(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the meeting of Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council, which met in Paris this week.

I have no further statement to make at this moment on the work of the Conference in Paris which would add to the very full reports and communiqués which have been published and to the statement which I made on the naval arrangements. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had been here, he would have welcomed the opportunity of giving the House his personal impressions of what has been a most successful Conference. I regret to say, however, that he has been detained by an important business point which has arisen at the last minute, but which in no way alters the general conclusions in respect of the Conference.

Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the reported statement of General Ridgway to the effect that the 50 divisions which were the target for 1952 will be more like 35 divisions as a result of some of them being under-trained and under-equipped? Does the Prime Minister accept that statement? In any event, will he make it clear that the British divisions in N.A.T.O. are fully equipped and fully trained?

As to the last part of the question, I can certainly give that assurance. As to the more general issues involved, it is quite clear that these matters have to be fully discussed when we meet again, but certainly no justice could be done to topics of such wide scope and variegated character in the closing hours of the Session.

While I recognise the need for security in matters of this sort does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in view of the many statements that have appeared in the Press, which have created some confusion in the minds of those who have read them, it would be desirable if the Government would issue a White Paper, or at any rate some clear statement which might help to remove the confusion that now exists? For example, it is suggested that there has been a considerable reduction in the infrastructure programme, which is, of course, of very great importance, and also that the need for vast masses of men is not as important now as it was regarded before. Would it not be desirable to issue a statement on these matters?

The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is helpful, and when the Minister of Defence and the Foreign Secretary return later in the day, I will represent the matter to them so that a statement can be carefully prepared over a few days which will give the full effect, as we see it now, of what has occurred as far as it can be made public, and so that that should be brought out before we meet again—if not before Christmas, immediately afterwards.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Will that statement also include some clarification about the Mediterranean Command, because there is still some confusion as to who is to be actually in control and what is to be the nature of the co-ordination processes?

The matter is one which affects not only the Foreign Office but, indeed, in bulk the Ministry of Defence; but I will give my personal attention to the matter in order that a full statement can be laid before the House, which can be meditated upon and which we can debate at the first convenient opportunity when we return.

Could we also have a full outline or map showing the way in which these commands have been set up?

If a White Paper is issued, I see no reason why we should not have a map, but I will see whether that is necessary and whether it would warrant the additional expense involved.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a Statement on his consideration of the possibility of bringing the possession in a public place of instruments and articles, other than firearms, capable of use as weapons in the commission of crimes of violence within the ambit of the law; and what action he proposes to take with regard to the sale of toy weapons.

The use of offensive weapons in connection with crimes of violence has given rise to legitimate anxiety. Concern has also been expressed at the offer for sale to children of toy imitations of certain types of weapon. Her Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to both these problems.

On the first point, the House will recognise that there are many instruments which may be used as weapons for criminal purposes. Apart from lethal firearms and imitation firearms, which are already dealt with by the provisions of the Firearms Act, 1937, these instruments include genuine weapons such as life preservers, stilettos and knuckledusters; home-made instruments such as wooden bludgeons with razor blades inserted in them; and articles in day-to-day use for legitimate purposes, such as bicycle chains, knives, scissors and bottles.

Under the law as it stands, the mere possession of such an article in a public place is not an offence, however suspicious the circumstances, except at a public meeting or on the occasion of a public procession. It is important that Parliament should exercise extreme care before approving legislation which creates new criminal offences; but Her Majesty's Government think that in present conditions, when there is so much anxiety about crimes of violence, it would not be right to overlook the deterrent effect on criminals which would be achieved if it were made an offence to be found in possession of an offensive weapon, without lawful reason, in a public place or a place to which the public have access. Her Majesty's Government are at present examining the possibility of introducing legislation to achieve this object.

The sale to children of toy imitations of real weapons, such as the notorious rubber cosh, raises problems of a different character. Apprehension as to the effect of certain of these toys on the minds of children is no doubt well founded, and Her Majesty's Government were glad to see that the responsible trade associations took prompt action to advise retailers to exercise a proper discrimination between what I may call the traditional toys, such as tomahawks, bows and arrows, policemen's truncheons and harmless pistols, and the toys which represent weapons used by contemporary criminals.

In November, the National Chamber of Trade and the National Association of Toy Retailers gave advice to their members which could not be bettered, and with their agreement I am arranging for their statements to be reproduced in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My information is that the advice given by the trade associations found a ready response from reputable retailers, and that in many shops the articles complained of have been withdrawn from sale. Her Majesty's Government trust that any retailers who have so far been slow to act on this advice will recognise that it has behind it the full support of responsible public opinion throughout the country.

The mischief has, therefore, already been diminished by this action of the trade associations; and, in any event, Her Majesty's Government do not think that it is a problem which can appropriately be dealt with by restrictive legislation. In the first place, if legislation were introduced with a view to banning the sale of certain toys altogether or with a view to banning the sale of certain articles to young persons, it would not be possible to define the articles which were to be banned without at the same time covering many articles to which no one objects.

In the second place, Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to propose that Parliament should act as a censor of toys. It seems to them that it is for parents to decide what toys are suitable for their children. The information which we have suggests that the particular problem is not of great proportions, and in the view of Her Majesty's Government it is one which should be left to the good sense of traders and, above all, of parents.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of this mischief can be diminished without restrictive legislation as, for example, in the case of Italian stilettos, which, according to an answer I received from the President of the Board of Trade in this House a little while ago, are imported freely into this country by some means or other by the name of "stationery"?

I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has quite grasped the difficulty. The difficulty is in classifying the imports in such a limited way as to form a class which would isolate stilettos. The other great difficulty is that the import restrictions are usable for balance of payments and not for moral purposes.

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make in regard to business?

Yes, Sir. It may be convenient for me to inform the House that conversations have taken place through the usual channels about the time to be allowed for the Committee and remaining stages of the Iron and Steel Bill.

I am pleased to be in a position to announce that it has been agreed to complete the Committee stage of the Bill in eight and a half days, sitting until 10.30 p.m. each night; the Report stage in two days; and the Third Reading in half a day.

At a later stage I shall propose a Motion to provide that the Ten o'clock Rule be suspended for half an hour on those days when the Iron and Steel Bill is put down for the Committee stage.

The Government welcome this arrangement, which I commend to the House in the general interest. Although this gives more time for the Committee stage than the Government think is perhaps necessary, they are ready to find the extra time in the interests of agreement between the two sides. Voluntary arrangements have been made before in regard to contentious Bills, and with good will and co-operation I have every confidence that we shall be able to pursue our discussions on this Bill in a businesslike manner.

Would it not give the House of Commons just eight and a half days more to discuss many important issues if this Committee stage were sent upstairs?

There is no question of that.

With your permission Mr. Speaker and with that of the House, I should like to make a statement about British Transport Commission passenger fares.

When I announced in the House on 18th November that I proposed to authorise an increase of 5 per cent. in the British Transport Commission's railway freight, dock and canal charges as from 1st December, I said that the Commission had indicated to me that the whole question of passenger fares would be brought under review. I added that it would be open to the Commission to apply to the Transport Tribunal for an alteration of the existing Passenger Charges Scheme and that the earliest date on which such applications could be made were 2nd March next in the case of London and 1st May next in the case of railways outside the London area; these dates being, in each case, 12 months after the coming into force of the London and Provincial sections of the present Scheme.

As the Tribunal had on the Commission's application so recently settled a comprehensive Passenger Charges Scheme, I had assumed that the Commission would seek authority for any increase in the fares governed by that scheme by an application for alteration of the scheme under Section 79 of the Transport Act, 1947, which provides for the minimum interval of 12 months.

Sections 76 and 77 of the Transport Act, however, provide that a new charges scheme may be submitted to the Tribunal and there is no provision for a minimum interval under these Sections. I have now, however, been informed by the Commission that they intend to submit very early in the New Year to the Transport Tribunal a new scheme revoking the existing scheme and providing for increases in the Commission's fares.

I am sorry to have to make a statement like this on the eve of the Recess, but as application may be made before we return I feel the House should be told of it at once.

I acknowledge the courtesy of the Minister in giving me notice that he was going to make this statement. May I ask him three questions? First, will there be a public inquiry at which objectors can appear? Second, will the application of the Commission cover not only standard fares, but also season tickets, cheap day, early morning, workmen's fares, and all those various types of fares? Will they be brought into the scheme? Third, the Minister has acknowledged that the information he gave previously was incorrect, but he did not tell us why. Did he not consult the British Transport Commission before he gave the House to understand that there would be no such application.

I will do my best to answer those three questions. Of course, there will be an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman knows the 1947 Act very well. It provides for the representatives of users of transport to give evidence before the Tribunal. The precise way in which that evidence is called and sifted is for the Tribunal to consider. As to the form the scheme will take, I, like everyone else, must await the submission of the scheme. I am only giving advance information now—and this will lead to the third question by the hon. Gentleman—because there would have been no opportunity of asking questions until there had been such application.

The Commission have no obligation to consult the Minister, and the Minister has no powers in this field over passenger fares. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when a charges scheme is submitted as in the case of passenger fares, the powers of the Minister fade out. But in the field of freight the Commission have to come to the Minister first, because there is no merchandise charges scheme. That is why I had to make a statement on 18th November.

As to the third point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I answered that in my main statement. As there has been a recent application for a comprehensive passenger charges scheme, I rather took it for granted that the Commission would use the procedure for alteration and not be in a position to use the procedure for a new scheme. I was wrong in that, and it is because of that I have asked permission to make a statement today.

I understand that there is no obligation on the Commission to consult the Minister, but there is an obligation on the Minister—if he is going to make a statement to the House —to consult the Commission as to their intentions. What I am asking the Minister is whether in fact he did or did not ask the Commission whether they had any intentions in this field before he gave the categorical information on 18th November that they would not be making such application for several months?

The Commission having approached me as a matter of urgency that they wish to make an application in regard to freight, I granted that at once and made the statement in the House, though it was politically awkward to do so at the very height of the Transport Bill. On the point of whether the Commission would apply under Section 76, 77 or 78, I did not ask the Commission. But they were aware that I was going to make the statement, and they have privately thanked me for the promptitude with which I met their request.

Is not the statement of my right hon. Friend an additional and, we hope, a final piece of evidence of the fact that higher fares and charges are inseparable from nationalisation? And does not his statement point out the almost desperate need to de-centralise and render competitive the services of the Commission?

Arising out of that supplementary question, is it not a fact that there is danger that this House will be faced with a further statement from the Minister if the present Transport Bill goes through, as a further increase of fares will be inevitable because of the loss of certain profits to the Commission? May I ask the Minister whether it is not the fact that one of the reasons he has had to come to the House at this time is because of the Government's policy of putting up the fuel tax; because of the Government's dearer money policy and because of the Government's Budget policy, which increased the cost of living and led to an increase in wages?

I certainly hope that a result of de-centralisation will be greater competition and reduced costs. But, in fairness to the Commission, I must make it plain that the increases in a full year over which they have no control, steel, fuel and new wage awards, amount to some £32 million, and they had to take proper steps to meet this inevitable increase. The other point the hon. Gentleman made was that the Bill would still further prejudice the Commission. The only part of their activities which is being hived off, the road haulage section, is not at the moment making its proper contribution to their central charges.

May I ask—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we having a debate?

No.

May I ask one final question on these increases? As this application is to be made because the Commission find themselves faced with substantial increases in charges that arise following on the last Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the Minister represent to the Chancellor that if, when he is preparing his new Budget. he further tampers with the food subsidies, he will be the prime mover in any further fare increases which have to take place next year?

Order. We are getting far away from the Question.

I wish to raise a question of Privilege.

On 10th December my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the following question,

"whether he has considered the protests by defence counsel in important trials in Kenya against the lack of proper facilities for the defence; and what action he has taken thereon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 449.]

The Secretary of State for the Colonies replied—I am not going to read all of his reply but only part of it.

"Mr. Pritt had made only one protest about lack of facilities and had said that he was satisfied with the arrangements …"

In the course of supplementary questions and answers, the Secretary of State for the Colonies again referred to Mr. Pritt. He said:

"The views of the hon. Baronet are not shared by Mr. Pritt."

And finally:

"Mr. Pritt said he was satisfied with the arrangements which have been made as a result of his protest."

I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that my hon. Friend's Question dealt with the defence arrangements at Kapenguria covering the whole of the trial and concerned all the defence counsel, and that he did not introduce the name of Mr. Pritt. Mr. Pritt's name was introduced for the first time by the Secretary of State for the Colonies— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—I am sorry, I am speaking as loud as I can, but I have a cold.

On 4th December the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when questioned about the exclusion of counsel from Kenya, said:

"If it gives the hon. Gentleman the slightest satisfaction, I am willing to say here and now that I accept full responsibility …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1774.]

In view of the reply of the Secretary of State, I, in conjunction with my hon. Friends the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and Gravesend sent a telegram to Mr. Pritt, which I read last night and with which I do not wish to weary the House again. The telegram contained the words quoted from the Secretary of State's reply:

"Mr. Pritt had made only one protest about lack of facilities and had said that he was satisfied with the arrangements made as a result …"

That is a direct quotation from the Secretary of State. We then went on to add these two words, "Please confirm."

May I now turn to "The Times" of 17th December which contained a report of the proceedings at the trial, and is dated 16th December from Kapenguria. It starts off with these words:

"Mr. Thacker, the magistrate before whom Jomo Kenyatta and others are being tried, today adjourned the trial until December 30, on the ground that Mr. D. N. Pritt, Q.C., Defence Counsel, had used words that the magistrate regarded as contempt of court, in a cable sent to four M.P.s in England, and published in the Kenya Press."

It is clear that the report of that cable was published in the Kenya Press and a report of it appeared in the British Press last Saturday morning; that is to say, it was published before I received Mr. Pritt's cablegram. I think that it would be proper to read the whole of Mr. Pritt's cablegram. It was addressed to "Lee, Acland, Wigg or Benn." It said:

"Statement unfounded. Causing much amusement here. Am protesting continually firstly against inconvenience hearing in remote region where must send 280 miles to Nairobi to look up authorities on the frequently arising points of law or to get documents or witnesses and there are no facilities for research or study nearer than Nairobi and no means even of eating nearer than Kitale 24 miles; secondly against trial inclosed district virtually constituting exclusion public from court; thirdly against inexcusable exclusion some counsel from colony and of others from district of trial although accused have asked for them. All this makes proper preparation defence case almost impossible greatly increases expenses and wastes time. Amounts in all to denial of justice. Feel so strongly on this that undertaken to remain without further fee however many weeks case lasts. Only point whereon I have expressed satisfaction is that District Commissioner provided better facilities interviewing accused and secured for K.A.U. official whose services essential defence entry permit previously refused by Nairobi. My accommodation Kitale good. My colleagues accommodated by friendly private citizens under conditions making work difficult but they refuse to complain. Original application supreme court covered not only venue but also circumstances appointment magistrate and unsuitability summary procedure for long complex serious case …"

In order that the picture may be complete, would it not be better that the House should be reminded that Mr. Pritt also complained at one period that his letters were being opened and telephone calls tapped and that, on being informed that this was not the case, he then complained that his letters were not being opened and his telephone conversations were not being tapped?

Order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is making a submission on Privilege.

I am trying to confine myself in as moderate a fashion as I can to the facts as I know them, giving all the facts to the House and holding back nothing.

I think that the last part of the cablegram was lost in that interruption. What were the last words?

I will read the last part again:

"Original application supreme court covered not only venue but also circumstances appointment magistrate and unsuitability summary procedure for long complex serious case. Please publish all this. Pritt."

As I have said, these facts had been published in the Kenya Press. The published reports of Mr. Thacker's observations on the matter confined themselves to the fact that a cable had been sent to four Members of Parliament in England and published in the Kenya Press. The magistrate did not say that he was taking any measure or suggesting any measure against the Kenya Press. Therefore, it seems to me that the question of publication in Kenya did not arise. That point of view is borne out by the message that appeared on the tape yesterday evening and which I quoted to the House last night. I should like to read again the last sentence of that statement. It said:

"At Kapenguria on Tuesday Mr. Thacker the magistrate adjourned the hearing for 15 days on the ground that Mr. Pritt had used words in a cable to four British Labour M.P.s which the magistrate regarded as contempt of court."

That message on the tape was reporting the measures which were being taken in the Supreme Court yesterday. But in an endeavour to elicit the facts, the night before last we sent a reply-paid cablegram to the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Nairobi. It read:

"Since question of privilege may arise through any proceedings for contempt of court taken against Mr. Pritt Q.C., in that he has replied to a cable sent to him in the course of Parliamentary duties by the undersigned M.P.s we ask you inform us by cable at earliest convenience the text of any motion for contempt or other proceedings in relation to cablegram sent by Pritt to us at House of Commons. If we raise point of privilege we should naturally put before House any explanation of court proceedings which you care to offer."

So far—that is, up to the sitting of the House today—no reply to that message has been received.

Those are the facts of the case. My submission is that the issue before the House is the same as that which confronted the House in connection with the hearing under the Official Secrets Acts arising from a Question asked by the present Minister of Supply. The Report of the Commitee on that case says:

"Your Committee desire at the outset to emphasise the great importance of the questions referred to them, which directly affect not only Members of Parliament in the discharge of their duties, but which indirectly concern every individual citizen whose right it is in the last resort to have his grievances ventilated by speech and question on the Floor of the House of Commons. Their inquiry, therefore, though largely concerned with what are known as the privileges of Parliament. is, in fact, connected with questions of freedom of speech and the protection of the individual from pressure by the executive, which lie at the very roots of our democratic system."

It is my submission that the case on which I am asking your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, is clearer even than the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply. In his case he approached an officer in order to gather information which would subsequently be the basis of a question which he intended to put on the Order Paper. In this instance, the Question was on the Order Paper and it concerned the generality of the defence facilities at Kapenguria. Mr. Pritt's name was not mentioned by my hon. Friend. It was mentioned for the first time by the Secretary of State. We were trying to elicit information from the Secretary of State and to fasten on him responsibility, which he had previously accepted, for one of the points made by Mr. Pritt, namely, the exclusion of counsel from the Colony and the trial.

Therefore, in this case the proceedings in this House started with a Question, and we were subsequently required to go to Mr. Pritt as a result of an answer given by the Secretary of State. Mr. Pritt answered our question—which, I must again emphasise, ended with the words, "Please confirm"—in such a way as to criticise the Executive but not to criticise the judiciary. We are concerned here with the rights of Members of Parliament and the general public, not in their relation to the judiciary, but in their relation to the Executive.

For that reason, I submit that there is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege in that Mr. Pritt has been placed in jeopardy as a result of supplying information to myself and my hon. Friends.

Do I understand that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has received no reply from the Registrar?

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

So we do not know what has been happening. Can the Government tell me?

I think it might be for your convenience, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, if I were to state the result of certain inquiries I have made.

When this matter was brought to my attention yesterday evening, actually before the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised it in this House, I said that I thought it would be right and proper that information should be sought with regard to this statement that appeared on the tape yesterday. It bore the time 3.8 p.m., the date line "Nairobi, Thursday Afternoon," and the heading "Kenya Supreme Court Considered Alleged Contempt."

I thought it was right that inquiries should be made with regard to them, and the result of my inquiries is that there were no proceedings taken in the Supreme Court at all yesterday, and my information is that it is quite uncertain whether any proceedings will be taken in the Court. If they are taken, they will have to be taken by the Attorney-General, and not in any way by Mr. Thacker. All that has happened so far, and the only statement in this tape report that appears to be confirmed, is that a record of the proceedings in the Kapenguria court has been delivered to the Registrar of the Supreme Court. I thought that information might be of assistance to you, Sir, and the House.

I understand that no proceedings have actually been started against Mr. Pritt, and that it is not ascertained whether they will be.

I have no information as to whether any proceedings will be brought, but I can say that no proceedings have yet started.

Although proceedings may not have started against Mr. Pritt, nevertheless Mr. Pritt and the defence have now been placed by the magistrate under very considerable disabilities. The trial having been postponed on the grounds of an alleged contempt of court for 15 days, does that not constitute at any rate a most unusual punishment for an offence which has not been proved?

Is it not clear from what the learned Attorney-General has said that, although it may be the case that no actual proceedings have, in fact, been instituted, nevertheless, proceedings are quite clearly threatened? The presiding magistrate in the trial court has expressed at any rate a tentative view, and it is clear that the record has been sent to the Registrar of the Superior Court, so that proceedings may at least be considered. I would submit to you that, supposing you were of a mind to rule a prima facie case on the matter of my hon. Friend's complaint, it is not necessary for you to wait until proceedings have actually started, when there might be a conflict between the House and the courts; it is sufficient that proceedings are threatened.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to press the learned Attorney-General further on this point? His intervention, as I understand it, has been very unhelpful to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My hon. Friend raised, as he most properly should have done, the question of a message which appeared on the tape yesterday afternoon, and which we had sought to confirm 24 hours earlier by cable to Kenya. The learned Attorney-General comes to the House this morning with information which he himself had gathered and which seems at first to contradict what was on the tape. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has, as it were, destroyed in part our submission from the tape, he has not indicated the fact, which he must know, whether proceedings are being contemplated against Mr. Pritt. I therefore ask you to press him to give us a full account of what he knows.

