Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Thursday, 5th April, 1962

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Official Report, 4Th April (C 431)

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw your attention to certain words in today's copy of HANSARD. I am sorry that I read them only a short time ago and have therefore not had the opportunity of approaching you about them before now. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said:

"The hon. Member is awake today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1962; Vol. 657. c. 431]

I have no quarrel with those words; they are true every day. But the inference contained in them is entirely malicious and is a reflection on my personal character and integrity. If they mean that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is embarking on. a vendetta, then of course I am prepared to enter into that vendetta and let the hon. Member have all that he is asking for. I ask for your Ruling on the inference contained in those words.

Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance about whether it is in order—and I surmise that it is not—for an hon. Member to attribute malice to another hon. Member in what he may have said in his speech.

I will give the House my view. I did not notice or hear the observation when it was made yesterday. It is out of order to impute misconduct of any kind to an hon. Member, save on a substantive Motion. The matter was not raised yesterday, so I suggest that we do nothing whatsoever about it. The hon. Member having raised the point, I hope that there will be no more of this bind of thing which does not add to our general dignity.

Building Land (Registrations)

asked the Attorney-General if, in future, the number of first registrations of title of building estates where the price paid per acre exceeded £5,000 may be reported in the Annual Report of the Chief Land Registrar, so that more accurate evidence may be obtained of this aspect of inflation.

No.

Surely the cost would be very slight, especially if done as a running matter? The information could be obtained as registrations were made. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that his Chief Registrar said that this was of vital importance for the purchasing of houses in the provinces? Why does not he want the correct information?

The Land Registry has no means of identifying building estates, and, even if it could, the work involved in recording the information asked for would be considerable. As the compulsory registration of land does not yet cover more than a comparatively small part of the country, the information would be of little value.

Why did the Chief Registrar make that observation in his Report? If the matter was of such an erratic nature, why did he put the weight of his Department behind drawing attention to it?

As I told the hon. Gentleman on 8th February, the statement in the Chief Registrar's Report was based not on a statistical record kept at the Land Registry, but simply on observations during the year.

Official Secrets Acts (Prosecutions)

asked the Attorney-General if he will state the principles which guide him in deciding whether or not to authorise prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act.

I authorise prosecutions for offences against the Official Secrets Acts in those cases where, having regard to the relevant facts, I consider that it would be in the public interest to institute proceedings.

While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that staggering Answer, may I ask whether, in making these decisions, he accepts the general principle that the original intention of this Act was to proceed against serious espionage and things of that order, rather than against relatively trivial offences, and least of all for what amounts to political persecution?

The hon. Gentleman is quite Wrong in his observation about political persecution. The Official Secrets Acts are intended to protect official secrets. The actions of the accused in the recent case were, and were meant to be, akin to sabotage, and it was clearly right to prosecute them for the offences with which they were charged.

Does the Attorney-General adhere to the assurance given in this House when the Official Secrets Act was passed that it was intended to deal with cases of espionage, and was not intended to affect the freedom of speech?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Acts in detail, he will see that they cover a wide variety of subjects, including registration of postal addresses and things of that kind. In considering whether or not to prosecute, I must direct my mind to the language and spirit of the Acts and not to what my predecessors said about them many years ago in an entirely different context.

Is the definition of the words "in the public interest" to be left solely to the prerogative of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Would he be good enough to define what is meant by "in the public interest"?

It is not a question of my prerogative. It is a question of my duty, which I do my best to discharge.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider this matter? Does he not appreciate that the present operation of the law has become so farcical as to bring it into supreme contempt? Is it not the case that in the recent proceedings which we all have in mind, the protection offered by the Statute, by requiring the Attorney General's fiat before any prosecution under the Act is taken, is set at naught by the simple device of charging a common law conspiracy where more than one person is concerned, so that that safeguard has gone? Is it not completely farcical for the common law offence of conspiracy to commit offences under the Official Secrets Acts to be allowed to proceed, and people to be sent to gaol for it, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself indicated, according to his Answer to me, that when people did the things they were incited to do. it was not in the public interest to prosecute them under the Official Secrets Acts?

With regard to the first question, I do not think the law has been brought into contempt at all. In relation to this prosecution, there was no question affecting freedom of speech. The accused made no secret of their intentions, and their own literature showed that they contemplated the possibility of being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Acts. With regard to the second point, relating to my consent as to prosecuting or not for an offence under the Official Secrets Acts, my consent was not formally required, but as I told the hon. Gentleman, in fact, my consent was given to the prosecution on the charges preferred against them, because they were preferred by the Director of Public Prosecutions under my authority. In reply to the third question, which suggests that it was somewhat farcical to bring these proceedings, there I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order. Owing to the entirely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I should like to give notice to raise the matter again at a suitable opportunity.

Parliamentary Commissioner

asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that Members of Parliament who have shown interest: in the question of individual grievances continue to receive correspondence from individuals who allege they have no adequate means of obtaining proper investigation of complaints against authority; and whether he will take steps to implement the proposal of the Whyatt Report for the institution of a British Ombudsman responsible to Parliament.

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I have no information about the correspondence received by hon. Members on this subject. With regard to the second part, I would refer him to the Answer I gave last week to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More).

While appreciating that my right hon. and learned Friend has this matter under consideration, as he said in his Answer, may I ask him if that Answer is not something of a fence-sitting formulary? Is he not aware that individuals aggrieved in this fashion, concerning whom I can pass on to him ample correspondence if he wishes, are, failing an appointment of this kind, apt to take the only constitutional way they have of expressing their dissatisfaction otherwise at the polling stations? Will not he and his right hon. Friends descend from the fence while the fence is still there to descend from?

I would require a very substantial fence, but I am not sitting on one at the present moment. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Report, interesting as it is, raises difficult questions of both principle and practice, and the examination of it must necessarily be detailed, and, therefore, must involve some considerable time.

Law Reform (Limitation Of Actions) Act, 1954

asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954, in view of the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Cartledge and others v. E. Joplin & Sons Ltd., reported in 1962 I Q.B. p. 189.

No. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland appointed a Committee last year under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Edmund Davies to advise them whether legislation is desirable to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions in cases of personal injury, where the injury or disease giving rise to the claim has not become apparent in sufficient time to enable proceedings to be begun within three years from inception. It would be premature to introduce legislation before this Committee has reported.

Will the Attorney-General draw the attention of that Committee to that fact that pneumoconiosis is a disease in which slow and progressive damage may be done to the lungs of a workman without his knowledge, and that if this happens through a breach of statutory duty by his employers, it is obviously unjust that his remedy should be barred after three years when he may not know until later what damage has been caused? Will the Attorney-General please bring the recommendations in this case to the notice of that Committee?

I do not think there is any need to do so at all, because it was on account of cases of this character that this Committee was set up. I am sure that the Committee is fully aware of the problem, for that very reason. It is a problem under its consideration.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that while all their Lordships unanimously rejected the de non apparentibus, et non existentibus, eadem est ratio, two of them expressed the view that the onus of proof remained on the plaintiff to establish the date of non-opposed facts? Will he bear in mind that Lord Justice Pearson specifically, in his concluding words, invited examination of the grave difficulties which would result to plaintiffs under a three-year limit trying to establish claims in the case of a disease which clearly does not manifest itself normally within three years?

That is one of the specific tasks of the Committee, and one hopes that we will have its report by July of this year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a matter that should be dealt with, but it is not easy to find a satisfactory solution.

General Commissioners Of Income Tax, Oldham And Chadderton

asked the Attorney-General to what extent it has been the practice of the advisory committee on the appointment of General Commissioners of Income Tax for the area including the county borough of Oldham and the urban district of Chadderton to ask for nominations or recommendations for membership from representative local organisations including the trade union movement.

There have been no appointments of General Commissioners for the Oldham area of the Middleton Division since 1st January, 1960. No question of the Advisory Committee asking for nominations or recommendations has, therefore, arisen. It would not, however, in any event be in the public interest to disclose particulars of the procedure of the Advisory Committee, which is appointed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to advise him personally and confidentially.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, while appreciating both the promptitude and the courtesy of the letter which he has sent me today, its content and mental pabulum are non-nutritional? While I respectfully agree that, in the appointment of directors of I.C.I., the General Commissioners for Income Tax or the Bench of Bishops, political considerations should not predominate, one is aware of the fact that they never seem to produce a Socialist majority.

So far as the General Commissioners of Income Tax are concerned, I think it is very desirable indeed that all questions of politics should be kept outside appointments of the Commissioners—political views and all that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do want, if we can, to get taxpayers from all sections of the community.

asked the Attorney-General what was the date of the most recent appointment of a General Commissioner for Income Tax for the area including Oldham; and when further appointments are contemplated.

The 31st July, 1958. It is not possible to forecast when a vacancy is likely to occur.

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the present limit of fourteen is a statutory limit or merely a discretionary limit, and whether vacancies can be made, for example, by simply increasing the number, without statutory intervention?

I think I am right in saying that it is a statutory limit, but I will look into the point.

Council On Tribunals (Report)

asked the Attorney-General whether Her Majesty's Government will give effect to the recommendations contained in the latest Report of the Council on Tribunals, namely, that when a Minister proposes to disagree with an inspector's recommendation he will notify the parties to the appeal of his disagreement and the reasons for it and afford them an opportunity for making comments and representations in writing before finally making his decision and, secondly, that when the Minister proposes to depart from the inspector's recommendation, because of fresh evidence on a question of fact, or fresh expert evidence, including expert advice, or the introduction of a fresh issue, the inquiry should, if any of the parties so desire, be reopened and the new evidence or issue should be produced at the reopened inquiry.

The Council's Report was received only last Friday and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is studying it as a matter of urgency with the other Ministers concerned. As my noble Friend has already indicated in another place, he is in full sympathy with the Council's approach to this problem. I must, however, make it clear that the Council's first recommendation does not go as far as the hon. and learned Member suggests, for it is confined to cases in which the Minister disagrees with his inspector either because of some factor not considered at the inquiry or because the Minister differs from the inspector on a finding of fact.

Since the recommendations of the Council are clearly in accordance with natural justice, may we hope for fairly speedy action in this case from the Government?

The Government always act speedily.

Ghana

Former Civil Servants (Pensions)

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he drew the attention of the Government of Ghana to the United Kingdom Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, in relation to the pensions of ex-members of the Colonial and Her Majesty's Overseas Services formerly employed in the Gold Coast and in Ghana; and what was the nature of the Ghana Government's reply.

On 19th January, 1960. The communication did not call for a reply.

Since that was over two years ago, does not this show clearly that once a country has gained its independence—with the single and honourable exception of Nigeria—it is disinclined to look after its ex-servants? Since £5 million, I understand, is possibly to be lent to the Government of Ghana without any reciprocal orders to this country, is it not possible, if the British taxpayers' money is so lent, that consideration be given to pensioners and to other claimants?

It is not our practice, of course, to impose conditions of this kind in granting financial aid to independent Commonwealth countries. I am well aware, the Government are well aware, of the anxiety of my hon. Friend and of other Members of the House in regard to the arrangements for overseas pensioners who may be expected to increase as more Colonial Territories become independent, and we are at present studying the position.

May I ask my hon. Friend if, by saying that it is not a practice of the Government, he means that that practice in no circumstances can be altered? Did he not hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General say a moment ago that the Government always act speedily? Why should we not tell Ghana speedily that we expect something to be done for those whom she ought to be proud to help?

The hon. Lady read into my remarks something which was not there. Of course, when we give aid to independent Commonwealth countries we normally do what in all the circumstances we consider it in our own wide and long-term economic and political interests to do. These considerations are, of course, in our minds.

Malaya

Former Civil Servants (Pensions)

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he drew the attention of the Government of Malaya to the United Kingdom's Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, in relation to the pensions of ex-members of the Colonial and Her Majesty's Overseas Services formerly employed in Malaya; and what was the nature of the reply of the Government of Malaya.

The Act was brought to the notice of the Government of Malaya in a letter from the British High Commissioner dated 15th December, 1959. In a reply dated 3rd February, 1960, it was said that no increase to Malays' pensions was then contemplated and that a Committee had been set up to review the Widows and Orphans Pensions Scheme, including the question of cost of living allowances.

That is a long time ago. Is my hon. Friend aware that 555 out of 1,620 pensioners get an increase of less than they would do under the United Kingdom Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959? Is this not a very bad advertisement for anyone now wishing to serve the Crown overseas?

Scandalous, I think.

Of course, pensions vary from Commonwealth country to Commonwealth country. We bring improvements in British pensions to the notice of each Government, but it must be borne in mind that these countries are independent, and we cannot dictate to them what they should do about their own former employees.

Is there any possible way to bring to the attention of these Commonwealth countries the increases which this Government may allot to pensioners and the widows of Service pensioners widowed before 1958?

In the sense that this Question referred to Malaya, I did in fact say that a Committee had been set up in Malaya to report on widows' and orphans' pensions including the question of cost of living allowances. That Committee will report to the Malayan Government. I am sure that these considerations' are very much in the minds of Commonwealth countries. As my first Answer made clear today, they are very much in the mind of the Government in the United Kingdom.

In view of the comparatively small sums involved and the real service which these people have rendered in the past to this country, cannot Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom consider accepting responsibility in these cases?

I did in fact say a moment ago that the Government are studying the position, and that is a consideration which, of course, we have very much in mind.

Canada

Shipping (St Lawrence River And Great Lakes)

10.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what reply he has made to the Canadian Federal Government's request to vary the Commonwealth shipping agreement to prevent British ships carrying from the Great Lakes cargoes picked up at Canadian ports.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Canadian Government's proposal to restrict coastal trade in the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes to ships on the Canadian register. The British Government have felt obliged to accept this change in the terms of the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement.

Why?

Am I right in thinking that this is a fairly internal trade which is affected? I thought it was affecting trade outside the Commonwealth as well. Would it not be a very unfortunate thing if flag discrimination, which is a bad practice, were to be introduced within the Commonwealth? Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to avoid misunderstandings on flag discrimination in the Commonwealth?

The practical effect on British shipping will not be very great, but nevertheless we regret this change since it runs counter to the spirit of equal treatment which the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement was designed to assure.

Commonwealth Relations

Republic Of Ireland (Royal Navy Air-Sea Rescue Work)

12.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what arrangements have been made with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to facilitate Royal Navy air-sea rescue work in Republic waters.

Through meetings between the authorities of the two countries, effective liaison is maintained on all forms of air-sea rescue work.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this work is an important feature of the Service in Royal Navy bases in Northern Ireland, and can he tell me in particular what message of appreciation he received from the Republic Government after the Royal Navy helicopters had indulged in dangerous rescue work in violent weather conditions off the "Eagle" last winter?

Off the cuff, no.

Former Civil Servants (Pensions)

13.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in how many of the nine cases in which he gives financial aid to Commonwealth countries, it is a condition of that aid that pensions to expatriate officers should be maintained reasonably in line with the increased cost of living in the United Kingdom

Whilst the attitude of other Commonwealth Governments to the pensions of their former expatriate officials is one of the matters which we take into account in OUT general financial relations with them, it is not our practice to make our financial aid conditional in the way suggested.

Yes, but will my hon. Friend point out to those countries which are not fulfilling their duty to those who have served them in the past that this should not be entirely a one-way traffic? Further, will he agree that if those countries want more and more experts to go to them they would get a better response from new applicants if they looked after the people who have spent their lives in those countries and served them well?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point, that aid should not be a one-way traffic; but nor, in my experience, is it. As regards my hon. Friend's second point, I think one can agree with the general proposition. Naturally, it is up to overseas countries to offer experts attractive conditions, but I must say that most of them do so. I understand that some have in fact increased their pensions to their former civil servants above the United Kingdom level, although this is not altogether general.

May I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that if it is the Treasury argument that poor and developing Asian and African countries are responsible for putting right rises in the cost of living in the United Kingdom—which is an argument I do not accept—surely we are therefore left with the sanction of the purse as the only means of putting the position of those pensioners right?

