before us here. When we read accounts of what is happening in West Africa, we cannot help feeling that they are passing through a most exciting period in educational advance. In the Gold Coast, of course, they have had the advantage of the college at Achimota for the last quarter of a century, which has provided the leaders among the Africans for future advances. In other territories, which are not so far advanced, I feel we must press very hard for improvements, and I hope and believe that all communities will do so.

We do not wish to be in the least ungrateful to those who have already shown generosity and public spirit, and no-one will quarrel over the contribution which has been made by such people in Kenya. I would, however, remind the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) that Sir Philip Mitchell, the Governor of Kenya, not long ago publicly drew attention to the high standard of life which is being enjoyed in Kenya. That makes this a suitable moment to suggest that further benefactions to seats of learning, along the tradition we have built up in this country, would not come amiss. Something has been done, but there is room for much more, and I hope that those who have benefited from the recent prosperity will follow the example of the benefactors in this country.

I am convinced that it is only through education that we shall be able to solve the difficulties in the multiracial communities. Until we have an equivalent in Africa of the British middle classes we shall not have the leaders from the African people.

Perhaps I may return to the question of women's education. This is extremely important, not so much intellectually as socially. I am not unaware of the many difficulties which exist. It is not so long ago that we had to struggle for higher education for women in this country. My mother was one of the relatively early students at Newnham College and was regarded as something of a pioneer, even in those days. In Africa, where they have the tribal system and religious difficulties, the problem is peculiarly difficult. We must do all we can to help the Africans to help themselves. Wherever the problem of the education of women exists, there is always a certain resistance from some of the women themselves, and, of course, from Ate men because it upsets the pattern of social life. It does so all the more, I think, because we find so many parts of Africa where the woman is quite literally the hewer of wood and the drawer of water and where it is regarded as highly uncomfortable for everybody concerned if she wishes to be something else. That is apart from the religious difficulties in certain areas.

I am sure that, as we fought our way to higher education in this country, it is essential that we should do so in Africa, and especially if we educate the men, because there must be wives to take their places with the educated men. For instance, men teachers must have wives who can also be leaders in the community. I hope that we shall not have it said in Africa, as we have sometimes had it said in this country, that to educate women is a waste because they are likely to get married, for there are ample opportunities, I am sure, in Africa for the married women themselves in the promotion of education—for instance, in informal education, on which so much of the advance of education in Africa must be based.

I hope, therefore, that after all these words from both sides of the House the Minister of State, whatever else he does, will take to heart this matter of the education of African women.

The debate today is taking place at rather short notice, but it is on a subject of very great interest and, as the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, of a very exciting nature. The rapid advance, in Africa, in the field of higher education is among the most interesting and encouraging developments of our modern times, because it is taking place in an atmosphere, relatively, of tranquillity, of co-operation, and of agreement on all sides that the advance should be made.

I had the opportunity of acting for two years as Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education in West Africa, when I saw something of the problem at first hand, and had opportunities of going into it very carefully with African leaders of the first order—Dr. Taylor Cummings, of Sierra Leone, Mr. Justice Korsah, of the Gold Coast, and Mr. Ransome Kuti, of Nigeria—teachers and leaders of outstanding quality.

It is true, amongst other things, that the education of women requires to be stepped up a great deal. But it is also true that in Africa, and especially in West Africa, and most particularly in the southern States of West Africa, women already occupy a very remarkable position of their own. Some of the great trades, for instance, are almost entirely in their hands. The fish trade, for instance, a very remarkable trade, run from the coast to far inland, is almost entirely in the hands of women; and the complicated system of social education amongst, say, the Ashanti, providing for the education of the young women by the older women—the so-called Queen Mothers—is a very intricate business indeed; and the women have their place conceded to them by the men as the specialists in their own field.

It is, indeed, even true that African men think that the African women are rather flighty—as one African expressed it, "White man's wife, she good; she keep man's house. Black man's wife, no good. She spend the money." So we have a contrast of the homekeeping, industrious white wife compared with the gadabout black woman—not always the aspect from which we here commonly regard them.

But it is true that, especially amongst nursing sisters, and so on, there is a very great room for very great expansion of education amongst the women. At present a very great deal of that has to be done in this country. I am sure that that is a pity. I agree however with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) that we must not seem to deny in any way opportunities for education in this country. It must be a process of attraction to the institutions in their own country rather than exclusion from the institutions here.

Nothing provokes more instant suspicion in the mind of the Africans than a feeling that, for some reason or another, they are being excluded from opportunities which are available to others. There is the necessity first of all for getting institutions of higher standards in their own country and of then improving the conditions there. That is much more useful than saying, "You cannot come here. You must be educated in your own country."

For that reason, I would ask the Minister of State in his reply to the debate to give us information as to how the newly developed university colleges in the Gold Coast and Nigeria are progressing. The University College of the Gold Coast has received great advantages, as was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) through the most generous benefactions given by the Cocoa Board, a board largely controlled by peasant farmers. The idea of getting money out of peasant farmers in Africa or, indeed, anywhere else, for any object such as education is one of these difficulties only those who have tackled such a task can fully realise.

But it is also true to say that the Cocoa Board has very great resources compared with those which are available to the relatively newer and poorer boards and communities on the other side of Africa. The Gold Coast and Nigeria include the great cocoa belts which cover half of the cocoa production of the world, and enormous sums are available. For all that, it is still very, very creditable that first in the Gold Coast and then in Nigeria these great sums—actually, great sums: relatively, to their countries, enormous sums—have been made available for the cause of education.

But Gold Coast higher education has to work its way up to development in several fields which are already in full blast—or almost in full blast—in Nigeria. Medical education, for instance at present is concentrated in Nigeria. I think that before long some medical school will have to be got going in the Gold Coast, based on the hospital at Korlibu or one of the other hospitals. There are plenty of opportunities for clinical development and better hospitalisation. I am sure that it will not be long before the Gold Coast wishes to undertake medical education as well as other lines of progress.

As for Nigeria, it is faced with the extremely difficult task of moving its university from buildings, such as they were, in Lagos—the Yaba buildings—to a site being literally carved out of the bush at Ibadan. This is the actual construction of a university. Very few of us have seen such a thing taking place—the actual birth of a university on a virgin site. It is extremely interesting. But it also, of course, has created many problems of its own, problems of tropical housing, problems of small communities—small European and small educated communities—moved a long way from other society. Small, highly educated communities have feuds and difficulties of their own. The chronicles of Barchester are full of such things.

I hope that it has been possible to proceed rapidly with the erection of the new building at Ibadan, particularly for the medical school, because, frankly, the hospital accommodation at Ibadan was fairly primitive. There was a great deal to be done there. The buildings from which they were being moved, at Yaba were, relatively speaking, fairly far advanced. I trust that the Minister of State will press on with the construction of these new buildings at the utmost speed, because the honour of our community is deeply bound up with bringing these university colleges to fruition as rapidly as possible.

During the war Britain sent out a commission. It examined all these matters and reported, still during the war. I think it was an example of a very high power of detachment that Britain was able to consider these new problems in the middle of a crisis which made it very difficult for us to know whether our own community and civilisation would survive or not. Having made that examination and come to these conclusions, and having gained the consent of the African community, it is extremely desirable that the progress should not falter, and that in these matters the utmost priority should be given, particularly in building materials and in teachers, for this is a great opportunity which is opened to our people.

I have been very struck with the remarkable quality and calibre of some of the teachers who have gone out there. The Africans themselves have teachers of high quality, such as Mr. Robert Gardiner, a man of outstanding quality in any educational circle. I think that it is, however, true that for a long time a combination of European and African teachers will be necessary. But they must be Europeans of the very finest quality; second quality teachers may do more harm than good. We must also send first-rate teachers in technical education. The African feels that the great secrets of engineering are extremely important for him to master; he feels that the key of the future lies there.

The whole House has the utmost good will towards this development. I trust that the Minister this morning will be able to give us an encouraging account of the progress that has already been made.

Although there has been some disappointment at the change-over from the original subject to this one, I am sure that everyone present has appreciated the contribution which has been made by both sides of the House to the debate. I would add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), who opened this debate by saying that I feel extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary for agreeing to this switch round.

One very gratifying factor is that both sides of the House agree that whatever may be the dissimilarity between the peoples of Africa and the peoples of this country, we agree that the common experience, needs and capacity of both peoples far outweigh any divergencies. We start on that basis. This is why those of us who have had the privilege of visiting Africa have been inspired by the development of that capacity which has been latent and unable to express itself because of the lack of stimulus and opportunity.

Two of the most inspiring moments which I had during the visit I paid to Nigeria some three or four years ago was, in the first place, when I visited the Ibadan University—and I endorse all that has been said so eloquently by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) about that institution—and, secondly, when I went to the Jos Plateau and saw the Jos people, who are often regarded as a very primitive people. I visited the house of the manager of the tin mines there, and asked him what he thought of the capacity of the people living in his area. He said it was rumoured that some of them still practised cannibalistic rites on occasions, although it was illegal.

But after lunch, he took me into another room and showed me a number of large sheets of paper on which there were geometrical designs or similar impressions, and he said, "What do you think of these?" I said that I thought they were quite impressive and such as I myself could not hope to draw. He observed, "These were done by a number of Jos youths who, three years ago, could hardly speak English, and who certainly could not read or write." That latent capacity had been brought out to perform the excellent work there shown.

That is illustrative of the great capacity of the African people. Although among the African people there is difference of colour, history and circumstances, I believe that the capacity itself is very much the same. That is why I rejoice today that we can discuss this matter so quietly and so hopefully, and can bring forward suggestions by which we can still further serve the cause of African development.

I think we all agree that there cannot be very much development of higher education in Africa unless there is simultaneous development in economic expansion and also in the improvement of social conditions. Just as in this country it was impossible to expect much development in the realms of higher education unless better social conditions were also present, so, I would submit we cannot separate this most important subject of higher education from other aspects of African life. I will not develop that idea further, except to say that until a much higher standard of life for the ordinary people of Africa can be enjoyed, and the economic resources of Africa can be much further developed there will be that limitation imposed on them in the development of the capacity to which I have referred.

As it is, the African students, either here or on the Continent itself, are the living symbols today of the Africans of tomorrow. That is why I submit it is as necessary to encourage African students to come here for their higher education as it is to provide facilities for higher education in Africa itself. The African gains a great deal by coming out of his own environment and Continent, even for three or four years, just as we gain a great deal by visiting other parts of the world. If there is any suggestion that we want to confine them to their own Continent, that may be translated as being another endeavour to keep them in their place and not to allow them to understand and enjoy some of the values of Western civilisation.

I agree with all the pleas made today for more facilities for educating the girls and women of Africa and that we have to have regard to the religions as well as the sociological obstructions that exist in parts of the African Colonies. In Northern Nigeria, for instance, the Muslim faith, which possesses many excellent qualities, has, nevertheless, until recently, retarded even the consideration of women's education.

I remember meeting, in Northern Nigeria, a young man who was coming to this country, but was only permitted to do so provided he took his wife with him. I met him quite casually in a university town of this country and made inquiries about him, and found that although he had been in that town for some two years, his wife had hardly been seen. Although there were those who had tried to visit her, she was still practically in purdah in an English town.

We have to appreciate that the task of providing higher education for the women, as well as the men of Africa, is a very difficult one indeed. A great deal depends, not only on ourselves in this country, but on the Africans themselves. In recent years we have done much to impress on the Africans that we are as desirous as they are of fulfilling their capacity of mind and spirit. We have some 5,000 colonial students in this country, or which some 2,000 are from West Africa. That is very encouraging.

Still more encouraging is the fact that in recent years far more are seeking other professions and training than that of the law. No doubt law is necessary, as I am sure all lawyers here will whole-heartedly agree, but to me it is encouraging to recognise that, at the present time, of the colonial students in this country, some 720 are in the medical faculty and only 700 are taking training in law. On the other hand, nurses, who are included in the survey of higher education, number 820. I should like to say briefly what a debt we owe to the African colonial nurses in the service they are rendering at the present time in our British hospitals.

It is also encouraging to know that some 500 colonial students are now taking engineering. I understand that roughly speaking two-thirds of that number are drawn from the African Colonies. All this is very encouraging, but it still reminds us of the great deal that has to be done. There is a tremendous need still unmet, and I stress the importance of higher education this morning not because any of us wish to disparage or ignore the consequences of primary education, but because we cannot get effective primary education unless we get an increasing measure of higher education development.

I should like to turn now to another aspect of this most entrancing subject. All of us are agreed that we do not want to dissuade Africans from coming here. But it is necessary and fair to recognise that all African students and other colonial students in this country are taking the place of British students who still wait in the queue for the opportunity to have their own education. I do not regret that, but I say it is worth while appreciating the sacrifices that are being made. I address these remarks primarily to students and not to anyone in this House.

I am most anxious we should realise it is not enough to provide places in our Colonies for these African students, but also that we must look after the welfare of these students here. The British Council, acting on behalf of the Colonial Office, meets some 99 per cent. of these students, sponsored and unsponsored, who arrive in this country—

reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1951.

2. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's Retirement Act, 1951.

3. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1951.

4. Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act, 1951.

5. Public Works Loans Act, 1951.

6. Japanese Treaty of Peace Act, 1951.

7. Border Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.

8. Home Guard Act, 1951.

9. Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Act, 1951.

If the gentleman who has just visited us had only delayed his visit for a few minutes longer I should have felt much happier and should have been able to complete my remarks. I shall not now detain the House long.

I was saying, when the unfortunate interruption came, that it is to the credit of the British Council that they meet some 99 per cent, of the students who come to this country and find places for some 95 per cent, in homes in and around London. This is all to the good. But a great deal of other excellent work is being done and we must not forget the splendid service which is done by the Victoria League, the Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A., the International Friends Centre of the East and West Council and, very significantly, the members of the West African Students' Union and the Dean of West-minster's Fund.

With their two centres, W.A.S.U. provides fine accommodation and good fellowship for numbers of students. Perhaps the students may not always act as wisely as we should like, but students are not always as mature as are those who are no longer students. At the same time, it is highly desirable that these two centres should be kept going, because they are run democratically by the students themselves on behalf of the African student population in this country. I hope they will continue to receive the attention and sympathetic assistance which they have received in the past, and for which they are very grateful.

Although much work is being done by numerous organisations on behalf of African and other students, we must recognise that after the students have been initially settled in accommodation in London they often have to find accommodation for themselves. Although what I am about to say applies only in a very small minority of cases—I am sure that the great majority settle down happily—there is still evidence of a colour bar and colour discrimination in some parts of our land.

I plead with landladies and landlords to realise that every time they shut the door on an African student because of his colour they are really committing an act of war. It may seem extravagant to say it, but they are helping to shut out those friends of ours on whom we hope to rely to a very great extent in future to set to the world an example of Anglo-African friendship.

This criticism does not apply only to landladies and landlords, most of whom I exonerate from the criticism. Occasionally it applies even in the hospitals where coloured nurses and medical students are taking their training. I want to quote a letter which I have received. I shall not give the specific reference because it would be unfair to do so. The letter reminds us that there are still cases of coloured discrimination.

It says:

"The appointments officer at a certain hospital refused to consider coloured applicants … A recent vacancy was advertised, and there were six applicants, one African, one Pole, one Indian and three British. Only the British applicants were shortlisted, and each of these withdrew. The medical superintendent refused to consider any of the other applicants as they were not English, and the post had to be re-advertised."

The letter is not from an African, but from a person in a very responsible position associated with a hospital. I cannot give names except privately and secretly, but I am sadly persuaded that this is an illustration of the existence of colour discrimination in a minority of cases. Likewise in some hospitals we find African nursing sisters while in others there are no African sisters, and that also may lead us to the conclusion that the colour prejudice operates in that respect.

I want to make it clear that I do not apply this to the majority of landlords, landladies and hospital authorities. I believe we have long since, for the most part, put aside the stupid irrational idea that because of the difference in pigmentation there is a difference in innate mental or spiritual capacity. On the contrary, I believe that this country is desirous of implementing its profession of democracy.

Therefore, I hope most earnestly that financially certainly, but in more ways than that, in the spirit of friendship and of moral responsibility we shall do all we can to make the visits of our African overseas students happy so that when they return to render service in their own lands they will go back with the consciousness that they have met here people who are not arrogantly superior to themselves but who are, in the deepest and finest sense of the word, their equals. For the promotion of that purpose I am glad that this debate has taken place.

I am sorry that the most interesting speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) was interrupted a few moments ago. I need not assure him, for he knows it already, that the time of the arrival of Black Rod is not one of those events over which the Government have any control.

We were very glad indeed to oblige the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and to agree at very short notice to a change in the subject matter of this debate. Although the matter we are discussing is of enormous importance, we all agree that a short debate of this kind would not have been suitable for the first Parliamentary discussion on the proposed Federation of Central Africa. It would, of course, have been open to the former Secretary of State for the Colonies to have taken part in such a debate, but I think it is generally recognised that in debates on matters of this kind on the Adjournment, Front Bench speakers on both sides of the House should occupy as little time as possible.