I am not in a position to say what proceedings are being taken or contemplated by the Attorney-General of Kenya. I have no control over the Attorney-General of Kenya, and it would be entirely improper for me to interfere with what he is doing. I was asked to state the facts for the information of the House, and the fact that those facts are inconvenient for certain hon. Members of the House is not a matter for me.

As I see this submission on the point of Privilege, the effective point is that, on account of a statement made in a letter to hon. Members of this House, action has been taken by a judge with regard to a trial, which has been put off for a number of days with a view to possible action. I think the submission that I would make is that, at the present moment, the question of Privilege arises on this as to action having been taken owing to a letter written to Members of Parliament.

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made his complaint, and I have had the advantage of hearing contributions from other hon. Members on this matter. It is not my duty, and it never is the duty of Mr. Speaker, to say whether or not a breach of Privilege has been committed. That is a question, and must always be a question, for the House at large, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has mentioned a matter which I think is very relevant and should be borne in mind by the House. It is that, if the matter is pursued, we may be engaged in a conflict with the courts, and I think the House will agree with me that, before we take such a step, if it is necessary, we ought to proceed circumspectly and on very sure ground.

The facts, as put before me by the hon. Member for Dudley, arise out of a report on the tape which he read last night and has read again this morning, and it now appears, from the best information at our disposal, that no proceedings have, in fact, been taken against Mr. Pritt. The mere fact that the trial has been postponed for a question of the municipal law of Kenya to be decided does not, I think, come within the category of any action against Mr. Pritt. No action has been started against Mr. Pritt, it is not known whether any action will be taken against him, and we are not entitled to assume that any act will, in fact, be taken against Mr. Pritt.

As action against Mr. Pritt must form the basis of the hon. Member's complaint, in consideration of this matter of the question of principle, I do not think myself that a prima facie case is established, and that, therefore, the position rests thus. Until something is done which, in the opinion of the House, might be considered to be a breach of Privilege requiring examination, I think we cannot go further with the matter, but that, of course, does not in any way prejudice the right of the hon. Member for Dudley or of any other hon. Member of this House, should anything transpire in the course of this, as yet uncompleted, story, from raising the matter when we reassemble on the first day. That is my Ruling on the matter.

I did not know what the learned Attorney-General was going to say. I spoke in the light of the information which I had when the House met, but had I known that the learned Attorney-General was going to tell us that no proceedings had been started, I would have drawn your attention, Sir, to the statement made by the magistrate when the matter was considered at Kapenguria last Tuesday. Mr. Thacker, having adjourned the court for half an hour while he considered the whole issue, was reported, when he resumed the hearing, as follows:

"On his return, he said he appreciated that there would be inconvenience if the trial was adjourned, but that was not all that mattered in this important case. As he saw it, a high question of principle had developed. It would have to be settled before he could agree to go on with the trial."

The question of high principle here was the question of a submission of contempt of court by Mr. Pritt. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that action has, in fact, been begun.

No. I do not think that alters the matter. There is nothing which this House could properly do to prevent the consideration of a matter of domestic law by the courts of Kenya. That question arises when something is done against Mr. Pritt, and I must adhere to my Ruling that nothing so far has been done, and that we are not entitled to assume that anything will be done. For the House to proceed now with what might resolve itself, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne indicated, into a conflict with the courts, would, I think, be very unwise at the moment.

I have given that Ruling, and I have given the matter the best consideration in the time at my disposal. I have even read the case to which the hon. Member referred me and refreshed my memory, but that does not alter my mind. I drew attention to the fact that nothing will alter my Ruling, which is quite definite.

As this Christmas Adjournment is a dearly-prized opportunity for hon. Members raising certain matters, I hope the House will now consent to pass to the Motion for the Adjournment.

May I make one subsidiary point? It happens, perhaps a little unfortunately in the circumstances, that the House now adjourns and it might conceivably happen, though one hopes not, that before the House re-assembles something may happen which will tend to alter the attitude that you, Mr. Speaker, have so far expressed on an insufficiency of facts. Is there any way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will be able to get from you a Ruling as to whether such an event, should it occur, would amount to a prima facie breach of Privilege?

I am afraid not, but the hon. Member will realise that most complaints of breaches of Privilege happen after the offence has been committed and it is then for the House to decide what it will do.

I have one submission to make, Mr. Speaker. I recall very vividly the circumstances which led to the investigation by the Select Committee on Privileges into the alleged offence committed by the now Minister of Supply. In that case there was a possibility of an officer being punished for giving information to a Member of Parliament. In my submission, the question under consideration here is not merely whether proceedings will be taken against Mr. Pritt for alleged contempt of court.

My contention is that a person who has given evidence to four Members of Parliament, arising out of a debate in the House of Commons, arising again in its turn out of a statement by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, has already been punished, has already suffered disability and very considerable inconvenience.

In my respectful submission although it may be that no proceedings will be taken, at this very moment Mr. Pritt is suffering under physical disability because he has given evidence to the House of Commons. If that is not a breach of Privilege, are we to understand that, although a person may not be proceeded against in the courts, another citizen may punish a particular citizen because the latter has given evidence to Members of Parliament in the course of their duties as Members?

I have considered all that and I see no general principle involved. I must adhere to my Ruling.

I hope, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that no mistake is being made, because up to now—though this may not always be true—on the substantial point at issue out of which all these proceedings arise hon. Members on this side of the House, plus the tape, plus the newspaper reporters, have been shown to be right and the Government's information on this matter has been shown to be wrong—that is on the point of the protest being made. I hope that this matter again will not turn out to be another case in which we and the tape are correct and hon. Members opposite will be found to be wrong tomorrow morning, when it will be too late.

I do not think that that affects the matter.

May I ask one question, Mr. Speaker? Suppose my hon. Friends and myself receive a reply to the cable sent to Kapenguria before the House rises this afternoon; will it be, as I think it, in order to raise that matter as a matter of Privilege and to ask for your Ruling on the basis of the evidence of the Registrar?

If such a thing happens, perhaps the hon. Member will consult me again and I will do my best to help him.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

The matter which I wish to raise is concerned with the retired pay of officers.

Order. Hon. Members should pass from the Chamber quietly.

I wish to raise the question of officers' retired pay and widows' pensions. On Wednesday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence gave the House information resulting from the Government's consideration of widows' pensions. I was extremely gratified by that announcement. It marked a very considerable step forward. The abolition of the means test for officers' widows must be welcomed by all who have the interests of the Services at heart.

May I also declare an interest? I was a little surprised and pleased when I heard the Parliamentary Secretary announce that widows of other ranks would receive some benefit from his announcement. When I concerned myself in the first instance with these matters I never thought that my widow would derive any benefit, because I am in receipt of an N.C.O.'s pension which was revised upwards in 1946 as a result of my commissioned service and I thought therefore that I was outside the scope of any revision. But the announcement the Parliamentary Secretary made will bring my widow some advantage, but this gain will be shared by hon. Members opposite, so my advantage will be shared in all parts of the House. But, of course, I cannot rule out the possibility that, if the Government carry through a revision of retired pay, I may benefit and it is in accordance with the traditions of the House that I should declare my interest in the matter.

The story which I have to tell starts in September, 1919. I remember it very well indeed. I was serving as a private soldier and I remember the excitement which came to the barrack room when rates of pay of other ranks were increased. I was not then aware of how officers were affected, but Army Order No. 324 of 1919 increased officers' rates of pay, and increased their rates of retired pay. But in that Army Order there was this condition:

"The new rates shown in the following tables are granted in consideration of the present high cost of living, and the rates of pay, half pay and retired pay will be subject, after five years, to revision either upwards or downwards to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent. according as the cost of living rises or falls. After the 1st July, 1924 a further revision may take place every three years."

So in 1924 there was a revision, and so on every three years; subsequently the revision took place every six months.

That procedure continued until 1932 when, in an Army Order of that year, the Government announced that they proposed to consolidate retired pay. They did not introduce immediate consolidation. They announced the principle, and then for some months it varied until it reached a point 9½ per cent. below what it was when the rates were announced in 1919. Finally, by Army Order 182 of 1934, consolidation at 9½ per cent. was introduced as a permanent feature from 1st September, 1934.

It should be noted that the undertaking contained in the 1919 Army Order was made under the authority of no less a person than the present Prime Minister. He was then Secretary of State for War. He encouraged young men at the conclusion of their war service to take up the profession of arms as their career on the understanding that their pay and retired pay would be linked with the cost of living.

I must make it quite clear that the Prime Minister was not a Member of the Government when they departed from that principle. That departure was a thoroughly retrograde step and in its train has brought untold hardships and a great sense of injustice. I should have thought it was in the interests of the Government no less than it is in the interests of the Army that the sense of injustice, which lingers in the minds of all who are affected by the decision to consolidate in 1934, should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity.

I have here a considerable number of letters which have been sent to me as a result of supplementary questions which I put in the House. I shall not weary the House with them, for they all say much the same thing; they say, "We entered into an agreement with the Government of the day but when we had served 25, 29 or 30 years"—or whatever the case may be— "we thought we were going to get a certain sum. Instead, we find ourselves with less today than we got in 1919 or 1929"—or whenever they happened to retire.

If one examines the link with the cost of living on the formula contained in the 1919 Army Order, one finds this: that, taking the cost-of-living index as 100 in 1935, when the consolidation rates were introduced, the cost of living is today two-and-a-half times that figure. These are not my figures; I went to the statistician in the Library, whose services are kindly placed at our disposal, and I put the problem to him; and he tells me that, in terms of the purchasing power of the £, whereas the £ was worth 20s. in 1935, it is today worth 8s. That means that the cost of living today is two-and-a-half times the figure at the time of consolidation.

It does not mean that the rates of pension for these men should be two-and-a-half times as great. All I am asking is that the Government should put into operation the principle under which these officers began their service in 1919—in other words, give a tolerance of a 20 per cent. increase over and above the 1919 rates, which, in effect, would be a 29½ per cent. increase over present rates.

One can argue, as the Minister of Defence argued, that the economic conditions of the country are such that we cannot bear the cost of this increase. But the cost is not very great. In June of this year, in reply to my Question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence told me that it would cost £370,000 to bring the rates of all officers who retired before 1946 up to the 1946 figure. Again, the numbers are not great. Nevertheless, although the numbers are not great, the sense of injustice exists, and I submit that that could easily be remedied.

I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, so I shall confine myself to this plea. I am not asking for sympathy or for pity; I am not asking for anything in the spirit of Christmas; all I am asking for these officers is justice. The Government must recognise that this plea is on an all-party basis. No one on this side of the House seeks to make capital out of it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked together to reach the point of having this debate. We ask the Government to recognise that the 1919 principle was sound, that it worked well up to 1935, and that it was a thoroughly bad and unjust step to break the link between the retired pay and the cost of living.

Nor do I ask the Government to make an announcement today. I merely ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go back and consult the Prime Minister, who was the author of the original Army Order, and the Minister of Defence, and at least to give us today an undertaking that he will give very serious consideration to the points which we have made. As I have said, I make my plea on the ground of justice for the retired officers.

But may I say a word about the Army in general? I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary—and I know what I am talking about here—that nothing angers the ex-Service man—ex-Service officer as well as ex-Service ranker—who has served for a very long time, more than to see concessions given to the chap who has perhaps not yet entered the Army when there is denied even an element or feeling of justice towards the man who has completed his career. The principle of jam tomorrow is thoroughly bad—and I am not making that point because there happens to be a Conservative Government at present. The pages of Hansard since I have been a Member of this House contain many examples of the way in which I have "had a go" at my right hon. and hon. Friends—if I may use that colloquialism—because they have adopted the principle of giving something for the future and forgetting the man who has served.

I happen to be one of the victims. If I told the House what my pension was, I am sure they would get a shock. But I make no complaint about that. My grandfather got 10d. a day for his 25 years service—and he did not live long to enjoy that. At least I am better off than that, and my nephew and stepfather may perhaps get something out of this concession. I make no complaint on behalf of my own generation, but I say that the Government cannot go on taking for granted the goodwill of the ex-officer, the ex-warrant officer and the ex-N.C.O. They must give them a square deal, and the military families of this country—and this applies not only to officers but to other ranks—feel that their goodwill has been pretty heavily taxed during the last 30 years.

I therefore end by appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some hope that this matter will receive further consideration. If he will do that, I am quite sure that both his hon. Friends and my hon. Friends will be entirely satisfied.

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made a very reasonable case with great moderation and fairness, and he has illustrated, too, that this is entirely a nonparty matter. If that needed reinforcement, it is abundantly reinforced by the fact that there is on the Order Paper a Motion standing in my name and the names of more than 200 hon. Members in all parts of the House—a Motion signed quite irrespective of party by hon. Members in every part of the House—calling for an increase in officers' retired pay.

The hon. Member for Dudley quite rightly founded his case on the Army Order of 1919. It is essential that it should be understood that the original principle was that there should be a sliding scale in relation to the retired pay of officers; and the principle was that, as the cost of living rose or fell, the retired pay should be adjusted to the cost of living figure. That principle was designed especially to meet such a situation as has arisen today. We have a rising cost of living and, just at the moment when the original machinery should come into operation to meet that cost of living, the principle having been removed, the purpose which it was intended to serve cannot now be achieved.

I do not want to take up a great deal of time, because the time allotted to this debate has already been considerably reduced, and I shall therefore omit a great deal of what otherwise I would have said. It is, however, important to bear in mind two principles—and the first is that the retired pay should be adjusted to the cost of living; and secondly retrospection. Here I want to deal with an answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence on 19th November, when we raised the matter at Question Time. He said:

"… the policy consistently followed by successive Governments in refusing to apply retrospectively improvements in the codes of retired pay and pensions for the Forces cannot be varied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1862.]

I am sure that whoever put that into the mouth of the hon. Gentleman did not intend to be misleading, but it is quite untrue to say that the policy of retrospection has been consistently applied in this matter.

That is not the case, and I can give the simplest example. The actual rates which are in operation today were announced in this House on 30th July, 1951, by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who was then Minister of Defence. He made an announcement about new rates which came into operation and he said there and then that those rates were retrospective as from 1st September, 1950. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall what took place at that time and that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) then rose in his place and said, "Why 1st September, 1950? Why not go further back?" The right hon. Gentleman, in effect, said in reply, "I cannot go further back than that." No doubt he had been told by the Treasury that that was as far as he could go.

But it is rubbish to say that there has been no retrospection in this matter. There has been an enormous amount of retrospection. Increases have been made from time to time following the principles which have been adopted in the Pensions (Increase) Acts. In 1944, 1947 and again this year there have been Pensions (Increase) Acts. These pension increases do not apply to the Armed Forces but to a number of servants of central and local government; but the practice has been for a Royal Warrant to follow the principle of these increases. In effect, what is done—subject to a means test and certain conditions as to age and so forth—is to give some increase, and every one of those increases has been retrospective.

They have, however, been subject to the various income levels, and the general effect is that owing to the amount at which the maximum permitted income was fixed these increases hardly touched any of the retired officers. That is where this problem arises. It is only the retired captain, if he is single, or some retired majors, if married, who have benefited at all from Royal Warrants which have followed the principle of the Pensions (Increase) Acts.

It means that all those officers—and many of them are the best regimental officers—who have risen to lieut.-colonels and above have not received any increase. I refer to those Warrants which have followed the Pensions (Increase) Acts only to show that they have been retrospective and that it is quite ridiculous to attempt to maintain the argument that there can be no retrospection in this matter.

I want to deal with what may be a perfectly legitimate comment in this matter. It may be said that if we make out the case for the retired officers it is going to cost the Treasury a great sum because it will be followed by a demand in relation to other ranks. I am certainly in great sympathy with any increase which could be obtained for other ranks, but there is a complete distinction between the two cases.

There is no doubt whatever that the case for the officers stands unique. It is in a category by itself at present, in that because of the reasons to which I have referred the Warrants which have followed the principle of the Pensions (Increase) Acts have already granted several increases to the other ranks. I agree that they are not enough, but the other ranks have certainly had some increases. The officer is the only person who not only has had no increase but has, as the hon. Member for Dudley has pointed out, been frozen at 9½ per cent. below the original rate.

I doubt whether one could find any other class of people who have to exist on an income which is 9½ per cent, below the 1919 level. That is what puts the officers in a special category of their own and that is what justifies us pressing their case in distinction to any others. I should be quite prepared to argue the case for the other ranks on its own merits on another occasion; but that is a different case.

And this would cost only £370,000.

It would cost £370,000 at 1946 rates, though I understand that it would cost a good deal more to bring the pensions up to the rates which became operative at 1st September, 1950, and which were introduced by the right hon. Member for Easington. But, even so, the maximum cost is £2 million, and I would say that even in these difficult times it is not really asking too much to devote £2 million to those men who have served this country and who deserve so well of it.

It is not a question of expenditure which is going to increase from year to year. The amount involved must be a diminishing one every year. The most hard-hit of these people are the older ones who are unable to earn a living by any other means, men of 65, 70 and over who cannot supplement their incomes by other earnings. They have only a few years left to them and it will not be for long that they will remain a charge on the Treasury.

The Parliamentary Secretary, no doubt on the instructions of the Treasury, has sought from time to time to put up a defence to this claim on the grounds that once this door is opened there will be a whole flood of claims from other directions. That is a classic Treasury argument when any claim is made upon them. The Treasury are in perpetual fear of opening any door for fear of the bogeys which they may find behind it when they do; but there is no substance in that defence in this case, because there are no comparable claims. This claim stands by itself.

At one time it was said that once this was accepted there would be floods of claims from all the civil servants, and that even the retired postmen would have their claims. But that is not true. All those claims have been met by the Pensions (Increase) Acts, but this claim remains by itself. There is only one case which could possibly be considered as comparable to that of the retired officer of the category with which we are dealing and that is the higher grade civil servant. But there is a very considerable distinction between his position and that of the retired officer.

First, the civil servant does not have to retire until he is 60. Many Service officers have to retire at an earlier age than that—at 48 or 50—very often at an age when their children are still of school age and are a most expensive burden upon them. But the civil servant does not have to retire until he is 60, by which time he has that heavy expenditure behind him.

Secondly, the civil servant's pension is adjusted according to the last three years of his service, and by the time he is 60 he has reached the higher grades and receives an amount which is considerably higher than the average retired pay of the men we are talking about. Although it is possible to say in principle that if we increase the retired pay of the officer we must also increase the pension of the retired civil servant, the fact is that the civil servant has not the same problems and he is already on a higher level of pension. Therefore it is again perfectly easy to distinguish this case from any other existing case.

I am going to leave out much of what I should otherwise have said, but I have found that this matter is of particular interest to my constituents. Many retired officers live in my constituency and are finding life very hard. Since I first took an interest in this matter I have been overwhelmed with letters from similarly placed officers all over the country. In addition, I am glad to say that many of us have had the help of the Officers' Pension Society in getting material together and in keeping informed on these matters. I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has the courage to go to the Treasury and say, "This is a class of people which stands by itself for your consideration, and we put forward their case so that you may do justice to people who have served their country well."

Hon. Members in all parts of the House are grateful for what my hon. Friend has achieved so far with regard to widows' pensions. That was a step forward, and we are very grateful for what has been done in that direction, but it is only half the case. This matter has always resolved itself into two parts, one the question of retired pay, and the other the question of the widows. My hon. Friend announced some time ago that he would do something for the widows, and, therefore, I did not include them in the Motion on the Order Paper, but confined it to retired officers. It is important to note that the 200 odd signatures to that Motion are limited to the question of retired pay.

As I say, my hon. Friend has done well for the widows, and I think we must try to support him in doing still better in the battle which I have no doubt he will have to fight some time or other with the Treasury. I am certain that he himself is in sympathy with this matter, and I have no doubt that if it rested with him alone this increase would be granted. But, as one knows, there is always the Treasury to be fought in these matters.

I hope my hon. Friend will proceed in the matter fortified by his knowledge of the feeling that exists throughout the country on this point. I am sure he knows that he has the full support of hon. Members on both side of the House in approaching the Treasury on the subject, and in ensuring that justice is given to the people concerned who we all agree are really deserving of the best we can do for them.

intend to be very brief because I realise that we are running well behind time. I want, first of all, to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that we are thankful for small concessions, and that all who speak this morning are grateful that, as a result of the representations made by the all-party deputation to the Ministry, he has recognised the merits of the case put forward on behalf of widows' pensions and has done much to improve the position of widows and to remove many of the anomalies which formerly existed. This is in line with a tradition established after the war, since when so many improvements have been made in pensions generally, and so many anomalies have been removed, particularly in the Ministry of Pensions itself.