I do not accept that for one moment. I did indicate earlier that the Government fully understand the anxiety of hon. Members about this matter, and it is a matter which we are at present studying.

Does not the reply of my hon. Friend show that some entirely fresh rethinking on the part of the Government is necessary, in that these servants, our own kith and kin, entered into service at a time when Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were in control, broadly speaking, of their terms of service? They should not be let down afterwards.

The circumstances have changed, and I think the situation calls for some rethinking.

In addition to the reasons about which we have already heard, is it not quite clear that we are all committed to help these countries? There are few more useful ways of helping them than by making it possible for them to recruit new people because they have behaved well to those who have worked for them in the past. Is not the solution for the United Kingdom Government to take responsibility for the people for whom they were originally responsible?

This problem is not as easy to solve as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. There are a great many considerations here before Her Majesty's Government can take over responsibilities which other Commonwealth countries are perfectly willing to accept, and, in fact, are carrying out. The problem is not as easy as that. There are these other considerations, and in the altered circumstances Her Majesty's Government are taking them very much into account.

Advisory And Technical Service

17.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will consult other Commonwealth Governments with a view to establishing a Commonwealth technical service.

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, has been considering the recommendation in the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates for the establishment of a Commonwealth Advisory and Technical Service and he hopes to inform the House of his conclusions next month.

While welcoming that information, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the East African countries, which will shortly all come under his Department, are likely to suffer extremely dangerous damage through the mass exodus of European technicians and civil servants unless some steps are taken soon to guarantee these people security of service? There seems to be no way of guaranteeing that security except in the context of some general Commonwealth scheme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that the recommendations of the Estimates Committee are being so closely considered will bring great encouragement to its members?

India

Her Majesty's Tour (Photographs)

15.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make arrangements for hon. Members to see, before it leaves this country, the display stand of coloured photographs of Her Majesty The Queen's tour of India, which Her Majesty is to present to the Victoria Memorial in Calcutta.

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty has graciously consented, and you, Sir, have agreed, that the display stand to which the hon. Gentleman refers may be placed on show in the Library from 11th to 19th April.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it used to be the practice of hon. Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party not to ask for any preferential treatment for themselves? If these photographs are to be shown they should be exhibited to the general public and preferential treatment should not be given to anyone.

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, but in the circumstances, I think he will agree that it is proper chat when there exists this very interesting and colourful collection of photographs which make a permanent record of Her Majesty's great tour of India, an opportunity should be taken to show them to hon. Members. This opportunity has been taken. The hon. Gentleman's point raises another matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has raised an important point. Would it not be worth while considering putting this very important and interesting display not in the Library, where it will be seen only by hon. Members, but, perhaps, at the top of the stairs leading to the Committee corridor, where other similar exhibitions have been shown?

I will certainly have that suggestion examined.

Cyprus

Secretary Of State (Visit)

16.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Cyprus.

As part of a continuous process of maintaining continuous contact with other Commonwealth Governments I have just paid a three day visit to Cyprus. This gave me the opportunity for an extensive exchange of views with President Makarios, the Vice-President, Dr. Kutchuk, and other members of the Cyprus Government. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of a joint statement issued at the end of my visit.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no request was made to him during his visit for amendments to the Constitution of Cyprus? Can he say what discussions he had concerning the consequences to Cyprus of Britain's potential adhesion to the Common Market and, in particular, was there any suggestion that Cyprus should apply for associate membership of the Common Market?

I can confirm that the Government of Cyprus did not raise the question with me of any change in the Constitution. With regard to the other point, we certainly discussed problems which might arise if Britain were to join the European Common Market alone and we also discussed the possibility of Cyprus, being herself a European country, applying for associate membership in the same way as Greece.

Was my right hon. Friend able to satisfy the Cyprus Government that the preferential exports of Cyprus were being fully safeguarded in the negotiations with the European Economic Community?

Of course not, The negotiations are only half-way through. But the Government of Cyprus have, and they stated so in the joint communiqué, expressed their satisfaction with the way in which they were being consulted.

Might I press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether there was any discussion of Cyprus applying for associate membership of the Common Market, even if Britain does not enter?

I really do not think that it would be proper for me to speak in public—so to speak—as a spokesman for the Cyprus Government. These are alternative possibilities which are, naturally, being considered, but I do not suppose that any firm view has been reached as yet.

Following is the text:

Archbishop Makarios, President of the Republic of Cyprus, had a meeting this morning with Mr. Duncan Sandys, British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The Vice-President and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Defence, Finance, Labour and Commerce also participated in the talks. The British High Commissioner was also present.

Discussions covered questions of mutual concern to Britain and Cyprus, including questions relating to employment in the Sovereign Base Areas.

Mr. Sandys explained to the Cyprus Ministers the latest developments in Britain's negotiations with the Six Governments of the European Economic Community; and they discussed together how the interest of Cyprus could best be safeguarded, if Britain joined the Common Market. Cyprus Ministers expressed satisfaction at the effective manner in which the British Government had kept them informed of the progress of the talks in Brussels.

In addition, a number of wider international issues were examined, including in particular the state of the disarmament negotiations in Geneva.

It was agreed that this exchange of views and information had been most helpful and that there was great value in the close and continuous consultation, which was one of the special features of the Commonwealth relationship.

Swaziland

Constitution

18.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is now the position with regard to the proposed constitutional changes for Swaziland.

At present district commissioners are holding meetings throughout Swaziland to explain the Constitutional Committee's Report and my right hon. Friend's observations thereon. The Swaziland National Council and members of the European Advisory Council are also holding meetings.

In view of the Importance of getting, in the end, a modern Constitution that departs from some of the traditional attitudes of both the African and European sides in Swaziland, will the Secretary of State consider, when he finally receives the report of these discussions, holding the next stage of the constitutional talks in London?

We have yet to receive the reports. This is a matter for consideration. When we receive them we must then decide on the next step.

If these observations by the Government are being discussed at meetings in Swaziland, is it possible for hon. Members to know what these observations are? Are democratic organisations in Swaziland, such as the People's Progressive Party, being brought into these discussions?

When the talks are resumed the views of the Swaziland Progressive Party will certainly be taken into account.

Colonial Territories

Captain Gardner (Terminal Gratuity)

19.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when Captain Gardner, M.B.E., may expect to receive payment of the terminal gratuity which has been due to him since his retirement on 4th December, 1961.

I understand that the money due to Captain Gardner was paid to him on 19th February.

I am glad to hear that. I think that the hon. Gentleman shared with me the rather inspiring experience of visiting the Wumumu Camp which is, perhaps, a remarkable example of African education. I hope that an opportunity will be found to make use of Captain Gardner's exceptional talents.

Certainly. I am only too happy to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman's accident in the hunting field was not terminal.

Uganda

Decentralisation

20.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider introducing a greater degree of decentralisation in the system of Government in Uganda on the lines now proposed for Kenya.

The present Constitution of Uganda is based on the arrangements made at the Uganda Constitutional Conference last year, and allows for a considerable measure of decentralisation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that representations are being made to his right hon. Friend by the rulers of certain kingdoms in Uganda? Is it right that Buganda should have federal status while the other kingdoms should have only semi-federal status? Would it not be wiser to introduce a regional system throughout the country?

I think this was decided at the Conference last year and it is quite clear that, if anything is to be done, it must be done as covering the whole of Uganda. There will certainly be an opportunity in June for these matters to be reopened at a national level although, as my hon. Friend knows, there are talks going on with some of the rulers now.

Molson Report

21.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now publish the Molson Report on Uganda; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 22nd March.

Can my hon. Friend say how long his right hon. Friend has had this Report in his hands? Further, as the Report may alter the Constitution, would it not be right to publish it before any general election in Uganda so that people may cast their votes with full knowledge of the implications?

No, Sir, I think that the whole point about this Report, whatever its proposals may be, is that it should be discussed between the kingdoms concerned as dispassionately as possible. I think that to have issued the Report prior to the elections would merely have added heat to a generally inflammatory situation, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is perfectly correct to delay publication of the Report—in any case, it would only have been a matter of days before the election—until after the election.

Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the Report is published as soon as possible afterwards so that there may be ample time to consider it before the next stage of the constitutional talks?

I am not absolutely sure, but I think that it will be published on 3rd May.

The West Indies

Commissioner-General

22.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, upon the dissolution of the Federation of the West Indies, he will recommend the appointment of a Commissioner-General for the West Indies with powers and responsibilities similar to those of the present Commissioner-General for South-East Asia.

No, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend at least not have a wholly closed mind on this subject, and will he agree that there are dangers in the growing spirit of separatism in the Caribbean area? Has not our Commissioner-General for South-East Asia shown that a senior and distinguished British representative in a crucial area can play a valuable rôle in co-ordinating the activities of our Ambassadors in foreign countries, our High Commissioners in Commonwealth countries and our Governors in Colonies?

I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has said about our Commissioner-General in South-East Asia, but I think that the comparisons he makes are not precisely similar. I will bear in mind what he said, because I think that it is vital to do all possible to assist the co-ordination of West Indian interests, but I think that the system he suggests is probably not the most apt for the actual situation.

Education

Colleges Of Advanced Technology (Physics Research)

24.

asked the Minister of Education if, following the evidence submitted to the Robbins Committee by the Institute of Physics and the Physical Society, he will take immediate steps to improve research facilities in physics in colleges of advanced technology.

The colleges of advanced technology have made good progress in developing research in all their departments, including physics. The new governing bodies will certainly wish to extend this policy, and I shall give them all the encouragement I can.

Does that mean that the Minister will extend financial encouragement to them as well?

I am very anxious that the initiative should come from the governing bodies. If they put schemes to me, I shall do my best.

Teacher Training Colleges

25.

asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that a considerable number of well qualified girls leaving school this year and desiring to enter teacher training colleges are un able to do so owing to lack of available places; and, in view of the serious shortage of qualified teachers, if he will make arrangements to enable girls wishing to enter the teaching profession to get special training while awaiting places at normal training colleges.

I know that a number of well qualified candidates have not so far secured admission to a training college for next September. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestion, but it seems better to concentrate the available resources upon maximum expansion of the normal training provision so that as many candidates as possible can be accepted. Meantime, the colleges nave been asked to make every effort to take as many candidates as they can, for example, by taking more day students.

Has not the Minister known for years that this year would be the year in which a large number of students for training as teachers would be available? What has he done? Why is not he prepared to do something effective so that they will not need to stay on a further term in sixth form and to ensure that these girls have at least some opportunity to help us in our great difficulties?

The difficulty arises from going over to the three-year course at the same time as the maximum bulge is coming out of the secondary schools. I have good hopes that the crowding up, which the colleges are very willing to do, will take care of a good proportion.

In order to meet this serious emergency in the training of teachers, will my right hon. Friend consider the creation of more day training colleges?

We are, in fact, enlarging the day training colleges, and I think that this is a very valuable new development.

Further Education

26.

asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the fact that enough university places will not be available for suitable pupils leaving sixth forms, what steps he is taking to provide alternative higher education for those who do not obtain university places.

A wide variety of courses suitable for pupils from sixth forms is available in colleges of advanced technology and other colleges of further education, and these are being greatly expanded in all parts of the country.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very grave concern felt about this whole situation since, because he has not properly dealt with the position of teachers in the universities, it is not now possible to have the number of places he expected? Has not he misled the University Grants Committee, and, now that there is no longer the possibility of having 170,000 places—indeed, there is not even the possibility of 150,000 places—what does he intend to do?

Questions relating to the universities must be put down to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Nuclear Tests, Christmas Island

Q1.

asked the Prime Minister to what country the inhabitants of Christmas Island are to be transferred in preparation for the proposed atmospheric nuclear tests; what steps are being taken to find them suitable homes and occupations; and what methods of persuasion are being used in the case of those unwilling to leave Christmas Island.

I am satisfied that the safety arrangements for the proposed nuclear tests are such that it will be unnecessary to transfer the residents of Christmas Island elsewhere.

President Kennedy And Prime Minister (Meeting)

Q2.

asked the Prime Minister whether, during his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he will propose issuing a joint declaration of their continued faith in, and active support of, the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations Organisation.

Both President Kennedy and I have frequently made our attitude to the United Nations clear. We are supporting the Organisation in a great variety of ways. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt understands, I would prefer not to commit myself to the text of any communiqué in advance of my meeting with President Kennedy later this month.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that, having regard to criticisms of the United Nations in both countries during recent months, it would be an important corrective if a joint declaration could be issued by the Prime Minister and the President of their continued intention to stand firm behind the United Nations in carrying out its Charter responsibilities?

I will bear that in mind, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must agree that constructive criticism does not imply a lack of faith.

Have not Her Majesty's Government an exceptionally good record in upholding the Charter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Suez."]—and is not the difficulty that far too many delegations at the United Nations seek to place upon the Charter interpretations which it cannot possibly bear?

I think that that is a problem. We debated this at some length recently.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that supplementary questions of the kind asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) show the need for a firm declaration in support of the United Nations Charter?

My hon. Friend has done very good service himself at the United Nations and, as I remember, in the debate he made a speech which was generally regarded in all parts of the House as useful and constructive.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets President Kennedy, will he remind him that it is more consistent with the principles of the United Nations to remove the restrictions on British shipping?

The right hon. Gentleman has assisted me at least in ventilating this problem.

Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference

Q3.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement about the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference.

Several Commonwealth Prime Ministers have replied to my proposals for the next Prime Ministers' Conference, but I think that it would be courteous for me to wait before making a further statement.

Commonwealth And European Economic Community

Q4.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to strengthen the United Kingdom's negotiations with the European Economic Community to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association, he will direct Ministers primarily responsible to study, and make proposals for, the expansion and freeing of trade and payments reciprocally between Commonwealth countries, to the end that Commonwealth, as well as European, economic unity may be achieved to mutual advantage.

Her Majesty's Government are continually studying ways of expanding trade between Britain and other Commonwealth countries. There are no restrictions on payments for imports from Commonwealth countries into Britain, and most Commonwealth products can be imported free of both Customs duty and of any import restriction. Duties and restrictions imposed in other Commonwealth countries are, of course, matters for the Governments of those countries.

Having regard to Under-Secretary Ball's recent comments in this country on the subject of Commonwealth Preference, is the Prime Minister aware that the prospect of E.E.C. membership might be better regarded in many quarters if it were to result in the strengthening rather than the undermining of, or the placing of a time limit upon, the preferential system of the Commonwealth the national economies of which are complementary to those of Europe?

All those matters are relevant, and, no doubt, will come up during the course of negotiation.

Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that no decision will be made about entering the European Economic Community until the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth have been able to meet and discuss it?

It is hoped that the Commonwealth Conference, if we can fix a date mutually agreeable to everyone, will be as I have described. There is a precise Question on the Paper for next Thursday in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) for which I should prefer to wait.

With reference to the original Question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the uncertainties in the situation which causes a good deal of anxiety is what the consequences of our entering the Common Market will be upon the attitude of Commonwealth countries to their trade with us and the consequent danger that they may prefer to intensify their trading with other countries? Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the necessity of informing the House as soon as possible about those dangers and whether he is satisfied, with the discussion he is having with Commonwealth Ministers, that they are not really serious?

All these matters are matters of almost daily consultation with both officials and Ministers of the Commonwealth. They will come up for full discussion at whatever date we are able to arrange by general agreement for the Prime Ministers to meet.

Surplus Skim Milk

Q5.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of public anxiety concerning wastage of British-produced food, what arrangements he is making between the Foreign Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Pensions, the Secretary for Technical Co-operation and others, to establish a joint policy to apply to famine relief oversea, or otherwise, British-produced food surpluses, including processed milk; and if he will make a statement.

Q6.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, to work out a joint policy for the distribution of surplus milk in processed form to those in need of it, both at home and overseas, including areas of famine.