In view of that statement, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to secure us a full day for that subject when the House resumes?

That, of course, is a matter that must be discussed through the usual channels, but I have no reason to doubt that there will be a very full discussion indeed soon after the House reassembles. I am sorry in many ways that we are not having that debate today, because I should like to have said to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) how very much the Government appreciate the patience and sympathy that he has shown to the problems of federation in Central Africa and how deeply indebted we all are to his zeal and understanding, and also to that of the former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

That matter of federation in Central Africa transcends all party politics. Indeed, it is true also that what we are discussing today is, similarly, beyond all party dispute. There has been great unanimity on both sides of the House to the problems that face us in regard to higher education. If the debate today has been confined solely to a discussion of higher education in Africa, that does not mean that it is not a world-wide problem throughout all our Colonial Territories; and I hope that those who are doing wonderful work in other parts of the Empire will realise that our thoughts are constantly with them also—with the University College of the West Indies, the University of Malaya, the University of Hong Kong and the University in Malta, where in all these cases such extremely high standards have been set and are being achieved.

The House will realise also, as this transcends all party differences, how deeply indebted are the Colonial Empire and education in the Colonies in particular to the friend of everybody in the House, the late Mr. Oliver Stanley. It was whilst he was Secretary of State that two epoch-making commissions were sent out to the Colonial Empire.

In 1943, there was the Commission under the present Lord Justice Asquith to inquire into the problems of higher education in Colonial Territories as a whole. It was, as the House will remember, as an offshoot of that Commission that the particular inquiry took place into the problems of higher education in the West Indies. Then, at about the same time, we had the Commission to West Africa, so brilliantly presided over by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). In all this work Mr. Stanley played a predominating part.

Shortly afterwards—I think it was in 1945—and when talking of Colonial problems in general and development in particular, Mr. Stanley used words that were, unhappily, only too prophetic.

"None of us"—

he said—

"can expect to see the task accomplished by ourselves or even, perhaps, in our time. All we can ask is that we shall be given the chance Of laying a few bricks and that these few bricks shall be a secure foundation on which others can build."

If we are now going to be able to build on those secure foundations I know that the House will like to pay a special tribute to the memory of a man who did so much to lay the foundations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

There are many competing claims for colonial education. To many people, the problem of mass education is of the first importance, but I share the view that the task of providing the teachers is quite beyond the capacity of the United Kingdom and that we have to find in Africa itself many of the teachers on whom a development of primary education will depend. In my capacity as Minister of State, I preside over the Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies, and I know something of the work that was done during the late administration in regard to the problems of mass education in Africa and elsewhere.

I share also the view expressed by the hon. Member for Rugby, by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) in regard to the all-important part of the education of women in Africa. We will certainly do all that we can to overcome the many formidable difficulties that, as all those who have spoken know, surround that particular problem. But if we are to get the leaders in engineering, in agricultural science, and in the host of other professional needs in Africa due to the higher education of Africans themselves, then we have got to turn to them to supply that need.

As the House well knows—it has been referred to once or twice already to-day—there are at present some 5,000 colonial students in England. Some 2,000 of them are following university courses, and some 3,000 are at non-university bodies like the Inns of Court, the teaching hospitals and the polytechnics. Colonial Governments are giving generous aid by way of scholarships, and Colonial Development and Welfare funds has also allotted about £1 million for the further education of those people who are anxious to play a part in the higher administrative posts in their own country.

We all welcome these undergraduates to London and to other and provincial centres. We will give them a warm welcome, not only in Aberystwyth, but in any other university. But we feel in our hearts that the best contribution we can make to their future welfare and their role as leaders in their own country is to stimulate in every possible way the development of colonial universities, and then, after the impressionable undergraduate period is over, leave postgraduate training as the British universities' contribution to the future leaders of the African Continent.

I know that I speak on behalf of the Government and of the Opposition also when I thank the universities in England, in Scotland, and in Wales for the work they have been doing on the Inter-University Council for Higher Education in the Colonies. This has been a quite invaluable body and has given a much needed stimulus to the creation of university colleges in Africa and elsewhere.

The House may be interested to know that, more lately, an advisory committee on colonial colleges of art, science and technology has been set up. Dr. Harlow, well known, I am sure, to many Members of the House, and a former Principal of Chelsea Polytechnic, is now advising the Colonial Office on the problems of technical education. He has completed two invaluable tours in Africa, which have put British Colonial Territories in Africa very much in his debt.

There is not much opportunity today to go in any great detail into the various universities and colleges throughout the African Continent, but I have been asked a number of questions and I will try to deal with them and, at the same time, make one or two other general observations dealing briefly with each of the areas in turn.

I take Central Africa first. Had the House today, as originally intended, debated the proposed federation of Central Africa or the discussions for a federation, hon. Members would have had before them the report of the officials on closer association. It will be seen from that report that the problem of higher education in Central Africa was very much before the officials as providing one of the strong arguments why some closer association was necessary. They say:

"There is clearly a great and urgent need in Central Africa for post-secondary education, academic and technical, both for Europeans and Africans; but we do not believe it is possible for at any rate some of the territories to provide the services themselves."

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are watching with great interest the development of the Rhodesia University Association which has a money-raising object to try to provide funds eventually to establish a university college in Southern Rhodesia. I understand that it is possible that the Southern Rhodesian Parliament may shortly have before it a Bill to set up a university board and it is possible that the Northern Rhodesian Government may be associated with that board. There are also one or two most interesting schemes of technical education progressing now in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland and the goodwill of the whole House is with the people who are carrying through these schemes.

In regard to East Africa, the House will have watched with pride and gratification the steady progress made by the University College at Makerere. I hope to pay a visit there shortly. I went there many years ago and I am told that the transformation between these two visits will prove quite remarkable. As hon. Members know, Makerere caters for the four territories, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar. It has, in addition to the ordinary schedule, a school of agriculture, a school of medicine and a school of veterinary science and it will play its part with the other East African university developments in providing splendid opportunities for the youth of East Africa.

I have been asked whether Makerere proposes to have an engineering faculty. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester asked that. It is not proposed to have an engineering faculty because the new Royal Technical College at Nairobi is to provide a full course in engineering and it appears better to concentrate engineering teaching at Nairobi. I have also been asked whether Makerere is full and the answer is that it is quite full and newer hostels are being pushed on with as fast as possible.

The hon. Member for Rugby asked about the high cost of maintenance of students at Makerere. It is very high, about £600 per year per student, but I am informed that the staff is based on the assumption of a much larger number of students than there are today and the cost will diminish very considerably per head as the number of students steadily increases.

How does that square with the fact that we have had only 31 staff and the teaching ratio is only 13.08 per cent.? I do not quite follow that.

The point I was making was that a great deal of finance has to be incurred for the limited number of students but in time, when there are more students, the actual cost per head will be considerably diminished.

Is the technical school at Nairobi to cater for all four territories and are the other Governments to contribute?

Yes, it is intended to cater for all the territories. The Uganda Government is contributing £100,000; Kenya, £120,000 and Colonial Development and Welfare funds, £150,000. As hon. Members know, work is starting on the Royal Technical College and we wish it every possible success. At the same time, an Institute of Muslim Education at Mombasa opened last year and is getting well under way. This Institute has had a number of very generous private contributors, not least from the Aga Khan, to whom and to whose community throughout East Africa and elsewhere all friends of good government owe a debt of gratitude.

In regard to Makerere, I would remind the hon. Member for Rugby that the school of physics there has lately received from Doctor Williamson of Tanganyika the very munificent gift of £50,000. The traditions of private benefactions to the universities which have been one of the distinguished attributes of our university system here are steadily spreading throughout the Colonial Empire.

When at Makerere, will my right hon. Friend see if there is any method of ascertaining the results of the education given there, because when I was there they did not have the slightest idea of what became of the students afterwards?

I shall certainly pay particular regard to what my hon. Friend says and shall follow the future of students with very great care. I understand that the General Medical Council at the moment has three visitors at Makerere who are trying to see whether their Diploma can be recognised. If it is recognised it would give anyone holding that Diploma the right to practice anywhere in the world.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove asked a number of questions about university colleges at Ibadan and Achimota. He will be glad to know that very considerable progress is being made in both these valuable institutions. It is hoped that the college at Ibadan will be transferred to its own home some time next year, and by 1956 it is hoped that the number of students will increase to something like 600.

In regard to the University College of the Gold Coast, it is hoped that by 1956 there will be some 600 students there as well. At present there are 340, but steady and sure progress is being made. We wish every success to both these colleges and also to the new ventures in technical education in Nigeria and the Gold Coast on which so much of future leadership depends, for it is the great task of the new generation in Africa and European and other administrators to try to overcome the prejudice, which undoubtedly exists in some parts of Africa, against practical and academic education.

If the problems are to be solved they will only be solved by a partnership of all races in which leadership schemes come more and more from Africans themselves. I am sure that the devoted British people running the universities at the moment, Dr. Mellanby, who is known so well, Mr. Balme, who has gone there after a brilliant war record in the recent war, and the head designate of the Gold Coast College of Technology, Dr. Andrews, will realise that they have the goodwill of the whole House in the very important task in which they are now engaged.

We have a great responsibility in Africa and we are anxious to share that responsibility with Africans and believe that partnership there will bring prosperity and happiness hitherto undreamed of. We are trying to train the leaders of their own people and, in partnership with us and within the framework of the British Commonwealth, we can provide a striking illustration of how different races can settle down in harmony together. We shall not forget the words of Lord Curzon, that we are very lucky people for the Almighty has placed our hands to the greatest of His ploughs in whose furrows the nations of the future are germinating and taking shape. It is up to us,

"to drive the blade a little further in our time and to feel that somewhere among these millions we have left a little justice, or happiness, or prosperity, a sense of manliness or moral dignity, a spirit of partnership—a dawn of intellectual enlightenment, or a stirring of duty where it did not exist before."

We have just listened to a most interesting debate on education in Africa and the subject I wish to raise is on a rather similar line as it is education in road sense in this country. I suggest that the risk in the darkest parts of the African bush is nowhere as great as on the roadways of this country in broad daylight.

I know it will be the wish of all hon. Members that I should express pleasure and gratification that the Minister has attended in person to reply to the debate. I know that we should have had an excellent and authoritative reply from his Parliamentary Secretary, but I believe the presence of the Minister personally is a recognition of the importance of the matter we wish to discuss.

The subject matter of this debate would be important under any circumstances, but it has been brought into sharper relief this week by the tragic accident at Gillingham on Tuesday. In the face of this stark tragedy I believe it is our duty to ask the Minister to redouble his efforts to extend and improve road safety measures, whether it be by improving street lighting or by putting non-skid extensions on either side of the Z crossings, or whether it be by bringing in more effective pedestrian safety devices. I hope he will bear in mind that some such practical reaction as that will be the most effective way of extending our sincere condolences to the sorrowing parents of Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham.

The disaster to which I have referred is under investigation, but there are far too many individual accidents up and down this country which pass unnoticed. I am concerned that too many people are unaware of the staggering total to which this adds up at the end of each year. For example, last year there were 201,000 people killed and injured. Out of this figure, 868 were children killed. This year, up to the end of September, there were more than 160,000 road accidents.

I wish to suggest to those of us who are from time to time offered various platforms throughout the country it is essential that we should use those platforms to ask pedestrians, motorists and all road users, as individuals, to do their best to keep down these figures. And that we should go on doing this until those two human frailties, recklessness and carelessness, which I believe are the two main agents of death, are really eliminated in this country. That, I think, is an individual task which we can all carry out.

Our main purpose today is to ask the Minister if he is fully satisfied with the decisions of his Department affecting road safety. Is he satisfied that they are the right ones? Is he quite convinced that all is being done which should be done? I want to tell him that a large body of authoritative opinion in this country are far from satisfied with the decision taken by his predecessor to slash the uncontrolled pedestrian crossings by upwards of 60 per cent. I think he must agree that to cut down the number of the pedestrian crossings in the country from 30,000 to 10,000 or to 12,000 as is now suggested, is too drastic, to say the least.

It is hard to understand, in the face of the various reports we have had from his Ministry in the past as to the effectiveness of these crossings, that they should suddenly want to give them such a terrific slash as this. I would give one example which is typical of the many which have emanated from his Department. Circular 626 in 1948 from the Ministry of Transport stated:

"These crossing places, rightly used, are a valuable aid to safety and all road users should be reminded of this fact."

Following that statement numerous Pedestrian Safety Weeks were organised up and down the country. That statement was read. Many committees were set up on the basis of that statement. And then, all of a sudden, we found that the crossings which had been eulogised in such a way were slashed by two-thirds almost overnight.

I would remind the Minister that the decision taken by his predecessor was mainly against the advice of all local police authorities; against the advice of the Association of Municipal Corporations, in addition to the many road safety committees in the country; against the wishes of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and certainly against the desire of the Pedestrians Association. They are all bodies which have given very careful thought to this problem. I suggest that in the face of such formidable opposition he would be more than justified in relaxing this far-reaching decision arrived at by his predecessor.

I would underline one or two points in support of this suggestion. The pedestrian crossing Regulations 1193 and 1192 gave no hint at all that we should have this terrific cut. They merely outlined the new zebra crossings, which were accepted. Indeed, when the Minister met the Association of Municipal Corporations they made it clear at the very beginning of the discussions that most of their members were opposed to any cut at all. And the very small minority of that group, who felt that certain cuts could be made without interfering with safety, would go no further than to advocate a reduction of 30 per cent. for a temporary period.

That organisation was left by the Minister with the impression that he would not think of cutting the number below 50 per cent., and I have reason to believe they were shocked when they learned subsequently, that without any further reference to them, a two-thirds reduction had been brought about. I know the Minister has said that in exceptional cases he would give special exemption, but the present impression throughout the country is that the divisional road engineers of the Ministry of Transport, who have to make these decisions, are very reluctant to use their discretion and are keeping rigidly to the two-thirds slash advocated by the Minister. The impression has been formed that instructions have been given to these divisional road engineers not to face up too eagerly to the special consideration which it was promised.

I ask the Minister now to give instructions that the number of Z crossings shall go up from one-third to 50 per cent. of the number that existed before the Regulations and that his divisional engineers should be asked to use their discretion much more sympathetically. This would be the least concession which would be considered satisfactory by my constituents in Peterborough. If we in Peterborough are to feel that all the road safety work carried out by an energetic chief constable and a keen and active road safety committee is to be effective we must have at least 50 per cent. Of the existing 28 uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. At the moment we are told that we are likely to have 10, and possibly 12.

Peterborough is an area similar to many others where crossings were put down only after very careful thought. There should be a big distinction between those authorities who carefully sited their crossings in the first place, and those authorities who put them down in a haphazard fashion. Everyone agrees that the zebra crossings could be made a great success. They have possibilities. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport sat over a committee on road safety in 1949 where, I think, the idea of the zebra crossings were conceived. If he has not already done so, the Minister should read the very useful pamphlet which was issued on that occasion.

Having said that we accept Z crossings as a good idea, I think, in the light of experience over the last five weeks, there are several considerations which should be borne in mind. I believe that there is now ample evidence in support of installing island refuges on all crossings where the road is more than 30 ft. wide. I think that a case is quite clearly made out for the necessity of motorists being freed from having to view both sides of a wide road, and I am quite certain that a case has also been made out for lights being placed above the Z crossings. All of us who use the road know from personal experience that, while we can see the Z crossings in daylight, it is almost impossible to see them at night, and such a system of lighting would remove that difficulty.

We should also make certain that the white strips on these crossings are kept clean, and I believe that money ought to be spent to provide non-skid surfaces on the roads on either side of these crossings. The number of rear bump accidents which have happened over the last five weeks give a clear pointer to this necessity.

My last word is on school crossings. One section of the community which is likely to suffer more than any other from road accidents will be the school children. I think that we must agree that it is not good enough to have a crossing which is only for temporary usage at certain times of the day, and I hope that now that we are reducing the number of crossings the Minister will accept this as a considerable argument to encourage the use of school wardens for guiding the children.

I should like to ask the Minister if he would read the Adjournment debate we had on 29th November, in which asked the Minister to consider extending the use of school crossing wardens, and, in particular, that we should be able to recognise them easily when on duty. They should also be provided with a uniform which is as clear to recognise as that of a police constable or that of an A.A. or R.A.C. scout. The cost of a model which I have here is only 30s., and I think we could save money by the adoption of this suggestion in place of the regulation board now in use. I believe that now is the time, following the reduction in crossings generally, that further thought ought to be given to this matter.

In the debate to which I have referred. the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave me a very sympathetic response, and I am quite able to understand his difficulties in regard to school crossing wardens owing to hazy authority over them. What we must decide is who is to be responsible—the police, the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Education. I am asking the Minister on this question to use all the energy which we all know he possesses to cut through this tangle of Departmental and inter-Departmental buck passing. I ask him to have a meeting and to make up his mind which Department is responsible for this most important service, and to put his decision into effect right away.