I merely wish to make two points. We are concerned this morning with the question of the retired pay of officers, because this is a section of the community that has been left out of all previous improvements. We are naturally concerned with all ranks and all types of pensioners, and with all people in retirement. But it is quite clear, as the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) pointed out, that the other ranks have had a series of increases in pensions, and that many other improvements have been introduced for other types of people in retirement.

Not only have the people for whom we are speaking this morning had no improvement in their position since the end of the Second World War, but they were in a worsened position even in the '30s. That is why we are pressing their case. The second thing is a very important principle. We are concerned with the fact that whenever the Treasury considers these matters, cuts or reductions are always made retrospective whereas increases and improvements are always made prospective, and that is what has happened in the matter of the retired pay of officers.

When the cost of living went down between the wars, the Government of the day were enthusiastic enough to consolidate retired pay at a reduced rate, but when, at the end of the last war, it was decided to raise the pay of officers, it was done only for those who qualified in 1950. Therefore, these people are left in a wholly unjust and anomalous position.

Regarding the cost, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) mentioned the figure of £375,000 as being the amount involved. I think all hon. Members will admit that that is a very small sum. I feel that we must be concerned this morning to do full justice to this section of the community and must appreciate that if this case is to be properly met, these retired officers should be brought up to the 1950 rates. That would only involve an amount equal to what we are spending every 12 hours on the defence budget. When we consider that sum in relation to the general budget, we see how very small it is.

The hon. and learned Member for Hove pointed out that to do justice to this section of the community would not necessitate an increasing sum of money being spent. All hon. Members who have been concerned with this matter must have received considerable correspondence from all over the country on the question. One of the important factors here is that there is no heavy pressure group which can put forward this case on behalf of the people concerned. We are much obliged to the societies that exist for the purpose of representing the interests of this section of the community, but they do not amount to a powerful body when it comes to exercising pressure on the Treasury.

I am sure that all hon. Members who participated in the all-party deputation have received many letters on the subject. I will read to the House an extract from a letter I have received from a distinguished naval officer. He puts the case in a nutshell, and much better than I could ever hope to do. In the letter he says:

"I am an ex-officer myself, drawing a pension after 42 years of service, including 10 years of war, but it is not because of this that I write, but because of others—my brother officers—who are similarly situated, living on their old scale pension with more commitments than I have, and struggling to meet them with a reduced purchasing power of money. There are two points in this matter on which the public are not fully aware. The first is that, taken generally, officers who retired on pension before 1950 bore the full brunt of active service in two world wars, which does not apply so much to those who retired after 1950. Their share of responsibility in war was infinitely more, and their personal risks much greater; they, certainly in World War I, bore the full heat and burden of the day to a degree much more than those who came later. The second point is that those retired before 1950, because of advancing years, are still more at a disadvantage when they try to augment their pension, as I know from many personal experiences …"

He concludes by saying:

"We have no means of putting forward our case to an unsympathetic and cold-blooded Treasury, except through public-spirited men like yourself who have the courage to speak up for us in the House of Commons."

When one receives letters like that, one feels a weight of responsibility in pressing the matter upon this "cold-blooded Treasury" or through the Ministry of Defence in an endeavour to obtain justice to a section of people who, as I have said, have no great weight among the voting public or any powerful pressure group to come to their aid.

That letter was written by a man who was a former President of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, the holder of the V.C. and the D.S.O., and who has rendered very distinguished service to his country. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate this morning that he is prepared to do for these men what the Government have done for the widows.

I should like to join in thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for the concession he has been able to give to the widows. He is certainly deserving of their thanks. I have already received many letters from widows saying how much they appreciate it. I think that this may be an opportune moment to pay tribute to Lord Jeffreys for the hard work he has done since 1945, and when he was a Member of this House before going to another place, to improve the lot of these widows.

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in his very cogent speech, dealt very fully with the terms of the 1919 Warrant, but there are some other considerations that ought to be before the House concerning the terms of the Service Orders which were published at that time—1919. I should like to draw the attention of the House to Admiralty Fleet Order No. 2483 of 1919, which, compared with some Service Orders, was commendably brief and commendably plain. It says as follows:

"It has been decided that 20 per cent. of the new rates of retired pay for officers shall be considered as due to the present high cost of living, and shall be subject after five years to change, either upwards or downwards, according as the cost of living rises or falls. The revision thereafter to take place every three years up or down on the basis of the Board of Trade Prices."

The Army Order of a similar kind, No. 324 of 1919, although it did not put it quite so strongly, said this:

"These rates will be subject after five years to revision upwards or downwards to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent. according as the cost of living rises or falls."

The Air Ministry Order No. 1003 of 1919 covered similar ground, and was almost identical except for the opening words:

"In the light of the high cost of living …"

I mention these three Orders because they make abundantly clear to these Service officers, even if they did not study the Warrant, what the intention of the Orders was.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) referred to the numerous letters he had received. I have, of course, received a great number, too. I shall not weary the House by reading them, but I should like to refer to just two typical cases mentioned by the writers because that will help the Parliamentary Secretary to give the concession on the lines we are suggesting.

Here is a letter from a man who served 20 years in the Royal Air Force, 10 years in the ranks and 10 years as an officer. Here is a man who is obviously a go-ahead type, starting in the ranks and getting a commission—a type we want to encourage. He retired in 1945 just under 60. His pension on the present scale, the 1919 scale as stabilised, amounts to £119 9s. 2d. That is not a very great reward for a man who has given 20 years to his country.

Here is one other example of a higher grade pension, so that it cannot be said that I have been quoting only the lower examples. This is the example of a lieutenant-colonel who had 39 years' service. He commanded his regiment abroad for a very considerable period, and retired in 1939. Then he rejoined and saw service in the Royal Air Force on a home station. Unfortunately, he had to commute part of his pension to provide himself with furniture and the like when he retired in 1939. He is now seeking to maintain himself, his wife, and his three sons, of whom two already have commissions and the third is going shortly to Sandhurst, on a pension of £534 15s. a year. I have quoted this, one of the top grades, because I do not think it can be seriously said by anyone that a pension of £534 for a man who has given 39 years' service to his country is a proper reward.

There is another point. Let us suppose for a minute what would be the position of a man who entered the service of a big firm, a private firm or anything else, and took on an executive position on the basis that they were going to pay him a non-contributory pension, and that then they deliberately broke their contract, as was done by the Government in 1935? The firm, in my humble judgment, would be liable to a civil action. I am not suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that I am going to rush off and issue writs against him, because this does not apply in the case of a soldier, but if we had in civilian life a parallel case with that of these soldiers there would be a right of action. I think that that is a very important consideration relevant to this matter.

I want to be as constructive as I can, and, therefore, I have two or three suggestions to offer to the Parliamentary Secretary in order to solve the problem. It is clear that what we want first is to bring the pre-September, 1950, pension up to the 1952 level. That is the only fair and reasonable step. If my hon. Friend finds he cannot do that at the present time I would suggest that there is one other possible solution. It would not be so good; it would not produce so high an increase in pension; but, at least, it would put the pension back on the basis of the original contract.

I do not see why they should not abolish the 1935 Royal Warrant Order and simply give these retired officers whose pensions are 9½ per cent. below the 1919 rate a cost of living increase, to give them back the 20 per cent. revision on the cost of living basis. I have not the figures that my hon. Friend has or could obtain, but I calculate that that would cost the Treasury less than increasing the pension up to the 1952 values. It is not a satisfactory, but it is a possible, solution.

Another possible solution, which again would not be so good, but would assist officers who are living in great trouble through old age, is this. Would it not be possible, if the other suggestions cannot be adopted, to say that, where an officer attains the age of 60, he should be paid the 1952 level of pension? That would mean that quite a number of officers would not get the concession, but it would mean that those who are at a very difficult age, and who cannot get employment, would be given assistance.

We hope we are going to get some concession, and I also hope that this debate will not be regarded as one of those that are sometimes called "blowing off steam" debates, because I can assure my hon. Friend that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly on this point, and propose to take any legitimate Parliamentary action we can, if my hon. Friend is not able to give us the concession today or to promise that something will be done.

I shall be unusually brief because, in my submission, the case that has been made out is unanswerable. I will content myself with quoting one instance, because it is a case with which I am personally acquainted. It is that of an officer who was camp commandant at the first headquarters to which I was posted with a commission. Here is a man who was a ranker officer who had served for 25 years in the Regular Army, and who was finally discharged with the rank of W.O. Class I in April, 1937.

When he retired in April, 1937, he had a Service pension of £2 5s. 6d. a week. This excellent fellow immediately joined the Territorial Army, and when the Second World War broke out he was embodied in the Service, with others of us who were in the Territorial Army before the last war. He served in a commissioned rank from 1939 to 1948, and in that way put in another nine years' service as an officer on top of the 25 years' service he had done in the ranks. As a result of this additional nine years of officer service in the second war, his original Service pension of £2 5s. 6d. was brought up to £4 10s. ld. After 34 years on the active list, including two world wars from start to finish, with nine years as an officer in the Second World War, he now has to live and maintain his wife on £4 10s. Id. a week.

He left the Service with the rank of major, and earned a decoration. I would also add that he carried out the whole of his officer service under a disability, because he had lost a leg towards the end of his other rank service. There is no disability element in the Service pension to which he is entitled because, unfortunately, this is one of the cases in which it was not possible to prove that the loss of the leg was due to or aggravated by his military service.

He is now 56. It is difficult enough to find work at that age, with only the experience of the professional soldier behind him, and more so with only one leg. Several years ago he developed angina pectoris. His wife and himself have to live on this miserable amount of £4 10s. ld. a week. What savings they have are nearly exhausted. What can a man serving the ranks for 25 years, with this additional service in the last war, with frequent changes of duty stations, separation from his wife, and that sort of thing, possibly save in that time?

The officers on behalf of whom both sides of the House are appealing are people who, for the most part, served during two world wars, unlike the post-1950 officers who are in a much better pension position. It would cost £2.1 million to give this concession. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not adopt the rôle of defender of the Government against the legitimate request that is being made to him, and that as a result of this all too brief discussion we are having today he will be able to announce that some concession will be made.

I have to make the customary declaration as to interest in this. I am one of the officers to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) referred, having served during both world wars, practically the whole of the first and the whole of the second. I retired from active service in November, 1946, so I am one of those under the new code of 1946 (Cmd. 6750), which is applicable to those who retired after 19th December, 1945. Having declared those interests, I shall be as brief as possible.

The three Questions that were asked and replied to in this House by the Parliamentary Secretary on 19th November were, to my mind, most important, and the reply was most unfortunate. To use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling), it was just a plain, blank negative. The effect on the feelings of those to whom the Questions referred, the ex-officers who had retired after many, many years of faithful service, was indeed unfortunate. Through that answer, they felt that the Government were entirely unsympathetic, and that their case was not well understood. I hope those two criticisms will be taken note of in the reply that is made today.

The Government rest their case for refusal on two so-called principles. The first principle is that no code can be retrospective. That has already been shown by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) to be entirely false. Practically all the codes are retrospective. Certainly the 9½ per cent. cut below the 1919 level in 1935 was nothing but retrospective. That principle, therefore, does not hold water.

The other principle on which the Government rest is that if something is done for one it must be done for others; that if an increase in pension is given to officers a similar increase will immediately have to be given to retired civil servants. There again, I maintain that for many reasons, on which I could elaborate at length, that principle is entirely false. For example, does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the mode of life of officers on the active list in any Service is entirely different from that of a civil servant who works in his office and has his little house nearby to which he can return every evening? I have no doubt he does realise that, because he has been on service himself.

Again, does he realise that the average retiring age of a civil servant is between 60 to 65, whereas for a major or lieutenant-colonel retiring after perhaps 25 years' service the average retiring age was 40 or 45 to 50? In other words, a civil servant has the advantage of about 15 years more service on full pay than the ex-officer. Not only does he have that advantage, but he has a considerable accumulation of prospects when he retires. He has a little house and his furniture, his children are educated—everything he has been working for. Whereas an officer who has been kicking around the globe has nothing and no prospects of getting a job—unless he becomes a Member of Parliament, as I did. It is obvious that the two cases, that of a civil servant and that of an officer retiring, are by no means parallel.

I do not wish to keep the House for more than another minute because so many others wish to speak, but I would say this, in conclusion. These old officers do not expect the Government and a grateful country to give them charity. They do not ask for charity. They do not ask for anything the country cannot afford, to use the words of the Minister of Defence on 19th November in another place, "in the present economic and financial position." We do not ask the country to overstrain itself on our behalf, but we do ask for justice, and for my part, whatever the cost and whatever the inconvenience to the Government, I shall not rest until we get a satisfactory answer.

We have had a very interesting debate on a subject which, very naturally, raises the strongest feelings. I am glad that a general welcome has been given to the scheme for Service widows and children which we were able to announce this week. It is a matter of general gratification, I think, that, in certain unfortunate circumstances, the wife of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) might benefit. It is good that we have been able to get rid of many old-fashioned restrictive conditions, and that we have been able to extend the scheme to the widows of long-service other ranks. We have also been able to give slightly better benefits.

Pensioners never get all they want; and they certainly never get all we should like to give them. In this case they have got something more. It is fair to point out that the basic rates and conditions for widows' pensions had been unchanged for over 100 years. Therefore, the position of the ordinary Service widow's pension was different from that of any other class of pensioner. I only wish that I could today give equally good news about the pensions of officers who retired before 1st September, 1950. If the House will bear with me for a minute or two, I think that it is worth while looking at the history of this matter.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the cost of the widows' pensions?

In the first year, the cost will be approximately £600,000 more than the cost of the existing scheme.

I was about to turn to the history of this matter, because it has ben raised by many hon. Members. After the First World War, retired pay rates were fixed in 1919. During the First World War, there was a very steep rise in prices, and it was held at the time that the pension code was worked out so that 20 per cent. of the retired pay rates was to be attributed to the increased cost of living at the time they were granted. This element of 20 per cent. was to be subject to periodical revision, both upwards and downwards.

In fact, as the House knows, owing to the very sharp fall in the cost of living after the First World War, all the subsequent changes were made downwards. In this debate, and during many debates of the last 17 years, this question has come up again and again—the question of the so-called 9½ per cent. cut—because when pensions were stabilised in 1935, they were stabilised at a rate of 9½ per cent. below the basic rate announced in 1919.

It has been held that the stabilisation in 1935 was not consistent with the Warrant, and was a piece of sharp practice on the part of the Government of the day. It has been persistently maintained by Governments of all complexions ever since that, in fact, there was no breach of the letter of the Warrant of 1919. I myself believe that was true. If we are to hold that there was a breach in the letter of the Warrant, we have to maintain that the word "may" has the same meaning as the word "will," and I do not think that any one can do that. The hon. Member for Dudley may be killed by lightning, but that is not the same thing as saying that he will be killed by lightning. I do not think the letter of the pledge was broken.

Nor, at the time it was made, was the settlement really a shabby one. When the 1919 Warrant was issued, the cost of living was 107½ per cent. above what it was in 1914. There was then a big fall. At the time of the 1935 stabilisation, the cost of living was only 40 per cent. above the 1914 level—a substantial fall—whereas in actual fact the pensions were stabilised to correspond to a cost of living index of 55 per cent. above 1914, and not 40 per cent.

To say that when the 1935 stabilisation became effective it was foreseen that there would be a long, costly war; to say that it was foreseen that that long and costly war would be followed by six years of Socialist Government; and to say that it was also foreseen that during that period a vast re-armament programme would be put into force—to say all these things could have been foreseen at that time, is, I think, ascribing to the Treasury more prescience and more wisdom than that institution would really be entitled to lay claim. In fact, the cost of living did not rise appreciably until the war started.

I think that it is wrong to say that the 1935 stabilisation did involve a breach of faith, and that it is also wrong to say that, at the time it was effected, it was a shabby one. It is also fair to remember that at the time it was effected, the climate of opinion, both of officers in the Army and officers in the Civil Service, was in favour of stabilisation. They were sick of having reductions, and they wanted stabilisation. After that stabilisation, there were various minor adjustments, but there was no general revision of the retired pay code until 1950.

Has my hon. Friend the figure for the cost of living in 1935 as compared with today?

No.

The figures I have show that if 1914 was 100. 1935 was 143 and 1952 was 235.

I am not contesting my hon. and gallant Friend's figures. What I was discussing was whether this was unfair at the time it was made. I am coming to the subsequent history.

I was saying that there was no new pensions code until 1945. The object of the 1945 code was to put all the three Services on the same basis. We always tend to talk in terms of the Army, but we put Navy, Army and Air Force officers on the same basis, and this code, generally called the 1945 code, laid down that there were to be no automatic rises or falls in pensions as the result of changes in the cost of living. That was specifically stated in paragraph 69 of Cmd. Paper No. 6750.

Very many officers retired between the wars and were not entitled to the 1945 new code—which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto) rightly says, applied to those who were still in the Services or who joined after December, 1945—but it is relevant to remember that a large number of these officers did serve in the Second World War and had their pensions re-assessed as the result of that further service.

May I say one word on the question of retrospection? I think that is a point about which there is some confusion. Both in the 1945 code and the 1950 code, a date was laid down after which an officer had to serve in order to get the new rates. In bringing in a new code, there has to be an effective date of some sort. None of these codes have ever been brought in with unlimited retrospection and, therefore, to say that the principle of retrospection was departed from in either of these codes is not really valid. In 1950 there was a fresh review of pay and pensions.

Matters affecting merits, conditions and means tests applied in the Pensions (Increase) Acts have been retrospective in every instance.

I am coming to the Pensions (Increase) Acts. I was saying of pensions codes that there always has been a definite date. When the 1950 code came in—and I should like to emphasise this—it was laid down in paragraph 2 of Cmd. Paper No. 8323 that its object was to look to the future. I know that hon. Members have objected to that. It was laid down that its object was to stimulate Regular recruitment and to induce those on Regular engagements to stay on for a long Service career. So much for the code.

As my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, there have since that date been a number of Pensions (Increase) Acts, which have been extended to the Services by the appropriate Prerogative Instruments. There have been Pensions (Increase) Acts in 1944, 1947 and 1952. The 1944 and 1947 Acts provided not only for hardship increases, which were subject to an upper income limit, but they also provided certain automatic increases.

The automatic increases provided by the 1944 Act were of between 10 and 5 per cent. for persons receiving up to £600 a year, while under the 1947 scheme increases were allowed for pensions of up to £787 10s. a year. These increases, incidentally, did not apply to those who were on the 1945 code, because their rates were higher than both the 1919 rates and the 1935 rates.

The last Pensions (Increase) Act was in 1952. When the present Government introduced it, they made it clear that in their view the economic condition of the country made it impossible to extend pensions except in the cases of severe hardship. It is true to say that the 1944 automatic increases, as amended by the 1947 increases, substantially restored the 9½ per cent. reduction to the great majority of cases—in fact, to all except those drawing the higher rates of pension. The number of officers who retired before the last war and were not re-employed during it, who have had no increases during or since the war, amount to fewer than 400, and these are officers in the senior ranks drawing the higher rates of retired pay.

It is often said that Service pensioners have come off very much worse than Civil Service pensioners and that the 9½ per cent. cut was not applied to Civil Service pensioners. That is not true. The stabilisation of Service pensions followed a similar stabilisation for Civil Service pensions which resulted from the Tomlin Report.

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the stabilisation applied to all civil servants? My information is that it applied only to certain civil servants in the higher grades.

I am not saying that it applied to all of them. What I was pointing out was that the stabilisation followed the Civil Service stabilisation.

That is exactly the point about which I pressed my hon. Friend. I said that the only comparable case was that of higher grade civil servants.

What I am saying is that the stabilisation of officers' pensions followed similar stabilisation in the Civil Service.

Only in certain cases.

There is one other point with which I should like to deal. There has, very naturally, been a good deal of talk about older officers. Although the point has not been made today, it is often said to be very unfair that people cannot get any of these pensions increases unless they are either 60 years of age or disabled. One must recognise that it is very hard, but it is fair to point out that, particularly in the case of the lower ranks, Service pensions contain a substantial element of compensation for the early termination of a career. An officer, of course, draws his pension for a good deal longer than a civil servant.

He does not want to.

He does, in fact, do so. I also recognise the extraordinary difficulty of officers in getting jobs, although a great many do obtain them. It would be a pity if we were to say that a man's earning life had ended when he retired before the age of 50.

I fully admit that these retired officers are in great difficulty. The basic reason is that we have had years of inflation and rising prices, starting in the war and continuing since. The trouble about inflation is that its effects are so capricious. It generally harms the sheep and only too often positively benefits the goats. The people who have been most harmed by inflation are pensioners of all sorts, including Service pensioners, Civil Service pensioners, people living on private pensions or annuities, or on the income of money they have saved and put into Government securities, and people living on fixed stipends or emoluments like members of the Church.

All these people have suffered very much, but it is hardly possible for a Government to put all of them back in the position they were in before. All these cases cannot be dealt with by Government and it is, perhaps, invidious to single out particular cases and to deal with them. The best thing that a Government can do is to stop the inflation continuing, and that is what we are bending all our energies to achieve. I hope that we will have the help of Members on both sides of the House in the things we are trying to do.