Q8.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that all milk surplus to home requirements in the hands of the Milk Marketing Board is processed and made available for famine relief overseas, and is not tipped into disused coal mines.

Q10.

asked the Prime Minister if he will ensure that all British agricultural produce which proves surplus to United Kingdom requirements will be offered as a free gift to any international welfare organisation that can make use of it for famine relief.

It is natural that opinion in the House and in the country should be disturbed at food being thrown away when many millions of people are under-nourished. A temporary surplus of skim milk is expected this spring if the weather improves. I have considered with my right hon. Friends whether this surplus could be processed and made available to areas of need. To do this it would be necessary to install additional plant which I am told would cost upwards of £J million and it would produce dried milk to the value of only a few thousand pounds. The plant would lie idle for the rest of the year.

I am forced to the conclusion that this is not the best way of spending money on aid. We are a large food importing country and we are not generally a producer of surpluses. Therefore our aid to under-developed countries is normally made available in the form of grants, loans, technical assistance and educational and training facilities, although in times of famine my right hon. Friends collaborate closely to give whatever help in kind we can from British supplies. Our programme of aid now amounts to £180 million a year. To divert a £½ million to deal with a small temporary surplus of skim milk does not seem the best way to use our resources.

The Government will naturally be willing to consider sympathetically and refer to the Milk Marketing Board any suggestion which may be put forward. For example, if any welfare organisation is able to make use of this amount of liquid skim milk, or if any commercial organisation has the capacity to deal with it, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would be more than glad to put them in touch with the Milk Marketing Board.

While my right hon. Friend's statement, for which I thank him, will do a good deal to allay the lamentable, even melancholy, impression created in the public mind that we were reverting to the practices of the 1930s, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that this is not a temporary phenomenon and that this surplus has been increasing ever since 1957? In view of the steady and progressive increase in the output of liquid milk, all of which we cannot consume in this country, will not my right hon. Friend consider making arrangements of a more permanent character, looking further into the future, having regard to the fact that this situation is likely to recur on a growing scale in future years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but we must keep the matter in perspective. There is a surplus at certain seasons. There must be a surplus if we are to have sufficient liquid milk during the winter months. We have plant to deal with more than 90 per cent. of it. The question is whether we should have plant, which would work perhaps through the holidays and at other times, to deal with the remaining very small amount which may occur from time to time. That is the problem. As I say, we deal with practically all of the skim milk. It is a question of whether it is worth spending an extra £500,000 to bring the amount of skim milk dealt with up to 100 per cent. That is the only question.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his Answer is very disturbing indeed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly. It is all very well to talk about percentages, but 2 million gallons—

Pints.

of skim milk mean a great deal to many people who are starving. If this situation is likely to occur year after year, does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that this subsidised milk—it is paid for by a subsidy from the Government—should be poured down coal mines? Will not the right hon. Gentleman do what the United States of America are doing and arrange for this milk to be processed and given to U.N.I.C.E.F. for distribution to children who need it?

That is not the point. There are only about 250,000 gallons, not more. There are not 2 million gallons. As I say, there would be difficulty in working these plants through the holidays. Since we already deal with 95 per cent. or more of the skim milk, the question is whether it is worth putting up a plant which would work only a week or two in the year. It is a matter of degree. If we were to do it, I think that there would be an equally strong attack about waste. It is a matter of balance.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his reference to Government expenditure of £500,000 is quite unrealistic? Has his attention been drawn to a report in today's Daily Telegraph in which it is stated that a reputable firm of food manufacturers announced that, if it were not for some pedantic and unnecessary Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, it would have been prepared to erect a factory in Northern Ireland at its own expense to process all of this milk and to export it?

I do not know what pedantic Regulations were referred to. They may have been those which protect the holidays of the people.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to predict how much skim or other milk will be surplus to requirements in any year? Will he also make it clear that we are prepared to give this surplus milk to any institution which will take charge of it, process it and distribute it to the famine areas?

Yes, Sir. As I have said, we process more than 90 per cent. of it. I have not the exact figure. We are talking about a tiny proportion. We are considering whether that can be dealt with in some other way, but it is difficult to transport skim milk. That we are looking into. It is a question whether, on a balance between cost and results, it would be worth while or right to do this.

As the Prime Minister said that he would welcome approaches from either welfare societies or private firms, can he say whether, if they approached him, he would be willing to give any such societies or firms either financial assistance or assistance in transporting this milk?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates the problem. It is very difficult to transport skim milk. It has to be processed in some form. We should have to put up a plant to process it. As I have said, we have a plant which deals with practically all of it. The only question is whether it is worth our while or anybody else's while putting up extra plant which would probably have to work at times when it would be difficult to keep the plant in full operation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is quite wrong to call this product milk? It is skim milk which is the residual surplus of butter-making. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is already a surplus of dried skim milk in this country and that it would be quite uneconomic to process this additional quantity of skim milk at present?

I understand the difficulties and I hope that from what I have said the House will realise how tiny and marginal this matter is. It is a question whether it would be worth while incurring additional expenditure to deal with it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem can be repeated every year? Therefore, will he ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to allow the Agricultural Research Council to carry out research into how best this milk can be used? On the wider issue, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that milk producers are rather concerned that the present Price Review will restrict production?

That is another matter. On the particular point, I should be glad to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on whether there is a way of solving this very fractional problem.

General Maxwell Taylor (Visit)

Q7.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in his recent consultations with President Kennedy's adviser, General Maxwell Taylor, on defence, he discussed the advisability of Great Britain retaining the independent nuclear deterrent; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on Tuesday

I have seen that Answer. Would not, the Prime Minister agree that this was more than a case of old pals getting together? Was it not really a case of the special adviser to President Kennedy meeting the Prime Minister of Great Britain to urge on him the need to consider abandoning Britain's possession of the independent nuclear deterrent in order to maintain good feeling among the N.A.T.O. Powers?

No, Sir. The position was exactly as I described it in my reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. General Taylor did not ask to see me: I invited him to come to see me.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in all these matters it is better if we do what we think is right rather than what the United States think it right?

We keep in close consultation with the United States and with all our other allies, but the defence decisions we make are matters for Her Majesty's Government and the British Parliament.

Business Of The House

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

Yes, Silr. As already announced, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Monday, 9th April.

The general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation will be continued during the week and brought to a conclusion on Thursday, 12th April.

At the end of the debate on Thursday, we shall ask the House to agree to Lords Amendments to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, which are expected today from another place.

FRIDAY, 13th April:—private Members Motions.

MONDAY, 16th April:—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill [ Lords.]

Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.

Motion on the General Grant Increase (Scotland) Order.

The House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday, 19th April, until Tuesday, 1st May.

Could the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Lords Amendments to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill are mostly of a drafting and consequential character and not of any great substance, so that it can be perhaps justifiable to take them at that hour of the night? Otherwise, we should want more time. Can he also tell me whether we are to have a debate on Central Africa before Easter, as he implied in answer to my question last week?

The Lords Amendments to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, small and drafting Amendments.

On the question of a debate on matters affecting the Central Africa Federation, which I know the House is very anxious to have, it probably will be for the general convenience if we have that shortly after the Easter Recess, but we will bear very much in mind the desirability of having it before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary leaves on his projected visit to Central Africa.

Will it be possible for my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to make a statement on the outcome of the Kenya constitutional talks in the near future, and if so. will he make k to the House?

We are all hoping very much that the last stages of that protracted conference go well. If they do, I am sure that it certainly will be the wish of my right hon. Friend to make a statement, to the House, and in due course, no doubt, a White Paper will be laid.

The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of several of my hon. Friends on the prerogative of mercy.

[ That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department, within the powers vested in him, to advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in respect of those persons associated with the Nuclear Disarmament Campaign who were sentenced to terms of imprisonment at the Old Bailey.]

In view of the appeal having been disposed of, would the right hon. Gentleman now offer time, perhaps half a day, for the purpose of debate on this subject, or, alternatively, approach the Home Secretary with a view to adopting the contents of the Motion?

On that, if I may, I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

After Monday, 16th April, there are only two days left for Government business before Easter. Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, having regard to the lengthy, complex and controversial questions still outstanding on the remaining stages of the Transport Bill, there will not be any undue hurry to try to rush the completion of these remaining stages before Easter, notably in the context of Clause 13, on which there is strong feeling on this side of the House?

My hon. Friend's arithmetic is impeccable. There are two days left for Government business, as he says, after Monday, 16th April. I am not yet in a position to make a statement about that, but my hon. Friend knows that there is an Allocation of Time Motion. That is being adhered to, and the Business Committee will in due course put its recommendations before the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the large number of Motions on all sorts of subjects on the Order Paper which require decisions? May I ask whether he will arrange for a general debate so that we may have votes on all the outstanding matters on which backbenchers would like to instruct Her Majesty's Government? I repeat "instruct" and would underline it three times.

That is one of the most alarming propositions that I have ever heard. As my hon. Friend knows very well, there are occasions—not very many, and I wish there were more—like Consolidated Fund Bills, on which almost everything is in order and it is possible for hon. Members to raise within the usual rules of order such matters as they choose. Apart from that, of course, there must be some competition between the Motions on the Order Paper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration as quickly as possible, when the House resumes after Easter, to a debate on a Motion in my name and in the names of many of my hon. Friends on the closure of the North and South Tyneside electric rail service?

[ That this house strongly condemns the transport policy of the Government which refuses to accept the social needs of transport and compels the British Transport Commission to assess each section of its undertaking on a profit and loss basis, and further condemns the closure of several branch lines, in particular the proposal to discontinue the North and South Tyneside electric rail service,]

I ask this in view of the nation-wide interest in the closing of railway branch lines and, in particular, in view of the suggested closing of this service. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer that he gave previously today about the Guillotine on the Transport Bill makes nonsense of the answer he made to me on 2nd March, when he said that opportunities would be given to discuss these matters during the further stages of the Transport Bill?

With respect to the hon. Member, whose question I have answered before on business, there are opportunities, though not perhaps as extensive as he would wish, not only on the Transport Bill, but in connection with Supply time and private Members time, when the hon. Member might be fortunate to be called.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is unhappiness about other passages of the Transport Bill, and particularly about Clause 54 with reference to coastal shipping? Can he give an undertaking that the Government's Amendments to this Clause will be tabled this week at a sufficiently early stage for them to be considered and to give the Minister time to consult the coastal shipping sections of the shipping industry in advance of any debate?

I will certainly take that point up straight away with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. My hon. Friend will realise that I have announced the business for the next ten days and that the Transport Bill is not included in that.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, on the occasions to which he has referred, such Measures as the Consolidated Fund Bill are quite often taken formally, by arrangement—no doubt to make time for debates on important topical issues—so that the matter is not quite as open as he has suggested? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider finding time for a debate on the Motion on the Order Paper in my name, and in the names of several of my hon. Friends, on nuclear testing and Mr. McNamara's evidence?

[ That this House notes that Mr. Mc-Namara, United States Secretary of Defence, giving evidence before the House Armed Services Committee of the United States Congress on 25th January, 1962, strongly denied that the balance of nuclear power might shift to the Russians if testing were not resumed by the West; notes also that the possibility of such a shift was one of the main arguments for the resumption of testing put forward on and after 8th February, 1962, by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister; assumes that the United States Secretary of Defence, testifying officially before a committee of Congress, was fully informed of the facts of the situation, and that his strategic judgment is thought sound by the President who appointed him to office; considers that the discrepancy between Mr. McNamara's testimony and the official excuses for the decision to resume testing shows that this decision was based on political rather than on military or scientific grounds; considers, accordingly, that it was not only ethically unjustifiable but strategically unnecessary and, in view of the negotiations then to be begun, provocative; deplores the conduct of the Prime Minister in misleading the House by his statements on 31st October, 1961, and 8th February, 1962, in refusing adequately to answer a question on this matter on 29th March, 1962, and in referring to a view taken by Mr. McNamara as having been expressed some months later than his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, when the dates of the contradictory statements were 25th January and 8th February; condemns the proposed carcinogenic tests over Christmas Island as acts of genocide and crimes against humanity, contrary to civilised standards of international behaviour and to traditional teaching on the Just War, under which the indiscriminate killing of innocent persons is forbidden; and calls on Her Majesty's Government immediately to initiate further consultations with the United States Administration, with a view to the cancellation of these tests.]

As the Motion contains an allegation, which I believe to be accurate, that the Prime Minister, no doubt inadvertently, misled the House on at least one point of fact, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time fox a debate, would he at least be good enough to ask the Prime Minister to make a further statement in order to clarify the matter?

It is true that by a convention, which does not bind hon. Members, such arrangements are sometimes made on the Consolidated Fund Bill and the debate, by general agreement, is narrowed. On the other matter, I heard the exchange which the hon. Member had with the Prime Minister and I have read HANSARD and have studied the hon. Member's Motion. I certainly could not undertake to find time to discuss this Motion, and, of course, the Prime Minister has heard what the hon. Member has just said.

Would the right hon. Gentleman now find time for a debate on the Annual Agricultural Price Review? Is he not aware that it is customary to have such a debate? Is he not aware that this is not an agreed matter and that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a debate in view of the difficulties which small farmers will now experience?

This matter is frequently debated in the House. Without giving any undertaking about Government time, or any other sort of time, I can say that this is, of course, a matter which we would be very ready to discuss between the two sides of the House.

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether he is still of the opinion that he cannot find time for the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay), and whether we may safely assume that the hon. Member had been guillotined?

[ That this House deplores the conduct of Lord Beaverbrook in authorising over the last few years in the newspapers controlled by him more than seventy adverse comments on members of the Royal Family who have no means of replying.]

The first part of the hon. Member's observation is perfectly correct.

Security Procedures In The Public Service (Committee's Report)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Report of the Committee on Security Procedures in the Public Service.

The House will recall that the Committee was appointed to review these procedures in the light of certain convictions for offences under the Official Secrets Act. I welcome this opportunity to express to Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues the Government's gratitude for the care which they devoted to this important Inquiry. Although their Report discloses no radical defect in existing security procedures, it contains a number of valuable proposals for their improvement and intensification. The Government have accepted the Committee's recommendations and are putting them into effect as rapidly as possible.

In accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the House on 11th May last year, I have discussed the Committee's Report with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues. The Report is based on a comprehensive and searching scrutiny of our security procedures, but it also demonstrates the unique difficulty of maintaining absolutely effective security in a free society. The Committee has itself observed—and I am quoting its own words—that

"In considering any additional security measures to recommend, we have reminded ourselves that security weaknesses … are part of the price that we pay for having a social and political system that men want to defend."

The Government believe that publication will help to promote a wider public understanding of both the importance and the difficulty of the problem of security; and they have, therefore, decided to publish the recommendations of the Report, together with the supporting reasoning, to the maximum extent compatible with the public interest and the requirements of security, preserving as nearly as possible the substance and sequence of the Committee's argument in their own words.

A White Paper is accordingly being presented today; and copies will be available in the Vote Office in the normal way.

In addition to the general question of security procedures in the public service, three specific issues were referred to the Committee. On 30th May last, in reply to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I undertook to invite the Committee to consider whether new methods of security were required in industrial establishments engaged on secret Government work; on 13th July, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), I agreed to bring to the Committee's attention the position of officers of Civil Service staff associations and trade unions in relation to security; and on 3rd August, in reply to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I undertook to refer to the Committee the question of the D Notice procedure. The Committee has examined all these three issues; and the Government accept the recommendations which it has made on them.

I must emphasise, in conclusion, that the White Paper contains as much of the Report as, in the Government's judgment, can safely be published. I think that I can say that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who have been consulted concur in this judgment. I trust that I shall have the support of the House in resisting pressure for the disclosure of other parts of the text which it would be contrary to the public interest to reveal.

As the Prime Minister said, he consulted some of my right hon. Friends and myself. It is right that I should confirm that the decision as to what should be published and what should not be published was taken with our full agreement.