That, of course, is only a very brief outline of the real case behind the subject-matter of this debate, but I know that there are many other hon. Members who wish to add their views to the plea I am making. I think we can leave the matter with confidence to the new Minister of Transport in the belief that he will tackle this task with the energy and inspiration which it must demand, and, once again, I thank him very much for attending in person to listen to this debate.

To say that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) is no idle courtesy, because all who were present during the Adjournment debate to which he has referred will long remember the speech that he made on that occasion. Since he came to this House, the hon. Gentleman has tackled this problem of road safety with an alertness and perseverance which all of us might well seek to emulate, and, if we did, we could, perhaps, make a rather greater impact on the enormous number of deaths and accidents on the roads than we have always been successful in making during the past 20 or 25 years.

All of us are appalled at the figures of accidents, and the fact that, last year, 800 children were killed on the roads is a standing disgrace to the country as a whole. One would have thought that the enormity of the tragedy which goes on on the roads would have made us rather more careful in our treatment of this problem. Yet, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this problem is thrown backwards and forwards from one Department to another, between the Ministries of Transport and Education and the Home Office.

I sometimes wonder how appalled the public would be if they knew how many Government Departments are responsible for different aspects of child welfare in this country. If we could have an overall and over-riding committee to look after the problems of children, and, if necessary, bang the heads of Ministers together, children would be better looked after than they are at present.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Regulations which all of us approved in the last Parliament. It is true to say that, when we approved those Regulations without any division in this House, very few of us were aware of the way in which they would be carried out by the Ministry of Transport. Their effect has been that local authorities have been ordered quite arbitrarily, and there is a good deal of indignation in the Association of Municipal Corporations at the orders given to local authorities in, for example, the Ministry of Transport Circular No. 668. Instead of leaving these matters to the discretion of local authorities, the latter have virtually received instructions from the Minister on what they ought to do.

The effect has been to penalise those local authorities which, in the past, have been sensible in the provision of pedestrian crossings, and to place them in the same position as those authorities which have been prodigal in the past. It is equally true to say that many of these crossings are outside schools, and are crossings which the children use to go to school and which they have been trained to use.

I should like to quote to the House part of a letter from a parent of children attending a primary school on one of the most important roads in my constituency—the road from Manchester to Burnley, along which there is a great deal, not only of private traffic, but of heavy commercial traffic as well. This parent writes:

The Ministry of Transport removes at two weeks' notice the protection which the children have previously had, without making sure that an alternative arrangement was ready to be put into operation. This, to our minds, is a bad and blind policy, and, where their shortsightedness is liable to affect the lives of children, it is criminal."

That is perfectly right, but what happened when the local council asked for the retention of this crossing was that they got a very courteous letter from the divisional road engineer of the Ministry of Transport, in which he made the point which the hon. Gentleman has made about not retaining crossings specially for children where they are not otherwise in general use throughout the day. I can, of course, see the reasons in that point of view. The letter from the divisional road engineer says:

"In my view, therefore, the only safe alternative on heavily trafficked roads is for police or wardens to control the traffic at the times that the children enter or leave school."

Again, that is perfectly right; that is the solution to the problem. But the wickedness of the situation is that the Minister of Transport will not consult the Minister of Education to see that local education authorities are primed of the necessity for the provision of wardens.

I have another letter from my own local authority, the Rawtenstall Borough Council, in which they tell me what happened when they applied for permission for the provision of wardens to look after schoolchildren. This is what they said:

"The Divisional Education Executive have on a number of occasions asked the Lancashire County Council to approve the necessary expenditure for school wardens, but, as this has not been forthcoming, the position is that the school children are now left without any protection at all."

So we go on with this problem, throwing it back between one responsible authority and another, all of them, in turn, denying responsibility.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter will succeed in his plea to the Minister this morning. We are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being here, and I hope that, after this debate, he will initiate discussions with the Home Secretary and the Ministry of Education to see whether we can get a clear-cut policy, a clear definition of responsibility, so that we can, above all, make this matter one of national policy.

I think the hon. Member for Peterborough is right in thinking that, if we are to have wardens, we should have them on a national basis, wearing some kind of distinctive uniform in all parts of the country, and should also see that they are properly trained men and women with qualifications which command the general respect of the motoring public. That will take some time.

In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will respond to the plea made to him to allow local authorities to keep a higher proportion of the pedestrian crossings than they are at the moment allowed to keep. I believe that in the next few months the Minister of Transport will disappoint the country on quite a number of scores, but here is one opportunity for him to gain general acclaim. We wish him well if he will tackle this problem with the energy for which all us respect him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) is to be congratulated for raising this subject today. Since he has been in this House, he has done a great deal to focus attention upon this squalid problem of road safety.

I think the whole nation welcomes the experiment of the new zebra crossings. They are distinctive and they inspire confidence. But, in the last month or two, the arbitrary method by which uncontrolled crossings have been reduced has given rise to very serious misgivings in almost every constituency in the country. But nowhere is the problem more acute than in the kind of urban districts which I represent. There are four in my constituency—partly urban, partly built-up with a great mileage of roads and with, in some cases, important main roads passing through.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend on one point. He suggested that the Minister should be asked to restore at least 50 per cent. of the crossings. I take the view that every crossing must be regarded on its merits, and that some regard must be had to the total number of crossings which existed before the introduction of the new Regulations.

A struggle has been going on in my constituency between the four urban district councils and the Ministry of Transport over these crossings. For example, the Billericay Urban District Council, which is, I believe, the fourth largest in the country, and which has a population of 43,000, had only 14 crossings. They were instituted in 1949, some of them on one of the most dangerous roads in Essex, and now the council have been forced to cut them down to eight.

In the neighbouring urban district of Rayleigh there were only three crossings prior to the introduction of the new Regulations. The council wanted to retain all three, but the Ministry of Transport insisted that they cut them down to one. The council dug their toes in, and there was a great deal of local agitation. My constituents are very militant. Many of the Pilgrim Fathers came from my constituency as did the gunpowder with which Guy Fawkes proposed to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605. It was not surprising that the natives of Rayleigh threatened to organise all kinds of demonstrations if these crossings were removed.

After a long battle between the council and the Ministry it was decided to hold a pedestrian count on one crossing. Representatives from the Ministry of Transport—the divisional road transport engineer—from the police, the county surveyor and the local councils all descended on this particular crossing and it was found that 165 people used it every hour of the day. As a result, the divisional road transport engineer gave in. Honour was satisfied. No doubt he felt that he had justified his existence.

Then again, in the neighbouring urban district of Benfleet there were only seven crossings in 36 miles of road, again with an important main road passing through—possibly one of the most dangerous roads in the whole county. Five of those seven crossings were on the dangerous London—Southend road, and all had been carefully sited having regard to accidents which had previously occurred. The greatest possible care had been taken to ensure that those crossings were put in the most appropriate place, but, again, the Ministry insisted upon a reduction to one-third, while crossings established mainly for children were ruled out altogether.

Of the four crossings eliminated in the Benfleet district the police themselves want one restored. Another is the subject of a petition from over 60 mothers, which is at present reposing on the table of the right hon. Gentleman and, I hope, commanding his most urgent attention. It is most unfortunate that this policy of eliminating crossings to which school children have become accustomed should be going on unchecked. The Ministry of Transport Circular No. 1668, dated 20th June, and issued by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, says:

"Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings … should not … be retained for the special advantage of a school, hospital or similar institution where pedestrians cross in numbers at intermittent and specific times only."

Why not? Other people have been using those crossings precisely because they think that if children use them they must be perfectly safe.

It is true that it is desirable to have wardens at such crossings, but it is not always possible to provide them, and certainly in the county of Essex the strain on police resources is very great indeed. May I make the plea to my right hon. Friend that established school crossings should not be removed unless adequate supervision can be provided? I have personally inspected all the crossings in these four urban districts. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough in saying that it is utterly wrong that local authorities who have exercised great care in the selection of crossings, and have provided the number of crossings necessary to ensure proper safety, should be penalised by this arbitrary reduction of two-thirds.

Local authorities alone can judge local needs. I remember that during the General Election a very irate local councillor, who had done a great deal to educate people locally in road safety, saying to me that not only does the man in Whitehall not know best, but that in this particular case he does not know anything at all. That may be a little unkind, for there are, no doubt, most estimable people in the Ministry of Transport; but I do make a plea for more flexibility. Local authorities, certainly in my county of Essex, are fully alive to the problem. Let the Minister rely a little more on their good sense.

Lastly, I want to refer to the new approach signs, because in my view they leave a great deal to be desired. For one thing, they are too small, and, for another, they are sited on the footway and may be obscured from the view of oncoming motorists by pedestrians, rain, mud, or by a perambulator or some other obstruction on the pavement. They are placed about 45 feet from the crossing, and the Regulations lay down that no vehicle shall stop between the approach sign and the crossing except to put down passengers or to unload goods.

Now I believe that those exceptions lead to uncertainty, which is bad, because even the slightest degree of uncertainty on the roads can lead to accidents. But my criticism does not end there. As the Regulations stand at the moment, these limitations do not apply to the further side of the crossing.

It is possible, therefore, for a vehicle to stop on the far side of the crossing to unload passengers or goods, but in so doing it may, on a day of bad visibility or at night-time, mask a pedestrian who starts to use the crossing from approaching traffic on the other side of the road. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that is a point he might investigate. There should be approach lanes on both sides of the crossings in which no vehicle may stop under any circumstances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough referred to the appalling wastage of human life on the roads. In the face of this I do not think the Minister should be afraid of experimenting. I do not think he will be afraid of experimenting, because those of us who know him know well that he possesses great imagination and drive. Certainly, he will need all those qualities in combating this dreadful problem.

The time for this debate is all too short, and I am not going to spoil the harmony of the proceedings this morning by making any reproaches to hon. Members opposite for their indecent anxiety to rise for Christmas. I should like to join with other hon. Members in thanking the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) for his close interest in this matter and his persistent attempts to secure improvements in the protection given to pedestrians on the roads. I remember well the Adjournment debate to which he referred. I was one of many visitors to his one-man exhibition of how handsome a road warden can look in the uniform designed by the hon. Member and worn by him.

I think we all realise that these Regulations show the pedestrian to be in retreat before the modern highwayman, the mechanised Dick Turpin, who does not ask for your money but only for your life. We must recognise the reduced opportunities the pedestrian has of crossing the road in comparative safety, representing a signal retreat from the position marked out for him in the original Regulations. Unhappily the pedestrian found that the more numerous crossings became untenable. They were either not respected or there were legal difficulties in enforcing his right to cross them.

Now that the Ministry has thought of a plan to increase the respect for the crossings by reducing their number, I want to ask the Minister a question or two about the right of local authorities where they find themselves in disagreement with the divisional road engineer. As far as I can see, the Regulations in Statutory Instrument No. 1192 do not take away from the local authorities the power they previously had to define pedestrian crossings. If that is so, then all that the local authorities are working under are the instructions—if that is the term to use—given by the Ministry in Circular 668.

In my constituency the borough council of Todmorden are having a disagreement with the divisional road engineer regarding four crossings which they believe are desirable but which are in excess of the one-third the Ministry have allowed as the reduced number of crossings which should now be maintained. The divisional engineer says he is unable to agree to the retention of these disputed crossings. What is the right of a local authority to disregard the judgment of a divisional engineer and to go ahead and define these crossings for themselves?

It is important to know whether the Ministry have any statutory power over the local authorities in this respect. They certainly have in London because paragraph 3 of Statutory Instrument No. 1193 says:

"(1) On and after the coming into operation of these Regulations no new crossing shall be established on any road by the road authority unless the establishment of the crossing has been approved by the Minister."

No such provision appears in Statutory Instrument No. 1192 which appears to govern the rest of the country.

I appeal to the Minister to say whether a local authority, finding themselves in difficulty with the engineer, will be empowered to go ahead. If the pedestrian is to be content with a reduced number of pedestrian crossings it is most important that he should exercise his rights towards those crossings to the full. I hope the Minister will encourage all pedestrians to insist on their rights in using these crossings.

Up to now perhaps there has been a little uncertainty on the part of pedestrians in making their will known. There has been some confusion perhaps in the minds of motor vehicle drivers as to what pedestrians were going to do. Experimenting for myself in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster yesterday and, if I may say so, risking the second by-election of this Parliament, I tried to make my wish to cross the marked crossings known to the drivers of sundry vehicles. They behaved as if they had been taken completely by surprise and looked at me as if they resented this intrusion of their free passage along the road.

I propose to go on doing as I did and I hope many pedestrians will do the same. An indication of one's intentions can be given in good time for vehicles to pull up to avoid either hurt or fright to those passing over the crossing. I hope the Minister will give a satisfactory reply on these points.

I seek to intervene in this debate for only a few minutes. If the tragic number of deaths on the roads is to be restricted then pedestrians and motorists alike must realise their obligations in respect of the pedestrian crossings and respect them. I do not think that has been sufficiently the case in the past, partly because there have been too many pedestrian crossings and partly because they have been badly marked.

I wish to draw attention this morning to the type of wide uncontrolled crossing which has in fact ceased to be a pedestrian crossing at all. I am thinking of the type of crossing leading from Trafalgar Square to Northumberland Avenue. That is a very wide section of the road and there is a continual stream of pedestrians going across. If motorists respected it strictly in accordance with the Regulations there would be few moments of the day when a motor car could pass over that crossing at all.

It has been removed.

Perhaps that has been the result of action taken by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East.

I happen to be one of the unfortunate pedestrians who have to cross there every day and I noticed its disappearance.

I am very glad it has disappeared. There have been far too many of these crossings in the past. I do not think many pedestrians are really quite certain of their rights on crossings. Many of them think that if they are standing at a crossing and they see a car approaching, the moment the car driver sees them on the side pathway or kerb he has to stop immediately. We all know that is not the case, but not every pedestrian knows it. In nearly every case in the courts involving an accident on a crossing that is the story told by the pedestrian. We find he has embarrassed the motorist by charging out at the last moment, and he bears 50 to 60 per cent. of the blame for the accident.

I welcome the fact that we are to have fewer of these crossings, but I do ask that they should be properly lighted and marked. Indeed I would suggest that a light should be put inside the beacon. Anything which can be done to make these crossings plainer to motorists and to make clearer the duties of motorists and pedestrians alike will have my strongest support.

When the Minister introduced these Regulations we were given an opportunity to consider them. As has been said, there was no vote taken on that night, but none of us appreciated at that time the consequences of the Regulations and the deleterious effect they were going to have on almost every local authority in the country. The Minister said that in the new policy 10,000 was not an arbitrary limit, and he went on to say that a strong and justifiable case in future must be made out for additional crossings.

There are two or three matters, apart from the local considerations, which we ought to consider. This matter cannot be dealt with in a wholesale manner from some centre in Whitehall on a national basis, such as we have seen on this occasion, because obviously different areas have vastly dissimilar geographical factors to consider. In my own constituency of Stoke-on-Trent we have a long stream of towns, and the layout of the city is such that it is built along six or seven miles of main road. In consequence, we have a stream of traffic running right down the centre of the city all the time. Of course, the layout of some other places may be different.

In fact, when pedestrian crossings were introduced it was thought necessary to use 268 of them. When the Regulations were introduced the Minister said that we must have 74. Much argument went on, and finally, I think it was agreed that we might step up the number to 101, but the City Council did so very reluctantly. Like other local authorities, they placed on record their regret, and they strongly protested against the instruction to remove two-thirds of the pedestrian crossings in the city, particularly as regards those in the vicinity of the schools. With respect to the problem of the children it has been difficult to maintain conditions of safety within our city where many schools abut on to a very densely crowded main road of traffic.

I hope that in matters of this kind before definite instructions are given by the Minister or by any Department, the position will be more thoroughly canvassed in the future. Obviously the people on the spot, and particularly the police, know the local conditions best. We are making our representations from Stoke-on-Trent today on the basis that our case is supported by the chief constable and, after close and careful examination, by the watch committee. We are sensible people in these matters, I think, and we would not waste our time unless there were great urgency and feeling throughout the country. As I asked the Minister the other day, would it not be possible to operate a standstill order on what seems to be a somewhat foolish instruction, so that a lot of work will not have to be done in a few weeks time when the Minister comes round to our point of view, as I think he will?

I join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) for giving us a chance to have this discussion today. I would add my tribute to the work which I know the hon. Member for Peterborough has done for many years past on behalf of safety on the roads.

As my hon. Friend mentioned in opening, we are discussing this subject under the shadow of the tragic accident at Gillingham, and I feel certain that I can say that the, thoughts of all of us at this moment are with all those who are going through such suffering and sorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]

I wanted to leave the maximum amount of time for hon. Members to put their points and I have left myself just a little short of time if we are to keep to our timetable, but I think it will be easiest if I give a general survey of the main points as I see them, because I think I shall be taking up practically every point made by various hon. Members. I hope that if anyone feels I have missed out something in which he is particularly interested he will ask me to deal with it before I conclude.