As already announced in the House, to bring all officers up to the 1950 scale would cost £2,100,000. If I understood the hon. Member for Dudley aright, his scheme would cost more than that. The figure of £370,000 which he quoted covered a narrower range of cases. The difficulty of the Government is not only that all increased expenditure adds to the dangers of renewed inflation, but that one concession definitely leads to another. Nothing would be more likely to prejudice still further the conditions of these people than a further large increase in Government expenditure.

I am, therefore, very sorry indeed to say that I cannot hold out any very substantial hopes that the Government will be able to do anything towards satisfying the claims which have been advanced during this debate—

Monstrous.

—on behalf of retired officers of the Services. But I fully admit that the case which has been put today is a weighty one, and I can promise that it will be carefully considered by Ministers.

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory answer, I give notice that I will raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity.

The power and attraction of the House is certainly the enormous range of subjects which it covers. We have already had this morning a matter of procedure covering the conduct of a trial in Equatorial Africa and a discussion ranging over a very deeply felt grievance affecting a great number of families, a discussion which certainly could by itself have continued for the whole of this Sitting. But this is the only opportunity that we have for raising many matters of interest and importance which otherwise would go unchallenged, and for a very few minutes this morning I should like to raise a subject of very great importance from the scientific point of view which would be likely otherwise to go by default.

There is not very far from Edinburgh a natural feature of the very greatest interest to the geologists of the whole world. In fact, they have on more than one occasion drawn attention to its importance. It is of especial interest to the geologists of our own country, all the more so since it affects more particularly the geology of the coal measures which are of such vital importance to the whole industrial future of the country. It has, of course, the additional advantage, this particular natural feature, of being extremely beautiful and situated at no great distance from one of our largest cities in Scotland.

This series of events began some 300 million years ago and to deal with that in a half hour means a very swift travelling time machine. The geological romance of the laying down of the coal measures, the successive forest growth, subsidence under the sea, and the laying down of the successive strata of the coal measures, continued in that area until strata of 3,500 feet were laid down—as high as Table Mountain. If one imagines an aeroplane 3,500 feet in the air, and a series of forests and mud deposition going on for millions and millions of years in succession, until the level was built up to the landing wheels of the aeroplane, one has some idea of the enormously long geological process which went on to lay down these strata at this point.

This cliff by a fortunate geological accident, has been tilted on its side so that the whole 3,500 feet of strata are not towering in the air but laid down where They can be walked across in a few minutes. This series of strata was later covered over with soil in the Ice Age, and then very thoughtfully gouged out by a little stream in the recent millennia since that time, until the whole series of strata lies exposed for the use of those interested in the geology of the coal measures and, in addition, a very beautiful little wooded glen has been created.

One would say, "Here is a thing we are very fortunate to have, and what is more, it has escaped all the risks and troubles of the Industrial Revolution. We have now safeguarded it by bringing great public bodies into existence such as the National Coal Board, and by covering it with a network of Acts passed by this House so that planning permission has to be sought for any interference with it. Now at least these things are safe."

It is almost incredible that, after surviving the worst horrors of the 19th Century, the best we could find to do with this in the 20th Century is to use it as an ash-heap. On this beautiful feature now, in this year, the axemen are at work cutting down trees and people are beginning to cover up the burn with spoil. A whole undertaking is being begun to bury this unique feature under five million to 10 million tons of spoil and waste—and, of all things, waste from a colliery.

One would have thought that if there were one body which would desire above all to preserve this section of the geological coal-bearing strata, it would have been the body interested in winning coal, yet this is the body which is about to destroy it. If there were one body above all which would have been anxious to preserve a beautiful natural feature of the County of Midlothian—a feature made famous by Sir Walter Scott amongst others—it would be the planning officers of the County Council of Midlothian. These are the two bodies under whose aegis this act of destruction is being carried out.

There is, of course, a conflict of right with right. I do not say that it is being done merely out of a desire to destroy a great scientific feature and to uglify the landscape outside Edinburgh. It is being done because coal is there and coal has to be won. A shaft has to be sunk to give access to that coal and the coal waste will no doubt be brought out after the shaft is sunk. But I cannot believe that this is the best solution that could be adopted. Nor, indeed, do the authorities believe this is the best solution which could be adopted. They agree that the Glen will not hold all the refuse which it is intended to take out. Further steps will have to be adopted later to deal with the enormous quantity of spoil which it is intended to extract from this colliery.

But, as a preliminary, the first thing to be done is the destruction of Bilston Glen and the burying of this unique cross-section of the limestone carboniferous strata which it represents. It is, of course, said that there is no alternative because this is a matter of great urgency. Yet it has been protested against by the geologists at conferences of the British Association in Birmingham, in Edinburgh, and in Belfast. It has been protested against by Professor A. V. Hill, a former colleague of ours in this House, whose scientific attainments everyone admires and respects, and whose public spirit is certainly above suspicion. They feel that the planning has slipped at this point and that planning permission was given before it was realised what was the scientific importance of this area which it was proposed to destroy.

We also feel that the suggestion that this is only to be used for 10 or 15 years and that thereafter some other solution will be found is a very shadowy recompense for the immediate damage which is being done. We all know the danger of a process once started continuing on and on. People say, "The damage is done; it is a pity, but now we may as well go on with it. The necessary steps have been taken to start the movement of spoil waste there, and it would be very difficult to transfer it, or to adopt some other method of disposal."

But that cuts right across the arguments which are being used for alternative justification, namely, that this is only a temporary matter and that some small area is to be destroyed, but afterwards some alternative site will be found. It is not as if there were no other areas and sites which could be immediately used. There are sandpits and old mine shafts round about that area which certainly could be used in the early stages. The National Coal Board are only beginning to sink the shaft now and in the next two or three years all that will come out is what is called "sinking dirt." The great extraction will not begin until the coal begins to come out on a grand scale.

I should have thought it would be at least possible for the preliminary spoil, the sinking dirt, the rock through which one bores to get down to the main coal strata could be used to fill up some of the holes already made round about this area. Instead of that the first thing to be done is to use it for the destruction of this beautiful little Glen. It is said that the only alternative practicable site for any large quantity of spoil—because, of course, sandpits and coal shafts cannot be used for any large quantity—is the Hewan Bog, not far away. That is already a matter of difficulty because some of it is agricultural land and some provides the source of water for the Northesk Paper Mills. Even though some of it is agricultural land, part of it is bog—it is not called the Hewan Bog for nothing—and bog is one of the few parts of the world which is improved by spoil being heaped on it.

Furthermore, a great deal of work is being done nowadays in taking off topsoil and levelling up large areas by putting spoil of one kind or another on them, and then replacing the top-soil, to be used either for agriculture or forestry. Surely it is not beyond the power or the wit of man to think of some way of utilising the spoil in this manner. At some early date some such scheme will have to be used, even if it is proposed to fill up Bilston Glen from top to bottom there is not room for all that is going to come up—and so, why not adopt such a solution sooner rather than later?

It is said that it would cost £65,000 to build a roadway to the Hewan Bog. But it will cost £100,000 to fill up the Glen. It will cost £100,000 to destroy this natural beauty. Common sense would suggest that we should consider other possible means of using the spoil in a way which will not injure the face of Scotland before we make use of it in a way which will certainly do irreparable damage. It is said that if the Hewan Bog is used we shall interfere with the water supply to the Northesk Paper Mills. It might be necessary to carry out borings for a water supply, but in any case, at a later stage that problem will have to be faced. Why at a later stage? Is it not common sense that it should be faced now? Incidentally, the pouring of this waste into the Glen will go a long way to contaminating Bilston Burn which is perfectly pure water at the moment. It will destroy one beautiful little river and it is doubtful whether we shall succeed in saving the water supply from the other source.

This is a conflict of right with right. One of the difficulties of our modern industrial civilisation, especially in this small island, is that it is impossible to carry through all the developments needed in such a way as to preserve all the natural beauties of the island. But I cannot feel satisfied, and nor can those for whom I speak, that all the alternative ways of dealing with this matter have been explored or that Bilston Glen has been, not selected, but allowed, to be utilised as an ashpit, simply because it is a hole in the ground instead of an elevation. And at the end of it we shall still have to build a "bing" as we call it in Scotland, a heap of colliery waste.

That is not good enough. To prevent such things that is why we put through planning Acts and why we have endowed the Government of the day with powers. The Secretary of State has great powers. If he does not approve of what the planning officers are doing, he can alter it. He has powers to requisition land if necessary. I do not feel that all these powers have been fully explored. Again, I say that the use of this unique area for no better purpose than a tip, is a waste of rare natural resources and beauty which is quite inexcusable at the present time.

It is all very well to say that a geological record will be taken of this strata before they are buried. But the advance of science has not ended in 1952. There are many things in geology still to be discovered. There are many new facts to be obtained from the examination of coal-bearing strata which we do not know yet. The whole of the radio-active determination of the age of rocks is perfectly new. There are many other new matters for the future to examine in connection with rocks. We have not read all of the book of the rocks yet.

If it were the Vatican Library which was about to be buried, there would be a universal yell of protest from all over the world. If we were proposing to use the British Museum as an ash-pit, there would be a yell of protest from all over the world. But this is a library which it has taken millions of years to compile, and which is, as I say, not yet fully read. And it is proposed to tip five million tons of waste on it; and when we have done that to look round for a place in which to put another five million tons.

These seem to me to be matters which should well be brought before this House. For this is the only place where such things can be thrashed out and examined, and where we can at least ask the Government for a statement on the matter. I think that the Lord President of the Council ought properly to be brought into this. He is the great scientific Minister, the Minister who has responsibility for the main scientific improvements in this country. I do not believe the Departmental authorities, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, even the Secretary of State for Scotland, are the last word on this subject.

I appeal to Cæsar. I appeal to the Government as a whole. I appeal to those responsible for the scientific future of the country to look at this again; at any rate to make sure that the process is not allowed to roll on until we have first destroyed all this beauty and scientific information, and then look round for somewhere to deal with the spoil which is left. I think it is a matter worth much deeper consideration. For that reason I venture to bring it before the House.

I feel that I almost should crave the indulgence of the House for addressing it on what appears to be a Scottish matter. But in effect and truth this is not a Scottish matter at all. Bilston Glen happens to be situated in Scotland, but it is a matter not only of national but international interest to the world of learning and to the practice of science. This is indeed an astonishing act on the part of the National Coal Board, which, one would think, would be concerned with the beauties of the country; with the geology and science to be pursued at the present time, and with ensuring that there is an adequate supply of trained geologists in the future. It is astonishing that this body has taken the initiative in this proposed act of scientific vandalism.

As the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has rightly said, this is a conflict between right and right, and in what scale one weighs different values. One can perhaps understand the desire of hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite not to sanction the creation of another "bing." But the fact is that in this part of Scotland there are, unhappily, a number of these dumps of refuse, and a small extension will not be a very serious matter. As for the alternative place, the Hewan Bog, there again, in due time, consideration will have to be given and space will have to be taken to provide the mills with water in addition to that which they have already.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has rightly said that this is merely a makeshift. It is not intended—it could not be—to be a permanent solution of the disposal of the pit refuse that will be made. I appeal to the Government to intervene at this late stage to ensure both that this laboratory, as it is, shall not be destroyed and that it shall, on the contrary, be used for the present purpose of geology and for the training of future geologists.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) deserve the thanks of the House and the country for drawing public attention to this matter. Undoubtedly an issue of high importance is involved. It is one about which Parliament should always show anxious concern.

The issue reduced to its simplest terms is this: how far can we, or should we, allow the march of industry, and especially the development of our mineral resources, to despoil the natural beauties and, it may be, the historic landmarks of our ancient and precious land? That industry must advance and more coal must be raised is for us now, and as far as we can see ahead, a matter of sheer necessity for our national life. That such development must, by its very nature, sometimes involve intrusions into and sacrifice of lovely rural scenes is something which we must, perhaps reluctantly, accept as inevitable in this small highly industrialised island.

How far can we let such intrusion go? What checks can we put upon it? What machinery can we evolve to ensure that the utmost care is exercised and that the most anxious consideration is given before a sacrifice is permitted? That is the question.

I am sorry to interrupt but, with great respect, that is not the question. This is not a matter of rural beauty or historic landmarks; it is a question of preventing the use of something that is actively required for the purpose of scientific learning.

Let me add to my list a reference to scientific learning. I gladly add that that is one of the considerations. My submission in reply to the eloquent appeal by my right hon. and gallant Friend is that in this case the Government have exercised that kind of care. They have given close and anxious consideration to balancing the conflicting interests in this matter—my right hon. and gallant Friend put them as the conflicting rights—they have acted reluctantly but confidently in the only manner that was open to them in view of the stark facts with which they were presented.

I am replying to this debate because the Secretary of State for Scotland is the planning authority in Scotland. This is a planning decision and my right hon. Friend takes full responsibility for what has been done. My right hon. and gallant Friend said that he was of the opinion that the planners had slipped up and that the decision was taken without full examination and full realisation of these important geological features. I ask him to believe that that is not so. Most prolonged, anxious, and meticulous examination has been given throughout.

Though I must not occupy too much time, I should like to mention one or two facts. The National Coal Board have undertaken a major development in this area at Burghlee Colliery, Loanhead, Midlothian. It is a matter of urgency, and the sinking of the new shaft began in 1952—that is this year. The new sinking is planned to produce over one million tons of coal yearly for between 80 and 100 years. During that period between 8 million and 12 million tons of waste will have to be raised from the pit and disposed of.

That was a stark fact that nobody could avoid. It is estimated that, with the pit in full production, about 500 tons of waste will be raised daily from the new shaft. In addition, at this time about 100 tons of waste is coming out of the new pit in the process of sinking it, and 100 tons is coming out of the old pit. Therefore, we are faced today with the immediate problem of disposing of 200 tons of waste.

I must inform my right hon. and gallant Friend that the National Coal Board are finding it increasingly embarrassing to discover a place for the refuse from the old pit, quite apart from the new one. The existing bing sites on the colliery have been filled to capacity and there is no room to extend them, because the colliery site is completely hemmed in on the north by Loanhead town and by Bilston and Killburn Glens on the other sides. The National Coal Board, therefore, had to look for a new site on which to dispose of this waste.

There were two obvious possibilities. One was that a new bing might be raised. That possibility was considered. Everybody agrees that the fewer extra bings in the world the better. Even the hon. Member for Walsall would agree with that. It was thought by everybody that to establish a great new bing, several hundred feet high and half a mile long, almost on the main road to Edinburgh, was unthinkable. Therefore, everybody turned that down.

The first and apparent alternative was Bilston Glen. The advantage of that was that it would not affect agriculture. The refuse dump would be concealed from view and would ultimately be covered with soil and might bear trees in future. But that solution called forth very strong representations to the Secretary of State from the Nature Conservancy, the British Association and other scientific bodies. I might inform my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Lord President of the Council was consulted in this mater through the agency of the Nature Conservancy. I can say now that while I do not think that the Nature Conservancy like the solution we have already arrived at, it is true to say that they agree that this was the only possible place available.

This is not only a matter of the Nature Conservancy. I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells). I do not think that enough stress is being made of the scientific destruction which is being caused. I should like to know if the attention of the Lord President has been called to the scientific destruction that is taking place.

I assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Nature Conservancy, with whom we have been in the closest consultation for two years, was thoroughly aware of this matter. Like the rest of us, they recognise that here is a geological feature of immense value from the student's point of view, but, taking all the facts into consideration, they did not think that any other solution was open to us.

In view of these objections—and I mention the consultations that have taken place—the Secretary of State intervened in the matter in 1950, two years ago, and other methods of disposing of the waste were immediately explored. In all these discussions we have had the closest and most friendly co-operation from the National Coal Board, which have been ready to do anything which was suggested to them and have been entirely sympathetic and understanding.

The first possibility put to them was whether or not they could stow this waste away in the ground in the pits, but when that was examined, it was found that the cost would be 5s. per ton against ls. per ton if it were taken to some open space. This would mean an additional cost of £200,000 a year, which would come to a total of £16 million during the life of the colliery. It is not, therefore, very surprising that the Coal Board felt that it was a cost which they could not really face.

Another alternative examined was the possibility of dumping on a portion of Bilston Glen so as not to affect the geological exposures there. I would say on this point that we are fully alive to the unique value of these geological features. I am told that there is nothing quite like them in any other part of the country, and, it may be, in any other part of the world, although I do not know about that. Everybody admits that these geological features are of the greatest possible interest to scientists, and all this, therefore, was borne in mind.

We tried to see whether it was possible to use only part of this ground, leaving the largest possible area of the geological features, but, owing to difficulties through subsidence and drainage, none of these sites could be used. Moreover, none of them, either singly or together, would have met the needs of the National Coal Board for more than a few years, and they would have been very costly to operate. It also became apparent that these geological interests extended over nearly the whole length of the Bilston Glen, and none of these sites would be acceptable to the Nature Conservancy.

The only other possible site was what is called the Hewan Bog. This is a piece of low-lying pasture land situated at the foot of a declivity by the River Esk. It happens to be a famous beauty spot, but, because it is low-lying, its use would have avoided creating a prominent bing rising above the level of the surrounding countryside. This part of the Esk Valley is, as I said, a well-known beauty spot, and there would doubtless have been very strong public protests against turning it into a refuse dump, or an ash-pit, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said. Moreover, in order to use it, the Coal Board would have had to construct an aerial ropeway at a cost of £45,000. They would be unable to start work until they got possession of the land, and it would then have taken two years to get into operation.

I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to accept from me the statement that on this matter time is crucial. The owner is unwilling to sell and the County Council are unwilling to give planning permission. To overcome these difficulties would have involved at least two public inquiries, and the time taken, including that for the provision of a rope-way which the Coal Board would have had to provide, would have involved a delay of anything between two and three years. Meanwhile, this refuse is pouring out of both pits, and it was therefore impossible for the Coal Board—and we agree with them—to wait all that time.

The Coal Board, while preferring the Bilston Glen site, said they would be quite prepared to use the Hewan Bog site if they could obtain possession without delay, but, as I have said, that was not possible. In the circumstances, after discussing the matter fully with the Scottish Committee of the Nature Conservancy and with the Scottish Division of the National Coal Board, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to the conclusion in March, 1952, that, as the immediate sinking of the new pit was imperative, and as a start had already been delayed for more than six months by these negotiations, the Coal Board must be allowed to use the Bilston Glen, which could be made available for dumping within nine months. This conclusion was reached with much reluctance, but there did not then, and there does not now, seem to be any other solution which would not gravely compromise the national coal production.

In agreeing to allow the Coal Board to use the Bilston Glen, the Secretary of State endeavoured to secure that the damage to geological interests should be reduced to the minimum. The National Coal Board agreed, after discussion, to restrict their operations in the Glen for the present to a limited area which was defined and to a period of occupation, which was also defined. At the end of that period, if a suitable site has become available, the Coal Board will move to that site, notwithstanding the heavy capital expenditure that they will have incurred in Bilston Glen.

Discussions are already in progress with the various interests concerned in the Hewan Bog to see whether that site can be made available. Her Majesty's Geological Survey have also been asked to arrange for a full scientific record of the geological strata in the limited area covered by the Coal Board's operation. This compromise solution was discussed by the Scottish Committee of the Nature Conservancy before a final decision was reached, and the Committee appeared to be satisfied that the Secretary of State had done as much as was possible to preserve and safeguard scientific interests.

Since then, there have been further representations from the British Association, and very powerful letters carrying names of highly esteemed scientists in the country. Approaches have been made to the Prime Minister, and all this we have borne in mind, with very much respect for the views of these gentlemen. The matter has already been mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend in the House more than once, but I am afraid it is no more possible now than it was in March last to get immediate possession of the Hewan Bog, and the need for a dumping site is even more urgent today than it was before, because sinking has already been in progress for six months.

The Coal Board have already begun to construct in the Bilston Glen a culvert which will be completed in a few months at a cost of £50,000. Even if negotiations for the Hewan Bog proved successful, and the site could be brought into operation in the next two or three years, it would hardly be possible to compel the Coal Board to vacate the Bilston Glen before they had made full use of the portion that has already been allotted to them, unless someone was prepared to compensate them for the large capital expenditure incurred upon it.

For these reasons, and with very great reluctance and sorrow, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has thought it right to give permission for this particular section of this Glen to be used for the limited period of 10 to 15 years, undertaking to inquire urgently into the possibilities of getting the use of this nearby bog. That is the best we can do in the circumstances. The stark fact is that we need this vast increase in coal production, and the necessity for a dumping place is forced upon us. It was impossible to deny these facts, and, with reluctance but with confidence, we consider that the decision made was unavoidable.

In initiating this debate this afternoon, I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not attacking the majority of private landlords. Indeed, I am aware of the difficulties which face many private landlords in these days of rising costs, and, bearing in mind the limitations placed upon the rents which they can demand, conscientious landlords have great difficulties in maintaining their properties at the standard which they would like and to which the tenants should be entitled.