In so far as the Committee's recommendations involve a tightening up of security procedures in the Civil Service, may I ask him for an assurance that he will not carry out these recommendations without discussing the method of implementing them with the Staff Side of the Whitley Council?

Yes, Sir. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his observations. I give a full assurance that it will be discussed with the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council,

While thanking my right hon. Friend for saying that a White Paper will be issued, may I ask him whether the parts which cannot be published will be made available to those individuals who, at the request of the Committee, gave evidence, in order that the experts who gave evidence will be able to see whether their attitude to these matters and the experience which they gave to the Committee have been dealt with in the Committee's recommendations, which may not, for proper reasons, be published for the general public to see?

My hon. Friend will see that this is a very long document of 153 paragraphs.

Answering her specific question, I do not think that it would be right to allow those who gave evidence to see the full Report. We have perfect confidence that Lord Radcliffe and his colleagues have carried out this work—with their great experience, especially that of Lord Radcliffe as chairman of committees in this kind of work—in a way which does full justice to the evidence which was given

To what extent does the Report deal with any question of Ministerial responsibility for the events leading up to the prosecution of George Blake and to what extent does it deal with any disciplinary measures which may have been taken against any person or persons employed in Berlin in the same case?

If I may humbly suggest it, the Report is very long and it would be more convenient if hon. Members read it and then perhaps, if they wish, put down specific Questions, with which it would be easier to deal in a more effective way for everybody's convenience.

Is the Prime Minister entirely satisfied that the staff engaged in security work throughout Government Departments are of the calibre required and enjoy the remuneration and status necessary for this highly responsible work?

Perhaps after reading the Report the hon. Member would put down that question, which is, of course, very much in our minds. Every possible step is taken to make this really effective.

As it is clear that all these security procedures ultimately take their root in the Official Secrets Act, an Act which was discussed in the House a little while ago, will the Prime Minister bear in mind what I think I may call the half-promise which he gave me when I asked a Question a week or two ago—that after a certain appeal was over he would consider whether there ought to be a committee to inquire now into the Official Secrets Act to see whether any amendment of it is required?

Yes, Sir. I well remember the case which the hon. Member had in mind, but I should have thought that nothing in that would have anything to do with security in the sense in which it was used in this context.

Orders Of The Day

Housing (Scotland) Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [ 4th April], on Consideration of the Bill, as amended ( in the Standing Committee.)

Which Amendment was, In page 10, line 39, after "submit" to insert:

"after consultation with the local authority in whose area they intend to build."

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

3.48 p.m.

I have no desire to occupy the time of the House by speaking any more to this Amendment, but I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he has given any further consideration to it since last night in the light of the discussion which took place and whether he is prepared to say that he is now inclined to regard it more favourably than he did last night.

Division No. 153.]	AYES	[3.50 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Ledger, Ron
Albu, Austen	Forman, J. C.	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Lipton, Marcus
Awbery, Stan	Galpern, Sir Myer	Loughlin, Charles
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	George, LadyMegan Lloyd (Crmrthn)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Beaney, Alan	Ginsburg, David	McCann, John
Benson, Sir George	Gourlay, Harry	MacColl, James
Blackburn, F.	Greenwood, Anthony	McInnes, James
Blyton, William	Grey, Charles	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	McLeavy, Frank
Bowles, Frank	Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Boyden, James	Hannan, William	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Harper, Joseph	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hayman, F. H.	Manuel, Archie
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Healey, Denis	Marsh, Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)	Milne, Edward
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Herbison, Miss Margaret	Mitchison, G. R.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Monslow, Walter
Callaghan, James	Holt, Arthur	Moody, A. S.
Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Houghton, Douglas	Moyle, Arthur
Cliffe, Michael	Hoy, James H.	Oliver, G. H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Oram, A. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Oswald, Thomas
Cronin, John	Hunter, A. E.	Owen, Will
Crosland, Anthony	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Paget, R. T.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Paton, John
Darling, George	Janner, Sir Barnett	Pavitt, Laurence
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Jeger, George	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Peart, Frederick
Deer, George	Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)	Pentland, Norman
Dempsey, James	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Popplewell, Ernest
Dodds, Norman	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Probert, Arthur
Driberg, Tom	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Randall, Harry
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Kelley, Richard	Rankin, John
Evans, Albert	Kenyon, Clifford	Redhead, E. C.
Fernyhough, E.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Reld, William
Fletcher, Eric	King, Dr. Horace	Reynolds, G. W.
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Lawson, George	Rhodes, H.

Naturally, I thought the matter over very carefully in the light of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, but I came to the conclusion that there was nothing that I could add to what I said yesterday.

I still do not see why a statutory obligation to consult the local authority should be imposed on a housing association any more than on any other body which is providing houses to let at economic rents. Consultation will, in fact, take place as a matter of common sense and in order to obtain planning permission. But to require statutory consultation is an entirely different matter, and although I have thought this over very carefully in the light of what has been said I must adhere to my original decision.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 198.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Stonehouse, John	Whitlock, William
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Storey, Sir Samuel	Wilkins, W. A.
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)	Willey, Frederick
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Swain, Thomas	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Ross, William	Swingler, Stephen	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)	Timmons, John	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Small, William	Tomney, Frank
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Wainwright, Edwin	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Snow, Julian	Warbey, William	Mr. Sydney Irving and
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Weitzman, David	Mr. Ifor Davies.
Steele, Thomas	Wells, Percy (Faversham)

NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Aitken, W. T.	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Arbuthnot, John	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Barber, Anthony	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Barlow, Sir John	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Barter, John	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Peel, John
Batsford, Brian	Hendry, Forbes	Percival, Ian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Hiley, Joseph	Pilkington, Sir Richard
Bell, Ronald	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Pitt, Miss Edith
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Pott, Percivall
Berkeley, Humphry	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Biffen, John	Hirst, Geoffrey	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hocking, Philip N.	Pym, Francis
Bishop, F. P.	Holland, Philip	Ramsden, James
Black, Sir Cyril	Hollingworth, John	Rawlinson, Peter
Boume-Arton, A.	Hopkins, Alan	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Box, Donald	Hornby, R. P.	Rees, Hugh
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Renton, David
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hughes-Young, Michael	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Braine, Bernard	Hulbert, Sir Norman	Ridsdale, Julian
Brewis, John	Hurd, Sir Anthony	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Brooman-White, R.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Jackson, John	Russell, Ronald
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	James, David	Scott-Hopkins, James
Buck, Antony	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Sharples, Richard
Bullard, Denys	Jennings, J. C.	Shaw, M.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Burden, F. A.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Smithers, Peter
Channon, H. P. G.	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Kershaw, Anthony	Stodart, J. A.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)	Kimball, Marcus	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Collard, Richard	Lagden, Godfrey	Storey, Sir Samuel
Cooke, Robert	Leavey, J. A.	Studholme, Sir Henry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Corfield, F. V.	Lindsay, Sir Martin	Tapsell, Peter
Costain, A. P.	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Temple, John M.
Coulson, Michael	Litchfield, Capt. John	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Craddock, Sir Beresford	Longbottom, Charles	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Critchley, Julian	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Cunningham, Knox	McLaren, Martin	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Dalkeith, Earl of	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
de Ferrantl, Basil	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Turner, Colin
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Doughty, Charles	Maddan, Martin	Vane, W. M. F.
Drayson, G. B.	Maginnis, John E.	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Duncan, Sir James	Maitland, Sir John	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Manningnam-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Marshall, Douglas	Walder, David
Emery, Peter	Marten, Neil	Walker, Peter
Errington, Sir Eric	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Ward, Dame Irene
Finlay, Graeme	Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Freeth, Denzil	Mills, Stratton	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Gammans, Lady	Montgomery, Fergus	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gilmour, Sir John	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Wise, A. R.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Morrison, John	Woodnutt, Mark
Goodhart, Philip	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Woollam, John
Goodhew, Victor	Nabarro, Gerald	Worsley, Marcus
Gower, Raymond	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Green, Alan	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gresham Cooke, R.	Orr, Capt. L, P. S.	Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Noble

I beg to move, in page 10, line 43, to leave out from "except" to second "the" in line 44 and to insert:

"when the sale of the housing accommodation is to further co-operative ownership or to meet the needs of a redevelopment scheme".

It may be convenient, Sir, to take with this Amendment that to Clause 18 page 16, line 16, to leave out from "except" to end of line 18 and to insert:

"when the sale of the housing accommodation is to further co-operative ownership or to meet the needs of a redevelopment scheme".

Yes, if the House pleases.

In Committee, we moved Amendments which would have prevented either a housing association or the Scottish Special Housing Association from selling any of its houses built under the provisions of Clause 11 or Clause 18. After discussion of those Amendments, we decided not to vote on them because there seemed to be some reason in the case of the Under-Secretary. He said that there were two reasons why it would be impossible to accept the Amendments which would have prevented any sale.

The hon. Gentleman gave the first when dealing with the point of co-operative ownership when he said:

"I should explain that such houses will not be let in the normal sense of the term since the tenants will be joint owners."

We are all in favour of this form of co-operative ownership and we only hope that it will lead to more and more houses being built in Scotland.

Giving his second reason, the hon. Gentleman said:

"The need for this could arise only exceptionally, but a reserve power is clearly necessary, for example to permit a sale if a property were urgently needed as part of a redevelopment scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 20th March, 1962; c. 880.]

We have taken both those things into account and the effect of these two Amendments would be that any association, or the Scottish Special Housing Association, could not sell any of its houses built under the provisions of either Clause 11 or Clause 18 except when the sale of the housing accommodation was to further co-operative ownership, or to meet the needs of a redevelopment scheme.

In other words, we have taken the two reasons given by the Under-Secretary, but to ensure that there will not be indiscriminate sale of these houses, since the need for houses for letting is so great in Scotland, the Bill should make it clear that these are the only times when the association should be able to sell their houses.

As the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has said, the effect of deleting

"at such times and in such cases as the Secretary of State may approve"

and substituting the proposed words would be to remove the Secretary of State's discretion to waive the requirement that the houses will be kept available for letting and to provide specifically that the requirement is to be waived only where the houses are to be sold

"to further co-operative ownership or to meet the needs of a redevelopment scheme."

In Committee, we discussed Amendments to remove altogether the Secretary of State's discretion to waive the requirement about keeping the houses available for letting. An Amendment was discussed at the Committee's nineteenth sitting and it was withdrawn in the light of the Government's explanation—although the hon. Lady indicated that she would probably come back to the point on Report, as she has, because she did not trust the Government and was averse to accepting any assurance that the discretion to waive the requirement would be confined to the cases I mentioned. It is a great pity that she should not be more trusting, as I have had occasion to say to her many times before.

The explanation in Committee for the inclusion of this discretionary power was twofold. First, I said that it was required to allow the Secretary of State to approve houses provided by a housing association on a co-operative basis, and, secondly, to cover the odd case where housing associations might have to dispose of a house in connection with, for example, a redevelopment scheme. The hon. Lady has seized on those two explanations and sought to cover them in these Amendments and so to limit the Secretary of State's discretion.

However, the Amendments do not meet the point. I do not think that hon. Members opposite have quite appreciated the full meaning of the reasons which I gave in Committee; I do not blame them for that. I tried then to explain that houses which are provided on some sort of Scandinavian joint ownership system will not be let in the normal sense of the term, since the tenants will be the joint owners of the houses. But, the house will not be sold either, because the tenant will not own the house which he occupies. When the Amendment talks of a sale to further co-operative ownership, it does not really make sense, because the essence of co-operative ownership is that there is no individual ownership, so that the houses are not sold by the association to individual tenants.

There are all sorts of variations in the Scandinavian system of joint ownership. Some of them come close to owner occupation while others come close to normal tenancy, but the point is that there is neither normal tenancy nor owner occupation. This is a concept which is new to this country and for which there is no accurate and accepted description which could be embodied in a Statute. No doubt, in due course a definition will come to be accepted which could be written into a future Bill, but at the moment we do not know of any words which would precisely define this system for the purposes of legislation. We are, therefore, forced to adopt the admittedly rather oblique way of referring to the arrangement which is adopted in the Bill.

The exceptional case where a house provided under Clause 11 does have to be sold is not fully covered by the simple reference in the Amendment to redevelopment. Redevelopment is only an example of the type of case which may occur, but it is only one of many. There might be other exceptional circumstances where a house provided under Clause 11 had to be sold, and we must leave it possible for the houses to be sold when there are perfectly genuine reasons for doing so. I can give the hon. Lady another example if she wishes. The construction of the approach roads to the new Forth Road Bridge might well cause a house to be demolished and, therefore, disposed of.

I quite see that the hon. Members opposite wish to ensure that these houses will normally be let or occupied on a joint ownership basis and will not be built for sale. I can assure them that that will be so, but it is impractical to try to state it in the Statute. After all, there is a residual power to sell their houses which is available to local authorities, with the approval of the Secretary of State; this is embodied in Section 74 of the 1950 Act in general terms precisely because it is impossible in a Statute to cater for every contingency which might arise.

My right hon. Friend has been described by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) as being omnipotent, but he does not also claim to be omniscient and he cannot guarantee to envisage every circumstance which might arise during the life of a local authority or housing association house. I am very well aware that hon. Members opposite do not trust the Secretary of State. It is a most regrettable state of affairs, but I recognise it as a fact of life. On the other hand, they will have to trust him here.

It is not a question of trusting the Secretary of State. We are legislating for many years ahead—one Clause goes more than ten years ahead—and it is, therefore, a matter not of trusting the present Secretary of State, but of powers being vested in Ministers of whom we know nothing.

It is a question of trusting the Office, but on this occasion hon. Members opposite will have to trust who ever happens to be the Secretary of State.

I have tried to show that at present it is not possible in precise terms in a Statute to provide for the kind of situation which I have described and that there is no alternative to leaving my right hon. Friend the discretion which he has in the Bill as it stands. Therefore, although I understand what the hon. Lady is getting at, and although there is no intention that these houses should be built and then sold, nevertheless, I regret that I cannot accept her Amendment.

We have been given the same two reasons as we were given previously. The Under-Secretary of State says that he cannot find a definition, but that at some time in the future it may be possible to find one. I simply do not accept that. Surely, Ministers—and if not Ministers, the officials in their Department—could find a definition to cover the cases of which the Minister has spoken. I do not accept that it is impossible for those whose job is to work out the wording for legislation to find a definition.

The point which, perhaps, the hon. Lady has not grasped is that we have no experience of the practice in this country. Until we have experience, we cannot describe it. It is no good trying to describe something which exists in another country. We must have experience of it.

I do not accept that argument. What does the Secretary of State mean in Clauses 11 and 18? Surely, he must have an idea about these houses, whether there is to be co-operative ownership or almost a normal letting or whether there would be pairt-ownership. In many instances, there would finally be full ownership of the houses.

The hon. Gentleman said that he would give another example about redevelopment and he mentioned the Forth Road Bridge and its approaches. Would not that be classified as redevelopment? Of course it would. The Under-Secretary has made no better case than he made upstairs in Committee. On that occasion, we accepted his case because we felt that his two reasons were sensible, but we do not accept today that he cannot incorporate our Amendments in the Bill.

We return to the question of trust. The hon. Gentleman has referred to legislation about local authorities. We on this side trust the local authorities, as hon. Members opposite do not. Time and time again, the Tory Government have been trying to get local authorities to sell the houses which they felt must be kept for letting. Because we know the history of the Government, we would not be at all surprised if they took the first opportunity to sell the houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) suggested that it was perhaps the Office which we did not trust It is neither the Secretary of State nor the Office that we do not trust. It is the Tories everywhere that I mistrust in these matters. For that reason, we shall vote on the Amendment.

I wish to reinforce my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in resisting the Amendment and to adduce another reason.

My hon. Friend spoke about the experimental nature of the Clause—

We are talking about the Amendment, not the Clause.

The Amendment relates not only to the co-operative provision of houses, but the provision of houses by co-partnership and in many other ways. It would be intolerable for a responsible Government to have their hands tied in an experiment of this nature.