May I say that in the first place this whole question of safety on the roads is one which I myself and all those with related responsibilities are treating as of the first urgency, and I can assure the House that we shall continue to search for means to cut down those terrible figures, which more than one hon. Member has mentioned, of deaths and injury on the roads. We have to keep our discussion this afternoon to pedestrian crossings, and I should like to make it clear that while of course I inherited this new policy, broadly speaking I believe that the main principles are sound. These principles might be defined as simpler regulations than used to exist with the old system, better markings of crossings and reduction in numbers.

The new policy, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) knows very well, had its origin in the Report by the Committee on Road Safety in 1949, which recommended, among other things:

"The majority of crossings over side roads at uncontrolled junctions should be abolished. The system of crossing places should be reviewed in the light of past experience and those which serve little purpose removed."

I understand—I have been looking up the back records—that these proposals were first discussed in this House last winter. Subsequently early this year there were talks with representative associations of local authorities and with particular classes of road users.

I am advised that, on the whole, there was general agreement on the broad lines of the scheme, although in a matter like this one could never expect anything like unanimity. But I do know equally well that some bodies, particularly the Association of Municipal Corporations, expressed strong views against too drastic a reduction in numbers. This feature, the reduction in numbers, was regarded as an indispensable part of the whole scheme, and on the principle that there must be a positive target if we are to get anywhere, the local authorities were asked last June to cut down the number of uncontrolled crossings to one-third.

It has already been made clear in this debate, although it was not generally realised beforehand, that it is not the Regulations which are under criticism in this respect. It is the letter which went out to local authorities. The argument has been put forward very cogently that local authorities, who in the past have taken a very careful view of the number of crossings required under the old system, have been particularly prejudiced by this new scheme. I think that in fairness I should quote a little from Circular 668 which has been referred to already, and which was the letter that went out asking for the reduction by two-thirds. Paragraph 4 starts like this:

"The Minister now requests that each local authority will review the uncontrolled pedestrian crossings in its area and select not more than one-third of these crossings which it regards as being the most important and proceed to stripe these …"

and so on. The beginning of the next paragraph says:

"The Minister hopes that in most instances one-third of the existing crossings will be sufficient, and that in some areas less than one-third should suffice."

Later on it says:

"The Minister realises, however, that in certain local authority areas, where some reduction in crossings has taken place in recent years or where conditions are exceptional, crossings in excess of one-third may be necessary. In such cases he requests the local authority concerned to discuss this with his Divisional Road Engineer, who has been authorised by the Minister to consider such applications for special consideration."

I thought it wise to give the precise wording of that circular because it is against the background of the circular that I am receiving such a large volume of protests.

The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) asked about the legal position between the Ministry and the local authority. The position is that local authorities have the right under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to initiate schemes of crossings. Under Section 18 of the same Act, however, the Minister has the duty to approve and the right to vary any schemes, so what appears to be given in one hand is firmly taken away in the other. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, clearly, that the Ministry has the final decision.

I assure the House, however, that I am again drawing to the attention of my divisional road engineers the need to consider with the greatest care those cases which are put up to them for special consideration; but, equally, they must bear in mind the prime purpose of the scheme, which is to secure that road crossings command real respect, and that means a drastic reduction in the original numbers. I think I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough that to come to any arbitrary decision such as that which he suggested—50 per cent.—would not command general agreement and would probably not achieve the required purpose.

I suggested making 50 per cent. the datum line and going up or down from that, rather than making one-third the datum line.

I noted the point carefully, but I think my hon. Friend realises that even his suggestion would be highly controversial among other people. The decision to come down to one-third was to reach a point at which we could start without further discussion. The idea was to get one-third of the crossings marked as quickly as possible. Thereafter, any increase over that figure should be a matter of the most careful individual examination, and I cannot help feeling that that is right. It can be argued, and is being argued, whether one-third is the right figure, but there had to be a figure, and now we are at a point where we have to consider very carefully each individual application over and above that figure. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) gave an example of the need in his constituency, or part of it, and of activities there.

May I turn to the question of school crossings? Here again, I have received a remarkable number of letters and protests about this. The difficulty is, of course, that if these crossings are little used at other parts of the day—except four times a day by the school children—then ultimately, instead of being a safety measure they are a positive danger. Hon. Members have recognised this, and indeed there is a good deal of evidence to show that it is so.

While children are coming out of school in large numbers the motorist sees them coming, but the danger is when the children approach the crossing individually. I have seen it happening myself. The minute the school doors open the first two or three children rush out impetuously, eager to get home; or, on the other hand, and at the other end of the scale, those who have been kept late for some reason or other come out perhaps individually. There is another danger about uncontrolled school crossings. Children who have been trained to use them during school hours have the same confidence in them at other hours of the day. Experience has shown that unless these crossings are regularly used by pedestrians all day, motorists tend to disregard them.

I feel certain that where children have to cross busy roads on their way to and from school, and where it is impossible to provide regular police protection, the idea of an adult patrol—I agree that the patrol should be suitably dressed, and uniformly dressed throughout the country if that can be achieved—is the only satisfactory solution to the problem. I know about the difficulties which local authorities meet in providing these patrols and I propose to examine the problem with my appropriate Ministerial colleagues—and I use the word "appropriate" deliberately.

On the question of siting crossings, I think there is more or less general agreement that in daylight the crossings are effective and are receiving a much greater degree of respect than was given to the old crossings. I was a little worried by something the hon. Member for Sowerby said when he urged pedestrians to assert their rights. Clearly they have rights, but I would add that I feel it is better to be alive than to be dead right. I hope that in any remarks which the hon. Member makes in the country he will bear that in mind.

I ask that it should be borne in mind, too, that a pedestrian who arrives at a crossing and, without regard for the traffic moving up and down the road, just assumes his right and steps straight on to the road, is very unwise. He may be safe, but some vehicle has to brake very hard, causing a pile-up behind him. There have been several cases of that already. It is not a question of the front car skidding but of trouble for the drivers behind, who could not see the pedestrian and were not able to stop in time. I note the suggestion of the hon. Member for Peterborough that when we are talking about this subject in the country we should stress all these points. As I have said, the only real solution is proper cooperation between driver and pedestrian.

When we turn to the zebra crossings at night there is a different picture, and I must confess it is a very worrying one. The whole problem of making these crossings more conspicuous at night is being intensively studied by the Road Research Laboratory and by my Department, but I am very concerned about the immediate problem here and I urge pedestrians, above all on wet, dark nights, for the sake of their own safety and in fairness to drivers, to take the greatest care in using these crossings. That is a piece of advice which I give with the utmost feeling of responsibility.

When we originally unearthed this idea from the Road Research Laboratory it was appreciated that there would be grave danger at night. I hope the Minister will not listen too closely to the suggestion that he should light the beacons. Superficially that is attractive, but there are so many lights on either side of the road that it is apt to be confusing to the driver. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will direct the efforts of the Road Research Laboratory along the lines of overhead illumination of crossings so that a driver can see them when he is approaching them.

I agree that the matter needs careful examination. All possible solutions must be considered very carefully indeed, and I should not like to commit myself on any solution at the moment.

Finally, this new system has been in operation for only five weeks and we cannot yet obtain reliable figures of what the results have been. It must take a little time to get these figures. I assure the House that when we get them they will be studied very carefully. I propose, after a little more time has elapsed, to consult again the appropriate representative bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and others who were consulted before, so as to see what views they have developed. It is just a little early to do it, but we shall, as soon as it is reasonable. It is too early to draw reliable conclusions as to success or failure, but I would emphasise that both I and my Department are really concerned about the new questions and problems which are emerging day by day, and we are working hard to deal with them as they arise.

As hon. Members who have had any extensive dealings with it will know, the War Office is a considerably more humane and reasonable institution than its critics sometimes credit it with being. I hope that we shall find it so today, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for attending personally to reply to this brief debate.

The questions which I have to ask him relate both to a general policy and to the particular case of a constituent of mine who has been serving in the Army in Germany. Perhaps I may outline the case of this constituent, whom I will identify simply as Guardsman Smith, in order to illustrate the argument on policy. Guardsman Smith finished seven years' Colour service in August last. He would have been due for release on 15th August if, like other Regular soldiers, he had not been held back on account of the emergency. He is 24 years old, and has been serving in Germany for six years.

Some time ago Guardsman Smith got engaged to be married to a German girl. On 10th May last he came home on leave. His fiancee came to England at the same time, having got all the necessary papers and permits to enable her to do so—medical clearance, police clearance, and permission from the British civil authorities in Germany to come to England for the purpose of getting married. On 1st June she and Guardsman Smith were married near his home in Essex.

All this might have been in order but for one serious omission on Guardsman Smith's part. He had not got his commanding officer's permission to marry a German girl. He knew that such permission was necessary. I am not disputing that there was a breach of discipline here. However, when he got back to Germany after his marriage he found that he was being punished for his admitted breach of discipline with a penalty far more drastic than he had realised he was incurring. This penalty took the form of posting to the Middle East, in order, presumably, to get him as far away as possible from his newly married wife. He is now in England awaiting a draft to the Middle East.

Now, as I say, I do not argue for a moment that if there is a breach of discipline no penalty should be imposed; but up to quite recently it has been found possible to deal with this particular breach of discipline in a less severe way than this, and—I would emphasise this point particularly to the right hon. Gentleman—it is surely an essential part of the concept of punishment that it should be deterrent. Obviously, no deterrent can be effective, or can fairly be applied, if its existence is unknown to those whom it is intended to deter from a certain course of action.

I have had letters from the Secretary of State about this case, and in those letters he has made it clear that this new procedure, whereby the penalty is posting to another command, was introduced in April of this year. Guardsman Smith assures me that no indication of this new procedure had appeared in his company orders before he came home on leave to get married. Remember—I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember this—he came home on leave on 10th May.

I wonder if it has been found possible to check the actual date on which this new procedure was definitely indicated to all the men in Guardsman Smith's company? In one of his letters the right hon. Gentleman said that Guardsman Smith "ignored the consequences of his action": my view is that he was ignorant of the consequences of his action—which is not quite the same thing.

I propose at this point to read out the four points of this new procedure—or, rather, the four conditions which a soldier who wishes to marry a German must follow—as given me by the Secretary of State:

"First, he must put in an application to his commanding officer; second, he must obtain a satisfactory medical, security, and police clearance in respect of his prospective wife; third, he must wait six months, during which period he must have at least one leave in the United Kingdom"—

in order, I presume, though I have not verified this, to enable him to discuss his proposed marriage with his family and parents, which is, I think, reasonable and

"fourth, he must still have 11 months to serve in the Rhine Army at the end of the waiting period."

It is, perhaps, worth noting, in passing, that essentially—although, I admit, not formally—Guardsman Smith had fulfilled at least two, possibly three, of these conditions; but, of course, he did not make formal application for permission to be married.

The Secretary of State also argues in one of his letters to me that this man is in the same position, after all, as a soldier who has married a British wife and is posted overseas; he also is separated from his wife, and, perhaps, has to wait quite a long time for her to join him overseas. This seems a rather shallow and an irrelevant argument: we could apply it to a solidier who marries a British wife and then commits some disciplinary offence. He would not, I presume, be punished by being posted overseas—even though this same argument could be applied to him. After all, too, such separation at least occurs in the ordinary course of duty: it is not imposed as a punishment.

Furthermore—and this seems to me substantial—Guardsman Smith and his wife are, as the Secretary of State admits in one of his letters, "less fortunate than those men who evaded the Regulations before the present procedure was introduced." That does seem to me rather hard and a bit unfair. Here is Mrs. Smith, who is back in Germany now, living there, and having on all sides of her, perhaps—at any rate, she knows of a number of cases—other German women who have married British soldiers whose husbands are with them still, living happily there in Germany, although they also failed to get permission to get married.

I do not want to exaggerate the number of such cases as that, though it is obviously rather hard on the people concerned. I do not want to exaggerate them because I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this problem has itself, perhaps, been somewhat exaggerated. How many, in all, did evade the Regulations? I had a Written Answer on 27th November from the Under-Secretary of State. I asked him for some figures, and he told me in his answer:

"Since 1947, permission to marry a German woman has been given to 7,342 soldiers … in 1950 and 1951, 12 men were refused this permission. Three hundred and five cases of soldiers who have married without permission since 1948 are recorded. Posting to another theatre, where the soldier has married without permission and it has been ascertained beyond reasonable doubt that he knew that this would be a breach of regulations, has been carried out in 37 cases since this procedure was introduced in April, 1951."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 140.]

So there are 37 soldiers who have been penalised in this particular way, and there are getting on for 300 cases in which such a drastic penalty has not been imposed. But, surely, 300 is itself a very small number of cases of this particular breach of discipline, in relation to the total number of Service men in Germany over the last six years. I do not know how many the total number is, but no doubt it will run into six figures, and 300 cases of this particular offence seems relatively very small.

Again, the Secretary of State, in defending this disciplinary code, refers, in one of his letters, to the difficulties of the post-war situation in Germany, and of soldiers of immature age in unfamiliar surroundings. Many parents of young soldiers will be grateful to him for saying that and will agree that young soldiers do need some protection in these circumstances; but I would suggest that in such a case as that of my constituent—a man of 24 who has been serving in Germany for six years—such considerations really do not apply in quite the same way.

Surely a reasonably experienced adult ought to be able to marry anyone he wants to marry. I suggest, therefore, that if it is necessary to retain this particular disciplinary code, it should be applied only to soldiers, say, under 21 years old.

It does seem strange that six years after the war, at a time when Anglo-German relations are entering a new and friendlier phase, it should be thought necessary to introduce this rigorous new procedure. In any case, it would hardly seem to be in the general interest of the Army, or of morale or discipline in the Middle East, that postings to the Middle East should be regarded purely as punishment. It also seems rather uneconomic to post soldiers there, if they are due to be brought home for release in the fairly near future, as, I gather, Guardman Smith will be.

One other serious point that occurs to me is this: is this action that has been taken, in introducing this new penalty, legal at all? I raise this point on two grounds. Can this procedure be made to apply to marriages taking place in England? After all, to take a more extreme case, supposing that a soldier or an officer comes home on leave and meets a German girl who is semi-permanently resident in England—a student, perhaps, or a refugee—is he committing an offence if he gets married to her on his leave here? She is not domiciled in Germany for the time being.

Secondly, and even more important, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this new development is not an infringement of paragraph 589 of King's Regulations? This is the well-known paragraph which says:

"An officer will not introduce or adopt any system of punishment that is in any respect at variance with these Regulations."

These preceding Regulations contain, of course, no reference at all to the use of posting to another command as a punishment.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can evade that particular point, even if he were disposed to do so, by saying that this is not a punishment or penalty in the strict sense of the word, but merely the exercise of a right that a commanding officer has, because in his letters to me, as he will remember, he did refer to this as a penalty or punishment.

Any interference by the State in the private domestic lives of individuals, whether they are soldiers or civilians, is regrettable. Everybody will remember the great emotional indignation that was aroused by the so-called case of the Russian wives, which, of course, I do not compare with this particular case: it is different in all sorts of respects. In some circumstances, as in the circumstances of the occupation of former enemy territory, such interference is necessary; but surely it should be reduced to a minimum and reduced progressively, and not suddenly increased, as it has been in the last few months.

My final point is this: There may be now, as I notified the right hon. Gentleman a day or two ago, a compassionate element in this particular case. Mrs. Smith is ill—I gather quite seriously ill—in Germany, and she may be in hospital for some weeks. Would it be possible for this reason to delay the posting overseas? I hope that for all these reasons— perhaps some are stronger than others, but cumulatively, I think, they make quite a strong case—the right hon. Gentleman, in answering my questions, will be able to tell us that he will reconsider this general policy, and also that my constituent will be given the benefit of any doubt that there may be about his actions. I urge him, in all the circumstances of this case, to temper justice with mercy.

I believe, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman believes, that Europe can only be defended if we defend it in partnership with the Germans. That partnership can never be real while we enforce a species of colour-bar against Germans, and treat their women as women of an inferior character against whom our troops have to be protected.

Where we have men who are under the age of 21, it becomes reasonable, both in this country and in other countries, to protect them against unwise marriage; but where men are of age, it is profoundly insulting to the Germans or to any other nation that special protection has to be provided against their women. The relations that have to exist between us and the Germans if Europe is to be a defensible and united conception are injured, and injured irreparably, if this type of Herrenvolk attitude is adopted by ourselves.

I have one other very short point to make. The exigencies of the Service inevitably injure marriage. We know that distant postings do more than anything else to destroy marriage—there are constant cases and the right hon. Gentleman must know of them in every constituency—and by this Regulation we are deliberately using postings to destroy marriage. We are, by our deliberate action, tending to destroy marriages because the War Office is seeking to set apart those whom God has joined together, and that is an action which, I believe, is morally intolerable and ought not to be permitted.

I should like, at the outset, to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), who initiated this debate, for not overstressing the problem by attempting to compare it with the Russian wives or anything of that sort. I think that in the short time I have available I should address my remarks to two aspects of the problem. The first is the reason for the institution of this rule, and the second is its particular application to Guardsman Smith.