I am sure that the whole House will agree that there is a growing realisation of the need for revision of the Rent Acts, but I am sure that the cases I propose to put before hon. Members today will be deplored by the majority of decent property owners. They concern, primarily, people resident in my constituency, but I suspect that the practices to which I shall later refer are by no means confined exclusively to that part of the city of Manchester.

However, it is my duty to refer to cases affecting my own constituents, that is to say, cases in the Hulme and Chorlton-on-Medlock districts of the city. This part of Manchester is characterised by having the type of housing which is so common to our great industrial areas. There are rows of very old back-to-back properties, most of them without baths and the amenities which all hon. Members now agree are necessary in modern housing standards.

It is affecting this type of property that the practices to which I propose to refer have been indulged in. In my constituency there is a body known as the Hulme Community Council. It is a nonparty organisation and is representative of the churches, of political parties and of social workers of all kinds, all united in an effort to make life for the people who live in that area a little better and to brighten the drabness of their surroundings.

The cases I propose to cite to the House have been directed to my notice by the activities of the Hulme Community Council, of which, as the Member for that area, I have the honour to be the honorary president. I think it will be quite clearly seen that whatever we may think about the Rent Acts, Parliament's intention under those Acts to protect tenants by security of tenure and the like is being frustrated by the activities of a small minority of unethical agents and landlords.

I will tell the House exactly what is being done, and I shall refer in a moment to detailed cases. It is the practice of persons representing these firms to visit people, generally in the evening and sometimes quite late at night, and sometimes, indeed, on Sundays. An attempt is made, often on the first occasion, to persuade the sitting tenant who is, of course, protected by the Rent Acts, to buy the houses. I think that if the House accepts my account of the methods employed as being an accurate record, they will be condemned in all quarters of the House.

The tenant is told, first, "If you do not buy this house, you will find that very shortly your rent will be put up." Indeed, the date of such increase of rent has been given to some of my constituents; they have been told that in March next their rents will be increased. Secondly, the tenant is told, "If you buy the house, you will have security of tenure." Of course he will. That observation in itself is unexceptionable, but the implication in that form of salesmanship is that if he does not buy the house he will have no security at all. One gentleman concerned in these practices admits that he has actually said these two things.

The vendor arrives armed with an agreement ready drawn up and with stamp attached. All that is wanted, if the tenant is persuaded to buy, is his signature, and that, too, is sometimes obtained on the first visit. I have considered whether to name in this House any of those engaged in this practice. I have armed myself with advice from hon. Members with a much longer membership of this House than I possess, and I have been made aware of the peculiar privileges which we as Members of Parliament enjoy, and of the need not to abuse them too easily.

Nevertheless, in the interests of my constituents and of the decent property owners, I have come to the conclusion that while, on this occasion, I will not mention individuals by name, I do feel obliged to mention the companies concerned in these practices. If, at a later stage, my attention is drawn to further instances of this kind, I warn the House, and, through the House, the individuals concerned, that I shall have no compunction or hesitation, either in debate or in Parliamentary Questions, in naming them.

I wish now to turn to the first specific case. It is a terraced house which, I am advised, is one of six which were purchased about February, 1952, by a firm called the Talbot Estates, Limited. The tenants of these houses are all sitting tenants, protected by the Rent Acts, and, therefore, the properties cannot be regarded in these days as a valuable investment. Nevertheless, these houses were bought in February, 1952. and it is believed that the price paid for the six was about £300.

Fifty pounds each.

On Sunday, 21st April, a gentleman representing the Talbot Estates, Limited, called on one of my constituents and persuaded him to purchase the house in which he was living, and, indeed, to sign an agreement to that effect over a sixpenny stamp. My constituent and his wife were, so they say, taken by surprise, but by the next morning they realised that they had been unwise, and the wife called at the offices of the company to say that they were unwilling to proceed with the purchase.

May I digress for a moment to admit at once that this House cannot protect either foolish or ignorant people against this sort of thing? It is perfectly legal to sell a house if the person to whom one is selling it understands exactly what he is doing. But it is my case that undue pressure was brought to bear on these people, and that the whole practice is one which strikes me as being disreputable. As I say, on Sunday, 21st April, my constituents were persuaded to sign an agreement, but went next day to the company to say that they were unwilling to proceed with the matter. But in spite of that, a letter dated 21st April—the same day—was received from the vendors' solicitors saying that they had been advised that my constituents wished them to act for them. Presumably the vendors had instructed that firm of solicitors to write to my constituents.

On 30th April, my constituents, through the solicitors, informed the company that they did not intend to proceed in the matter, and at that stage it was the impression of my tenants that the solicitors were prepared to accept that fact. However, I have since been informed that they are not. My constituent continued to pay his rent in the normal way until Tuesday, 18th November, when the agent refused to enter the amount paid in the rent book. Instead, he entered it on a card. On reading the card, my constituent found that it purported to be a record of instalments for the purchase of the house. He protested and the agent refused to accept the rent.

The House will be aware, of course. that it is an intimidating device adopted by some agents to refuse to take the rent, and presumably that was an additional pressure brought by these people following the initial signature. My constituents were advised by the citizens' advice bureau formally to write to the owners confirming their refusal to proceed with the sale.

Here is another feature of great interest. There is a building society known as Hollins Permanent Building Society and the interesting thing about it is that the secretary of that society is the son of the vendor, the most active member in the companies of whose activities I am complaining. When the Building Society communicated with my constituents advising them that they were prepared to lend £300—and the house was being sold for £400—the documents sent by the society were signed by the same individual who approached my constituents on behalf of the vendors to sell them the house in the first place, which seemed to me a most extraordinary proceeding.

I turn now to a further case which concerns people who are also living in the area and who have been tenants of the house since 1940. It was purchased by a company which is associated with the one which I have named, known as Stuart Street, Limited. Early in 1952 my constituents were approached by one of the directors of the company and his clerk, who called at 9 p.m. There were the same tactics again. It is alleged that they advised the tenants that if they did not buy the house they would have to pay more rent, as all rents would be increased in March. The tenant accepted this statement as true and he was told that if he did not sign he would be put out. Where was he to go, it was asked of him. My constituent believed that he could be put out, it was late at night, and anyhow he signed the document.

Next day he realised what had happened and he telephoned to say that he was not prepared to continue with the matter. He was approached originally on 6th November and on 17th November another firm of solicitors wrote to say that they understood that the tenant wanted them to act for him. He telephoned to say that he did not wish to proceed and would sign no deeds. This business is still going on. This man has now been advised that he should put his case into the hands of a solicitor and I believe that that has been done. Incidentally, what I have been saying comes from a signed copy of a statement by the tenant concerned.

An employee of the company, writing on 25th November to the tenant to whom I have referred and urging him to proceed with the contract, used these words:

"It has been explained to you that when the very much overdue increase in the rent is granted by the Government the total weekly outlay…

and so on, to persuade him to buy. Surely this is intimidation, and, as it were, a false prospectus and a bringing to bear upon poor and ignorant people what I regard as a most improper and unfair pressure.

I turn now to a further case in which I have been furnished with a report by a prominent social worker in Manchester. This is really a most incredible story. Here was a poor family living in deplorable circumstances with a not too happy domestic set-up, so much so that the N.S.P.C.C. are interested in the case. They were persuaded to buy a house. Not only that, there is some doubt as to how they became tenants in the first place.

Hon. Members realise that nowadays landlords often disappear for a while when they have this kind of property on their hands and, later, somebody else duns the tenants for arrears of rent. I am advised that these people were invited to attend at the office of the company concerned, Stuart Murray, a company associated with and consisting of the same people as the other two.

The housewife concerned in this case was asked to sign an agreement. When she explained that she could neither read nor write, the agreement was read to her and, without consulting her husband, she signed the paper which was put in front of her. This was an agreement to buy not one but four houses for £200, which sum was offered on mortgage again by the same building society. Incidentally, the Corporation has had to maintain this property in a reasonable state of affairs.

I have in my possession particulars of further cases of the same kind. I am quite prepared—indeed, it is my intention, to send all the documents concerned to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I hope and believe that he will cause investigation to be made. I appreciate that his powers in these matters to protect the ignorant and the weak are not very great. He can only give publicity to what protection they have, as we all try to do. Nevertheless, he might consider it worth while, after he has studied them, to pass the documents over to his colleagues in the Law Officers' Department. I submit that the matter should be looked at very carefully.

Without making a party point at all I believe that the majority of my colleagues will agree that to bring the attention of the House to practices of this kind is very worth while indeed.

I am sure that the whole House would agree that in unfolding this tale of sordid rapacity my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) has rendered a very signal public service. I rise as the Member for the division adjoining that of my hon. Friend to corroborate what he has said about what is going on in the City of Manchester. He has already gone into the detail of the dealings of this complex of companies, with their tame building society and interchangeable officials and estate agents, and the likely consequences of their activities.

I am not at all sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that these agreements are not to be criticised if they are not obtained by wrong inducements. After all, when experienced business men buy property they require a proper form of contract, they are advised by their solicitors and they have ample opportunity to consider all the consequences of what they are doing. In any case. when one is dealing with working-class homes freedom of contract does not apply to the tenants, and that is the whole purpose of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Since Esau sold his birth right for a mess of pottage I think that the idea that there should be freedom of contract in all circumstances has been open to challenge, even by the disciples of the Manchester School.

These cases are an exemplification of the fact that the Rent Restrictions Acts no longer provide the protection for working class tenants which Parliament intended that they should provide. If we were not speaking in a debate on the Adjournment I would say that it is high time that the Government bestirred themselves and took up Parliamentary time to repeal those Acts and to replace them with an up-to-date Act which would provide protection for the tenant, and, at the same time, provide facilities for landlords to keep their property in proper repair. But it would be wholly improper for me to castigate the Government on an Adjournment debate on grounds which involve legislation.

The putrescent Rent Restrictions Acts continue in force all sorts of evil, maggoty practices which seriously weaken the protection which tenants require. We have had an exemplification of the quibbling that goes on, with people buying these houses for £20, £30 and £50 apiece while knowing perfectly well that they can blackmail the people living in them into buying them through a building society for £200 or £300. They can make an exorbitant profit provided that they can get possession, and they go into all sorts of detailed investigations and quibbles to try to do so.

Although these landlords are in a minority their example is being copied to such an extent that it is even affecting public authorities. An estate agent dealing with some property of the Railway Executive in Manchester seems to think that if a woman is deserted by her husband—her husband being the tenant—the Railway Executive can take possession of the premises so that the unfortunate woman, in addition to losing her deserting husband, loses her rent-restricted home.

The next aspect of the matter which is of vital public importance is that in their anxiety to get possession of these rent-restricted houses landlords are universally refusing to agree to tenancy exchanges. If we are properly to use the housing accommodation of this country it is vital that exchanges should be granted by landlords in reasonable circumstances. Landlords of the type which have been exposed by my hon. Friend would certainly not agree to such an exchange but I have found that even reputable landlords refuse to do so, even where most humane considerations arise. I have appealed to them over and over again to grant exchanges on grounds of health, and I have failed.

1 was informed of a case recently concerning a man who travelled from my own constituency to work in Rochdale. He wants to exchange with an engineer—a respectable man—who is travelling from Rochdale to Manchester every day, but in the hope that he will eventually become tired of his position and that the property will be vacated and become available for sale the estate agents refuse to grant the obviously desirable consent to an exchange.

The Minister will know that in cases of leases the court has power to grant permission even though the landlord refuses it. I hope he will devote some attention to this very serious point, because it is desirable in the public interest that exchanges of rent-controlled tenancies should take place in proper cases so as to make the maximum possible use of housing accommodation and to see that the present situation— where the refusal to agree to an exchange is almost universal and causes great hardship and much social loss—is brought to an end.

In these cases the tenant is very often bribed out of the protection he has been given under the Acts. Sometimes a man is offered as much as £100 to vacate the premises, so that they can be sold. It is, clearly, not the intention of the House that working-class tenants should sell out their rights and lose the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that point.

rose—

If I take the rest of the time allotted for this Adjournment debate I have precisely five and a half minutes and as the hon. Gentleman who raised the debate was fortunate in the Ballot for the Adjournment I think it would be courteous if I replied to his points first.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) unfolded his case most reasonably and with great restraint. I hope it does not sound prim, but I think that he was very dignified in the way he dealt with the matter, by not disclosing the man's name on the first occasion. There is generally a man behind the company in these cases and if this kind of thing should occur in the future the hon. Member would be more than justified in disclosing the man's name, either by putting down a Question or in an Adjournment debate, and if he did so that man would have no complaint at all. He has been treated in a most gentlemanly way by the hon. Member.

This case has also interested me because I know that part of Manchester very well. As a small boy I was taken to the Manchester Hippodrome for my Christmas treat and last Saturday I was in that district again. I took a short time off from my official duties to visit Maine Road, where Manchester City play foot-ball. They are at the bottom of the First Division, but they are well represented this afternoon.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because it gives me an oppor- tunity of giving some publicity to the Rent Restrictions Acts and the protection they afford to the tenants. I hope that the Manchester newspapers, and the Hulme newspapers in particular, will underline this particular point. The tenant can be evicted only by an order from the court, and such orders can be given only on very limited grounds. That is the publicity point I should like to see hammered home in Manchester, so that the people in the hon. Member's constituency will not be taken in by people with glib tongues who tell them all sorts of fancy stories to get them to part with their houses.

These practices are not very widespread in the country generally but they are occurring, and when I hear of them in Manchester I remember the saying, "What Manchester does today the rest of the country does tomorrow." I only hope that on this occasion that saying will be proved wrong. If the practices continue to grow, however, it may be that the national Press will take up the point that the tenant can be evicted only by order of the court.

What can the tenant do if anyone comes round trying to make him buy the house? The first thing he should do is to go either to his local authority or the citizens' advice bureau, because they can always give him good advice on these legal points. There is no need for him to pay for the advice. The offices of local authorities are usually open at reasonable hours and the citizens' advice bureaux are open in the evenings. If he goes to certain centres he can get free legal advice from the poor man's solicitor.

There are three such places in Manchester, one of which is in Hulme and another, I think, in Cheetham. I therefore beg the tenants not to part with their houses until they have taken proper advice either from the citizens' advice bureau, the local authority or from a solicitor.

It was suggested that the Department or my right hon. Friend could go into this particular case. But there is very little that he could do, even if he did go into it. I have made some inquiries—because the hon. Member was kind enough to give me a great number of details; he has gone into the case very thoroughly and has spent a good deal of time on it—and I think the hon. Gentleman might consider whether the details should not be Sent to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, 17, North Audley Street, London, W.1, to see whether there should be an inspection of the proceedings of this building society under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939. I see no reason why the details should not be sent to them, so that they can be asked for their comments. We have made inquiries from the regional office in Manchester and we are told that the situation is now well in hand.

I could not follow the hon. Member of Cheetham (Mr. N. H. Lever) into his strictures on the Rent Restrictions Acts and what he wants to do with them, but my right hon. Friend has the question well in mind and he is considering the whole position of those Acts. They certainly form the most complicated series of Acts which I have ever looked at. If anything is to be done about them a good job should be made of it and not merely a little patchworking here and there. It is no use tinkering with such a problem, because it is so involved. My right hon. Friend is considering the matter and he hopes to be able to make some announcement at some time in the future.

Will the hon. Gentleman say at this stage because this practice is obviously being adopted by unscrupulous people—that the Government have no intention of altering the Acts in such a way that the tenant would be deprived of his existing security of tenure?

I cannot say what the Government propose to do, but whatever they propose to do must be passed by the House before it becomes law. We shall thus have an opportunity of commenting on any decision about the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Acts prevent people from raising rents and give security of tenure. We are mostly concerned here with security of tenure. The hon. Member should be congratulated on bringing this matter to the notice of the House, and I hope he gets the publicity in Manchester which both he and the Government would like the matter to receive.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider this point as a possible line of immediate action for the protection and advice of tenants who might be affected? Would he consider arranging a broadcast, on a national service, to give advice to tenants not to fall for such inducements or threats, supposing such are made to them? They will then be in a stronger position to resist such inducements and threats.

The Government do not decide on broadcasts; that is for the B.B.C. I will, however, bring the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the notice of the talks department of the B.B.C. I will write to them myself. I have listened to a talk on this very subject in a series known as "Can I help you?" The very point which the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise was made on that occasion. That is no reason why I cannot again bring the matter before them for their attention. This was six or seven months ago, and perhaps they could have another talk in the series "Can I help you?"

I am very grateful to Mr. Speaker for having given me the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment today the subject of the economic conditions of the High Commission Territories. I think I am right in saying that these are the last territories under the direct administrative responsibility of the Commonwealth Relations Office. It sometimes seems to us that, in the great sweep of the development of territories dependent on the United Kingdom, these three territories are left out of consideration. Sir Evelyn Baring, now Governor of Kenya, has written an interesting report and has done, as I think posterity will show, most useful work in the economic and social development of these territories since the war.

I should like to have spoken rather longer today, but as there are at least two other hon. Members who wish to speak and as we are running about half an hour behind time, I will make my remarks shorter than I intended.

Everybody knows that since the war—indeed, in the last 20 years or so— these territories, like most other territories, have had increases in population. Since the war there has also been a better social standard, which in turn requires greater wealth to support it. What is not so generally known is that in the Southern hemisphere there has been a considerable increase in periods of drought which has led to shortfalls in the production of food.

Before the war we had considerable imports of sugar from Southern Africa, but since the war we have had virtually no imports at all from those countries. The drought and the increased consumption in Southern Africa is accounting for a greater absorption of the food produced there.

I, and I think my hon. Friends, believe that the function of Government is rather more to create the conditions under which individual effort can fructify than to direct Government schemes, and in Africa, in particular, this means, in my opinion, paying attention to the development of roads, railways and harbours—what are generally known as the utilities—and possibly hydro-electricity. It is, of course, often a question of some discussion as to which comes first, because in Northern Bechuanaland. for instance, there is said to be good cattle country which cannot be used until the transport system is developed. whereas, equally, a transport system is a very expensive thing to develop until there is something worth while carrying.

I want to ask my hon. Friend whether he has any information about the suggested railway development from Southern Rhodesia to Northern Bechuanaland and to a west coast port. As hon. Members know, this has been under discussion for a great many years, and although I do not believe it is of first priority in railway development in that part of the world, it is nevertheless important not only for the economic development of Northern Bechuanaland but also in order to provide a much shorter means of access to Central Africa from the west coast, thus saving the sea journey round the Cape.

Turning to the problem of the production of cattle in Northern Bechuanaland, I believe what is needed is more a development of existing production than the introduction of entirely new schemes. I do not suggest that there is not great value in the latter, but I believe a great deal could be done throughout Africa by assisting and developing existing peasant production. For instance, I believe that of all the problems of Africa, and of most of these territories, the most important is the provision of water, and if something could be done about developing adequate water supplies, that would do more than any other single step to provide an increase in the production of cattle.

Equally, there is need to develop a proper veterinary service, not only for the control of disease, but also for the checking of unselected breeding. Further, the individual producer must be able to feel that when he has produced the cattle he will get a reasonable return for his efforts—and, in that out-of-the-way part of the world, it means processing plant for hides as well as for meat, and containers on road or rail to carry frozen meat to the markets where it will be consumed.

As hon. Members know, new breeds of cattle are being developed which are more suitable for these areas. For instance, the Santa Gatruda cattle produced in Texas is meeting with success in these rather arid parts of the world. It is a cross-breed between a local Texan breed and an Indian breed, and it has produced excellent results both for milk and for meat. Has it been suggested that new breeds of that sort should be introduced so as to test their suitability for the needs of Bechuanaland in particular? Turning to the problem of coal, I saw in the newspapers this morning that there are considerable coal deposits in Northern Bechuanaland. As far as my information goes, they are not accessible to present rail traffic.

May I say a word about the other two territories, which generally are rather less well known than Bechuanaland—I refer to Basutoland and Swaziland. According to my information, both these territories, like Bechuanaland, have been short of food since the war. In my opinion, the first essential in a continent like Africa is to ensure an adequate food supply over the long term. We all know that the population of Africa will probably double in the next 30 years or so, and at the moment it is difficult to see how we shall be able to double the food supplies. The first essential in these territories is to make them self-sufficient in respect of food.

There is good land in Basutoland, although it was much eroded in the '20s. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could tell me to what extent land erosion has been checked, to what extent overgrazing in certain areas has been checked, and what facilities have been introduced for de-stocking. The Orange River is one of the few rivers in South Africa with a flow which justifies large-scale hydroelectric or irrigation projects. To what extent has action been taken in connection with the head waters of the Orange River in the last few years, and what are the plans for the future?

Perhaps Swaziland has the biggest future of all these territories. It is nearer to the sea, it is better off for minerals than the other territories—so far as they have been discovered—it has the highest hydro-electricity potential, it has good agricultural soil and, what is far more important, it has a well-trained population of skilled agricultural workers.