As an hon. Member opposite has said, we are legislating for a long time ahead. The Clause gives the Secretary of State power to make advances for a period of sixty years, which is a long time, very nearly the total life of the houses. They, like other houses, will in time become dilapidated and at the end of sixty years the interest of the Secretary of State as mortgage holder on the houses will vanish. No one knows at this stage what will happen after sixty years. It may be that with the development of building standards and all the rest, these houses must then be abolished. By the Amendment, however, the Secretary of State would find his hands tied to keep the houses available for letting when the proper course might be to demolish them.

4.15 p.m.

I had an interesting experience in private practice recently of houses that were built inadvertently by a local authority which had taken reasonable precautions. The houses suddenly became derelict owing to mineral damages of great age which were not recorded. Almost overnight, these modern houses became seriously damaged and had to be demolished, at great loss to the local authority.

If the Amendment were carried, the Secretary of State, whether a Tory, a Socialist, or of any other colour, would find his hands tied and would, by Statute, have to maintain the houses for letting in perpetuity. The Amendment is carelessly drawn, no thought has been given to its possible implication, and I recommend the House to reject it.

As a Labour and Co-operative Member, I welcome the Amendment. I was surprised that in the initial stages the Government were anxious to bring in provisions of this kind. The Under-Secretary has given a very thin answer. If it is genuine, it adds up to the fact that there is a technical difficulty in defining something which is difficult to express in Scottish legal phraseology.

If that is the position, as Scandinavia has had about thirty years experience of these matters with all the legal consequences arising therefrom, it surely cannot be beyond the wit of the Scottish Office and its accomplished technicians and draftsmen to provide proper phraseology to sit the Amendment.

I beg to disagree.

My hon. Friend is entitled to disagree, but I have some regard for the competence of the draftsmen in the Scottish Office to be able to do this. If what my hon. Friend says is true, surely there are others in the kingdom who can provide us with assistance from the English Departments, although I find that difficult to believe.

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the length of experience of these matters in Scandinavia. Surely, the instances quoted by the Under-Secretary must have arisen in those countries, whose legislation covers the situation. Why cannot we use similar words here? It is simply a matter of translation.

That is exactly the point, which my hon. Friend has expressed much better than I have done. If Norway, Sweden and Denmark have this legal practice, and particularly Sweden, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we should be able to borrow it.

The Under-Secretary tries to have the argument both ways. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that the word "sale" is not valid in this context, but he insists upon "let" in this context. How is that so? How can an owner let unto himself? That is the meaning of the existing words.

The hon. Gentleman either has not expressed properly the difficulties facing the draftsmen, or, as I am now inclined to believe, the Government do not believe that this experiment will work and are determined to build the houses under the pretence that they are for co-operative housing—not co-partner ship housing, which is an entirely different concept. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), with his knowledge, does not understand co-partnership as a scheme—

rose—

Sit down. We are working under a Guillotine.

Has he read the White Paper on Housing, and found out exactly what the Secretary of State has in mind in this case?

We are operating under a Guillotine.

I am sorry, but I could not hear the hon. Member's interruption because of the other interruption.

I know that we are working under a Guillotine, but has the hon. Member read the White Paper and found out what the Secretary of State is trying to do in this case?

Of course. I welcomed it in our earlier proceedings. The Under-Secretary has quoted me on at least one occasion in respect of this matter. We have talked of this many times, including in our discussions of the English Bill.

Summing up, I say that the Under-Secretary ought to accept the Amendment. If he does not, I suggest that he should be willing to undertake that in another place the Government will seek to amend it to bring it into line with the desires that he says he believes in. If he will not give that undertaking, I hope that my hon. Friends will join with me in voting for the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18—(Advances To Scottish Special Housing Association For Provision Of Housing Accommodation)

I beg to move, in page 16, line 43, to leave out from "scheme" to the end of line 44.

The words that we propose to leave out are as follows:

"and the disposal of the assets provided under the scheme."

I am very concerned about the implication of those words, and the possibility of their use by the Government, who have shown a bias against the building of publicly-owned houses to let. If this phrase were left in the Clause the Secretary of State could require the Scottish Special Housing Association to dispose of its assets. It could sell or even give away the houses it has built, and it might mean that all the houses which the Secretary of State has authorised to be added to the pool of rented houses would be taken out of that pool.

No indication is given about the circumstances of disposal, or even the conditions of such disposal. The Association has done an excellent job in house building in Scotland, often in areas where no other person would build, and where it was difficult to supply houses of a modern character for the needs, of the people. The Under-Secretary should not be surprised, therefore, if we are suspicious about this power to dispose of valuable national assets. It may be that circumstances will arise necessitating such a disposal, but we have not heard what such circumstances might be, and we cannot, without question, agree to give a reactionary Secretary of State such potentially destructive powers.

These houses were built for letting, because even a Unionist Secretary of State recognised the need. We consider that they should be retained for their original purpose, and also that the threat of the wholesale disposal of these assets would undermine the people's confidence in the good administration of the Association. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will deny any intention to dispose wholesale of these assets, but I hope that he will do more than that. He must justify the power he seeks and explain the intentions of the Government, in order to allay our fears.

It will be impossible to lay at rest the suspicions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small).

Sit down again.

It is clear that a deep pathological illness affects all hon. Members of the Opposition in respect of these matters, and that is very serious, because it makes debating extremely difficult.

Subsection (2) imposes a duty upon the Scottish Special Housing Association, if it has built houses for letting or co-operative occupation with the aid of advances made under subsection (1, b), to comply with any direction the Secretary of State may give it as to the administration of the scheme

"and the disposal of the assets provided under the scheme."

The Amendment seeks to omit those concluding words, which would prevent the Secretary of State from giving directions as to the disposal of such assets.

The hon. Member argued that since the whole object of the scheme under subsection (1, b) is to provide houses for letting there ought not to be any scope for the selling of these houses, since this would defeat the whole object of the scheme. I want to make it clear that I entirely agree with him about the need for the scheme to produce houses for letting or co-operative occupation. I have also explained in our proceedings in Committee that we are anxious to see some half-way house between a local authority subsidised house and the full burden of owner-occupation. We believe that the provisions of Clause 11 and of this Clause will help towards this end.

I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing sinister about the provision that we are now discussing—certainly nothing which seeks to cut across the essential objects of the scheme. Subsection (2), like Clause 11 (3)—which, apparently, did not cause the Opposition any difficulty—contains routine administrative provisions relating to the management of the scheme, and provides for the possibility that at some time some of the houses built under the scheme might have to be disposed of.

The provision made for the disposal of the assets is by way of being a long-stop, to meet a situation which might never arise, and which we hope never will. It is, however, a provision which we think it necessary to make. If it is necessary to dispose of one or two houses provided under an advance scheme because, for example, they fall within a redevelopment area, it would be necessary to ensure that the Association complies with the requirements laid down by the Secretary of State.

Further, if a situation ever arises in which it becomes necessary to wind up a scheme altogether it would again be necessary for the (Secretary of State to be able to direct how this should be done. The latter situation will, I hope, never arise, but if it does the provisions of subsection (2), to which the hon. Member objects, would provide a protection for the Exchequer money involved.

I can assure the hon. Member that there is no intention of undermining the whole scheme by contemplating the sale, in the ordinary way, of houses provided for letting. We want the scheme to be a success; that is why we included it in the Bill. We want to be able to demonstrate that there is a market for houses provided on this basis. The market to provide houses for sale is already catered for by ordinary private builders but, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has pointed out, it is also possible for local authorities to build houses for sale, with the Secretary of State's approval.

But that is not what we are concerned with in subsection (1, b) and in Clause 11. Our whole object is to provide houses for letting or for co-operative occupation. I hope therefore, that on reflection the hon. Member will agree that there is nothing sinister or objectionable about the provisions that we have been discussing. As they allowed Clause 11 to pass I hope that they will allow this Clause to pass. In any case, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 21—(Amendment Of S 9 Of Act Of 1950)

4.30 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 20, line 24, after "served". to insert "(a)".

It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next two Amendments, in line 26 and line 28.

The Amendments are moved mainly to implement the undertaking which I gave in Committee to meet the purpose of an Amendment moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire. North (Miss Herbison).

Subsection (7) of the new Section 9 of the 1950 Act, as set out in Clause 21, requires that any order made or notice issued under the Section should be served on the person having control of the house, the owner and the holder of a heritable security.

The main purpose of the second of the Amendments is to amend the absolute requirement of subsection (7) that orders and notices should be served on the holder of a heritable security, so that such service will not be required by the subsection if it appears to the local authority, after making inquiry under Section 168 of the 1950 Act, that there is no holder of a heritable security.

The new subsection to be inserted by the third of the Amendments simply applies the mechanics of section 168 for the purpose of subsection (7).

Paragraph (d) of the second Amendment makes a further small alteration by requiring that notices and orders should be served on the person who applies to the local authority under subsection (3) of the new Section (9) for determination by closing order or demolition order on the house concerned being made fit if the applicant is not a person otherwise covered by subsection (7).

The main object of these Amendments is the same as I am sure the hon. Lady had in mind. As we are working under a Guillotine, I hope that with that short explanation the Amendment will be acceptable to the House.

As the Under-Secretary of State says, these Amendments meet points that we made. They are matters which the local authorities that would have to administer these affairs felt ought to be contained in the Bill, and I am sure that they will be grateful for these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 26, leave out from "building" to end of line 28 and insert:

(b) upon any other person who is an owner of the house, or. as the case may be. any of those houses:

(c) upon any person holding a heritable security over the house, or, as the case may be, any of those houses, unless it appears to the local authority, after exercising their powers under section one hundred and sixty-eight of this Act. that there is no such person: and

(d) where an application has been made in relation to the house, or, as the case may be, those houses, under subsection (3) of this section, by a person upon whom the order or notice is not required to be served apart from this paragraph, upon that person.

In line 28, at end insert:

(8) Section one hundred and sixty-eight of this Act shall apply in relation to an order required by the last foregoing subsection to be served as it applies in relation to the notices mentioned in the said section.—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Clause 29—(Default Powers Of Secretary Of State In Relation To Rents)

I beg to move, in page 25, line 15, to leave out "whether made before or".

The purpose of the Amendment is to remove what we regard as an element of retrospective legislation embodied in the subsection as drafted. There the Secretary of State takes power to impose a rents scheme on a local authority if a default order has been made either before or after the Bill becomes an Act. Our contention all along has been that he has no such power at the moment and is, therefore, seeking to take a power before he is given it statutorily by the House.

I recall many occasions when particularly the legal gentry opposite have made violent and vehement speeches about retrospection. We had the spectre of Hitlerism and all kinds of things mentioned when the Labour Government introduced a retrospective element in certain legislation. We had ex-Ministers waxing eloquent about the dangers of retrospection.

In Committee and our proceedings yesterday the Under-Secretary told us that we did not know what retrospection meant, that we used it as a term of abuse. He then proceeded to tell us what retrospection meant I want to put his words on the record again, otherwise I am sure nobody would believe that they were spoken by a Minister of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman said:

"Let me try to explain."

We pricked up our ears hoping that we should get a lucid explanation of the meaning of retrospection legislation.

"It might seem sensible to suggest that it would be retrospective legislation to lay down that there should be no parking in certain streets where previously people had been accustomed to park their cars. If a person continues to park, he is fined for flouting the law. To avoid being fined, all he has to do is to stop parking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 27th March, 1962, c. 1002.]

Work that one out.

This is a Minister of the Crown explaining to the ignoramuses on this side what retrospection means. This is about the same kind of standard as that of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends at the Dispatch Box during Questions yesterday.

The Secretary of State is taking powers, not only here but elsewhere in the Bill, which are retrospective in effect, and we as Members of Parliament have every right to be suspicious of a Minister who takes powers before he is given them by the House—and that is what the Secretary of State is doing here. I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. It is no good his doing that. The Secretary of State has not got such powers as these at the moment, and the Secretary of State will be exercising them in the case of Dunbartonshire before he is given them by the House. Dunbartonshire is the only case involved at present.

We most violently object to the Secretary of State having power to make a rent scheme and to put up rents. There is no danger of his making a rents scheme in the case of Milngavie to reduce rents. It will all be in the other direction. If the hon. Gentleman is not going to accept the Amendment—I rather suspect that he will not, despite my persuasive powers—I suggest that he would sugar the pill somewhat if he would say that the provision is to be used and that the Government have in mind an atrocious, wicked rent scheme for Milngavie. If the hon. Gentleman will say that, I shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment.

Spring to the Box.

The only reason why I did not spring to the Box is that I have been accustomed to debate in Committee when we have had a great number of hon. Members springing up and sometimes I have been severely taken to task because I have risen too soon.

The effect of the Amendment, by deleting the words "whether made before or", would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to apply a rent scheme in a supplementary order to a local authority which had been found in default as to rents and had had a default order made in respect of its rents before the commencement of the Act. That is what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about.

Clause 29 (1) provides that Where a local authority has been found in default on its rent-fixing obligations, the Secretary of State may make a rents scheme and apply it to the authority in a default order under Section 356 of the 1947 Act. Subsection (2) covers the case where a default order has been made that did not include a rents scheme and the local authority has failed to comply with the order. The Secretary of State can then make a rents scheme and direct the local authority to comply with it in a supplementary order.

By subsection (2) the Secretary of State can apply the rents scheme in a supplementary order, to a local authority in respect of which a default order was made before the commencement of the Act. The Amendment would allow him to make the supplementary order only where the original order was made after the passing of the Act.

The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) made the general point that to include the words which he proposes to leave out was an example of retrospective legislation., and he quoted an example which I still think a very clear instance of the Dunbartonshire case, if we can call it that.

Cars are not make in Dunbartonshire.

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman; but in Dunbartonshire the county council got into default.

I cannot accept the allegation of the hon. Gentleman. The object of Clause 29 is to provide machinery for dealing with a local authority which is found in default in its rent-fixing obligations. If any local authority has already been found in default and is still in default by the time the Bill becomes law, that is, if it has not taken the action necessary to put right its default, there is no question of retrospective legislation. The new Act will be dealing with a situation as it exists at the time, and not with anything which has happened in the past.

We think it right to make this clear and specific in the Bill by the inclusion of the words which the Opposition wish to omit. I cannot agree that there is anything improper about a provision of this kind.

The hon. Gentleman also suggested that only one default order on rents has been made—

He never mentioned it.

If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would keep quiet—

He did not say that.

The hon. Member referred to Dunbartonshire, and that is why I am saying that this applies to only one local authority, Dunbartonshire. I am admitting that that is perfectly true, since it seems unlikely that there will be time for any further case of default to be established before the Bill becomes law. But, again, I cannot see that there is anything wrong with that—

The hon. Gentleman is acting before the Bill becomes law.

If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) will keep quiet, I can get on.

I have already been taken to task once for being too long. But I cannot make a speech in a short time and leave sufficient time for the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) to reply if the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire keeps on interrupting—especially when I cannot properly hear what he is saying.

I will make the point. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that what he is doing is a shocking thing? He is using the powers contained in the Bill before the Bill has become law, and when he has notified the Dunbartonshire local authority that it is to increase rents before a certain date in May. The hon. Gentleman has no power to do that. He is using the "Fuehrer" powers which are assumed in the Bill to try to frighten the local authority into taking action.

I do not think that there is anything shocking about this. It is entirely right and proper. The position regarding Dunbartonshire is that a public local inquiry was held—I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will pay attention to this—and a report was published which was highly critical of the council for having failed to do what was required of it under Section 73 (5) of the 1950 Act. Accordingly, after consultation with the local authority, the Secretary of State made a default order directing the authority to remedy the default. Since the default order was made the county council has increased its rents, but the average rent is still only 10s. 1¼d.

It is no longer "parking a car."