This scheme was introduced because we had a considerable Army of a very low average age compared with that of other Armies, especially when compared with the old Regular Army, in Germany. The War Office has a definite responsibility, I think, to parents in this matter. There are young men at an unusually young age going away for two years in a foreign country, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman might agree with me, that, especially so far as the very young are concerned, if we had a referendum to the parents they would on the whole approve of this scheme.

As the hon. Gentleman has outlined, these rules were laid down—asking for the permission of the commanding officer, waiting for six months clearance and so forth—and the scheme started. In its initial stages it worked, and there were comparatively few cases of complete contradiction of the scheme by men getting married without consultation.

The hon. Member quoted some figures to support his view, but what I would point out was that between February and October, 1950, there were no less than 160 evasions. That was a very steep rise compared with the total he mentioned, which was around 300 for all the period of the scheme. There was every sign that the scheme was being bypassed and ignored.

As a result of that the whole question was discussed in the War Office to see what could be done, because I do not know of a worse thing than to have a rule and to have it so framed that it is evaded continuously, because that makes the regulation ridiculous. In other words, if there is a rule and the people are not keeping it and there is no sanction or punishment for that failure, then that is the worst kind of rule. That was gone into very carefully in the War Office, and the conclusion was that because men were frequently disregarding the Regulation they should be posted.

May I say a word about this question of posting? At first sight it sounds an immense interference with something that is of a very sacred and intimate character, but, in fact, the man who gets married, having ignored the regulations, is posted might go to the Middle East, the Far East or to some other station like Gibraltar. So far as his wife is concerned, he is in the identical position of a man who has a British wife. Supposing the hon. Gentleman were posted to Gibraltar tomorrow he would have to wait some months in the queue before he could get his wife out to him. The man in Germany with a German wife when posted is in the same position.

Surely the difference is this—in the one case it is a regrettable necessity that he is separated from his wife by the exigencies of service; in the other case he is posted deliberately to separate him from his wife as a penalty. That seems to me an immoral and—if I may use the word—a wicked thing to do.

I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the reason why this situation has arisen in Germany. Supposing we abolish the whole of this law, what would happen then? Supposing the hon. and learned Gentleman were to marry a German wife. He would be living with his wife the day after the wedding somewhere near his station. Then his wife in time might have a baby. That is what has happened in many of these cases. The women have started having children, and it was found that they were living in accommodation in great squalor, and they have been allowed, ipso facto, to jump the queue in the matter of married quarters and amenities over others in Germany who are married and are anxious to have their wives with them.

The whole point here that this punishment is unauthorised, and is illegal according to the King's Regulations. Surely the proper course for a man who disobeys orders is for him to be brought before his commanding officer, and, if necessary, tried by court-martial and given punishment for disobeying orders. But we should not give punishment in this summary way.

I am interested in the comments of the hon. Member because I think the regulations were introduced when he was at the War Office. That may be a small point, but this is not unauthorised punishment and the men have been warned of this action and that postings can be made at any time of the year.

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the legal aspect, will he deal with my point about paragraph 589, which seems quite specific?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the legal side of this was gone into before this punishment was made known to all ranks. On that side it is perfectly legal.

Having explained something about the introduction of the scheme because of the steep rise in evasions, may I now refer for a moment to the case of Guardsman Smith? Everybody who has anything to do with the Army knows that there are rules and regulations and always there are cases where one feels that under particular rules an individual is occasionally treated rather hardly. As far as Guardsman Smith is concerned, I appreciate the fact that his wife has been ill; that he was married in England; and that he was maintained in the Service an extra year owing to current regulations. All these reasons are such that one would say that he was a man who has been unfortunate. I think the experience of everybody is that if a rule is once introduced to stop a particular project it has got to be adhered to.

In this particular case to which the hon. Member referred, the man did get away with it and had no penalties. That was before the introduction of the rule on 1st April, 1951. Those men were men who had contravened the regulation before that date, and in any rule or regulation, when trying to control a particular matter, a start has got to be made somewhere. Therefore, injustices are found because some one does the thing a few days beforehand and gets away with it, whereas the man who does it a few days after the introduction of a regulation gets penalised.

But did he know about it?

The hon. Gentleman has raised the question of this man knowing about the matter. First of all, it is quite definite he knew that permission was necessary. As far as the penalties are concerned, I know it is my experience that in any Regiment what might be called a "buzz" gets round about things which affect the day to day lives of soldiers, and this is one of those things. If Guardsman Smith says he did not know about it I would not stand here for a moment and say he was not speaking the truth. The order did go out from B.A.O.R. on 22nd March, and if he knew nothing about it it is most unfortunate, but there it is. The regulation went out and we cannot help applying the law from the date of its promulgation.

The hon. Gentleman also said—and for this again I have considerable sympathy—that Mrs. Smith is ill in Germany at the present time. I have inquired about that, and I am glad to say—I am not making a point of this—that she came out of hospital last Sunday and has now recovered.

I appreciate that the hon. Member is doing his job as a Member of Parliament, and if I may say so doing it very thoroughly, in order to help Guardsman Smith. To the hon. Gentleman I will say this—supposing I were to say, "Very well, in this case, I will waive the rule for Guardsman Smith and allow him to go back to Germany to be with his wife" what would happen? Very soon it would be known that in this particular man's case I had waived the rule, and there would be many demands for similar considerations. I would be starting a line which would probably make this Regulation ineffective.

I have looked into the question of these regulations. It is outwardly a harsh one, and one to which I personally understand the repugnance of hon Members. We must remember that Germany is full of young men and quite recently it was obvious that the rule was being avoided. We had the alternative of blinking our eyes at the upward rise of evasions or taking some steps to see that it was really effective. We took those steps, and Guardsman Smith has been unfortunate but the rule must stand.

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, and while thanking him for some of the things he has said, may I put this point? Is it not quite obvious that if Guardsman Smith had known about the new severe penalty he would not have done as he did, that is, get married without permission? Would it not be possible to make it quite clear that the regulation must be complied with in future, but that in a borderline case—last April—when it was genuinely not known about, there might be reconsideration?

I would point out to the hon. Member that in Guardsman Smith's unit seven other men have also ignored the regulation and have been posted.

Since that date?

Yes, since that date.

Does not that indicate that they had not been told about the new and more severe penalty? Might there not have been a slip-up in the company office, or something of that nature?

All I can say is that these regulations go out, and it has been my experience in the Army—I referred to this before—that a "buzz" goes round and the facts usually get to a man if he does not happen to read about them. The information is usually known throughout the battalion very soon. I do not for a moment deny Guardsman Smith's remark that he did not know, but it puts regulations on a very different basis if we say that we will let a man go if he did not know.

Was the man given a summary trial, and was the evidence properly sifted?

The question of a trial does not arise. There are regulations concerning permission to marry, and it has been stated that if the regulations are not observed the man concerned will be posted. There is no trial. Even if we leave aside the penalty, Guardsman Smith, as the hon. Member acknowledged, knew perfectly well that he had to ask permission to marry, and he married without asking for that permission.

I am very glad to have the opportunity of raising the question of the future of the South Bank. The Festival is now over and the moths who were attracted by lights of the Skylon and the blaze of candles and electric globes have ceased to cross the bridge, and we must look very carefully to the future of the whole of the South Bank.

The Festival has made the people conscious of the beauty of both the river line and the sky line of London. Since the bombing of London we have begun to realise the harm which has been done to our city by bad planning and bad building, and each one of us now realises the great heritage that we have. I know quite well that our ideas for the South Bank must be divided into two parts—there must be the immediate future plan and the more distant future plan—but let us be very careful that those two parts merge into each other and that nothing is done in the near future to spoil the plan for the distant future.

In the lifetime of most of us here we have seen horrible things happen in London. Berkeley Square is enough to make those of us who knew the old Berkeley Square realise what can happen if there is not a proper combination between the Ministries and the councils and the opinion of the general public. We have seen Chesterfield House disappear, and we have seen Spencer House become an auction room. In those days the public were not conscious of their city, but what has happened to Apsley House, since the war, with the general approval of the whole of the country indicates that Ministries and councils are taking a different view of the acknowledged beauty of our city.

I want now to deal briefly with the near view of the South Bank. I am not clear where the powers of the London County Council end and those of the Ministry begin, but I know that both the Ministry and the Council have been very wise in appointing Mr. Hugh Casson to supervise the whole scheme. I believe that the Ministry and the County Council will be working together and that they will merge the near and distant views.

I believe that the near view is to plan the Embankment as quickly as possible with flower gardens, and perhaps we should retain the charming restaurant from which we have a unique view over London. I believe that that would pay if the food and the service were equal to the beauty of the view. In the near future I should like to see a scheme for an open-air swimming pool at the back of the flower gardens. I believe this would pay and it is not an impossible thing to have in the middle of a great city now that people know how to cleanse and disinfect the water.

Other great cities which are just as smoke-ridden as London have their open-air swimming pools. I believe that it would induce people to cross the river, for they would be able to swim in the open-air pool and eat in a restaurant in the middle of our city. We have nothing like it at the moment, and I should like to offer that suggestion to the County Council or the Ministry or their combined forces.

I would urge the Ministry to do away with all the Festival buildings. It is no good keeping something which was lovely when it was surrounded by lights and colour and there was the excitement of crossing the Bailey Bridge, dancing, music, and so on. It is no good attempting to keep the Skylon there or to retain the Dome of Discovery. The Dome is nothing to look at from the outside; it looks rather a monstrous brown mess. The lion and the unicorn comprised one of the most charming things in the exhibition, but they are quite unsuitable for a picture gallery, about which I saw a suggestion in the Press. Other buildings could quite well disappear.

I read in the Press a suggestion about moving the air terminal from Kensington to the station end of the exhibition. That seems to me an admirable scheme. Those of us who go to Kensington station know the difficulty and the expense of obtaining taxis there some distance from the Tube and it is important to be right on the Tube as we should be at the South Bank. The proposal would not interfere with the river front because the terminus would be very far back.

There is also a suggestion that an air terminus hotel should be built, financed by American money. There is a great need in this country for an air terminus hotel for the benefit of people who have to arrive late and leave early; it would be convenient for them to have such a hotel in which to spend one or two nights. I offer that suggestion to the Government.

I believe there is also a suggestion about building Government offices next to County Hall. We do not know what kind of offices are proposed. I believe that no architectural plans have yet been prepared, and I urge the Ministry to consider the advisability of not putting Government offices there. There are too many Government offices in the centre of London as it is, and there must be a great many which could be moved to the outskirts of London where they would be in a more suitable position than on the South Bank. If we have Government offices on the South Bank we shall have there a beehive with a great many small windows, and to go to the South Bank to see Government offices from the outside will be no attraction to people. I urge the Ministry to think twice before they go further with their scheme for an enormous block of Government offices next to County Hall.

There is also the matter of the exact placing of the National Theatre. The concert hall is one of the ugliest exteriors in London at the moment. I am not speaking about the interior, which is almost too perfect, but the exterior is a nightmare of a hangar in some very remote part of some very remote war. It is one of the worst things we have seen for a long time. This is the only permanent building, and we can only hope that the London County Council will have a better plan for the exterior of the concert hall than the impression which has been given.

It is proposed to put the National Theatre up against the existing bridge. I suggest that it should be moved further back, with a courtyard in front giving on to the Thames; otherwise, however fine the exterior of the concert hall eventually becomes, there will be two large blocks of buildings with a bridge in between. It would be very much better to move the site of the National Theatre further back, with an attractive river front and a courtyard adjoining the promenade. I ask the Minister to give this aspect his attention.

For many years there has been a question of a scientific centre in London and a university of technology. Does this come in the scheme for the future? It would be a fine thing if we could dispose of the Government offices and put them in a more suitable place, and devote a large portion of the South Bank to the scientific centre of England and the university of technology.

In planning the South Bank, we must think not only of what we know as the present South Bank, but we must remember that the future plan extends as far as Blackfriars Bridge. All that property which belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall is in the future scheme for a great South Bank, curling round towards St. Paul's. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to answer now for the future of the area between Waterloo Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge, but I ask him to keep in mind that the whole of the South Bank must be treated as one great river front and one great skyline. So many little things have been put into position which look very pretty and agreeable when they are there, but no thought is taken about what is on their right or on their left.

I should like to think that people will be attracted to go to the South Bank. People who are really musical will go into the concert hall because they like music, but those who merely like music will not be attracted by its exterior. Anyone who goes, for instance, to Stockholm may not like music very much, but one has only to see its most beautiful concert hall to be unable to resist going inside. Here, the position is exactly the opposite. One has to like music very much to cross the river to go over to what we have at the South Bank.

In the near-future plan, people must be made to get used, leaving out the Bailey Bridge, to cross to the South Bank. I am sure that if in the near-future scheme we have something which is attractive and easy to approach—my idea of a swimming pool comes in again here—thousands would get used to going to the South Bank. In this way, we should be helping the future of the National Theatre. My only criticism of the National Theatre is that people are not yet accustomed to crossing to the South Bank. If in the near future people are made conscious of the South Bank and of the beauty of the river from it, we will help the future both of the concert hall and of the National Theatre.

One must be brief in a discussion of this kind, but I say at once that we are all indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Crosby (Captain Bullock) for his good fortune in having the opportunity of raising one or two very important matters concerning the future of the South Bank.

I cordially agree with the suggestion that the South Bank should not be used for the further construction of Government offices. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the Ministry of Works have already undertaken very large commitments, amounting to many millions of pounds, in the provision of Government offices in other parts of London and in the Provinces; and it would be a great pity if this unique site at the South Bank were wasted by having Government offices built upon it.

What is the effect of building Government offices anywhere? During the daytime, they are more or less a hive of activity. At 5 o'clock in the evening, the place goes dead, which means that we should have a black uninhabited pile taking up space on the South Bank site.

What we should do in connection with the South Bank is to ensure that it is an attractive place for people to visit on summer evenings. That is why flower gardens ought to be provided along the river front. The restaurant that is already there should be continued and, if necessary, open-air restaurant facilities should be provided. The idea of a swimming pool is excellent. One further addition which I suggest is provision for open-air dancing during the summer evenings. This would attract the young people, and also the older people who derive pleasure from seeing the young folk enjoy themselves. Thus, without any unnecessary noise or glare, the South Bank could become a kind of social family centre for the large population of inner London, who, I am sure, during the summer evenings at any rate, would welcome the opportunity of going to the South Bank.

At London Airport, restaurant facilities have been provided. Visitors are en- couraged to watch the aeroplanes coming in and leaving. As has been suggested on other occasions, part of the South Bank could be used as a helicopter landing ground. That would be an additional attraction. Some kind of space should be reserved for it now, because helicopter services are bound to develop in the not too distant future.

It would be extremely valuable to have a helicopter station right in the heart of London, on a part of the South Bank set aside for that purpose. That would save a considerable amount of time that now has to be spent in going from the centre of London to one or other of the airports. With the helicopter station could be constructed an air terminal hotel, which would be a great boon to travellers and would save much time for those travelling to and from London by air.

The National Theatre will, I hope, in the not too distant future, be an additional attraction to the South Bank layout. I am not quite so sure about the wisdom of having a scientific centre, because that would mean, presumably, another large building which would be closed at night and would be a black spot on the South Bank in the evenings, unless, of course, some kind of attraction were provided in the centre which would induce people to go there in the evenings.

The Ministry has a unique opportunity in the development of what can easily become a centre of cheerfulness and recreation, besides being a great attraction to visitors to London from abroad and from other parts of the country. I hope it will make very good use of the unique opportunity which the South Bank now provides.

:.As a member of the London County Council, I am not at all sorry that the proposed Government offices are having a rather rough passage in this debate. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Crosby (Captain Bullock) explained that he was not quite certain how much responsibility for future planning of the South Bank lay with the County Council and how much with the Government.

It was as long ago as March, 1947, that the London County Council agreed to grant a lease of all the land between County Hall and Hungerford Bridge to the Ministry of Works for Government offices; so that part of the matter rests entirely with the Ministry. The London County Council can express views, of course, but it has no longer any power there. I do not think that members of the Council generally would tear their hair or gnash their teeth if the Government announced that they were willing to reconsider their plans to put Government offices there.

Not much has been said about what I regard as the loveliest of the long-term plans for the South Bank—that is, the gardens which are to run all along the river front on the four acres of land which the new river wall reclaimed from the Thames. A colleague of mine on the London County Council, Mr. Coucher, put forward an inspiring suggestion, which I am glad to say has commended itself to the Council and the people of London generally. That was the suggestion that these gardens should form a permanent memorial to those people of London who gave their lives in the defence of London and the Empire in the late war, and that there should be a central feature, suitably placed, commemorating the fact. Those gardens will give great enjoyment and great beauty along that stretch of the river, when they are constructed.

Obviously one cannot lay out permanent memorial gardens in all their loveliness at the same time as demolition is going on just behind them. Consequently, for the time being what we have to aim at is getting that stretch along the river wall open to the public so that, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, people can become accustomed to going freely up and down the South Bank. I feel that by suitable co-operation between the Ministry and London County Council it ought to be possible to get a strip of land open there and pleasantly laid out and, I trust, screened from the demolition works and scarred and derelict land which is bound to remain for some time until the permanent development of the South Bank can take place.