Here again, I should like to stress the point about the importance of self-sufficiency in foodstuffs, and, to go beyond that, to ask: What industrial schemes are there for this part of the world, that will enable a new market to be found, what schemes are there with hydro-electric potential, what minerals, and finally, what has happened to the Colonial Development Corporation's afforestation scheme, which, in the long run, may provide a very useful improvement in the economy of this part of the world?

The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) has made it abundantly clear why it is that the Union of South Africa would like to incorporate these three Protectorates within its political sovereignty—because of the economic considerations involved. The Protectorates depend on the Union for communications. Two of them are land-locked. They depend on the Union for jobs for their surplus labour supply. In this way they are interlocked with the Union, and they are desirable areas to be incorporated in the Union.

I should like the Under-Secretary of State to speak about the standard of living in those Protectorates, because the standards of the Basuto and the Swazi peoples are really deplorably low by comparison with standards in other parts of the Colonial Territories. If we want to put up a case against South Africa's claim to them, we must lift the standards in the Protectorates to a level much higher than that at which they are at the moment.

The South African Nationalists taunt us with the lack of social services when they make this claim. One has heard in the past men like Dr. Donges, for example, threaten to put a ban—he has not put a ban, but threaten to put a ban—on higher education and technical education within the Union of South Africa for natives of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland. So we have to make a better case than we have made at the moment to withstand the demand of the Nationalist Party that these peoples should become nationals of the Union of South Africa. Hence we have to meet this challenge by this other Dominion within the Commonwealth.

Therefore, I say that we must do better than we have done, and I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State answers the debate he will tell us what we are doing in the way of economic development, because at the moment it seems we have only chancy intervention by the Colonial Development Corporation. I say "chancy" deliberately because it is becoming even more chancy since the party opposite got into power, because they seem to me to place less value upon the work done by the Corporation than we in our party did between 1945 and 1951. So I do beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this particular action, and second, the importance of full technical education, particularly if we are to have, as we must have, more of the people of these territories looking after their own affairs.

For this purpose they have to turn out veterinary surgeons; they have to turn out within these territories their own agronomists; they have to turn out their own engineers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, and teachers—the whole gamut of the so-called professional classes. At the moment we are dependent upon white—and European—technicians. That is not good enough for the Gold Coast; it is not good enough for Nigeria. It must not be good enough either for these more backward, less developed territories we are discussing today.

So I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us a full answer about these matters, particularly about more economic and industrial development and the development of secondary industries and the development of technical education, which is so vital.

I am very glad indeed that this has been one of the subjects chosen for this Christmas Adjournment. I think the House will agree with me that it is a subject that is well worthy of a whole day's debate, when a day can be provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) have both spoken from expert knowledge of this subject and asked a series of important questions, to which, I have no doubt, my hon. and learned Friend will be able to reply.

I want very briefly to say a word about the cattle raising possibilities of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, particularly in the vast Kalahari Desert in the southwestern part of the territory. I have given quite a lot of study to this question, and it has led me to the conclusion that this part of Africa, and parts of Swaziland also, can probably support very large cattle populations indeed, provided development can be kept on the right lines. It would, of course, be only fundamental that any increase of the cattle population should be based primarily on the indigenous native strains, graded up, perhaps, with the very best British beef types.

The Bechuanaland economy rests, as everybody here knows, almost solely on cattle, and most of the capital that has been invested recently has been invested in those parts of the territory which are already settled, for obvious reasons. Large parts of the Kalahari Desert, which are Crown land, I think, might well be able to produce many thousands of head of cattle if a scheme were started on a sound pilot basis. That would, of course, enable the territory not only to increase exports to neighbouring territories but also to make an important contribution to British imports of beef.

Development has already been begun. I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby was quite fair in what he said to us on a slightly party point about the Colonial Development Corporation, because, of course, we know that much of the work it has done has been good, as everybody here would admit—though by no means all of it; and the C.D.C. certainly has done some very successful development in Bechuanaland. It has a very sound cattle ranch in the Molopo area in the south Kalahari Desert that was started, I think, a little less than three years ago. Money has been invested in it and in cold storage facilities and abattoirs, rising £2 million, and on this particular ranch, only three years old or less, there are already 14,000 head of cattle. The venture was started on a small scale—and rightly in the beginning.

It is obvious, of course, that the key to success for any large scheme to be embarked upon is the question of adequate supplies of permanent underground water. I welcome the fact that my hon. and learned Friend took an active and leading part in moving very fast indeed, as soon as the project was put forward, in sending an expert mission to that part of the world to see whether underground water supplies existed or not, and I hope that when he replies to the debate he will be able to say a word about its report, which, I understand, has already been written. It may be that my hon. and learned Friend has not yet received it, but even so, perhaps he has some preliminary information about it.

Although this is a subject on which I should like to dilate very much more, I feel that I must give way to my hon. and learned Friend so that he can reply to the debate, because so little time remains for it. I look forward to his comments on the questions that have been raised. I feel sure I am preaching to the converted when I say that if a successful pilot scheme can be started for the large-scale rearing of cattle in the Kalahari Desert, there is no reason at all why it should not make a really important contribution to the prosperity of the Protectorate itself and to the beef supplies of this country.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) for raising this question on the Adjournment, and also for the contributions which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) have made to the discussion.

I should like first of all to deal with the general point that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby raised, because I think it is an important one—as to the emphasis at the moment. At the moment our policy is to put the main emphasis on increasing the productivity of the territories for their own future, so that later we may improve the social services quite considerably. It is our policy to increase productivity in the territories in this way so that they can carry the weight of the social services. It does not mean that the social services are neglected, but the weight of our efforts in the last 15 months, since we took office, has been to increase the productivity of the territories.

I should like to take each territory in turn, because in that way I think I shall be able to answer most of the questions raised. Let me first take Basutoland. As the House knows, that is a country having, as far as one knows, no minerals. It is always unwise to say that categorically, but as far as we know at the moment it has none, and no prospects of immediate industrial development. Therefore, the emphasis in Basutoland has to be on agriculture.

The main problem there was soil erosion—a very terrible scourge. It was due to this fact: the African tribes were nomadic originally, when before the development of the Continent it was possible for them to exhaust one piece of land and move on to another, but the growth of population has prevented that; they have had to stay in the same place and continue much the same methods of primitive agriculture, becoming, so to speak, a residential agricultural population, and the result has been soil erosion.

A lot has been done in Basutoland to tackle this problem. About two-thirds of the arable land of the lowlands and about half of the arable land of the mountains has been treated for soil erosion. Experts from all over the world say that it is the best treated land for erosion in the whole of Africa; there is unbounded admiration for the way it has been done. There is no party point about it: it was started under our predecessors, and it has been continued under us. I am told it is really a treat when going to Basutoland to see the terraced contours and the diversion furrows which keep the land from being eroded and bring it back into cultivation.

But we have not stopped there, and I think we may take great credit in the last 15 months for having gone on to the next stage with, I hope the House will agree, a good deal of energy, namely, on to the problem of tackling the question of improved agricultural methods for the Basutos. Quite shortly, we have allocated a considerable sum of money, about £180,000, to a pilot project, in which the Government will take a whole catchment area, farm it in a modern way, with a proper system of rotational grazing, and then go on from there to mechanised group farming. We have already laid plans; we have the blue prints and the number of officers we want to engage, and we have also ordered the machinery. At the same time, we are making provision for better education and medical services.

In parenthesis, I should like to say to the hon. Member for Rugby, on the question of technical education, that I have a list, with which I will not now weary the House, of the centres of technical education. For the moment, for higher technical education they have to go outside the territories. We have under way in the Department and on the spot a project for joint facilities between the territories, giving scholarships, and so on. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is very much under consideration.

Perhaps I might now move from Basutoland, which is mainly agricultural, to Bechuanaland, and deal with the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. Water is the main difficulty in Bechuanaland. It is wonderful cattle country. Bechuanaland cattle are among the best in Africa, but they suffer from a difficulty in the supply of water. In order to relieve pressure on the grazing areas, we have undertaken a considerable plan for finding increased water supplies, and in consultation with the Colonial Development Corporation we have sent out an expedition, which was mentioned in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. The composition of the expedition is an interesting one, and I hope the House will approve the balance of it.

It consisted of Mr. Arthur Gaitskell—mentioned in another connection in the House quite recently—Chief Bathoen, Mr. Tshekedi Khama whose experience of these things is invaluable, an American experienced in the methods of desert ranching in Arizona, and a Kenya rancher. With local help and local administration, we think that was a well-conceived and balanced expedition. They have come back and we had a telegram that their initial reaction is favourable to the idea of a pilot plan in the north of the Kalahari Desert; they are hopeful of finding water. There is another survey out trying to find water, and that will help. There are two present projects of the Colonial Development Corporation which are well under way, with a ranching project in the south of the Kalahari Desert.

If everything goes well, we hope to find water along the route to the abattoir from the north of the desert, where there is a fertile area. We hope to find water in the desert, which is a grass desert, and therefore very fit to hold water. If all goes well, we look forward to having in this fertile area perhaps a scheme where there are European and African farmers working side by side, with local government having put in the basic development and, perhaps, some external company to help them with marketing, and so on. The abattoir, which the Colonial Development Corporation have brought to completion, is almost on the point of starting, and will, of course, get the native producer a much better price on the hoof than he would get from Johannesburg or the Copperbelt. If cattle are killed in this abattoir, we anticipate a much greater revenue for the territory. So much for Bechuanaland—

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Bechuanaland—

I am only on economics. I am a little fearful of the hon. Gentleman trying to lead me into politics, so I am afraid I cannot give way.

I was going to deal—

No. As I say, I am a little bit fearful of getting into politics. I always like to give way, but I have very little time. If the hon. Gentleman could assure me he was sticking to economics I would give way, but I do not want to be led into the by-ways of politics.

In Swaziland there is plenty of water. We are spending £200,000 on rural development, and that includes agriculture, cattle, hygiene, health, and water supplies. There is there an interesting project of afforestation carried out by the Colonial Development Corporation; it has gone very well, and it looks as if it will be very successful, both financially and from the point of view of developing the resources of Swaziland. This is a project of afforestation side by side with private enterprise. In connection with afforestation, the Colonial Development Corporation also have plans for irrigation, which have been carried out to a certain extent.

Recently we encouraged and approved a survey of the hydro-electric possibilities, of Swaziland, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred. Swaziland is the hydro-electrical engineer's dream. We think that 250,000 kilowatts could be developed if it were all got going. The bye-products would, of course, be enormous, with the possibility of the extension of the irrigation to something like 500,000 acres.

We are thus carrying out a survey into the possibilities of hydro-electric engineering, and also encouraging irrigation, partly by private enterprise and partly by the Colonial Development Corporation. Coal, iron, and other minerals, have been found in Swaziland, and a survey is going on with a view to the possibility of large-scale production of the electric smelting of ferro-silicates and manganese.

This has been a very brief and rather rushed account of what we are doing in the three territories, but I welcome this opportunity of being able to give an account, pro tem so to speak, to the House of what we have done in these three territories. I hope the House will approve of what is being done, and will agree that it has been done so far with. efficiency and energy.

Following the price increase in milk in December last, during the debate in February I argued that the price increase had affected the consumption of milk. This was denied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. The February figures were not then available to us. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the consumption had risen in February in spite of the increase in price. He said:

"There is, in fact, this month"—

February—

"a substantial increase in the consumption of milk,"—[OFFIC1AL REPORT, 26th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 1092.]

These were false premises.

When the figures were published, however, we found that, if we allowed for the fact that this is Leap Year, the consumption had fallen in February as it had in the preceding months. The Parliamentary Secretary therefore had misled the House—and this is the important fact—was acting on false premises that consumption had not been affected.

When in July we were discussing milk again, following a further price increase, we on this side of the House argued that this price increase was affecting consumption. The Parliamentary Secretary then argued—dealing with figures which were not available to us, and I say at once arguing with some reservation—that in July the figures showed only a decrease of 3 per cent. Again the Parliamentary Secretary was on a false premise. When the figures were published we found the decrease in the consumption of liquid milk for July was 2,300,000 gallons and the percentage figure for the decrease was in fact six times the figure which the Parliamentary Secretary had given to the House.

We on this side of the House were really talking about the consumption of full price fresh milk, and in that case the consumption had dropped as the figures showed by 2.4 per cent. for that month. The position now is that the total decrease for the past 11 months. allowing for February having 29 days, has been 27,800,000 gallons. The Par- liamentary Secretary offsets against this six million gallons that went in cream.

I take the view that the Government take, that cream is counted for this purpose as fresh milk and not manufactured milk. The Parliamentary Secretary was again on a false premise, because the figures now show that for these 11 months the fall in consumption is in fact 2 per cent. It is 2 per cent. for October and preceding months when no question of cream arose. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that he cannot run away from this argument because at this moment discussions are being held with the dairymen and the Ministry has agreed for the purpose of arguing about distributors' margins that the decrease is 2 per cent.

According to "The Milk Industry," the official journal of the National Dairymen's Association, the Ministry have accepted a loss of throughput, as a result of the increased retail prices, which they now compute at 2 per cent. There has been an appreciable reduction of consumption. That is stated by the Ministry in their discussions with the distributors, and it is stated by the Ministry to be the result of increased prices, which is important because it means that this decrease will persist.

The question which we now have to resolve is whether this appreciable decrease in consumption which is admitted by the Ministry in their negotiations with the distributors is in fact significant. I argue that it is significant because it is continued, it is significant because it is aggravated, and it is significant because the Ministry now accept as a basis for discussion with the distributors that there will be a continuance of at least a fall of 2 per cent. It is significant, too, that this figure is now admitted to be due to the price increase. More than that, the decrease in itself is significant because it entirely reverses the trend of milk consumption in this country.

We had an increasing milk consumption until the end of 1951. This present decrease does not only mean that milk consumption this year will be less than in 1951: it means that it will also be less than in 1950, so the decrease is significant because it means that we have so far reversed the trend that now we are running a consumption level below even that of 1950.

On 8th December, the Parliamentary Secretary then raised a new argument. He said that the fall in milk consumption, which he then admitted, had been in the higher income groups. I do not believe that is so. However, I first want to deal with another category. Even when I was at the Ministry we were very worried about the consumption of milk in families. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that he gave the figures in April that in the second half of 1951 single people in this country were drinking each week one pint of milk per head more than members of families with three children, and one and a half pints more than members of families with four children.

I believe that this gap has been further widened. It is my experience from such inquiries as I have made, and this reveals an important social and nutritional problem. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary—because he has had a good deal of experience in this matter—what he proposes to do about it.

I now turn to the question whether the fall in consumption can be attributed to a fall in consumption of the higher income groups. It cannot on the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has given to the House. It cannot arithmetically because these figures do not allow for a fall of 2 per cent. These figures cannot be related to the fall of 2 per cent. which is now admitted by the Minister as the fall in consumption. Moreover, we have to realise that the National Food Survey only became a general survey in 1950. It is far too early to use these figures, especially as they relate to income groups, at such short notice for comparative purposes. After all, the National Food Survey has only just published a few days ago its annual report for 1950. I would say that it is far too early to argue from those figures about this year.

Another factor I believe is that these figures are two-monthly figures. The Parliamentary Secretary gave them as quarterly figures. I believe that during the time I was at the Ministry we made these two-monthly figures, which means that it is difficult to argue from figures in respect of such a short period. Quite apart from this, there is a good deal of outside evidence, and the retail associations in particular have provided evidence, that there has been a considerable fall, greater than the 2 per cent., which is the average fall, in working-class districts. Co-operative societies and the like provide this evidence.

I have been anxious to raise this matter because it is now rumoured that the Minister is considering a further increase in the price of milk. In the light of the figures I have been able to reveal to the House, that would be a scandalous decision to take, and I hope that this debate will at any rate have some effect upon the Minister before he comes to that decision.

As this is the season of good will towards all men, I do not want to upset the Christmas season for the Parliamentary Secretary. I will simply supply a few figures to indicate clearly to him that during Christmas, when he is in the quietness of, I hope, his own fireside, he will know that the writing is on the wall as regards his defence about the milk problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has given a very good survey and some indication of what is to come. My task in three minutes is to supply one or two details which will indicate to the Minister that next year, in February or March, he will have a very difficult time in dealing with any Adjournment debates about milk.

I have been able to get from several Co-operative societies up-to-date information about what is happening with regard to milk supplied to households. The downward swing since the beginning of October is remarkable. First, I take the Brighton society. In July this year, when milk was 6d. per pint, there was an average sale to households of 13.55 pints per week. On 1st September, with milk at 6½d. per pint, the figure became 13.51 pints. In the week ending 1st December, it had gone down to 12.91 pints. Taking the comparable weeks for 1951 and 1952, the weekly sales to households in the week ending 1st December last year were 13.37 pints, whereas in 1952 the figure was 12.91 pints, or a reduction of three per cent.

The London Co-operative Society has collected several hundred roundsmen together, and from their experience at the door they are unanimous in saying that women have been telling them that they cannot afford any more money for milk and must reduce the quantity accordingly. Let me give some specific figures from the South Surburban Co-operative Society, which is in London, for the last week in November in 1951 and 1952. Although they now have more members than last year, their sales of milk in the last week of November this year were 86,975 gallons, as against 89,839 gallons last year. So much have the numbers of new members increased that many rounds have had to be re-organised, but even despite this the decrease in milk sales is substantial.

I could give instances all over the country, particularly in the textile areas, where there has been a very big drop in sales, but I should like to quote the Birmingham Co-operative Society. In the last week of November, 1951, they sold 320,510 gallons of full-priced milk to 170,425 households. In the last week of November, 1952, however, sales had dropped to 319,379 gallons, or a decrease of 1,131 gallons, while the number of households had risen to 173,120. In other words, there was an addition of 2,695 new households, but a drop in sales of more than 1,000 gallons. The implications from the dairy managers, who get this information much more up-to-date than the National Food Survey, is that during the recent few weeks the decrease has been alarming.

The writing is certainly on the wall, and it will be proved before long that it is not good enough to say that the rising cost of living has not affected the poor people but that the decrease in sales applies to the higher income groups.

When the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) raised the subject of milk this afternoon, I wondered whether he was at last filled with the milk of human kindness and whether we would miss his customary acerbities.

Let us get to the facts. To take the first 11 months of this year, in comparison with the previous year there has been a fall of 1.6 per cent. in the total liquid sales of milk. To take, as the hon. Member suggested, and with good justification, the full price milk, the fall has been 1.9 per cent. in comparison with the first 11 months of last year. Oddly enough—I make this not as a debating point but as one of interest and importance—if we take the case of school milk, which, of course, was not increased in price, the first 11 months of this year show a reduction of 1 per cent. on the previous year. It is a mistake too readily to draw conclusions from that situation, but bearing in mind that the school population has increased it clearly raises—perhaps as a side-issue—an interesting problem worthy of consideration.

Why has this reduction taken place? Is it, as the hon. Member argues, because of the increase in price? In the first place, the reduction in school milk is not because of the increase of price. If we turn next to the National Food Survey to find where the reduction has taken place, looking at the four categories, the main reduction in consumption has been in the more prosperous categories A and B. The reduction in what, for convenience, I may call the two middle class groups, has been of about a quarter of a pint per head per week.

Much as we may feel discomfited that the statistical results do not coincide with our own set opinions, the fact remains that this reduction—2 per cent. overall—has taken place in the relatively prosperous groups. I think it reasonable to infer that whatever the reasons may be, they are not wholly or mainly reasons of cash. I am not presuming to assert what those reasons are, but I am resisting the argument that it is wholly or mainly a matter of cash.

I add one observation on the nutritional point which the hon. Member raised as one of great gravity. The 2 per cent. which has not been consumed as liquid milk this year has found its way into the human body in other forms, for milk not consumed as liquid milk goes for manufacture—for example, butter and cheese. There are more ways of taking milk than by swallowing it in liquid form.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) gave on this occasion, as on a previous occasion, some rather startling figures. Being the time of good will, I shall not repeat an observation of a friend of mine who suggested that the Co-operative societies might have suffered in their sales through competition—

They have more members this time.

Anticipating that we should have the comforting presence of the hon. Member, I have taken out some figures for a number of Co-operatives and find that they vary enormously. For the London Co-operative Society sales fell, in the case of the Willesden Branch by 0.25 per cent. in August to October—the last figures available for the purpose. At Ealing the figure was plus 0.8 per cent. and in the Manor Park Branch it was down 6.1 per cent. As we go down the list we find the oddest and most widely varied changes. The Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, Woolwich Branch, had a fall of 1.2 per cent. while Mitcham had an increase of 1.6 per cent.

Deptford?

I have not the figure for the Deptford branch, but had I known that the hon. Member would be here I would have got that figure.

The significance of this is that it is misleading to infer a general proposition from isolated or single examples. The general position is a fall in the consumption of milk this year of 2 per cent.