It is "parking a car" —it is half in and half out, but not sufficiently out. This does not seem to my right hon. Friend—

The right hon. Gentleman could charge them under the old Act.

sufficient to remedy the default. The position, therefore, is that the county council is still in default.

The local authority—this is an interesting point—is not contesting this and, having already had the time limit extended to 15th May next, has asked for a further extension to put the default right. My right hon. Friend has just informed the authority, however, that he is unable to agree to any further extension. Since the default order was originally made last April it cannot be said that the council has not had sufficient time to deal with the matter.

4.45 p.m.

The House will see, therefore, that the Dunbartonshire County Council has been given every opportunity to put its house in order and indeed, it still has ample time to do so. I cannot agree that it would be at all unreasonable that the council should, if it still persists in its default, fall within the provisions of Clause 29. This is not retrospective legislation in any sense of the word. The council still continues to be in error—

How can the hon. Gentleman judge this authority to be in default when the circumstances are completely changed from those which were pertaining at the time of the public inquiry which recommended the default? In this respect the hon. Gentleman is stepping aside from the law. What he is doing is utterly illegal. He is changing the law for the tyrannical convenience of the Secretary of State.

Not at all. There was a public inquiry and the local authority was found not to be carrying out its duty.

How long ago?

There was a consultation between the local authority and my right hon. Friend. The local authority did nothing—

That is wrong.

The Secretary of State, therefore, put the authority in default, in the meantime, the authority has been trying to remedy that default. It has not yet succeeded in doing so. It is still in error, and if it continues to be in error when the Bill becomes law it will suffer the penalty for it.

What a shocking speech from the Under-Secretary of State. Hon. Members on this side of the House know that the Secretary of State is delighted to feel that he has Dunbartonshire in his hands, because he has every intention of using Dunbartonshire as an example so that the Government can impose high rents on every local authority in Scotland.

There are many other points which we should like to raise, but the Guillotine will be falling soon, so we shall vote immediately on this matter.

Question put, That "whether made before or" stand part of he Bill:—

Division No. 154.]	AYES	[4.47 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Aitken, W. T.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Arbuthnot, John	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Peel, John
Atkins, Humphrey	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Percival, Ian
Barber, Anthony	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Barlow, Sir John	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Pilkington, Sir Richard
Barter, John	Hendry, Forbes	Pitt, Miss Edith
Batsford, Brian	Hiley, Joseph	Pott, Percivall
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Bell, Ronald	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Berkeley, Humphry	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Biffen, John	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pytn, Francis
Biggs-Davison, John	Hocking, Philip N.	Ramsden, James
Bishop, F. P.	Holland, Philip	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Black, Sir Cyril	Hollingworth, John	Rees, Hugh
Bourne-Arton, A.	Hopkins, Alan	Renton, David
Box, Donald	Hornby, R. P.	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Ridsdale, Julian
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hughes-Young, Michael	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Braine, Bernard	Hulbert, Sir Norman	Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Brewis, John	Hurd, Sir Anthony	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Brooman-White, R.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Jackson, John	Russell, Ronald
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	James, David	Scott-Hopkins, James
Buck, Antony	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Sharples, Richard
Bullard, Denys	Jennings, J. C.	Shaw, M.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Burden, F. A.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Smithers, Peter
Cary, Sir Robert	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Channon, H. P. G.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Chichester-Clark, R.	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Kershaw, Anthony	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Leavey, J. A.	Stodart, J. A.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Collard, Richard	Lindsay, Sir Martin	Studholme, Sir Henry
Cooper, A. E.	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.	Litchfield, Capt. John	Tapsell, Peter
Costain, A. P.	Longbottom, Charles	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Coulson, Michael	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Craddock, Sir Beresford	McLaren, Martin	Teeling, Sir William
Critchley, Julian	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)	Temple, John M.
Cunningham, Knox	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dalkeith, Earl of	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
d'Avigtlor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
de Ferranti, Basil	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Maddan, Martin	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Doughty, Charles	Maginnis, John E.	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Drayson, G. B.	Maitland, Sir John	Turner, Colin
Duncan, Sir James	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Eden, John	Marshall, Douglas	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Marten, Neil	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-uponTyne, N.)	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Emery, Peter	Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Errington, Sir Eric	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Walder, David
Finlay, Graeme	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Walker, Peter
Fisher, Nigel	Mills, Stratton	Ward, Dame Irene
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Miscampbell, N.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Foster, John	Montgomery, Fergus	Whitelaw, William
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Freeth, Denzil	Morrison, John	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Gammans, Lady	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Gilmour, Sir John	Nabarro, Gerald	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Neave, Airey	Wise, A. R.
Goodhart, Philip	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey	Woodnutt, Mark
Goodhew, Victor	Noble, Michael	Woollam, John
Gower, Raymond	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Worsley, Marcus
Green, Alan	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Gresham Cooke, R.	Osborn, John (Hallam)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Mr. J. E. B. Hill and
		Mr. Michael Hamilton.

NOES
Abse, Leo	Beaney, Alan	Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics., S. W.)
Albu, Austen	Benson, Sir George	Bowles, Frank
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Blackburn, F.	Boyden, James
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Blyton, William	Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Brockway, A. Fenner

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 160.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Houghton, Douglas	Peart, Frederick
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Hoy, James H.	Pentland, Norman
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Popplewell, Ernest
Callaghan, James	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Probert, Arthur
Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Hunter, A. E.	Randall, Harry
Chapman, Donald	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Rankin, John
Cliffe, Michael	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Redhead, E. c.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Irving, Syndey (Dartford)	Reid, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Janner, Sir Barnett	Reynolds, G. W.
Cronin, John	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Rhodes, H.
Crosland, Anthony	Jeger, George	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Darling, George	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Ross, William
Deer, George	Kelley, Richard	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Dempsey, James	Kenyon, Clifford	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Diamond, John	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Dodds, Norman	King, Dr. Horace	Small, William
Driberg, Tom	Ledger, Ron	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Snow, Julian
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Lever, L. M. (Ardwlck)	Sorensen, R. W.
Evans, Albert	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Fernyhough, E.	Loughlin, Charles	Steele, Thomas
Fletcher, Eric	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stonehouse, John
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	McCann, John	Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Forman, J. C.	MacColl, James	Swain, Thomas
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mclnnes, James	Swingler, Stephen
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer	McLeavy, Frank	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Ginsburg, David	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Thorpe, Jeremy
Gourlay, Harry	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Timmons, John
Greenwood, Anthony	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Tomney, Frank
Grey, Charles	Manuel, Archie	Wainwright, Edwin
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Marsh, Richard	Warbey, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Milne, Edward	Weitzman, David
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Mitchison, G. R.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Monslow, Walter	Whitlock, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Moody, A. S.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hannan, William	Moyle, Arthur	Willey, Frederick
Harper, Joseph	Oliver, G. H.	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Hayman, F. H.	Oram, A. E.	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Healey, Denis	Oswald, Thomas	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)	Owen, Will	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Herbison, Miss Margaret	Paget, R. T.	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Paton, John	Zillacus, K.
Holman, Percy	Pavitt, Laurence
Holt, Arthur	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies

I beg to move, in page 26, line 25 at the beginning to insert "The powers conferred by".

In calling the second Amendment to page 26, in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I should say that it would be convenient also to discuss the third Amendment in her name, in page 26, line 28 to leave out from "orders" to "shall" in line 30.

I am tempted to say:

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done",

because before I finish this speech my head will be "bloody but unbowed". I assure the Leader of the House, whom we are glad to see present at this rather gory stage of our proceedings, that the voice of people in Scotland who are interested in housing will not be stilled by what is to happen at five o'clock.

This Amendment relates to one of the most vicious measures of bureaucratic convenience I have ever come across. It will apply supplementary orders, orders made consequent on default orders, whether before or after the Bill bringing in a rent scheme and claiming that a local authority is still in default. Before a local authority can be proclaimed in default there must be a public inquiry. Following that public inquiry there comes the order and the demand that the local authority should take action. The local authority which the Under-Secretary instanced in the debate we have just had has taken action twice, so the circumstances today are not the circumstances when a local inquiry said that it was in default.

For the Government to claim that by passing this convenient piece of legislation they are being fair, and that the situation is the same, is the most monstrous piece of dictatorship we have ever seen, but it is typical of the whole of the Bill. There has been talk of local democracy, but we cannot talk of democracy at all in this connection because the Guillotine and democracy are incompatible companions. I sincerely hope that the people of Scotland will realise the difficulties which the Opposition have been under today. We are dealing with the most important matters which go to the very heart of local and national democracy. To do so in this way—a couple of speeches with no interruption and no debate, no discussion—is an absolute farce.

It being Five o'clock, Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, as amended ( in the Standing Committee) were brought to a conclusion, pursuant to Orders.

5.0 p.m.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We now move into what I hope will be the quieter waters of the Third Reading. After twenty-two stormy sittings in Committee and approximately eight hours on Report, this is very much to be welcomed, and I hope that after all the long discussions that we have had the beneficent intentions of this Bill are becoming clear, at least to the people of Scotland if not to hon. Members opposite.

Do not be so insulting.

The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a new structure of housing subsidies which will take account of the varying needs and resources of different local authorities. It is clear that there is no longer a single housing problem in Scotland. As a result of the massive building programmes since the war, especially over the last decade under a Tory Government, instead of a general problem there are now a series of local, special problems, and some local authorities have much greater housing needs than others.

It does not necessarily follow that the local authorities with the greatest housing needs are the authorities with the greatest financial resources. So what the Bill proposes is that, instead of the old system of flat rate housing subsidies applying everywhere, there should now be a system under which subsidies will be channelled to the authorities which need them most. In other words, what we are doing in the Bill is to redistribute the existing amount of subsidy assistance so that those authorities which need most will get more subsidy than under the present system, while, of course, as a corollary to this those authorities who need less will get less.

I do not propose to describe in detail the method by which the Bill achieves this redistribution of subsidy assistance, because that has been discussed and explained ad nauseam in Committee and on Report. What I will say, however, is this. I fully recognise that some local authorities which will get less assistance than before are not likely to welcome the effect of the Bill upon them. But it is implicit in any Measure which seeks to give extra help to the needy that those with the greater resources will receive less. We cannot get away from that basic fact. I think it is worth pointing out that at least one major authority which expects that it will qualify for only the lower rate of subsidy has indicated, nevertheless, that it recognises the principle of giving greater help to the needy—a principle which is at the root of this Bill.

Although some local authorities get less, the Bill is in no way an attempt to cut subsidies. On the contrary, as I have said many times before, the total amount of subsidy under the provisions of the Bill will increase compared with what would have been forthcoming under existing legislation. I wish that hon. Members opposite would try to grasp that and get it into their heads. From the violence of the Opposition to the subsidy proposals in the Bill, one might have almost have thought that the Bill was designed to cut subsidies, whereas, in fact, its object is to redistribute them and in the process over the years actually to increase the total. In fact, it will mean more and not less subsidies going to Scotland. That is the first and most important point to grasp about the Bill, and it is one which will certainly be accepted in Scotland even if the Opposition are incapable of doing do. [Interruption.]

So far I have spoken about the reallocation of subsidies in relation to need. There is also power under the Bill to reduce subsidies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite have argued that this power will be used to keep the Exchequer subsidy bill within its existing limits and perhaps even to reduce it. This is really carrying suspicion of the Government too far. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the power by order to reduce, terminate or curtail the duration of subsidies payable under the Bill is not new in principle in relation to houses approved after the date of the order. That power has existed for many years in housing legislation, and I do not see why hon. Members opposite should think that it is now likely to be used immediately or on a wide scale to reduce subsidies.

While it may be true that this phraseology is contained in earlier Measures, does the Under-Secretary not realise that under the powers he is now seeking under Clause 29 he can so arrange matters that he can decide that there will be no need to make any subsidy to a local authority by virtue of the fact that it has been forced to increase rents to a figure beyond the capacity of the people to pay?

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way, we shall in due course come to Clause 29. We are not discussing Clause 29 just now.

We are discussing the power to alter subsidies, and I was saying that Chat power had existed for many years in housing legislation. I do not see why it should now suddenly be exciting hon. Members opposite. After all, if my right hon. Friend had wanted to reduce subsidies more or less straight away he could much more easily have proposed this openly in the Bill instead of going through all the rigmarole of introducing a new subsidy structure by legislation with the sole intention of proceeding immediately afterwards to alter the subsidies by order. One has only to state the argument to see how utterly preposterous are the suspicions of hon. Members opposite on this score.

There is, I recognise, one new feature of these powers in that at any time not less than ten years from the passing of the Bill there are powers to reduce subsidies on houses already approved under the Bill. These powers will, however, be used—I give this assurance to the House as I have given it many times before—only if it appears, following consultations with the local authority associations, that so great a change had taken place in economic circumstances that a continuance of payments on the original scale for the remainder of the sixty-year period was no longer justified. Clearly it is quite impossible for me to forecast how or when my right hon. Friend might have to exercise these powers.

After all, no one in 1902 could possibly have forecast how world economic circumstances were going to alter by 1962. In exactly the same way, it is impossible to say now what may happen by the time we are a couple of decades into the twenty-first century. That is only common sense, and I would have thought that even hon. Members opposite might have been able to understand that. I can certainly give the assurance that my right hon. Friend has no intention at present of exercising this power. But it seems to him to be a wise precaution, in the light of the pace of economic change, which is a feature of modern life, to take this power so that if circumstances change radically subsidies can be altered to keep in step.

So much, then, for subsidies. I turn now to the second main feature of the Bill, which is the proposal to make available advances from the Exchequer to registered housing associations which are providing houses for letting at economic rents. This feature of the Bill is not in any way, as the Opposition suggest, a reflection on the immense contribution which local authorities have made to improving the housing situation in Scotland.

We are sick and tired of having it thrown at us that we are against this part of the Bill. We are not. We want every type of building in Scotland. The more houses, the better. What we think of this part of the Bill is that in the Government's real heart they know that it will not provide many houses in Scotland, but we want the few that it will provide.

The hon. Lady is nothing like as sick and tired of what I say as I am of what she says. I said that this feature—

On a point of order I want to make an appeal to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are now on Third Reading. It will have to be a very curtailed debate, because we are working under the Guillotine. The perpetrator of it is sitting on the Government Front Bench. He should be thrown out of the Chamber.

Nothing has occurred which is out of order. Mr. Galbraith.

Further to that point of order.

Order, order. What the hon. Member stated was not a point of order.

Further to that point of order. How can you tell that it is not a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, unless you listen to it?

Order, order. I heard what was going on in the Chamber. I ruled that nothing out of order had occurred and I called on the Under-Secretary to continue his speech.

On a new point of order. I had not reached my point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I accept your right to rule, but I think that you should accept my right to state my point before ruling. My point was this. It is obvious that the Under-Secretary will make a long speech. We have heard enough of this twaddle and he should not be taking up time.

The hon. Member has been a Member of this House long enough to know that what he has now said does not raise a point of order.

For the information of the hon. Member of Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I can say that if I had not been interrupted my speech would have taken thirteen minutes. If it takes longer than that, the responsibility is on the hon. Gentleman's own shoulders.

I said that this feature of the Bill is not in any way a reflection on the immense contribution which local authorities have made to improving the housing situation in Scotland. I pay tribute to them for this achievement. But at the same time as I encourage local authorities to continue with the good work, I believe that there is also an urgent need to stimulate further progress by private enterprise, particularly in house letting, so as to meet the needs of those who do not require subsidised housing accommodation.

I want to make it quite clear, however, that there is absolutely no intention of setting up house letting agencies in competition with the local authorities. Clearly, local authorities must remain the principal providers of subsidised houses to those who need them on financial grounds, and nothing in the Bill diminishes the vital rôle of local authorities in this sphere. The aim of the Exchequer advances to housing associations is to provide for a totally different, and as yet virtually unexplored, market, consisting of people who do not need subsidised accommodation and who are able and willing to pay an economic rent but who, for one reason or another, do not want to undertake the long-term responsibilities of owner-occupation. Up till now private enterprise has been backward in catering for this class of person.