My hon. and gallant Friend did not seem absolutely sure about the siting of the National Theatre. The other event which has taken place is that in July of this year the London County Council granted a lease to the Shakespeare Memorial Trustees of the land between the Festival Hall and Waterloo Bridge where the Shot Tower now stands. No one can tell when the National Theatre will be built, nor has anyone yet decided how far back from the river it is to be.

Some people have suggested that that is not the best place for a National Theatre at all, and others have asked that consideration might be given to placing a hotel on the riverside, on the ground that the enjoyment of the river would be enhanced more by people being able to look over it from the rooms of a hotel, than from a theatre where one wishes to look inwards, and not outwards. However, that matter is in the hands of the Trustees.

There are also the great financial questions of the future of the buildings, such as the Dome of Discovery; and, perhaps, of the Skylon. That is one of the reasons why I particularly welcome the debate, because the public have taken so little interest in the doings of the London County Council since the war that matters on which the Council has to express an opinion are often decided without any play of public thought upon them.

The fault is neither with the people of London, nor the L.C.C. If the Press gave a little more space to the proceedings of the L.C.C., I am sure the public would be more interested.

I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member, and the Press might have given more space if his right hon. Friends had given the Press more newsprint. The demolition of the Dome of Discovery and the Skylon and their erection elsewhere would obviously be extremely expensive. We want to know whether the public would wish to meet the heavy price for re-erection. That ought to be a subject for discussion in the Press and elsewhere.

I agree that as soon as possible those exhibition buildings which have no permanent value should be removed, but I also trust that it will be possible to work out arrangements between the Ministry and the London County Council which will ensure, not only that the amenities of the river strip are protected, but also that the approaches to the Royal Festival Hall can be made as pleasant as possible. It is clearly not only in the interests of the Council but of everyone that the Festival Hall should be freely visited, and one does not wish to have to pick one's way through puddles and around hoardings to get there.

The South Bank site strikes me as is setting for jewels in the heart of London. But the jewels are not there yet. I trust that the discussion here and in the Press, and among the public, will ensure that that setting is filled before long with gems, and not with paste.

We are all very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Crosby (Captain Bullock) for raising this important subject this afternoon. It is quite clear that we cannot plan the South Bank site in the course of a debate lasting 45 minutes; but I am glad to note that the proposal for Government offices is not apparently one of the "jewels"—if I may borrow the expression used by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke)—which hag found much favour in our discussion.

There is one condition which is essential for the success of this project. It is essential that there should be secured a comprehensive and continuous overall architectural treatment of the whole of the river frontage from County Hall to London Bridge. Mr. Forshaw and Professor Abercrombie, in the County of London Plan, which made its appearance in 1943, made proposals which would have secured that purpose. They proposed that buildings should be set back from the river front in order to provide what they described as a continuous esplanade and that there should be gardens for the whole length of the river frontage from Westminster to London Bridge.

The only buildings which ought to be introduced into that part of the site which lies to the north of Belvedere Road should be the buildings which they described—I apologise for using an expression I do not very much like—as "cultural buildings," by which they meant the concert hall, National Theatre and youth centre and, I think, the swimming pool to which reference has been made, and some other things.

What stands in the way of the realisation of this great project? Here, I wish to address myself particularly to the Parliamentary Secretary. The main obstacle, is the proposal of the Ministry of Works to erect a vast block of Government offices on the site between Hungerford Bridge and the County Hall. If that is carried out it will make the comprehensive and continuous treatment of the river front an impossibility. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that that proposal is to be re-considered.

There is no time for me to elaborate the reasons why I say that this project of the Government will destroy the prospect of a continuous treatment of the river frontage from Westminster Bridge to London Bridge. But I think every hon. Member who has spoken has condemned this proposal, and I hope that my hon. Friend will hold out some assurance that it will be re-considered.

I am not so critical of the proposal to site Government offices on some part of the South Bank as some of my hon. Friends would appear to be. The County of London Plan contemplated that groups of offices should be placed between Belvedere Road and York Road and I think some of those offices were assigned to the Government. Therefore, if my hon. Friend is able to say that this project for the site adjoining the County Hall is to be re-considered it will not necessarily follow that a site cannot be found for the purpose that the Ministry of Works have in mind.

We are all indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Crosby (Captain Bullock) for having initiated a debate upon a matter of great interest to all of us who have a regard for the amenities and future development of London. The lay-out of Kensington is a reminder to us of the success of the 1851 Exhibition, and I am sure we are all extremely anxious that there should be something which will remind us of the Festival of 1951.

As my hon. and gallant Friend rightly pointed out, the future of the South Bank site must be considered from all points of view, both from the immediate stand- point and as regards the more remote future. About the more remote future I do not propose to say very much. That is a matter for the London County Council. They have prepared proposals, and it will be necessary for them to obtain the approval of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Regarding the immediate future, the 27-acre site is the property of the London County Council who have made it available for the purpose of the Festival. My right hon. Friend is under an obligation to return the site to the London County Council, clear of everything which the County Council does not wish to retain. My right hon. Friend attaches the utmost importance to carrying out this obligation as quickly as possible.

"The Times" has published two special articles and a very valuable leading article in which they emphasised the ill-effects upon London as a whole, and upon the site in particular, if there is a long period of time in which the debris of the Festival is left lying about. It is because we feel that this is a matter of importance and urgency that my right hon. Friend and I had a meeting yesterday morning on the site with officials and architects of the Festival and representatives of the London County Council. It is intended that all decisions shall have been taken before 1st February in order that the work of demolition may begin at once.

While it is the intention to remove all the buildings as a general policy, there may be a few buildings which can be either retained upon the site or removed elsewhere. This matter has been considered between the London County Council and the Government Departments concerned. They have divided the site into a number of zones and have considered how each one of those zones could be developed, what buildings could with advantage be retained and which might be done away with as soon as possible.

First, there is the riverside walk to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) referred. That is the responsibility of the London County Council. I understand they intend to open that walk as soon as possible, and, when what is taking place on the site permits, to lay out a memorial garden. I am sure they will take into account the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Crosby about an open-air swimming pool for the people of London.

The rest of the site can be regarded as falling into two halves. There is the down-stream section between Hunger-ford Bridge and Waterloo Bridge which contains the Royal Festival Hall, the only permanent building among those put up for the Festival, the Shot Tower, the Tele-Cinema and various other buildings. The London County Council will consider whether it is worth while to retain any of these buildings for any purpose. There is the question of the Tele-Cinema. It has also been suggested that it might he worth while retaining the administrative offices against Waterloo Bridge for the Council of Industrial Design, but this would mean the expenditure of a large sum of money.

Does that mean that the Shot Tower might come down?

I am not dealing with the Shot Tower. That has been bought by the London County Council and it is entirely a matter for them. I am referring only to the temporary buildings put up for the Festival and which we are under an obligation to remove, unless the London County Council is wilting to take them over. We understand that the London County Council is most anxious that this site shall not be left derelict, and intend laying out any part of the site which is not at present used, as a temporary garden.

The upper part of the site lies between Hungerford Bridge and the County Hall, and we shall take account of what has been said this afternoon when considering the use of that part. It was some time ago that the Ministry of Works agreed to take a lease of this site from the London County Council for a period of 200 years at a rent of £106,000 a year, for the purpose of erecting additional Government offices. Since that was done there has been the ban, imposed by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th July, on the building of any additional offices at the present time.

The House is sufficiently familiar with the present economic condition of the country to realise that there is no likelihood that the building of these offices will be undertaken in the immediate future. Whether or not it will ultimately be necessary to build these offices is a matter which will be considered, and which will naturally be considered, in the light of the speeches which have been made this afternoon. I do not think that a decision on that is likely to be reached for some considerable period, because, manifestly, nothing is likely to be done at the present time.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, if these buildings are constructed, it may well be impossible to carry out the original proposal in the County of London "Plan for London"?

I do realise that, but that is not a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Ministry of Works. That is a matter for the London County Council and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

In the meantime, this area which is now leased to the Minister of Works will be laid out in the form of gardens or in some other way to preserve and increase the amenities of London, there are negotiations which, if successful, would result in British European Airways taking over Station Gate and using it as a substitute for their present terminal in Kensington, which it is likely they will have to leave in the near future. There is also under discussion the question whether or not that open space would be a suitable landing ground for helicopters. No decision has yet been reached upon that, and alternative suggestions have been made.

The London County Council have until 1st February to decide whether they wish to acquire any of the buildings. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), in a recent speech, expressed the hope that the London County Council would acquire the Dome of Discovery and would remove it to the Crystal Palace and re-erect it there. We should naturally be very happy if the London County Council decided to do that. We believe that they share our view that the Skylon should be removed from its present position and that the Nelson Pier should also go. It is quite likely that the Rodney Pier will be retained.

The answer, therefore, to the questions that have been asked is that it is the intention of the Ministry of Works to carry out as quickly as possible its obligation of clearing the site. We have every reason to suppose that the London County Council will take the same view that we take—that this is a site which must not be allowed to lie derelict, and that everything must be done to preserve the amenities and to encourage people to go there, pending re-development of the site as a whole at a later time, when it is possible for such re-development to take place.

The question of redundancy in the engineering and associated industries, which I wish to raise this afternoon, is one of vital concern not only to my own constituency, but to the country as a whole, and I want to put two direct questions to the Government.

The first is what the Government are doing in order to restrict the amount of redundancy which is now appearing in the engineering industries, and, more than the amount of redundancy, the amount of under-employment which is apparent throughout the whole range of the engineering and associated industries.

Will my hon. Friend allow me? I take it that he is making a general statement of fact regarding the whole engineering industry. If that is so, it does not happen to be the fact of the case.

If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend is a little premature, and that it would have been more courteous on his part to allow me to develop my argument a little further before his interruption.

The second question which I have to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is what machinery he proposes to set up in order to ensure that labour which is redundant is directed to the right quarter, and to make certain that the right labour goes to the right job.

I have been reading the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" in order to ascertain the official figures on the question of unem- ployment and redundancy in the engineering industry. While I am satisfied with the official figures published by that excellent publication, none the less I feel that I ought to bring to the attention of the Minister and the whole House the view of the men directly concerned with the industry and those of the trade union officials who are also concerned with the matter in order that their opinion may be heard as to the situation in those industries today.

Only recently the Secretary of the Coventry Branch of the National Union of Sheet Metalworkers said, in what I would describe as a homely phrase, "Frankly, we have got the wind up." At approximately the same time, the Secretary of the Coventry branch of the National Union of Vehicle Builders, an industry which is associated, certainly in the motor trade, very closely with the engineering industry, said:

"About 60 per cent. of our members who still have jobs are now working on short time, and in most cases the cut is very severe. Whereas they used to work nine hours and overtime, they are now cut to 6i hours. This sort of thing has been going on for six months."

It is obvious that it is almost impossible for the Ministry of Labour to check the degree of under-employment—and this is the point I want to emphasise—which exists in the factories throughout the country. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) said quite categorically, when he interrupted me at the beginning of my speech, that the redundancy which I mentioned in a generic sense does not exist, it is quite obvious that we can only get detailed evidence of the degree of underemployment by having an exact inquiry and a census of what is going on in the factories. At the moment, there is certainly no machinery for doing that, and all that one can obtain is the impression of people who are directly concerned with industry regarding whether there is or is not under-employment in the factories.

One thing is quite certain, and that is that in many factories up and down the country concerned with the engineering and allied trades there is an acute steel shortage, and the very fact of the existence of this shortage is a priori justification for assuming that there is under-employment in these factories. One knows from one's own experience that in the motor industry, for example, there are firms working on short time and have been so doing ever since the Americans failed to deliver the sheet steel which was on contract.

Is it not the case that today there has been a shortfall of deliveries of American sheet steel to the extent of approximately 50,000 tons? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that point, because I believe that today the Americans are beginning to realise their responsibility for the industry of this country.

I am not suggesting that we require the Americans to come to our aid because of any inadequacy on our part, and, in fact, I would call in evidence of the effort which Britain has made in steel output, not only under private enterprise but also under nationalisation, the American magazine "Life," a right wing journal, which certainly could not be accused of any partiality towards the present Government's predecessors. In an editorial on 3rd December, this magazine writes:

"The best cure for the United Kingdom economic crisis is not more United States dollars, but United States steel. Britain's steel industry, both before and since nationalisation, has been producing flat-out. Lack of German scrap, etc., is starving it, and the U.S.A. can help out in two ways. First, we could stop importing steel and iron ore from sources—notably Sweden—that are traditionally Britain's. Secondly, we could guarantee to send Britain enough of our own steel—especially sheet and plate—to make up an extra 800,000 to 1,000,000 tons. The British are not asking for a present, but just an assured position among our own steel industry's priority customers."

What action has the Ministry taken to obtain delivery of the actual quantities of United States steel which were on contract and which the United States suppliers have failed to deliver? We hear very often about what we owe America. I think sometimes we ought to ask ourselves what America owes us. Here is a case in point where we had a firm contract of a most specific kind and where our own industry has been hindered and hampered by the failure of American suppliers to deliver the quantities on contract.

There is not only a moral but a contractual obligation on the part of United States suppliers to see to it that we get the steel for which they have contracted. If that is done I am sure that the whole situation throughout the engineering industry, which is dependent upon steel and which at the present juncture is dependent for its full functioning on American steel, would be changed.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consult with his right hon. Friend in order that the Prime Minister may be informed of the situation before he goes to Washington. I hope that when the Prime Minister does go there he will urge on the United States that there should be a common pool of our steel resources in order that we can effectively discharge our common task.

There is one other matter on which I hope to receive a reply at the end of this debate. Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a new Control of Engagement Order or an Order of a similar kind, by whatever name it may be called? What is the intention of the Government in order by their own judgment to secure the right amount of labour goes into the right places?

Here I quote again the Secretary of the Coventry branch of the National Union of Vehicle Builders:

"The whole source of the present trouble in my opinion is that the re-armament programme has been started without the shops being ready and instead of their being able to transfer the men to this work … they are in fact put out a work."

It seems to me the position today is that the tapering off of the civilian production programme and the beginning of the armament production programme are out of phase. What do the Government propose to do to adjust matters?

There is another point in that connection. We know that the present Government, despite their former abhorrence of physical controls, are now trying to institute some form of allocation of raw materials in order to squeeze labour into what are considered useful channels. The present Government have been extremely harsh on the small businessman and manufacturer, and I hope that the process of allocation will be done in such a way as to cause the minimum of suffering.

After all, the essential thing with which we are concerned today is not merely statistics, not merely computations by adding machines in the Ministry of Labour. It is the human consideration which will enter into this great transfer of labour from one form of industry to another. I hope the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that any transfer of labour in an attempt to deal with this problem of redundancy will be done in a manner which will be efficacious, sympathetic to those concerned and, above all in a manner which will be humane.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) quoted in support of his cause the sheet metal workers' and the vehicle builders' trade unions. I think a far better yardstick would be to quote the comparable figures in the Amalgamated Engineering Union of which my hon. Friends the Members for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and Keighley (Mr. Hobson) are members, and to which body they have rendered distinguished service. The membership figures of the Amalgamated Engineering Union are in excess of 840,000. When the present Government came into office we had.018 of our members out of work—431 in the country. In five weeks the number had increased to 1,787 of our members out of work, which is equal to.023. I suggest that these figures for the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which is broadly based on the whole of the engineering trade and which caters for vehicle builders as well, may give a better index of the position.

I took some trouble to get some figures in relation to Coventry, Birmingham, and Oxford, and I understand that the Trades Union Congress Advisory Committee for the Midlands has this matter under consideration. There are at the moment only 20 A.E.U. members signing the vacant book in Coventry; they usually sign for three days before they get benefit. It would be entirely wrong to play this down, or to suggest that there is not some misgiving in the industry. I am convinced that there is a great deal of hidden unemployment in the engineering industry.

Employers are afraid to discharge men because under the conditions of full employment as we know them today they do not wish to lose key men. We want from the Government at the earliest possible moment a statement of what they are going to do about this urgent matter in respect of the allocation of raw materials, especially steel. I believe that in the City of Coventry employees of Rootes are on three days a week, and one of the Nuffield organisations has about 1,500 people on short time.

My hon. Friend began by making certain invidious comparisons between the numbers of people employed and belonging to different unions. That is a matter of small interest compared with the overall question of the number of people who are actually employed in the industry. When he now says that in my constituency there are people who are working on such conspicuously short time as three days a week, surely he is disproving him own argument?

I am not. I am trying to take the overall position in the country. I would only reprove my hon. Friend in the same way as he reproved my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), for jumping in in a precipitate way before I finished my argument. I gave the overall position, and I said that there was a degree of hidden unemployment. It is not a question of men being unemployed but under-employed. In effect, in Birmingham Britannia Tubes, a part of Tube Investments Ltd., have had a cut of 50 per cent. in their materials, which has meant that 18 per cent. of the total men employed have been stood down on short time, and Singer Motors are working four days a week.