Bearing in mind that that milk is still being used for nutritious purposes and that the consumption fall has been in the higher income groups, it is not justifiable to assert that there has been a serious or important fall in the consumption of milk. It is certainly untrue to assert that the reason for such fall as exists has been the economic reason of the higher price of milk.

I am in no way attempting to minimise the significance of a fall in the consumption of milk, but at the same time it should be borne in mind that we are consuming 60 per cent. more liquid milk than before the war. I think it right that we should always examine critically the consumption of milk and milk products as an important element in nutrition. But I do not for one moment accept the severe strictures or gloomy prognostications to which we have listened this afternoon.

I am sorry that we have not present here a representative of the Ministry of Health to deal with what is one of the most serious matters of administration which could have been raised on the Adjournment during the last few months. I have no doubt we shall find someone who cares to come in and listen to the debate on this matter, few Members as there may be in the House.

It is very unfortunate that we have to raise this question in so short a time, because this is a matter which affects every hospital in the country, and may have serious effects on the development of our Health Service. The fact that 10 minutes after the time we expected to open the debate we should not have a representative of the Ministry here, I think, is shocking, and the attention of the House and the country ought to be drawn to it.

I am glad that the Minister of Health has come into the Chamber. I am grateful to him for putting in an appearance at this time. I was hoping that his hon. Friend would stay to hear this short debate because, to some extent, he is implicated; but I understand that he has another important and pressing engagement and I willingly release him.

It is important, in my opinion, that we should have this short time to try to elicit some information about the new step the Ministry of Health has taken in issuing this circular, a copy of which I hold in my hand. It is a circular on economy in manpower which has gone out to regional hospital boards and the boards of governors of teaching hospitals, and which makes certain important and striking changes in the staffing position of those hospitals.

As the time is so short I cannot hope to do more than merely open the matter for the attention of the country, and to ask certain questions to which I hope we may have replies. It will, of course, be understood that we on this side of the House will certainly seek the earliest possible opportunity of raising this matter much more fully as soon as the House reassembles; and when, no doubt, there will be more evidence available about the effect of this circular upon the hospital.

This is a circular which certainly affects every hospital and will embitter the relationship between hospital management committees and regional hospital boards, a difficult problem at any time, but one which is made much more difficult by the task imposed upon regional hospital boards by this new circular. It certainly adds to the amount of centralisation, an odd result in view of the proud boast of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that one of the great features of their administration in the health field was the reduction of the amount of centralisation.

I have noted an extract in that rather extraordinary Conservative Party document just published called, "We shall win through," which says, so far as the hospital field is concerned:

"Arrangements governing hospital finance have been made less rigid and less centralised."

I hope that in view of this circular, which everyone must agree makes the whole arrangement more centralised, that at least they will submit, for the general edification of the population, an erratum to this document.

There is no doubt that the proposals in this circular will affect most unfairly the position of one hospital as against another which is a matter to which I wish to refer later. There is no doubt, either, that in so far as services are maintained economies will not obtain, and in so far as the circular succeeds in achieving financial economies, to that extent services will be effected detrimentally.

What does this circular provide? First, that there should be a comprehensive review of hospital staff. We can have no objection to that. Indeed, that has been going on for some years, and a great deal of progress has been made by the various forms of investigation carried out both by the survey teams and in other ways, and by the actual staffs in the separate hospitals. No one would suggest that that is not a proper matter for full investigation and most careful control.

But, in addition, the circular provides that there has to be an immediate return of the existing staffs of all hospitals and what amounts to a freezing at that wholly arbitrary figure. It is a freezing with the proviso that, so far as staffs may be subject to appointment by management committees, increases can be achieved only by reference to the regional hospital boards, and, so far as appointments are made by regional hospital boards, they must be subject to approval by the Minister himself.

A further point in the circular is that there has to be an attempt to reach a target reduction of 5 per cent. in a miscellaneous category of staff which includes domestic and maintenance staff and certain professional groups in hospitals. Finally, there has to be a quarterly return submitted to the regional hospital boards and to the Ministry of the numbers of staff changes which have taken place and a report upon what the general policy of the management committee may be.

My first comment is that the hospital management committees are, by the operation of this circular, being stripped of some of the last vestiges of their authority. This cannot but have the effect of making many persons who have given most valuable voluntary service doubtful whether there is any further use to the country in the work they are doing. I should like to know whether this proposal means that the Ministry are in the process of disbanding the hospital management committees. It is important that we should know. It would appear from this decision that that is what they intend to do.

This means much more centralisation. It means that matters which were within the competence of the management committees will now be transferred to the regional hospital boards and that matters which were within the competence of the boards will now be referred for the decision of the Ministry itself. The Ministry is the last authority which should have the power of dealing with these detailed administrative matters which I always thought that the Minister himself was most anxious should be left to local determination.

I wish specifically to ask one important question. Why have the Ministry of Health changed their view on this matter? A short time ago the Select Committee on Estimates recommended that there should be a full review of staffing, a review which, by that time, had already started. The Committee also recommended that regional boards should have wider authority over management committee staffs. What did the Ministry say in reply to that recommendation? In the Third Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, they said:

"With regard to other types of hospital management committee staffs, it is an essential feature of the current review of establishments already mentioned that, when the proper establishments has been determined for a particular management committee, no increase shall be made in it without the prior authority of the regional board concerned."

I have no objection to that. I do not object to the securing of an agreed establishment figure and then saying, "If you go beyond that, you must have authority."

That is another matter; but it is not proposed to do that. The Ministry are taking an arbitrary figure of the number of staff which may happen to be there at this moment, and saying, "You can redress inequalities between one hospital and another only by reference to the Ministry, in certain questions, and by reference to the regional hospital board in others."

The Report goes on to say:

"Accordingly, in the case of administrative and clerical staffs, where establishments have been determined after review, management committees are now required to seek the approval of the hoard before making additional appointments; and boards have also been empowered to control increases in the administrative and clerical establishments of other management committees over the levels existing in December, 1951. It is proposed as already indicated to empower boards to exercise a similar control in relation to other types of staff as and when establishments are determined on review."

That is the crucial point. Why have the Ministry given up the view, which they took as recently as February this year, that proper establishments should be worked out and agreed upon, and that they should be made compulsory, if necessary, subject to review by higher authority? Why have they given that up and insisted, probably because of Treasury pressure or something of the sort, on having this day-to-day review of a whole host of individual cases, which will clearly block up the whole machinery?

It means, of course, and this is one of the anxieties which regional boards and management committees have expressed to us, more and more forms and people required to deal with them. As I suppose the right hon. Gentleman knows, those responsible in the regional boards are saying that they will need more staff in order to provide the extra information for which he is asking. I do not know how he is dealing with that. Perhaps the Prime Minister will review any increases of staff of that kind requiring to come before higher authority?

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that official representations have been made to me by regional boards that they will need more staff to deal with this problem?

I am merely saying that the Minister will know the comment that is made in the country to that effect. I have no information.

I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is speaking in the House of Commons, and I asked him if he has any evidence for what he has just said. I now understand him to say that he has no information.

No, none at all. I only know that many of the members of regional boards and management committees have expressed these views, and I should be very surprised indeed if they had not expressed them also to the Minister. I hope he will take the view that there is something in this.

What is to be the provision, and what sort of criteria will the Minister use, in deciding whether additional staff are to be approved or not? If he has no criteria, how are the regional boards to carry out the task which he imposes upon them, and what sort of criteria are they to use, because they will be appointed to do the job, and the most odd cases are bound to arise?

There is bound to be delay, and, as is surely well-known, there is the possibility that, in making these appointments, suitable and desirable types of person may not present themselves at the right moment. The delay may very well mean that we will not be able to get the people best qualified for the job. There is, in fact, great concern throughout the hospital world, and I hope the Minister realises it, about the developments that are likely to ensue from these decisions.

I am sure that we on this side would not complain about any proper steps being taken to ensure full control of the staffs, while ensuring also that there is proper economy in the running of the hospitals. What is the reason for the general attitude taken up by the Ministry in reply to the recommendations of the Select Committee, which seem to be most sensible? The Minister has thrown over their proposals, and has drawn up this entirely new apparatus of running the hospitals, with a new form of centralisation which we understand the party opposite were most anxious should be removed.

I raise this matter as a mere preliminary to a debate which I hope we shall have in the House at the earliest possible moment, when the matter can be gone into much more thoroughly. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give replies to some of the immediate points which I have raised, and that the Department will maintain very careful control over the operation of this circular, in view of the serious effect it will have on hospital services throughout the country.

I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) to the extent that the matter he has raised is a very important one, and we welcome the opportunity of replying to some of the points he has made.

I wish to say, first, that the planned programme for dealing with the staffing of the hospital service under the National Health Service Act is not something new, or something that has just started, but has been going on for some time. In fact, the idea of reviewing and fixing the establishments was conceived by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) as far back as 1950 when he issued a circular in which he suggested that the review of the staff should be made. The circular concluded by saying:

"On receiving the Report, the Minister will consider the recommendations and inform the board or committee of what in his view is their proper establishment in the field under investigation. The boards and committees will then be required not to exceed that establishment in any grade without first obtaining his authority in the case of officers appointed by the board or, in the case of officers appointed by the management committees, the authority of the regional board."

So there is nothing new in the idea that the size of the staff of the hospital management committees must be decided by the regional hospital boards and the staff of the boards by the Minister. I think it a little hard that, having been, as it were, the political midwife to that child, the hon. Gentleman should now abandon it when it is two years old.

The hon. Lady is merely repeating what I said. I said that we entirely agree with that policy. All I want to know is why they are changing it.

I will deal with that in a moment.

Four years have already passed, and it is essential that progress should be made in this matter, particularly in view of the fact that there is disparity—and in some cases wide disparity—between the staffing of hospitals and this will speed this up and help us to see where the gaps exist. Far from making the position worse, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it will make it better because we shall get the staff where we most need it.

Finally, the circular of 1950, which, incidentally, went much further than the present instructions in the memorandum issued by my right hon. Friend specified the numbers in each grade. The present circular, now under review, merely specifies that there should be no overall increase in the establishments within a group. So it is possible, within a group, to iron out the places where there is a deficiency in one case and an excess in another.

Is there an underlying assumption in what the hon. Lady says, that there are redundancies in some hospitals in the region and shortages in others?

There are shortages in certain areas and there are other areas where there is ample evidence—obtained from the review conducted—that in some hospitals there has been over-staffing, and there have been reductions as a result.

In April, 1951, following the circular of 1950, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) reaffirmed the policy outlined in the 1950 circular in his foreword to the 1950 Report of the Central Health Services Council. He again accepted the principle of control about which hon. Members opposite are complaining so bitterly. He said quite firmly:

Once the establishment is fixed"—

and this is merely another method of fixing the establishment—

"authority will be required before appointments in excess of it are made."

It is, therefore, a very small point which the hon. Member opposite is challenging, because the whole principle of establishing the staffs and placing authority upon the regional board and the Minister for their increase is one which has been accepted throughout the hospital service since its institution. The difference is that the hon. Gentleman wants us to tack on another year, or however long it may take to do the remaining areas, whereas we are satisfied with the present arrangement. My right hon. Friend has made it quite plain that where there are shortages it is his intention that permission shall be given for those shortages to be made up.

But does the hon. Lady not realise that the difference is the difference between detailed control of individual appointments by the Ministry and the determination of an agreed establishment, which was agreed to all along?

My right hon. Friend's instruction is not as firm and as rigid as was the intention of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale when he sent out the circular in August, 1950. I have merely quoted the actual words, and if the hon. Member was not aware of the circular which was then sent out I cannot do other than quote it exactly.

So far as reviews are concerned, 264 out of 435 regional hospital boards, boards of governors and hospital management committees have now been visited and in 180 cases establishments have been determined for administrative and clerical staff and in all these there has been no engagement of extra staff without prior consent. So, in that respect, there is no variation with regard to this circular.

Hon. Members opposite are ignoring the disparity of staffing. To take two examples, in one of the teaching hospitals there are 102 on the nursing and midwifery staff to every 100 staffed beds. In the average general hospital there are 53 nurses and midwives to every 100 staffed beds, and in the mental hospitals there are 15 on the nursing staff to every 100. If hon. Members opposite think that a vitally important matter like this should go on being delayed then I must say that my right hon. Friend does not agree.

Where reviews have been carried out, certainly in the case of one regional board area, very firm control has been taken over the appointment of staff. In the Croydon Group Area, where efforts were made to find whether there was redundant staff, there has been a reduction in 1952 of £21,000 a year without any detriment at all to the efficiency of the service.

Is there a waiting list of patients for beds, attention and treatment?

The £21,000 refers to the administration of the hospital.

The Select Committee on Estimates which, after all, is an all-party body, recommended in July that the whole question of the staffing of hospitals should be reviewed on a national basis by the Ministry of Health and, further, that the individual regional hospital board should be given more extensive powers of controlling the size of the staffs of hospital management committees than they possess at present. That was the opinion of the committee reporting on the Ministry of Health. It was a view which was accepted, and I believe it is a view which was confirmed by the Central Health Services Council itself.

The memorandum which my right hon. Friend issued recently was referred to the Committee of Regional Hospital Board Chairmen, who held a special meeting to discuss it and in the latter half of that meeting they had joint consultations with Ministry officials. They ironed out certain points of detail and agreed to operate the scheme, as one would expect from these very public-spirited men and women who give their services to the exacting task of chairing these vitally important regional hospital boards.

What the memorandum does is to require hospital boards and hospital management committees to obtain the prior consent of the next highest authority before they increase their staff. In many institutions that has been in operation for some time already. It asks the boards and the committees to carry out a detailed and far more rapid review than has been in process, to see what savings they can achieve by re-examination of duties. There have been some remarkable successes in the re-organisation of duties, in putting in new equipment and labour-saving devices and in the discontinuance of inessential work.

The regional hospital boards will participate in the reviews of the hospital management committees and my right hon. Friend has called special attention to the question of non-medical and non-nursing staff, in which they are asked to try to make a reduction by 5 per cent. before next October. But this is adjusted to the circumstances of the group. If it is found that there is undermanning a group may not make this 5 per cent. reduction, and others who may be found to be over-staffed may be called upon to make a reduction which is slightly above 5 per cent.

There is to be no blind or arbitrary cut of staff and my right hon. Friend has laid it down quite categorically that the essential services are not to be curtailed. So far as staffs themselves are concerned in any reductions, the normally established practice will be followed in that the longest possible notice will be given to anyone who may be redundant.

What the memorandum does not do, and what right hon. Gentlemen opposite still endeavour to claim that it does do, is to curtail essential services. It does not stop the continuity of recruitment of staff in undermanned institutions. Hon. Members opposite are well aware of my right hon. Friend's grave concern about the undermanning of certain sections of the hospital services. If it is known that vacancies exist and that other hospitals are adequately staffed and need not take on additional staff, then staff can be diverted to the hospitals where it is most needed. We all know that it is most needed in tuberculosis and mental hospitals, and we are bearing that point very much in mind. The effect of the memorandum will be to make it easier to fill those gaps.

Further, this memorandum does not propose any target for the reduction of any medical or nursing staff; nor does it impose control over individual appointments. Vacancies will be filled as an ordinary matter of routine, and it is only those increases in total numbers of staff in their broad categories which will have to be justified before they can be permitted.

The memorandum does not require consent for normal replacements and it does not put all the control into the hands of my right hon. Friend or of Whitehall, inasmuch as most of this staff is employed by hospital management committees—same 400 of them—who will receive their authority from the regional hospital boards.

There has been a need for speeding up the planned programme which has been in operation for over three years. The need for financial economy and prudent spending is known to all hon. Members, and when one realises that 65 per cent. of the total of £225 million spent on the hospital services alone goes to salaries and wages of hospital staffs it is obviously absurd to think of any review of the finances of the National Health Service if one is to ignore this vast field of expenditure.

So far as manpower is concerned, in 1951 there were 15 per cent. more full-time staff and 33 per cent. more part-time staff than in 1948. We do feel that we must be fully satisfied that there is no waste of national manpower and that any additional appointments over this vastly increased number must be justified. Where they are needed my right hon. Friend is as anxious as anybody to see those gaps closed. Frankly, the purely financial control of the budget is not enough. In the budget the effects on manpower are quite often masked by pay increases, salary increments and the like.

I am convinced of the rightness of this new measure because the reviews of existing staff and the restriction on their increase can only be fairly challenged by hon. Members opposite if they are to accept two premises. Do they suggest that the hospital services ought to give employment to, and, therefore, the taxpayer ought to pay for, more staff than are necessary to maintain essential services to the public? Or do they suggest that nowhere in the whole of the National Health Service is there more staff than, with proper organisation and a proper use of labour saving devices, would be needed to maintain a proper standard of service and care? If hon. Members opposite accept those two premises, they are justified in their opposition, but if they do not accept them—and we ourselves reject them—they are not.

I am convinced that neither of these propositions can be sustained. It is our responsibility to see that both the manpower and the finance of the National Health Service are conducted with the greatest care and prudence and, as my right hon. Friend intends, that we use the proposed measures to see that the very severe gaps and shortages in some of the services are filled, and also to see that we provide the most efficient service we possibly can provide.

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for repeating so much of my speech. I should like to ask her how she believes this circular will help the position of the understaffed hospitals? Under the scheme previously followed by the Minister, establishments were agreed and hospitals could build up to establishment without reference to higher authorities. Under these proposals they would have to approach their higher authority before making the additional appointments which are needed by the understaffed hospitals.

What is more important is that staff will not be absorbed where they are not necessary. In the case of opening an additional wing and finding perhaps 20 or 30 nurses, obviously the authority of the regional boards would be needed under present circumstances.

I am most grateful for the opportunity of being able to raise the case of Mr. Gammon, but before doing so I cannot refrain from congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health upon the resolution with which she read her brief, undeterred by the clock or by any argument which had been advanced.

Mr. Gommon, about whom I want to talk, is a master of the Northampton Grammar School and he was engaged as art master in 1945. At that time the Grammar School was an independent foundation; they could select their own masters and take their own views about their qualifications. They engaged Mr. Gommon because they thought be would be a good art master, and they were successful in their choice, for he turned out to be an outstanding schoolmaster. The headmaster, Mr. Nettleton, tells me that when he took over the art department of the Northampton Grammar School it was practically derelict. Since then it has been changed into one of the most successful departments in the school.

The results of his students have been outstandingly good. I believe the examination results have compared favourably with any comparable establishment in the country. To quote a single example, of the 12 prizes open to all England offered by the Royal Institute of British Architects—12 prizes in four years—Mr. Gommon's pupils have taken five, including two firsts. Apart from that—and I think this is an example which shows his capacity to inspire—a new dining room was provided for the school which had one wall with a surface area of 177 feet and four other walls with areas of 73 feet, and in their spare time Mr. Gommon's pupils covered all the walls with fresco. That involved the cartoons, the squaring, getting it on to the surface and the sheer physical achievement of covering that area—quite a formidable task. I do not put myself forward as a judge of art, but as a layman I certainly think that any other layman who saw that wall would say that it was a most remarkable and most attractive achievement. It does indicate a capacity to inspire, which I believe is amongst the most important qualifications a schoolmaster can have.

Apart altogether from this, he is a man who does not stop at his particular subject. He runs the Grammar School's cadet corps. He runs the school theatricals, painting the scenery and producing the plays. Simply as a schoolmaster, the headmaster tells me that Mr. Gommon is second to none amongst his assistants. I would say further that he has an important influence, not merely within the school, but upon the whole life of Northampton.

Northampton, from an artistic point of view, is a most interesting place. We have recently acquired Graham Sutherland's "Crucifixion," Moore's "Virgin and Child," and Dobson's "Woman with a Fish." There is for some reason or accident an artistic renaissance in that town which it is rather exciting to be in. There have been a number of exhibitions of local painters, and Mr. Gommon has played an outstanding part in inspiring that general movement in the town.

But despite all these outstanding claims, he is not qualified. He had not the qualifications necessary when he was engaged, and because he is not qualified the governors are not authorised to pay him according to the Burnham Scale. That is the difference. It affects his pay. They can have him there, and he can run his department. His department expanded so that an assistant had to be employed. That assistant had done a year's course provided by the Ministry. This assistant draws £50 a year more than his chief, because his chief is not qualified. And so the question of qualification has to be considered, and the qualification which was decided upon is called the National Diploma of Design.

I do not know much about that. It is an examination which is part written, and partly consists of painting—submitting paintings to a board which consists of some distinguished artists, two Academicians, the manager of an advertising agency, and one or two other gentlemen. Mr. Gommon on four occasions has passed the written part with ease, and on four occasions he has been rejected upon the ground that he does not paint well enough.