We believe that the pump-priming operation envisaged in the Bill will show that the market for this type of accommodation is considerable and that private enterprise will be attracted back into providing houses for letting at economic rents. I am sure that this is most desirable, because local authorities will then be able to concentrate all their efforts on helping those who need subsidised accommodation.

On a point of terminology. Why does the Under-Secretary keep saying "private enterprise", because these housing associations are non-profit-making and co-operative in character?

I do not want to explain that now. I went into it at considerable length in Committee. It is supposed to be a pump-priming operation to show that a market exists. When private enterprise sees that a market exists, it should come in and do the job which these housing associations with the aid of an advance from the Government are starting to do.

Before I leave the subject of building by housing associations, I want to say something about the S.S.H.A. While the main function of the S.S.H.A. will be the building of houses to let in the areas of overspill receiving authorities, it is proposed that the Association should also participate in the schemes for direct Exchequer advances which I have just described and at the same time that it should be enabled to enter the field of housing improvement and conversion. I very much hope that the Association's work in these two new spheres will encourage other agencies to be equally adventurous; for there is tremendous scope here for a pioneering spirit. I want to make it clear that these are extensions of the Association's functions and that there will be no reduction in its normal rôle. The Association will continue to build in the local authority field in the same way as it does now. It will also, however, undertake new work in "providing houses to let at economic rents and in improving older property.

The third main feature of the Bill is contained in Clause 29. I agree that this Clause can be regarded as controversial in principle. I fully understand the arguments which hon. Members opposite have advanced against it, but I ask the House to try to see the Clause in perspective, because the fears expressed about its use have been exaggerated and, indeed, the whole purpose of the Clause has been partly misunderstood.

After all, all that Clause 29 does is to rectify a defect in the existing enforcement provisions where there has been default as to rents. As I explained in Committee, a rent scheme under the Clause would be made only in very exceptional circumstances indeed, and only where a local authority had been shown after a public inquiry to be in default as to its statutory duty on rents. No one regrets more than my right hon. Friend that it has been found necessary to write this power into the Bill. No one hopes more than he does that it will never have to be used.

The Under-Secretary has just made a very important statement. He has said, in effect, that no one regrets more than the Secretary of State for Scotland that this power is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has also said that his right hon. Friend hopes that he will not have to use this power. At present the Dunbarton County Council has asked the Secretary of State to allow this discussion to continue until October or November. The Secretary of State has refused. He insists on 15th May. As the county council has increased rents twice since its default was shown and if the Secretary of State is so anxious to see the thing done in the proper way and is unwilling to use this power, he could show this by indicating to the county council that he will give it until October or November to consider the matter further.

What I said was that nobody regretted more than my right hon. Friend that it has been found necessary to write this power into the Bill and no one hopes more than he that it will not have to be used. The point is that we have got to face facts. However regrettable it may be, the fact is that all local authorities do not always act properly—as the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) pointed out yesterday. He made a very interesting contribution to the debate.

The reports of the two recent rent inquiries used pretty strong terms. They referred to a "'travesty of good faith," and to "the exercise of a discretion for a wrongful end." Those are the phrases used in describing the way in which a local authority has behaved in relation to its rent-fixing obligations.

All that pointed to a situation that was far from being what it ought to have been, and my right hon. Friend felt that where a local authority had been acting this way, and where it had been shown that the existing provisions for enforcing rectification of a default were inadequate, he had no option but to strengthen the provisions for dealing with this exceptional type of case. That is exactly what Clause 29 does. As for the level of rents generally, Clause 29 can be used only to enforce the observation of existing statutory obligations. I would emphasise that these provisions, as at present enacted in Sections 71 and 73 of the 1950 Act, remain completely unchanged—

rose—

Some horn. Members seem to complain because I speak too long while another hon. Member keeps on intervening.

The Dunbartonshire County Council has only itself to thank. It got into default, and if it is not prepared to get out of default I am afraid that it will suffer under the Bill—

I do not think that the Court of Session will uphold the hon. Gentleman's statement.

I notice that the hon. Gentleman likes to keep on intervening, but he will soon have a perfectly good opportunity to intervene properly.

I thought that there was a fair measure of support on the other side of the Chamber for the proposition that local authorities ought not to exercise these functions in such a way as to fix rents that are unreasonably low. I would remind the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that during the Second Reading debate he said:

"I do not advocate rents which are too low. I adhere to the principle of a reasonable rent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1432.]

What is wrong with that statement?

There is nothing wrong with it—it is excellent. If the hon. Gentleman really believes it, he must recognise that all Clause 29 does is to give my right hon. Friend powers to ensure that local authorities observe their obligations to review rents and to fix reasonable rents. It cannot be used to enforce unreasonably high rents. Indeed, as I explained yesterday, it could be used to prevent a local authority from charging unreasonably high rents.

Thus, the Clause is not an attack on local authority rents. It is merely a rectification of an omission in the existing powers for securing that local authorities observe their statutory duties. I am sure that that is something that every right-minded person wishes to see achieved, although anyone listening to the Opposition would gain a very different impression.

I have briefly described the main provisions of a Bill that is designed to help all forms of house building and to grapple with the tremendous housing problem that still exists in Scotland, and I now ask the House to give this Measure its Third Reading.

5.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary referred to the beneficent intention of the Bill. What a mockery! My hon. Friends and I regard this Bill of over 30 Clauses as having an evil and vile intent in almost every Clause. Because of the present circumstances I must be brief, but as the hon. Gentleman referred mainly to the subsidy provisions I, too, shall deal with them.

We are all well aware that ever since 1935 Secretaries of State have had power to reduce the amount of subsidies or the period during which they were payable, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that not on one single occasion in the intervening 27 years has any Government ever reduced the subsidies by Order. They have all preferred to introduce legislation for that purpose. That is the right, the proper and the decent method of approaching the problem. At least it gives Parliament the opportunity of adequately discussing, even amending, the proposals coming before it—

rose—

No.

The present Secretary of State, with his insatiable desire for dictatorial power, not only decides to reduce subsidies but, for the first time in the history of housing legislation, introduces a power to abolish them by way of Order. I shall not be sidetracked by the Under-Secretary's statement that subsidies will not be reduced for ten years. The fact is that in 1965, for example—and that is only three years away—the Secretary of State could, by Order, say that subsidies payable in relation to houses approved after that date would be less than provided for in the Bill. He has the power, of course, after 1st November, 1971, to reduce or abolish subsidies on all houses that have been approved since 1961.

What concerns me most is that this power to abolish subsidies, which is a major change of policy, is being undertaken by a method that denies this House the opportunity of adequate discussion and restricts the right of hon. Members to amend any such proposal. As I have said, such a dictatorial power is unprecedented in the history of housing legislation—the more so since the power to reduce or abolish subsidies may apply to the whole of Scotland, or to any area in Scotland, or to any house in any area.

Why does the Secretary of State want to apply the power to abolish or reduce subsidies to a specific area or a certain type of house? He desires it because it will give him the chance of using it as a weapon against any local authority which may have a rent structure with which he violently disagrees. We all know that the Secretary of State already possesses all the powers that he requires to deal with local authorities who fail in their statutory obligations to deal with rents. We have discussed that matter today. However, I believe that the real problem in Scotland is not the question of rents but the failure to build a sufficient number of houses to deal with what is admittedly the greatest housing problem in Western Europe.

Not one house will be produced in Scotland as a result of this Bill. Scottish local authorities have over 200,000 people on their waiting lists. We still have 300,000 slum houses in Scotland. One-third of our houses are 82 years and more old. In addition, we have the great problem of trying to export 100,000 families from Glasgow. This is the problem—not rents—that presents to us a real challenge. One would have thought that with a problem of this kind we would have concentrated all our efforts and resources towards its solution.

What has been done? In 1953, new town authorities built 36,000 houses to meet this tremendous need. Last year they built only 19,000 houses—a reduction of almost 50 per cent. This is an appalling and disgraceful record. All these specious arguments which have been adduced from time to time by the Secretary of State cannot explain away the tragic decline in house building. They cannot stand the light of day. I have said that we have 300,000 slum houses. At the present rate of progress it will take 33 years before we get rid of our slums.

The Government's record in providing houses in Scotland is shocking. It is a record of bungling ineptitude and incompetence, and ought not to be tolerated.

5.33 p.m.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said that this Bill was evil and vile in intention in every Clause. I would point out that many of the Clauses actually increase the subsidy that is given to local authorities for building houses. I refer to such matters as incoming industry, housing associations, expensive sites and so on. What the Opposition really object to is that there should be differential rates of subsidy for local authorities based on a resourses test. Since the end of the war we have built in Scotland 450,000 houses—toy far the largest number under a Tory Government—

The party opposite has been in power for eleven years.

The hon. Gentleman should know that when the Socialist Government were in power the rate of house building was going down.

The hon. Gentleman is also surely aware that the increase in building after the Labour Government were in power has been admitted to have been made possible by the planning of the Socialist Government.

It is very strange that the rate of building should have gone down while the Socialist Government were in power.

There was a war on. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not notice that.

There is a big housing problem in many areas such as Glasgow, but in other areas the bulk of the housing problem has now been met. For that reason I support the redistribution of subsidies, by which local authorities most in need can get a greater subsidy, rising from £24 to £32, and in some cases to as much as £56. We see that the rate of building of local authority houses is dropping, and so is the rate of building by housing associations which at the moment is insignificant. It is good to see that house building by new town corporations and private owners, on the other hand, is increasing. But I think that this Bill will prime the pump not only for housing associations but also for local authorities, because those whose resources are inadequate will now get the bigger subsidy. That is quite irrespective of any rent system which may operate in the area of the local authority concerned.

I welcome the flexibility given by Clause 3 to the Secretary of State enabling him to alter the formula for determining which local authority gets which rate of subsidy. Not only can he reduce it, as hon. Members opposite have said, but he is given power to increase it if he thinks that a local authority needs a higher subsidy in order to do the job properly.

Where does the Bill say that?

In Clause 3.

I should now like to say a few words on Clause 4 which we did not have time to discuss in Standing Committee. This Clause gives an extra £12 for agricultural housing. This subsidy has been available in previous housing legislation, but in my opinion it has not been used as much as it should. Some time ago I asked a Question, the answer to which was that housing subsidies in Scotland amounted to nearly £20 million a year, but of this only £181,000 was attributable to subsidies for houses for agricultural workers—less than 1 per cent. In Scotland at least 5 per cent. of the population are engaged on the land, so that the agricultural worker is not getting a fair share of this subsidy. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider this point and to ascertain why more use is not being made of the subsidy for agricultural workers houses in local authority areas.

I believe that one of the reasons is that there is a stipulation that such houses must have their own private water supply and sewerage arrangements before they can qualify for a subsidy. That is entirely wrong because main water supplies and main sewerage services are now being provided in the countryside, and it seems ridiculous that when local authorities build houses for the agricultural population they should not get the higher subsidy because there happens to be a main water supply. I should like my hon. Friend to see whether he could arrange that better use is made of this subsidy.

Clause 11 provides help for housing associations. This is a very useful provision for priming the pump so that houses can be built by housing associations.

rose—

I cannot give way as we are operating under the Guillotine procedure. In England and Wales since the end of the war 48,750 houses have been built by housing associations, compared with only 1,600 in Scotland, which is a very poor record.

It seems to me that there is no reason why the housing association movement should not flourish equally well in Scottish soil as in English soil. There are various types of housing associations. There is the do-it-yourself kind in which people build their houses in which they are to live. There is also the charitable kind.

In one case we are giving extra subsidies to housing associations to build houses for the aged, and it seems to me that many organisations, such as rotary clubs in towns throughout Scotland, could well form such housing associations to provide this sort of house for aged people with the help of a subsidy, and I hope that we shall see some movement like that which has developed in England and Wales.

There is also a great need for houses for young people who are prepared to pay an economic rent, but for some reason do not want to buy their own houses. I feel that the housing association movement could help such people.

Who are they?

They are the people who work in Scotland for perhaps a year before going abroad. They do not want to buy a house.

Clause 25 brings in a new repairing code for Scotland. I am very much in favour of houses being repaired, but this Clause adds certain obligations for leases of less than seven years, which would apply to nearly all the leases in Scotland. I think that this Clause may go a little too far, because the law of Scotland up to now has been adequate for dealing with the question of repairs as between the landlord and tenant, and there are certain things which can be done better by a tenant than by calling in the landlord to do them. I am thinking of minor decorative repairs, or repairs to a tap washer or something like that. If a landlord is called in on a number of occasions to do these small jobs, it leads to great expense. This consideration applies also to local authorities who are landlords.

To take an absurd example, it costs about £1 to get in a plumber to repair a tap washer.

It costs 10s. 6d.

I am much obliged to the hon. Lady. If we remember that it costs 10s. 6d. to get a washer repaired, this would add about £25,000 to Glasgow Corporation's repair bill on its housing estates. This consideration also applies to houses with controlled remits, and the financial burden imposed on the proprietors of such houses will be heavier than it is now.

Clause 29, in certain circumstances, increases the Secretary of State's power, and when a local authority is in default enables him to impose a rent scheme. The present system is undoubtedly very cumbersome, but I think that under Section 169 of the 1950 Act my right hon. Friend could get round to very much the same effect. I hope that it will never be necessary for my right hon. Friend to use this power, but it must be remembered that there are about 20 local authorities in Scotland who have not reviewed their rents in the last five years. The extension of this power may well bring local councillors to their senses because, as the Toothill Committee's Report showed, many local authorities would be glad to get rid of their present rent policy but they are in difficulty in moving ahead to any marked extent on their own. In other words, they are frightened of the electors.

Generally, rents in rural areas are higher than those in the cities although the scale of wages in such areas is obviously very much lower. I think that the low rent policy of Scotland is causing considerable misery and inconvenience to many people who want houses. I think that this Bill will do much to help. I think that it will provide more houses of the right type, and more houses in the right place, and I give the Bill my support.

5.45 p.m.

Whatever our political differences, I am sure we all hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will soon be fully recovered in health and back amongst us. I should also like to acknowledge on behalf of us all his long period of service as Secretary of State. I believe that he has constituted a record for all time. I think that we ought, irrespective of our political points of view, to pay tribute to his commendable service.

I should like to consider the Bill from a different angle from that which has been referred to so far. It must be judged on four counts. First, whether it will make a substantial contribution to the housing of our people in Scotland. Secondly, whether it will make a substantial contribution to taking the whole question of housing out of the ambit of party politics. Thirdly, whether it will make a substantial contribution to a feeling of fairness among all sections of the community—those who are occupiers of local authorities' houses, those who are occupiers of privately owned houses and rent them, and those who axe owner-occupiers; in other words, whether it will make a substantial contribution to the equity of all those classes of people. Fourthly, whether it will make a substantial contribution to the great housing problem of the City of Glasgow. Will it establish a basis for utilising to the fullest extent the great building force that could be made available to cure the problem that exists in one of our most wonderful cities? Those are the four counts on which the Bill should be judged.

I think that it fails on all four. I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite say that under a Labour Government sufficient houses were not built. Other hon. Members have said that under a Conservative Government sufficient houses were not built. This year I have completed 30 years' of local government and Parliamentary service, and when I went to the local authority I went from a condemned house which had no water supply, and a dry outside lavatory. All water for domestic purposes had to be carried a hundred, yards.

When a demand was made to the Conservative-controlled local authority that it should build houses for people like me, we found that the council was diametrically opposed to such a thing being done, notwithstanding the simple fact that we had on the Statute Book at that time the Addison Act of 1919, the Wheatley Act of 1924, and the Johnson Act of 1930. The Conservative Party has been responsible for bringing the question of housing into the political arena, because the Government had the power to provide houses but did not use it.