I have little time in which to speak and I do not wish to utilise the time of the Parliamentary Secretary, but what I have tried to prove with the figures relating to the Amalgamated Engineering Union is that there is this tendency setting in for the first time for many years owing to a shortage of materials. Knowing engineers, because I have been of their order all my life, I am aware of the sort of worry which will arise, particularly with the older men. I have not forgotten the days when I came out of my apprenticeship, during the period of depression.

The Parliamentary Secretary will know what I mean when I refer to a massacre taking place in the shops. Anyone who has had the experience of standing in an engineering shop and seeing the foreman come out with the pay-off will appreciate that it is a dismal and depressing experience. There are those of us on this side of the House who have had experience of that sort of thing, and our union has a great interest in this matter. I am not attempting to play down the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North, has made, but I have tried to set it in its right perspective.

We ask that the Government shall make a statement at the earliest possible moment in order to end all this talk and worry. If we were satisfied that our men are working, not nine-and-a-half hours a day, not long overtime, but at least maintaining the 44-hour week, we should still consider that there was a state of full employment in society.

I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments and I will not go over the ground already covered. From the information I have this problem is, at the moment, confined to the Midlands, and it is confined almost wholly to the motor trade and its subsidiaries. Heavy industry, ship building, and so on, appear to have adequate materials to carry on at present.

It is not a question of a shortage of orders; it is not a question of a shortage of work; it all arises on the question of the allocation of materials, and it would perhaps have been helpful if the Minister of Supply had been here to state precisely what he intends to do about the allocation of materials. After all, it is vital that the engineering labour should be fully utilised today. That is one of the most important things about which we are concerned.

I understand that the regional controller for the Midland area has asked that a full statement should be made about the prospects for the industry, because if there is to be a smaller allocation for the motor car works, then the sooner we turn them over to armament production the better it will be, in order to enable a flow of materials to enter the firms. In that area we have some of the most highly-skilled engineers in the world. To some extent they are cooling their heels at present, yet we heard yesterday that we were not meeting in full the re-armament programme. It seems to me, therefore, that it is very important that we should have a full statement on the position.

It is not a problem of labour; it is a problem of materials and allocation of materials, which, I understand, will not be fully settled until next February. I wonder whether something could be done to bring that settlement forward so that the materials can be properly allocated and the various firms told on precisely what basis they can make their plans for the future.

I think we must keep a sense of proportion in this matter, and some hon. Members opposite have tried to do so.

We know something about it.

This is, of course, a marginal question; the amount of steel which has caused the present trouble is nothing of a catastrophic order. I can understand the men who have been in certain employment for many years being concerned about any change that takes place. That is understandable. But let us look at the figures.

Last year 16½ million tons of steel were produced. This year the figure looks like being something like 15¾ million tons. Next year, by a slight rearrangement, and with exports being reduced, home supplies will be slightly higher. Out of that, of course, must come the allocation to defence. The fact remains, however, that people have to use that steel and work on it.

What we are discussing is only marginal at present. If there were a very big fall in steel production there would be more trouble and difficulty, but the estimates we have from the Ministry of Supply are the figures I have given and I do not think, therefore, that we need expect the trouble to be of a drastic order. It will mean inconvenience. Men who have been working in one form of work all their lives do not like changing to another form. They like to use their skill in the way in which they have been brought up to use it. Secondly, they do not like dropping the money, which is what it means when a man goes to another firm. It takes a little time to climb back to the former money, if ever he does climb back, and, therefore, he resents it.

The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) is concerned with the sheet metal workers and the vehicle workers, and there has been more trouble in that section than in the other sections of engineering. That trouble has been created by the shortage of sheet steel and tin plate—the only two forms of steel which have been allocated. The fact remains that at the moment it is not sheet steel which is dominating the position so much as the general shortage of all types of steel, which is causing trouble and difficulty.

The Ministry of Supply is working on this problem, as it is their problem. There has been a shortfall in steel from America. The position has been put to America. The hon. Member asked if we would tell the Prime Minister. I can assure him the Prime Minister knows all about that. No opportunity will be lost of putting to our American friends the fact that if we have more steel we shall get on with the re-armament more quickly than we are doing today.

The hon. Member has been good enough to refer to the point I made on American steel. Will he tell us what quantity of American steel he anticipates will arrive in this country in the next quarter?

That is not a matter for the Ministry of Labour. It is a matter for the Ministry of Supply.

Other questions the hon. Member has asked will have to be dealt with when we return. There was the question of the Control of Engagement Order. The Minister is working on that. He is discussing it with the National Joint Advisory Council. We cannot deal with that at this moment. It is being looked into. The whole situation is being carefully considered. A statement will, no doubt, be made at an early date when we return.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned two questions I asked him. Now may I ask him this? Will a decision be taken on the prospective Control of Engagement Order during the period when Parliament is not sitting? In the event of a decision being taken, should not its promulgation not be until Parliament resumes, so that we may have a proper opportunity for discussing it?

As I said, the Minister is discussing it with the Joint Advisory Council, and the matter will be gone into very closely, and there will be nothing done outside the joint arrangement or without Parliament being informed. I cannot say any more than that at the moment.

The question of short time has been mentioned. Figures which have been produced show that there has been a drop in the number of short-time workers and that there is a slight increase in the number of actual unemployed, which is what one would expect with developing troubles and shortages. A certain number are being stood off and less short time is being worked at the moment, as compared with the summer and autumn. Of course, this varies from week to week. There is always a movement going on; there are always one or two men going.

I come now particularly to Coventry. The reports show that there is a slight variation from week to week. Men leave. This is an age when men do change their jobs, and move about far more than they used in the old days. As hon. Members opposite know, it is one of the problems we have had in the industry. The idea, of course, is to get the employers, wherever they can, to report when they are going to discharge workers, and the local officer of the Ministry of Labour interviews those workers at their employment, if he possibly can, and offers them new employment. That is the procedure which has been agreed in principle between the Ministry and the National Joint Advisory Council. All these men do not accept the offers. Some of them like to find their own jobs.

As to the four firms in Coventry that probably are reporting, directly or indirectly, to the hon. Member, they stopped 220 people, I am advised, during November. It is only a small proportion when we think of the number of people employed in the vehicle and motor car manufacturing and allied trades in Coventry. Of those men, most have already been found work. The local records show that 38 are still unemployed on the books. They have been offered other work, but they want to try to find jobs in their own industry if they can. I suppose they can afford to wait while they are looking round. The Department is doing all it can to help. It has even gone to Rugby where there is a shortage of labour, and Rugby has said it will take some of those men if they are suitable and give them a period of training and get them into some other department.

One thing which we cannot guarantee is that a man shall have exactly the same job all his working life, whatever happens. At the present time, there is a shortage of labour in the engineering world generally, and particularly in the Midlands. There is, however, increased work being put into the armament industries, and the difficulty in future will not be shortage of work, but shortage of labour as the defence programme develops. Let us get a sense of balance and realise that we are dealing with a marginal problem, and that there is nothing to cause the workers as a whole any great fear of unemployment developing in the future.

I welcome the opportunity, which is all too short, but for which I am grateful, of raising a subject which is of very considerable public importance, and in which a large number of people are deeply interested.

It is generally understood that during the Recess upon which we are just entering Ministers will be considering deeply the whole question of the possibilities of economy. I hope that drastic economies will be made wherever they are possible without affecting the public interest in an undue degree. I want, in the few minutes which I have—and I am most grateful to the Financial Secretary for being here to listen to me and, no doubt, to reply to my observations—to put before him and the House a few considerations in connection with the information services and allied and satellite services, where, I believe, very considerable economies can be made.

The growth of all these various activities associated with the information services has been phenomenal in recent years. It has now got beyond a joke. During the war many of these activities were vital and served a useful purpose, and those engaged in them were doing useful work; but they kept on growing and the incubus on the National Exchequer has now reached a stage when it can no longer be tolerated. I contend that these costly activities must be pruned. It will require courage and determination to prune them. I do not doubt that in the present Government there is a spirit of resolution and determination to act courageously in this direction.

First, I contend that there is far too much duplication. In every Government Department there are innumerable activities, such as journalism, advertising, films, exhibitions of all kinds, artistic experts of all sorts, those who specialise in food recipes—how to make porridge nicer, how to fry herrings better, how to make whale meat more palatable, how to make snoek edible, and thousands of other things of that kind. These professional activities go on in every Government Department. Above all, there are far too many lectures. Good heavens, we get talked to quite enough without having to listen to lectures on every conceivable subject, paid for by Government Departments; in fact, paid for by the taxpayer.

There are far too many public relations officers—goodness knows how many, for I have never been able to find out—but there are far too many, and all of them have their assistants, and it seems to me that most of them spend their time trying to apologise for the Minister. I use the word "apologise" in the sense of "apologia" rather than of deprecating the existence of the Minister. I welcome the existence of our Ministers today; and they need no apology. But the P.R.Os. have somehow got into the habit of defending the Minister and his Department. I do not see why the public should pay for that. Let the Minister stand on his own feet and be judged upon his own merits and activities. I am sure my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have no difficulty in defending himself.

Often the various experts in all the ramifications to which I have referred meet together, in what must be in effect a mass meeting of experts, to conduct some Government propaganda campaign which has been decided on behind the scenes. I have never had the privelege of attending such a meeting, but I am told that the numbers which attend are almost incredible. All these experts in every sort of activity assemble, and, under some form of chairmanship, they decide upon a great campaign. The taxpayer pays for the lot. This kind of thing has gone on long enough, and I want my hon. Friend seriously to consider doing something about this by winding up or, at any rate, drastically reducing some of these major activities.

The British Council is a very worthy organisation, and many of those who work in it are friends of mine, but it is a very costly organisation, and I really doubt whether, in our present parlous condition, we can afford what we are spending in support of its activities. At any rate, I should like to see the cost to the taxpayer of its activities considerably reduced.

There is even bigger scope in the Central Office of Information. I have far less sympathy with the activities of this organisation, and I hope that my hon. Friend will investigate its activities in a big way. There is also plenty of scope for investigation into the work of the Information Division of the Treasury in which he is particularly concerned, and I hope he will spend some of the Recess poking his nose into some of its activities. I am certain that he will find plenty of fun and games to which he can put an end in the interests of the public and the taxpayer.

The amount of money spent on the Crown Film Unit is scandalous, and it is quite unnecessary. If the Government or a Government Department really wants to represent its view-point through the medium of the film, which is quite legitimate, I am certain that it can find far less expensive means of doing it than by maintaining this expensive organisation. It is high time the unit was shut down or, at any rate, reduced, so that a minimum of cost has to be met by the taxpayer.

Goodness knows how many lecturers there are—nobody can find out—but all over the country there are lecturers on every conceivable subject who seem somehow or other to be paid by the Government or have their expenses met by the Government. There are feature articles in technical and other magazines all over the place. There are also expensive magazines beautifully printed on expensive paper, for which the taxpayer pays, and these are run by the Government, under the sole authority of the Government, and they exist under the orders of the Government to put over the Government's view-point or propaganda.

Goodness knows how many leaflets there are also. Yet there is a great shortage of paper. I do not know how much all the cooking recipes must have cost—I understand they have largely ceased—but I hope we shall not begin them all over again. There are innumerable glaring examples of waste, waste of paper and waste of money. The public does not want that extravagance. If hon. Members want more details, they will find innumerable examples in the Board of Trade Special Register of Information Services, where most of what I have been speaking about is to be found.

Was a recipe published for cooking good red meat?

I believe not, because there is so little red meat available that it would not be worth while spending money on it, but a lot of money has been spent on recipes for herrings and porridge.

I believe I am right in saying that the nationalised industries, these powerful organisations which, I understand, we own, have much of their information services and publicity paid for by the taxpayer through a Government Department. For instance, the British Electricity Authority has a lot of its publicity for fuel saving, a very laudible thing, paid for by the taxpayer through a Government Department, presumably under the auspices of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. That is a piece of nonsense. Let it run its own show, and let it run its own publicity.

I also understand that the National Coal Board uses Government funds contributed by the taxpayer to implore Italian miners to come to this country and work in the mines. A lot of money must be spent upon those advertisements, and yet the National Coal Board is unable to influence the miners sufficiently to admit the Italian miners to the mines. So the money is largely wasted anyhow. If the Coal Board wants Italian miners—there seems a very good argument for that—let it pay for its own publicity.

These are only tiny examples. I understand that thousands of pounds are wasted by reason of Government agencies and information services being used at the taxpayers' expense to assist the nationalised industries in their objectives. Let them stand on their own feet and conduct their own publicity. It is very important that they should.

Why do the Government Departments need so many public relations officers, who are tumbling over each other? Why cannot the Ministers use, for instance, as they did not so very long ago in pre-war days, Lobby correspondents and others in the House whom we know intimately and trust so much, for passing on information to the public?

If they have not time to interview them directly, their subordinate Ministers or their Parliamentary Private Secretaries could do so. Interviews could be given in the Department by somebody deputed for the purpose. I am perfectly certain that by using methods which would cost nothing at all, we would get just as much satisfaction, instead of having to spend thousands of pounds on public relations officers at high salaries, with their assistant P.R.O.'S, deputy-assistant P.R.O.'S, and all the staffs that become attached to them.

The cost of the overseas information departments also is very considerable. There is ample scope for reducing the activities of many of them. I do not say that they should be shut down. I appreciate that there may be useful functions which they fulfil, but I am sure that too much money is being spent on them and that the Government could save a lot of money to the taxpayer in this direction.

The truth is that we get far too much propaganda, far too much propagandists, and far too many apologists. Most of these Departments, organisations, and individuals, costing in total many million pounds, are apologists in some shape or form for the Government who employ them. But they do not apologise to the taxpayer who pays for them. Here is a grand opportunity for my hon. Friend to spend some of his valuable Christmas holidays in investigating these possibilities.

We get quite enough propaganda from politicians and from political parties. We had a lot of it in recent weeks and months during the General Election. Let the Government do away with all this unnecessary propaganda and these propagandists. Let the Government be judged on their merits. One of the things by which the people and we in the House will judge them is in the measure in which they are able to achieve drastic economies in the public services and in public expenditure. I commend my suggestions which I have put forward in such a very short time, to my hon. Friend, and I will listen with eagerness to his observations in reply.

I have listened, as I always do, with very great interest to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Major Lloyd) has said, and particularly on this subject, on which he has taken a great interest over a good many years. I must begin by saying that in the present state of our national economy, to urge economy in public expenditure upon the representative of the Treasury is a very easy task. It is not so much, perhaps, a case of preaching to the converted as of preaching to the missionary, and I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the broad considerations of public economy to which he has referred are very much in our minds, both in connection with the subject to which he has referred and generally.

Is it likely to be the case of the missionary finding himself in the cooking pot of the Treasury?

I think the hon. Member is recalling the case of the cannibal chief who rebuked one of his tribe for trying to boil a friar.

I ought to explain, lest I be diverted into what is, presumably, more the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, the somewhat complicated position administratively in which I find myself in replying, however briefly, to this debate. As the House is aware, most of the major Departments of State have their own information departments, and my right hon. Friends at the head of those Departments are, of course, responsible to the House for that aspect, as for all others, of their Departments' doings.

Directly and in the narrow sense, I am responsible to the House only for two aspects of information work: first, for the Central Office of Information, in accordance with the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, and second, for the Economic Information Division of the Treasury. Therefore, what I say when going, as did my hon. and gallant Friend, outside that narrow scope into the broader sphere of information services generally, must be always considered with that position in mind. I can only in the narrow sense speak for the two aspects of information services for which I have some direct responsibility to this House.

It is impossible, I am afraid, to say anything very specific to this House this afternoon for reasons which I think hon. Members will appreciate in general, as also for one specific reason.

I am authorised to say that as part of the Government's general review of expenditure an ad hoc Committee of Ministers is at present reviewing the whole range of Government information services. I do not know when that review will be complete, but I have no reason to expect it to take a very long time. I think it obvious that it would be impossible until that review has been completed for anything of a precise or constructive nature to be said from this bench on this subject. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the fact that I am unable this afternoon to deal precisely with the specific suggestions he has made does not mean that these suggestions will not be taken into account.

I take it that this review—about which we are all delighted to hear—will have completed its activities in time for the Estimates to be presented to this House?

I certainly hope so; I can see no reason why it should not be so. I cannot, of course, give an undertaking binding on my colleagues, but it is the desire of all of us that this review of expenditure should go through as expeditiously as possible.

This afternoon, therefore, I can only say one or two things of a somewhat general nature on this subject. Information expenditure falls roughly into two large categories, home and overseas, and of those from the financial point of view the overseas is very much the larger. The actual figures for last year, which were contained in Command Paper 8267, show that home information expenditure last year amounted in all to £3,411,200, as against £10,184,000 overseas expenditure. The House will appreciate that overseas expenditure to which somewhat different considerations relate than relate to home expenditure, is infinitely the larger of the two.