The irony of that decision is that Mr. Gommon happens to be a rather distinguished artist. When he might have been getting the Ministry of Education qualification he was earning his living as an artist. He will be found, his work referred to, in any of the standard books on art dealing with art in this country in the 'thirties. In Wertheim's book—Mr. Wertheim of the Wertheim Galleries, a very well known authority on this subject—in Mr. Wertheim's well known book, "Adventure in Art," a whole chapter is devoted to the art of Mr. Gommon. Yet he is a man who cannot paint well enough to draw the Burnham Scale salary in a grammar school. He has held two one-man exhibitions in London. This is what "The Observer" art commentator, Jan Gordon, had to say about one of them—the first exhibition:

"Gommon, not yet 20, displays the power and authority of painters of 20 years' standing. Such virtuosity at so early an age tempts one to wait and see what he will do later. He has plenty of time in which to receive his mede of encomium."

His works have been bought for public exhibition by no fewer than six galleries in four countries. After all, public galleries buying works of arts have to advise them bodies at least as authoritative as the Ministry's examiners. They consider not merely whether a man has the competence to teach in a grammar school, but also whether his works of art are of such importance as to be bought with public money for permanent exhibition. Six such panels from four countries have decided that Mr. Gommon's art complies with this higher test.

I have seen his paintings, and I was most anxious that hon. Members should do so. I therefore arranged for Members to see his paintings here yesterday, and 160 Members, including several Members of the Government, went to see them. I am sorry that neither the Minister of Education nor the Parliamentary Secretary, although they were specifically invited and informed—

Oh, no. Since the hon. and learned Gentleman says that, perhaps I might say that I will say what I have to say about this when it is my turn, and I would never hang a dead dog on my memory, but unless I am more than usually off my rocker, I heard nothing whatsoever about any specific showing until I read an account in the "News Chronicle" a very short time ago.

I am awfully sorry, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take this up with his Ministry, because I telephoned his Ministry and particularly requested that both he and his chief, the Minister, be informed and invited. I am exceedingly sorry if that invitation was not conveyed to him, but I took pains to do that. Since the pictures are still in the House, I hope the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to see them after this debate. It will be with great pleasure that I shall show them to him.

I think every Member who saw them—and I talked to a tremendous number—was greatly impressed by the obvious artistic competence of Mr. Gommon. Some liked his work more than others, but there was complete unanimity—and I do not think there is room for any other opinion—that this was a most competent painter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) liked his paintings so much that he wants to buy a couple. There may be different views about that, but as to his competence—and he paints a great variety of things—I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can differ from every person from this House and from the Press who saw these pictures. They are very good. Yet four times running they were rejected. Now why was this? The only answer which he has got is this statement:

"All marking of painting was subjective and impersonal, and nothing can be done."

All I can say is that I do not know anything about this diploma on design; Mr. Gommon does not want any diploma; his position in the art world is quite sufficient, and does not require a diploma to support it.

What he wants is to be recognised on his performance as a qualified teacher, and to receive what he would be entitled to as a qualified teacher, namely, £493 a year as against £360 a year which is what he is paid at present. The trouble is that we in Northampton will lose him if this does not happen. University appointments are not made very often, yet only the other day he was on the short list for Bristol University. Had he got that job—and he was within one of getting it—it would have been his job to train and examine the masters for the very qualification which is denied to him. It is within the Minister's power to authorise the governors to pay. There can be no question at all about that. I had it both from this Minister and from his predecessor.

The Ministry suggest that it would be an injustice to other teachers. May I read to the Minister what the other teachers say? This is what his colleagues, signed by every one of them, some 36 in number, at the grammar school, say:

"We, colleagues of Mr. D. E. Gommon, F.R.S.A., cordially support your efforts to win recognition for Mr. Gommon as a qualified teacher of Art.

"We hold Mr. Gommon to be an artist of no mean ability himself, and we are left in no doubt as to his capabilities as a teacher of Art. He has his own happy way of developing the latent talent of individual boys and of fostering a keen appreciation of Art in his classes generally. His own success as a teacher is reflected in his pupils' successes in public competition. His part in the stage productions of the school compels our admiration.

"We are fully in favour of safeguards to ensure a high standard in all branches of the teaching profession. For those subjects normally regarded as 'academic' the college or university which has given the training usually provides the evidence. We suggest that artists and musicians may derive their training in a more personal way, and we urge most strongly that some fresh criterion be devised for assessing the worth of teachers of aesthetic subjects, such as by the examination of evidence available at the place of teaching."

I would endorse that. If this diploma is of a standard which rejects Mr. Gommon on subjective grounds, it is utterly inappropriate to the question of what salary the man ought to be paid.

I would, before concluding, say two things very briefly to the Minister. Please do not give us the argument in reply "Your Government did this." We have had too much of that. Do not say that, unless the Minister is going to say, in which case I will applaud him, "We, this good Government, are going to correct it and put it right." I would also say to the Minister this, "Do not say, Ah, this is against the rules.'" There is no point in having a Minister at all if his only job is to see that rules are carried out. A Minister that is worth his while is a Minister who, when he sees that rules have plainly worked injustice and caused absurdity and inconvenience, finds a way of correcting the rules. I hope that he will show that he is in that category.

I believe that these are always very difficult questions to deal with, and I am extremely anxious not to say anything that may seem in any way exacerbating. I wonder if it is in order for me to begin by asking the hon. Lady who is waiting to introduce her Adjournment Motion what is the minimum number of minutes she thinks that she will require.

The minimum I want is the maximum I can get.

Then I am afraid that I must make this speech as best I can, and leave that to be as it may. To take one comparatively preliminary point first. I had not met the point before that Mr. Gommon had been appointed in the Independent days of the school, and therefore ought now to be treated differently from a master employed in a Maintained school. My information, which I had to gather rather hastily—

My information is that Mr. Gommon was actually appointed as an occasional teacher from September, 1945: and, therefore, the Ministry's Regulations must have applied to him.

Perhaps I may now refer to two or three others of the things said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I will go back to a slightly more continuous argument. I am not in any way concerned to judge or belittle Mr. Gommon's achievements or his abilities. I do not think it is quite fair to say that when he might have been getting a qualification, he was earning a living as an artist. He might for that matter have done both at once.

It certainly is not fair to say—I quite understand it being said off the cuff, so to speak, but it has been said more than once and I was surprised that it should be said again—that it is rather cruel and derisory to say to Mr. Gommon, "Why not get a qualification now?" because there would be the question of feeding himself and his family. The answer is that he has been given special permission to take a shortened course, and there is no reason why he should not be a part-time candidate at the Northampton Art School while pursuing his present avocation and drawing his at present, I admit, small and, in many ways, inadequate, salary. There is no reason why in doing that he should not also be attending sufficiently at the School of Art to enter for the examination. I do not, therefore, think that that argument is quite fair.

I do not attach very much importance to the argument about injustice to other teachers, an argument which appears on the correspondence from time to time and to which the hon. and learned Member referred; but in so far as that argument has any validity—and I think it would be admitted to have some—the hon. and learned Gentleman's rebuttal was wholly irrelevant. The injustice, if any, would be to other teachers seeking this sort of post, not to teachers of quite other sorts inside this school. So that really the hon. and learned Gentleman's attempt to rebut that argument by quoting the testimonial of Mr. Gommon's colleagues, is really not quite fair.

Nor is it very much use to pray in aid what was said by a critic nearly 20 years ago, when Mr. Gommon was only about 20 years of age, or what was written in commendation of Mr. Gommon—I say this by no manner of means in criticism of anybody, but we here all of us avow interest when we speak what was written by a critic who was also, apparently, as appeared from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, a dealer in the pictures. I do not think, therefore, that those parts of the argument need much affect the House, and I hope I may now pass to the more general case.

There has been for a very long time a strong current of opinion and, I think one might say, an agreed policy—if I am not here traversing the hon. and learned Gentleman's injunctions about what I might and might not say—whichever party has been in office, for a great many years; agreed, therefore. between the parties so far as the policy goes, and agreed also between the participants in the public educational machine—that is to say, between the Ministry, the representatives of the teachers and of local authorities and of Government bodies, and so on: between all of them there has been a strong current of opinion, which I think it is not an exaggeration to describe as an agreed policy, tending towards the making of the whole teaching profession in the local education authority schools, in maintained and aided schools, into one single qualified profession.

That agreed policy can be found—I will not weary the House with too many references—in the McNair Report, on page 45, and I think that unmistakable traces of it can be found in the statutes which now govern these matters. The McNair recommendation was accepted by the Minister. His acceptance was announced in March, 1945, in Circular 30. The thing as a definite policy is almost exactly coeval with the present principal Act and it has been since that time, and still is, the intention of the Minister that only qualified teachers should teach in permanent jobs in maintained and assisted schools.

I come to the question about the examination first. I think that is perhaps the fair thing to come to first. I am bound to say I did not receive any invitation. If I were responsible for not having received it, or any of the officials in my Ministry, I wholly take the blame for that—if something was passed to me and did not impinge on my consciousness.

It can happen in the best regulated Ministries.

Nothing whatever impinged on my consciousness until a very short time before, until I saw the piece in the "News Chronicle."

The hon. Gentleman may see it later?

Yes, I will. I did not go to see it partly from the point of view of time and partly from the point of view that I thought there was some slight risk that that might be taken to be tending to an admission that either the Ministry or the House of Commons ought in some way to be a kind of revising body over the examiners in this regard. That seems to me the first principle upon which the House have to make up their mind and I would respectfully suggest to the House that upon that matter they should take the advice of the hon. and learned Member, not as he put it by implication today, but as he put it explicitly in 1950 when, writing of this matter, he said:

"I do see your difficulties in the matter and realise that you cannot overrule your examiners."

The first point upon which I ask the House to agree with me is one upon which I ask the House to agree also with the hon. and learned Member, that we cannot have examinations re-tried either in the Ministry or in the House of Commons. I appeal, if I may, not from "Philip drunk to Philip sober," but from Philip the advocate as he now is to that earlier better avatar which was still faintly fluttering in 1950, to take the view not that the House should have an opportunity of seeing this work and judging it, but to take the view that we cannot ask the Ministry or the House to overrule the examiners in this matter.

The whole point is that this is the wrong examination for this purpose and I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to do that.

That, with respect, is not the point. The point was that the pictures should be looked at in order to see whether the examiners could be judged to have been competent. I say that is a false point and I ask the House to agree with me, whatever it may think of the merits of this artist and whatever it may think of the merits of the examiners. That really is the first point.

What the hon. and learned Member is after is not any querying of the examination, although he puts it in that form, but that he thinks that in appointing art masters no examination ought to have any relevance at all.

indicated assent.

I am glad to notice agreement. That saves me the trouble of making quotations to the House.

I start in these matters with every prejudice in favour of free trade. But it is extremely difficult to see how we can preserve a general free trade in teachers' freedom in any school in the L.E.A. system to hire anybody it chooses, thereby making him part of the educational machine, fixing the salary and thereby making the tax-payer pay. There must be some way of doing something else.

What is that to be? It must not be wholly by looking at a man's pictures; indeed, the whole gravamen of the charge against the examination is that Mr. Gommon passed the written part and yet his pictures did not sufficiently please the examiners, and that might have been so, whoever else the examiners had been. If we are to say that all teachers of primary and secondary schools ought to constitute one single qualified profession, and that I think was generally agreed, I can see arguments against it. On a proper occasion I should be prepared to debate that, either for or against. But it has been the practice, and the agreement of all those concerned, for a good many years now. If so—ought art masters to be a special kind and left out? I think not. I do not think many intending masters would desire that that should be so. Therefore, the attempt has been made to set out a series of ways in which those desiring to become art masters or, if art masters, to become qualified art masters, should get some sort of objective qualification which should be one of the things to be taken into account. There is no doubt at all about it that on Mr. Gommon's experience and so forth, the appropriate and easiest way to do this was by passing an examination for the National Diploma in Design.

Unfortunately, and for all I have to say to the contrary, because the examiners were wrong every time—I have been an examiner myself too often not to know that examiners can make mistakes—but however it happened, he did fail three times in that examination. The rules were then altered, and he was able to have a fourth shot, and unfortunately he did fail again. The Minister cannot, I think, be expected to express any doubts or any lack of confidence, and has no lack of confidence, in the examiners.

One thing I would say on that point is that the first three times the examiners were almost the same year after year, and that, it seems plainly, is not the best possible arrangement; though I do not think there is any suggestion of any prejudice in this case from any side. But that clearly is not the best possible arrangement, and will not happen again, and has not been happening for some time. That risk has already been excluded.

But too late for this gentleman.

Not too late for this gentleman, no. This gentleman could do it again—

Yes, but too late in the sense that he had sat three times, whereas if there had been an earlier change he might have passed the second time.

Well, he might, but nobody can legislate retrospectively for that possibility. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not suggest it.

Those really are the simple arguments which the House has to consider. Is it right that the tendency should be to make all teachers in maintained and assisted schools into a qualified profession? Is it right in assessing qualifications that there should be some element of objective test which means in some sense an examination? If we went and looked at the pictures and said "Alpha plus" or "Gamma minus," it is some sort of examination. Does the House think that that is the right way to do it? It certainly is the policy of all concerned up to date.

Secondly, the House has to decide whether it thinks that there ought to be any court of appeal from such examinations. I began with that, and I do not wish to repeat myself. I think that nobody really could on reflection assert this. I have been an examiner and I dare say that the hon. and learned Gentleman has examined for the Law Society or for the Inns of Court. The business of an examiner would be intolerable if there were to be courts of appeal, public or private, and I can hardly imagine a worse court of appeal than the Ministry.

The Minister is a kind of court of appeal in a very restricted sense: if something has gone wrong administratively, papers have been put in the wrong envelope or wrong dates have been announced or something like that. But for the actual examining of papers or pictures, I could, with all respect, hardly imagine a worse tribunal than my right hon. Friend, even if she were the greatest artist in the world and had been a practising teacher for 30 years. If there were to be a worse tribunal, perhaps it would have to be Members of the House of Commons shepherded through a Committee room by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

In the short time that is left I have the almost impossible task of trying to fix the attention of the Ministry of Education on a growing national crisis in our educational system; but this matter is sufficiently important for me to attempt to discuss it even in the short time that is left. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to my case.

If I link this problem with its application in my constituency, this does not mean that the same problem is not arising in all other parts of the country. The schools crisis in Blackburn is one which is merely symbolical of the schools crisis in the areas of other Members of this House. I suggest to the Minister that unless we deal with this matter—and deal with it quickly—we shall be in the farcical situation of having a completely lop-sided development of our social service planning, with all the propaganda weight of the Government being thrown behind the housing programme and failing to relate that programme to the provision of the necessary schools whereby the children who are going into the new housing estates can receive an education.

That is what is happening in my constituency. Lancashire and Cheshire head teachers who met in Blackburn recently passed a resolution expressing their serious concern at the restrictions upon school building and calling on the Government to remove them as soon as possible. Their complaint was that there are thousands of very old and decrepit schools that need renovating, but that the only building allowed at present is in the new housing estates. My complaint is that not even on the new housing estates in my constituency is adequate provision being made for the children now going there to live.

I want to quote some examples to the Parliamentary Secretary and to try to get his answer on them. My local authority has already sent deputations to the Ministry to protest at the way in which their school building programme has been slashed in the economy cuts of this Government. We have the situation on the Green Lane housing estate in Blackburn that 240 new houses will be occupied by the end of next year. Already 80 houses are occupied and 175 children of school age, or near school age, live in these houses. There is no school whatever in the area of this housing estate.

The local authority has an excellent school site which it bought before the war and which it has been waiting to develop. The housing estate is now being occupied, but when an appeal is made to the Ministry, the only development allowed is the construction of some temporary huts. Then there is the housing estate in the area of St. Stephen's, Little Harwood, where 250 new houses have been built since 1946. There are 1,300 homes in this polling district, and the St. Stephen's school is the only one in the area. This is totally inadequate.

The local authority put the building of a new school in its programme to the Ministry, but that has been rejected, and all that is allowed is the building of one additional classroom and a new cloakroom. The need for a new school is desperately urgent, but the Ministry have turned it down, while another section of the Government boasts about the great housing development programme of the Government.

The third and most acute problem arises on the Shadsworth housing estate, where 1,200 houses are being built, and at least 100 will be occupied by the end of 1953 and some 400 by the end of 1954. As a result of tremendous protests and pressure by the local authorities, the Minister has now agreed to the building of one infants' school, but, there again, he has insisted that the building of the school should be delayed beyond April of next year, which is the starting date.

That means that the school will not be ready until April, 1955, and that, in the interim period, there will be an absolutely shocking situation on this housing estate. There is not a single school in the whole of the east end area of Blackburn, in which this estate is situated, which has a vacant place, and yet the Ministry postpones the building of the school which is so urgently needed.

Even more acute on that housing estate is the situation caused by the refusal of the Ministry to permit the building of a new Roman Catholic school, the building of which has been considered by the local education authority, and, I believe, by the Ministry's own inspectors, as being the most urgent school problem in the whole town. In the time available, I cannot give as many details as I would like to do, but the Ministry should be well aware of the problem of the Roman Catholic children in St. Joseph's parish. in which this housing estate is situated.

One school there, St. Joseph's, is already fantastically overcrowded, and has standards so shocking that any Ministry of Education worthy of the name would be anxious to deal with it. There are 177 children in three classrooms in the infants' school at St. Joseph's, and 88 are in one classroom. The junior school playground is so small that half the children have to play in an adjoining street. The sanitary accommodation is so inadequate that 231 senior and 86 junior girls and 177 infants, nearly 500 children in all, are using nine w.c.s between them.

When this problem was put to the Ministry, the church authorities of St. Joseph's parish pointed out to them that they had a school site on the Shadsworth housing estate which the local education authority had approved, and that they were anxious to develop a new school, but the Ministry refused to allow the building of a new school to be included in their 1954 programme. That means that the building of this school would not in any case start until April, 1954, which means that it would be April, 1956, before the Roman Catholic children on that housing estate, and the children whom it is desired to transfer from the already overcrowded schools, can receive any kind of education at all.

That was bad enough; indeed, it was disgraceful, but a new problem has arisen because the Ministry, in fact, are now challenging the whole idea of the need for the building of a transferred school on the Shadsworth housing estate for the children of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic parish, and they are now in communication with the church authorities on lines which show that they are completely misrepresenting the claims of the church authorities in this matter. They are arguing that, under the provisions of the 1944 Education Act, it is laid down that there should be no increase in denominational school accommodation, but are now turning round and saying that, as the new premises would relieve overcrowding at existing schools, would create more classrooms and be of a better standard altogether, this would have the effect of providing more denominational school places.

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to say this afternoon whether or not the Ministry stand by their latest reply to the church authorities in this case, because it is a reply which cannot be sustained in the light of the facts. I also want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can really justify the answer which his right hon. Friend gave me yesterday in answer to my Question on the position of schools in Blackburn. His right hon. Friend replied:

"If the best use is made of the schools available, it should be possible to find places in schools for all children of school age on the estates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 240.]

I challenge that answer, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give me an assurance with regard to St. Joseph's School and to realise that there is profound anxiety and alarm throughout the whole of Blackburn concerning the educational future of the school which is being destroyed by this Government.

In reply to the last two questions that were put by the hon. Lady, the last of which was whether I stood by—

I think the hon. Member ought to ask for the leave of the House to speak again.

I beg the pardon of the House, and I must ask the permission of the House to reply.

The hon. Lady's last point, I think, was whether I stood by the reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary concentrate, in the two minutes that are left to him, on the point about St. Joseph's School?

I will do everything I can within reason, but I was asked to answer the two specific questions with which the hon. Lady ended her speech, and was trying to do so.

St. Joseph's School is in Shadsworth. The hon. Lady knows the neighbourhood better than I do, and when she refers to something I sometimes have a different name on my notes. The position there is that the pew infants' department to which she referred was put on the programme that the Ministry was asked to put it on. It was not kept waiting; it was put on the programme the Ministry was asked to put it on. Steel has been made available for it, and work, therefore, should start early in the year 1953–4, that is, in April. I suggest it should begin on my birthday and be called St. George's School.

Next year?

Yes, that is the programme for which it was asked.

They have the programme and they have the steel, and they can start any day in April. If they wait until the 23rd. they can call it St. George's School, and I shall be gratified. They have not yet asked for a new department. The one for which the steel is provided will, we hope, be ready by September, 1954, when there will be, it is believed, about 400 houses. Some of the children in those houses will be too young to go to school; some, no doubt, will wish to stay on for a bit at their old schools.

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Roman Catholic schools, or to the local authority infants' school which is already included in the programme.

I am telling the hon. Lady what I can about the school arrangements at Shadsworth, and I am just coming to the paragraph about the Roman Catholic part of it.

We know, of course, that the Roman Catholics are in some difficulty, and that the most convenient school for them is St. Joseph's, and that that is overcrowded. It is fair to say, and I say this absolutely without prejudice to the question whether under fives had better go to school or not, that the overcrowding is partly due to the many under fives there. It is surprising to find that about 10 per cent. of the whole school population in Blackburn are under five.

There is some spare room, I am informed, at St. Mary's. Suppose that out of these 400 new houses, 100 of them are occupied by Roman Catholic families. Some of the children, no doubt, would be seniors, some too small to go to school, and some, again, would already be at St. Joseph's, and, therefore, there would be no—