Another point of a general nature which must not be overlooked is the fact that a substantial volume of expenditure on the home side relates to matters to which my hon. and gallant Friend did not refer in his speech and to which, equally, I would imagine he would not take exception. For example, there is the recruiting publicity in connection with the Armed Forces, and those of us who believe in the desirability of building up the Regular Forces of the Crown will appreciate that some expenditure on publicity in this connection is desirable. Last year, for example, the figures were substantial. The Admiralty spent slightly in excess of £113,000, the War Office, £390,000, and the Air Ministry £303,000. That is quite a substantial element in the total of home information expenditure.

There is another category of expenditure which, although not perhaps quite the same in its significance is still important: expenditure on publicity in connection with National Savings. On last year's figures that amounted to £358,500 in England and the Scottish Savings Committee, with characteristic modesty, spent £21,900. Those are elements of expenditure to which the considerations which my hon. and gallant Friend urged in his speech do not, I think, generally apply; and they are elements of expenditure which, without prejudging the position, I should have thought it would be very difficult substantially to reduce. But, of course, they are only elements in the picture—a picture which runs to the substantial figure for home expenditure of £3,400,000 odd, and such a figure obviously, in the present state of national finances, has to be investigated.

Then there is overseas expenditure, whose total includes the expenditure of the British Council, to which my hon. and gallant Friend made specific reference.

We are, of course, including in the review to which I have referred this overseas expenditure. But, in dealing with these matters we have also to balance two competing considerations. We have to consider on the one hand the cost—and in the case of overseas expenditure there is also the element of foreign exchange expenditure which is sometimes not without importance—against the desirability of this country taking an effective part in certain aspects of what I believe is now generally described as the cold war. The need for economy in this as in all directions is very much in the mind of the Government. But we have also to bear in mind, before coming to a decision, the competing considerations to which I have referred.

I think I have made it clear, I hope I have done so—I have tried to do so—that we all regard the field of information expenditure as a proper field for careful examination from the point of view of national economy. It is certainly not the only field in which that examination will have to take place, and I would not wish to seem to suggest that any undue, unnecessary, or, shall I say, more hypercritical approach is being made to this expenditure qua expenditure than is being made to certain other aspects of public expenditure.

I fully appreciate the very difficult quasi-political considerations which, as my hon. and gallant Friend very fairly said, do arise in connection with certain aspects of information expenditure. I think I need only say in that connection that those aspects of the matter, delicate, intricate sometimes, not always susceptible to any very clear and obvious demarkation of principle, will be considered together with the more strictly financial aspects of the matter. There, I think, it is necessary to leave the matter.

I would say in conclusion that this matter is very much in our minds. We hope in this direction, as in others, to be able to achieve some degree of that economy in national expenditure which, in our present economic situation, is of such vital national importance.

May I first express my thanks to you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity of raising this important question of the Government policy regarding Development Areas in this last Adjournment debate today; and also express my thanks to the House for seeing to it that the many debates today have kept to the time-table so that we can start this last half-hour completely on time.

I raise this subject in no hostile sense. Of course, the more successful is the Parliamentary Secretary in his task at the Board of Trade concerning Development Areas the more satisfied I shall be. It is, I think, of great importance to many hon. Members whose constituencies are in the Development Areas, and to their many thousands of constituents, that we should have some statement of policy from the new Government about their attitude towards the Distribution of Industry Act. There is a fear, and it may be completely unfounded, that this may be put into cold storage in the present economic difficulties.

My first duty is to stress the importance of the good work which has already been done in solving the unemployment problem in the Development Areas, in finding additional employment and in bringing about a greater diversity of industry. If I have to refer to a number of figures it is merely to give emphasis to this situation which has come about in the Development Areas. The figures show that, from 1932, at the worst of the unemployment period, when there were 932,000 people out of work, there has been a remarkable change, so that, in 1938 there were 553,000 people out of work in the Development Areas. After the war, in 1946—

In 1946, after the war, this figure stood at 200,000, and by February 1950, as a result of the combined efforts of the Government, private industrialists, local government authorities and so on, it had been reduced to 145,000. Today, or rather in October 1951, there were just under 100,000 people unemployed in the seven Development Areas in this country.

As well as finding employment for all these people and reducing those great figures, there has been an additional source of people brought into employment who never before thought of going into productive industry, and I am referring in the main here to many women who saw service in the war, in ordnance factories and so on, and who, with many others since the war have found regular places in the new factories in the development areas.

I would like to point out, as a tribute to what has been done in the North-Eastern Development Area, the excellent work of the North-Eastern Trading Estate Company, which, in the numerous factories under its control, now employs something like 44,000 people.

As well as bringing about a solution of the unemployment problem, we have also had a great contribution made to our economic situation in the Development Areas by making these areas less and less tied to one or two basic industries. There has been great progress made in bringing about a more diverse economy, and already, to date, in all the Development Areas, 1,342 factories have been completed, while, at the present time, 315 are still under construction.

In the North-Eastern Development Area, with which I am most familiar, there are 369 factories completed, and, I understand, 97 still under construction. These factories cater for a great variety of industries which were never before known in these Development Areas. We have a very flourishing woollen textile industry, which has now spread from Yorkshire into the North-East. We have a great variety of engineering industries and light industries of many kinds. The figures which I have given reveal the new life and hope which has come to these former distressed areas. Now, it is quite clear that the main part of the problem has been tackled successfully, and our thanks are due to all these people who have played their part in achieving it.

At this stage, however, in spite of the progress that has been made, I want to say that we must not feel any complacency with regard to this problem. In view of the present trends, which we can all see now, there is a growing danger that unemployment might recur in these areas, and there are slightly rising figures of unemployment in them. At the moment, they stand at something like 96,000.

The significant fact is that, of all the unemployed people in the country, 46 per cent. of the men and 40 per cent. of the women are unemployed in the Development Areas, and that means that, in those areas, with roughly one-seventh of the total population of the country, we have almost half of the unemployment, and that indicates the scale of the problem now facing us.

In the North-Eastern Development Area, there are 14,106 men out of work, and 9,791 women, but, again, the significant fact is that, of these figures, 43 per cent. of the men have been out of work for over six months and 20 per cent. of the women. That is the real hard core of this unemployment problem. Another important fact which needs attention is that, of those unemployed in the development Areas, over 70 per cent. are over 40 years of age and these people are now reaching the point at which they are beginning to look upon themselves as virtually unemployable.

There is a further aggravation at this time because of Government policy through the recent ban on factory building imposed over the whole country for a period of three months.

Another difficulty is the fact that many factories, particularly those engaged in the consumer good industries are now having to work short time. On the very fine trading estate in my constituency, one factory is working every alternate week and another only four days a week instead of five. That may be due to the general conditions of trade, or, again, it may be due to the fact that these particular industrialists are not able to obtain sufficient raw materials.

There is a further problem which may be more long-term in its effect—the possible changes in the shipbuilding industry which may bring about a structural change in employment in the Development Areas. With that background in mind, I want to put the following questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. What is the position in the Development Areas with regard to new building? I ask that for the reason that the present building programme is almost at an end. There are only a few factories in the construction stage at the moment and a number which have been licensed, but where work has not started.

What standards will be applied in judging whether new factories can be licensed in this three-months' period? Will the matter be judged solely on the contribution which the proposed factory can make to exports or defence, or will there be a wider concept, such as has prevailed hitherto, that some factories should be built in the Development Areas not only on economic grounds, but also on social grounds in order to redress the balance regarding the old unemployment problem to which I referred earlier. Up to now a preference has been given to factories built in Development Areas. This has been a great success from the viewpoint of the industrialists who have seen fit to migrate to those areas.

How many factories are there under construction, and how many have been postponed? From the figures it would seem that there are something like 97 factories at present under construction in the North-East. Forty-one of these were already licensed and are being proceeded with at the present time. As regards the country as a whole, I gather that some 400 factories have fallen under this ban. Has the preferential treatment hitherto extended to the Development Areas come to an end?

Another major point which needs the attention not only of the Minister but of his colleagues in the Ministry of Labour is the over-riding necessity to bring all the people who can make a useful contribution to our economic life into production. It seems to me a tragic waste that something like 100,000 people cannot be employed in production today when we know that there are about 400,000 jobs waiting to be filled.

The Minister of Labour is naturally worried about the completion of the defence programme and is looking round for various expedients in order to get the maximum labour force engaged on that programme. In the Development Areas we have the only remaining pool of labour in the country. It is undesirable on social grounds, and also impossible owing to the shortage of houses, to ex- pect the unemployed in the Development Areas to migrate once again to the London area or to the Midlands. It is obviously more sensible and more practical to take the defence work to those areas which have workers available.

What has been done to steer defence orders into the development areas? The previous Government gave an undertaking that where possible defence orders would be steered to firms in the Development Areas. I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that his Government will continue along those lines.

It is quite clear on examination of the unemployment figures that we have the right type of labour available to undertake these jobs. I have recently obtained figures for the north-east from the Ministry of Labour. They show that among the engineering and electrical industry there are some 1,579 out of work. Among shipyard workers, repair workers and so on there are 1,420 unemployed. There are 2,741 building and contracting workers unemployed. Then in the peculiar classification, "public administration and defence workers," whatever that embraces, there are 1,559 unemployed.

Some of these may be only out of work for a few days, but it seems to me that where there is labour of that kind out of work and we have defence orders not being completed for lack of labour elsewhere there is an overriding pressure upon the Government to see that the work should be transferred to a place where those men can be brought to useful production. I think it would be possible to find adequate factory space to employ them. Some factories today are not fully employed. Space is left vacant in certain cases and in others space could be easily re-deployed for defence orders. Any information the hon. and learned Gentleman could give me on this subject will be appreciated.

I come now to another problem which is causing great concern in the Development Areas and which may be due to reasons over which we have little or no control. It is the problem of firms engaged in the consumer goods industries, such as clothing. When appeals first went out for firms to remove to Development Areas it was this kind of firm which responded first and left the over-populated areas round London and in the Midlands and settled down in such places as the north-east.

Today, it is these firms that are finding it most difficult to carry on. We know there is a falling off in trade which may be responsible for that, but in the past the Government have been able to see that where scarce raw materials were available priority was given to firms who had come to the Development Areas. I want to know what help the Government can give to these firms which are experiencing short time, to weather this storm. Some priority is needed in view of the fact that these firms readily responded to the appeal of the Government to settle in Development Areas.

Another important point concerns the natural wish of engineering and other firms in the Development Areas to expand. There is the physical limitation of building licences, except in certain cases of firms engaged on re-armament work, but there is also the question of credit. Up to now the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee has given great help to those firms in Development Areas and I wish to pay tribute to the work that has been done. In view of changes in Government interest rates and the restriction of credit, I wonder whether this Treasury Committee will be affected to some extent and that in turn this will have an adverse effect on firms wishing to expand in the Development Areas.

A matter of very great importance and one which has assisted in maintaining employment in Development Areas in the past has been the policy of the previous Government of placing Government contracts and orders with firms in the Development Areas. That has also been true of the nationalised industries. Where other things were equal preference has been given, rightly in my view, to firms in Development Areas. I should like to know whether the present Government intend to continue that practice.

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can answer this now, because it may be a little premature, but I should like to know also whether it is intended to remove any areas from the Schedule of the Distribution of Industry Act. In my view it would be premature to consider that until we can see the future more clearly. We do not know quite what will happen to basic industries, and, although we have shown a great record of progress in the Development Areas, it would be wrong, if we were to remove any area from the provisions of the Act.

I want the Board of Trade to repose their fullest confidence in the trading estate companies. They have done a magnificent job so far in inducing industrialists to settle in the development areas. They have done a great job in seeing the factories constructed. If we can get some simplification of the administration of the chain of responsibility between the trading estate companies and the Board of Trade itself I think that will be all to the good.

My appeal to the Government, to private industrialists and local authorities who are very interested in this problem is that they will continue to cooperate in the future as they have done in the past, to carry on the good work and to prevent the present Development Areas from falling back into distressed areas. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me an assurance today that the Distribution of Industry Act will not become a dead letter.

As we are now going into Recess, Mr. Speaker, may I from the back benches wish you a very happy Christmas, and, when we resume in the near future, a very peaceful New Year?

Thank you.

The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has shown over a considerable period a great and informed interest in this important question of Development Areas and, in particular, the North-Eastern Development Area. When he gave notice of his wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment he was good enough to indicate to me in a message some of the points on which he would like me to give information if I could, and I hope that on some, if not all, I shall be able to give him some of the information he wants.

The general principle was well stated on behalf of His Majesty's Government by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). Perhaps I might remind the House of that answer. My right hon. Friend said:

"I am anxious that the Development Areas should make their maximum contribution to the urgent needs of production for defence and exports, and we shall continue existing arrangements whenever they will assist the Areas to attain this objective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 2544.]

I think there will be unanimity in the House on the importance of those two objectives.

The hon. Gentleman wanted me to give some figures about the new construction that was going on in the North-Eastern Development Area. It is a little difficult, in fact impossible, for me to give him exact figures for, as he will appreciate, the Board of Trade is not the only Department concerned, and there has not been a great deal of time to obtain figures. Nevertheless, I can give him this figure, in which I think he will be interested. At the latest date for which I have particulars, over 100 factories and extensions to factories were under construction, covering an area of about 5 million square feet.

He asked me also whether I could give him any information about any postponements that had been made as a result of the policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here again I would point out to him that we are more readily able to obtain figures in the case of extensions of over 5,000 sq. ft. on account of the necessity for issuing industrial development certificates under the provisions of Section 14 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Taking the class of factories and extensions which I have just mentioned, we are aware of two cases of postponement of work which would have started in the present month.

The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the exceptions mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during what I may call the period of postponement would be limited to the cases of export and defence. Perhaps I might quote the exact words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer:

"no new starting dates for building work will be granted for operation during the next three months, except for special schemes approved as exceptionally urgent in the national interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 200.]

I think that would not necessarily be confined to those two objectives which I have mentioned, but I have no doubt that they will be the main categories of cases in which an exception would be made.

Turning to the principle which will apply after the period of postponement, I assume the House is aware that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, a general review of capital investment is now taking place, and until that review is completed it is impossible to annnounce any decisions on the general level of new factory building.

If a firm wishes to expand after this period, is there anything to prevent it putting its case to the Department now so that it can prepare to make an immediate start once the decision is given, because it is the time-lag which is important?

I speak subject to correction of which, if necessary, I will notify the hon. Gentleman later. I think there would be no objection to the firm putting their case, but perhaps he will permit me to add that note of caution, because I have not informed myself on the matter. My impression is that there is nothing to prevent anyone putting his case.

The hon. Gentleman next wished to know what was being done to help the Development Areas. I can reassure him a little on that point. For many years, Government contracting Departments, when placing orders by competition, have given preference to firms in Development Areas, other things being equal; and production authorities, when allocating orders without competition, have given first consideration to the capacity and needs of Development Areas.

I think the success which has attended that policy can be illustrated by two figures. In the short time at my disposal I do not wish to weary the House with many figures. But I thought the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know that during the period of six months from April to September, 1951, the grand total of orders placed by the Ministry of Supply was £467.5 million. That is the grand total for all areas. Of that, the amount placed in Development Areas was £49.8 million—more than 10 per cent.

The next question that the hon. Member put to me was on what would be the policy regarding Treasury loans on the advice of the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee. As the hon. Member is aware, the principle on which these advances are made is governed by Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. In effect three conditions have to be satisfied: first, that the Board of Trade approves the undertaking as complying with the requirements of the proper distribution of industry; secondly, that the Treasury is satisfied, in accordance with the recommendation of the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee, that the undertaking has good prospects of ultimately being able to carry on without further Government finance; and thirdly, that the undertaking cannot, for the time being, obtain capital on reasonable terms commercially.

Those, as the hon. Member will agree, are the three conditions. So I think that his question to me is how is that now going to work? Well, the policy continues unchanged. With the policy remaining unchanged he may ask, how far will the number of eligible allocations increase or decrease? I can only tell him this, that so far there is no significant change noticeable in either direction.

I think that the next point put to me by the hon. Member concerned possible changes in the areas scheduled to the Act. I can tell him this, that, before any changes were made, clearly 'the most careful consideration would be necessary, and I would remind him—and, indeed, remind the House—of this fact, that no change could be made without an affirmative Resolution by each House of Parliament.

Lastly, I think he asked me whether I could give him an assurance that the Distribution of Industry Act would not be treated as a dead letter. I can without hesitation give him that assurance. The relevant statutes were passed with the good will of the whole House, and I think I can give the assurance for which he asks.

Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say anything about the switching of defence orders from the Midlands to the Development Areas?

No, I do not think I can give any information on that subject. The particulars I have given the hon. Member of the contracts placed by the Ministry of Supply will, I think, reassure him that the interests of the Development Areas are being kept in mind by every contracting Department, but I know he will also bear in mind the paramount needs of the defence programme, and I do not think it would be right to go beyond what I have already told him.