The time has come to provide houses on the basis of equity and fairness to all sections of the community. Houses owned by local authorities, by the Scottish Special Housing Association, by private landlords, and by owner-occupiers should be treated on the same basis. I think that the rent of houses, irrespective of who owns them, should be based on the district valuation of the property. I do not think that the owner of private property should get an excessive rent for his property because there is a scarcity market. On the other hand, I do not think that a local authority should rent houses at a rent below the value of the property. But we may cause great injustice and hardship to certain sections of the community who may occupy privately owned or local authority houses.

Pending a better structure of the pensions scheme or a wages scheme for the country, we shall have to institute a rent rebate scheme, and such a scheme should not only be applied to local authority houses but should be applied to all houses, because the rents of all houses should be dealt with on the same basis. This Bill will not bring that about. If that were done, it presupposes that a system of rent control must be introduced, and I think that something in that direction is very desirable. By this suggestion, all privately owned and local authority houses, as I have indicated, would have the same basic rents and would be entitled to the same basic rent rebate.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that houses should be rented at the gross annual value, as fixed by the assessor, subject to a rebate scheme?

The rents of all properties should be based upon the valuations carried out by the district valuers under the recent Valuation Act, but,—

Order. I think perhaps I should remind the House that we are on Third Reading and that it is in order to discuss only what is in the Bill and not what is outside it.

I quite agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but a lot of the things I have mentioned have been spoken about by other Members, and I feel that we should look at the whole question in the light of trying to be equitable and fair to all sections of the community.

How does the Bill seek to bring about a basis of equity with regard to owner-occupiers of houses, who pay very high rates towards the local authority's housing accounts? Are we being fair in this Bill to that section of the community? I believe it was within the power of the Government to be fair to them, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will abolish the Schedule A Property Tax, so as to be fair to them.

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but there is nothing to do with abolishing Schedule A in the Third Reading of this Bill.

I appreciate your point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was trying to bring out the full picture. I will go on to the question of the present and future subsidies, which are dealt with in the Bill.

I think that this method of subsidising property has played its part in the past in providing houses, but it is now time it was stopped. Subsidies as a means of providing houses should cease to exist, and in their place should be a Special Loans Board whereby the Government could provide the money for the purpose at very low—in fact, nominal—rates of interest. Money lent to local authorities at nominal rates of interest would be much better than the subsidies provided under this Bill. We are at the moment building houses costing roughly £2,000, and when we have paid back the excessive rates of interest at the end of sixty years we find that we have paid back between £7,000 and £8,000.

I do not think any Government should permit people to make money out of the provision of an essential service such as the housing of our people. From that point of view, if from no other, the whole question of the provision of houses for the people of Scotland should be looked at in a new light, but we do not seem to have in the present Government men who can have new ideas about overcoming the problem at the moment. They seem to me to be very ready to live in the past, but never to try to concoct something to overcome the difficulties of the present. However, I do not want to develop that theme.

There is another aspect of this matter that must be borne in mind, and that concerns the cost of land. Does this Bill do anything to restrain the excessive prices that are demanded of local authorities and private builders by way of land charges? I think that is a matter that should have been included in the Bill, because it has a great effect on the amount of rates which has to be paid by the tenant of a local authority or a privately built house, but it has not been tackled.

I should have liked to have said a lot more about this Bill, but there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak on this very important subject. I conclude by a reference to the city of Glasgow. In my opinion, it is a national disgrace that the city of Glasgow should have housing conditions which, probably, are the worst in Europe. If we go to West Berlin and see what has been done there, or if the people of Glasgow could go there and see it, they would be up in arms. This Bill will not cure that situation, and it is to try to cure it that I shall continue to raise my voice from time to time on this subject.

5.56 p.m.

I have on previous occasions followed the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). I think that he always makes a thoughtful speech, be it on the agricultural industry or on housing. I welcome the tribute, which I thought was a very generous one, which the hon. Gentleman paid to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the hope which he expressed that he would soon be fit and well again. I should also like, particularly, perhaps in his absence, to say a word or two in tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has piloted the Bill—

Imposed it.

through many sittings, with considerable patience and occasional flashes of humour.

The hon. Gentleman voted for the Guillotine, and now he is taking up the time of the House.

The more the hon. Gentleman interrupts, the longer I shall be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) has already made the point that I would have wished to make about subsidies and the channelling of them in cases of need. I am very glad that my hon. Friend, in the course of his speech, paid a tribute to the local authorities and their housing efforts. I very strongly believe that in Scotland at the moment there is great room and very great need for both local authority and private building under what is proposed in Clause 11.

One or two rather unkind things were said at one stage of the Committee proceedings about the drabness and dreariness of council houses in Scotland. I would merely say that, particularly in country areas, local authorities have done very much in the houses which they have built to raise the standards of the houses, and to raise our sights, particularly with regard to agricultural housing, and that they have done a remarkably good job of work.

Because I think there is room for both, I very much welcome Clause 11 which deals with the housing associations. This has been described rather variously by different hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire West, (Mr. Hendry) described it as the most imaginative experiment ever. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), on the other hand, went perhaps to the other extreme when he said it was

"a timid and puny effort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 20th March, 1962; c. 881.]

I dare say that, like the point I made yesterday, the answer lies somewhere in between.

However, I believe that there is scope in Scotland for building houses of this kind to Jet at economic rents. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), in his Second Reading speech, said such rents would have to be £4 a week. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) in Committee, did not quite agree with that figure and he gave it as £3 10s. I would just repeat the point which I made one day in Committee on this subject, that when the Corporation of Edinburgh advertised houses to let at Swanston, on the south side, and Cramond, in my own constituency, there were over 200 people who, having inspected the houses, applied—over 200 of them—for 12 houses at rents which average £5 a week.

The hon. Gentleman ought, in fairness, to say that those houses have certain historical and also local associations which give them an amenity value, or, to put it rather crudely, in Edinburgh a snob value which is worth quite a substantial part of that £5 a week. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman would not argue that many workers in Edinburgh applied for those houses at £5 a week.

If only the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to say one more sentence. That is exactly what I was about to say, that one must allow an amenity value for those particular houses, but the hon. Gentleman, being renowned for the objectivity with which he looks at everything, I am sure would say that a fair amenity value is something between £1 and £1 10s. a week, which brings us back to the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton.

The hon. Gentleman will know that those houses have associations with Robert Louis Stevenson.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of them, agree that there is a demand for houses to let at economic rents. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) have expressed pride and satisfaction that their local authorities are building houses to let at economic rents, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said that he believed that there will be a tendency for local authorities to build at economic rents and that this is bound to develop.

If they accept that this demand exists, then I cannot understand why so halfhearted a welcome has been given to this effort to get housing associations going. I really do not think that any Member opposite could say that it has been welcomed with open arms, this effort to get associations going to build houses to let at economic rents.

I think that the real reason for this half-heartedness was voiced very frankly by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who, having followed his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central, who had welcomed the relevant Clause, expressed great misgivings and said, "Oh, no, I do not think that I can support my hon. Friend in this." He went on to say that the reason he did not like it was that he wanted people to be mixed up in their living environment—just as I often think he is mixed up in his own general outlook.

I must say that I thought that this advocacy, that people should all be mixed up in a community—

Balanced communities, not mixed up.

was rather cool coming from one who lives in the plush exclusiveness of Great King Street, Edinburgh, where there are probably more Lords in the vicinity—be they Law Lords or not—than anywhere else.

I should like to put to the House the proposition that if people wish to live on their own, or if they wish to live in a particular kind of house, we should allow them to do so and not compel them to become mixed up—

The hon. Member is getting mixed up.

and that if a demand of this kind exists, let that demand be fostered. The fact that it does exist was confirmed by that excellent newspaper, the Edinburgh Evening News—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—in a leading article. I am finding it difficult to elbow in on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn).

The hon. Member ought to declare an interest.

This is what the leading article said:

"Post-war housing requirements have been, and are being, met in two ways—by the provision of local authority dwellings at subsidised rents, and by private enterprise building for owner-occupation. The middle course, private building for letting, has been at a standstill in Scotland for many years…. But there is cause for concern in a situation in which virtually the only way to get a modern house in Scotland is either to buy it or to rent it from a local authority. The need for a change of policy … has become apparent, for it cannot be denied that many people do not want Corporation houses, are not willing to buy, yet would be quite happy to pay a rent which, with rates, might come to as much as £5 a week for a good modern house—and it must not be forgotten that such a situation would have advantages in these days of increasing mobility of employment."

I believe that the opinions given in that leader are sound and fair, and if the Bill did nothing else I believe that the setting up of these housing associations and the encouragement to do in Scotland what has not been done for so many years, the building of houses to let by private enterprise or housing associations, makes it merit acceptance.

6.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State, in concluding his speech on Second Reading, said:

"I commend the Bill to the House in the belief that it will make a real contribution to the solution of the remaining housing problems in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1374.]

That view and pious hope were expressed this afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State.

We on this side of the House would like the Bill if it would in some way achieve this laudable object of solving this urgent problem, but I regret to say, now that hon. Members on both sides have had an opportunity to examine the many thousands or perhaps millions of words spoken about the Bill since it was first put to us in November and to assess just how far it will be possible for it to achieve its end, that it seems to me that it will not do any such thing.

I submit that the Measure is the victim of a misnomer and should have been called something like the "Housing (Abolition of Subsidies) (Scotland) Bill," because if there is one thing it sets out clearly to do it is to abolish subsidies. Clauses 8 and 29 form the kernel of the Measure and are purely financial. Clause 3 gives flexibility to the granting of subsidies—varying from £12 to £56—while Clause 8 gives power to abolish them. Thus, Clause 3 is supposed to give flexibility, Clause 8 will amend or reduce or, ultimately, abolish subsidies, and Clause 29 gives dictatorial new powers to the Secretary of State.

What particular interest has the Secretary of State in the rent structure of any local authority? After all, not long ago the Government amended the system of making grants to local authorities and replaced the percentage grant with the block grant for the purpose, they said at the time, of giving greater flexibility to local authorities to spend their money as they desired. That, the Government suggested, would stimulate the interest of the ratepayer in the method of the block grant expenditure.

On the same basis, if a local authority decides to charge a rent which is not acceptable to the Secretary of State, but which it regards as being reasonable, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the people who live in the houses—not all municipal houses—are in a position either to reject or accept their local authority's policies at each annual municipal election? Surely, if the people in the area feel that the rent structure is not acceptable or is unfair to them they have the opportunity of "turfing out" the local authority, just as, when the opportunity presents itself, the electors will "turf out" the Government in the next General Election for the type of Housing Bill that they are attempting to foist on us. The local authority must fix its rent structure and if it has a greater rate contribution it must answer to its electors and take the appropriate action.

What happens when four-fifths of the houses are owned by the council?

I do not know of such a situation. Therefore, it is none of the Secretary of State's business to be involved with the rent structure. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he already has powers. That is true. He already exercises them by calling on local authorities to review their rent structures. But now the right hon. Gentleman is going much further.

Did the Secretary of State not say that, as a result of the powers already possessed, he had been able to force or blackmail 100 local authorities to toe the line? Why, then, does he seek to take this further power? I believe that it is because of the power's close linkage with Clause 8, for the whole purpose of the Bill is quickly to abolish subsidies altogether. The Secretary of State has said that by this power, in conjunction with Clause 29, he will see that what he regards as reasonable rent structures will be operated by local authorities.

The question to which my hon. Friends require an answer is what amount of subsidy is intimately bound up with the income of a local authority in its housing revenue account? As I say, the whole purpose of the Bill is to see that the right hon. Gentleman can force that rent income as high as he possibly can, so that, at the earliest possible opportunity, he will say that he has justification for saying that the subsidy must, first, be reduced and. ultimately, abolished.

Time and again the Secretary of State has emphasised that my hon. Friends have not been trusting the Under-Secretary. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that trust of this kind must be mutual? It must be mutual between local authorities and the Secretary of State. On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:

"… authorities are already required to charge rents that are reasonable, and after careful study we came to the conclusion that any formal elaboration of this requirement could not be relied upon to achieve its purpose".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1371.]

Thus the right hon. Gentleman has no faith or trust in local authorities and he takes unto himself this power so that he can, from above, impose on them a rental which will enable him, ultimately, to abolish the subsidy.

The Under-Secretary said quite truthfully—this was one of the few occasions when we were able to fish out the truth from him—that very likely some local authorities will not welcome the Bill. That is about the most honest thing that the hon. Gentleman has said. If they are not likely to welcome it what is likely to be their reaction? After all, if someone does not like something it is possible that he will take evasive action. In this case, local authorities could decide, as a result of the treatment and lack of trust that the right hon. Gentleman has placed in them, to take evasive action and not to continue with the building of houses

Then we were told that the right hon. Gentleman could have put in the Bill a definite proposal stating that he should have the power to abolish subsidies altogether. Naturally, the right hon. Gentleman is not so politically infantile as to put anything so specific in the Bill. The purpose of the Measure, however, is obvious, although the ultimate desire and intention is cloaked. When we put the whole jigsaw puzzle together we see the real purpose of the Bill. We join Clauses 8 and 29 and draw the true picture. The picture we get of the Government's intentions is far more honest than the one the Under-Secretary drew.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) thought that the Bill would help private building, not necessarily financially, but that it would, at any rate, encourage it. The hon. Gentleman said that it would act as a "pump primer" by showing what could be done by other organisations, and he hoped that the private builders would follow that lead and do something. I suggest that if the Government are anxious to see more houses built for letting by private enterprise they could have introduced a Clause saying that anyone building for private enterprise must allocate one half of the houses built for letting at reasonable rents. We know why they are not. It is said that the Bill will show them the way. I await with interest developments in that direction, but I regret to say that I expect very little contribution to house building from that source.

The entire Bill should never have been introduced. If its purpose is to encourage house building in Scotland, I cannot see that purpose ever being fulfilled as a result of its provisions. Having studied the Bill with close interest and with deep concern, I cannot see a single provision in it which will lead to the addition of one new house, except as the result of cooperative effort in local municipal house building. The whole exercise and all the time we have spent on it will not fulfil any of the Under-Secretary of State's hopes.

I hope that we shall have an early opportunity of giving the electorate a chance to express its feeling about this method of dealing with finances and housing and, particularly—this is what we on this side of the House are so concerned about—about the eradication of our legacy of bad housing from years gone by. It is our hope on this side that we may be able to do something within our lifetime to give people decent homes.

6.21 p.m.

We are approaching the end of our consideration of the Bill. It has been a very long consideration. I have in my hand the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee, which runs to over 1,000 columns.

We have all got it. Why tell us that?

I am aghast, after all that discussion, to hear a speech such as that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). I am the more amazed to have heard such a speech from one who was a chief magistrate of the City of Glasgow, which probably has a greater housing problem than is to be found anywhere else in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman obviously has not the faintest idea, after all our deliberations, of what the Bill is about. He said that it is a Bill to abolish subsidies. He does not seem to realise yet that in his own City of Glasgow it is a Bill which will increase subsidies, not reduce them.

The same applies to a great deal of Scotland. It applies to Aberdeenshire, the county which I have the honour to represent, to Lanarkshire, to Kirkcudbright, in the part of Scotland which my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) represents, and to many other parts. It is true that there are parts of Scotland where the subsidies will be reduced, but what the Bill is designed to do, and will do most effectively, in a very ingenious way, is to give effect to what I have always thought was the good old Socialist principle of fair shares for all and to each according to his needs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I stand corrected. I am not a Socialist, but I always understood that that was what was believed in by the party opposite. The Bill does precisely that.

The Bill provides a formula to determine whether a local authority is in great need of financial assistance or not. We discussed that formula ad nauseam in Committee, and I shall not refer to it further tonight. The effect is that a poor authority which requires financial assistance will have an increased subsidy and a wealthy authority which does not require so much will receive a reduced subsidy, but not, as the hon. Member for Shettleston suggested, no subsidy at all. In my view, the House must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having introduced a Bill which will bring about this most desirable state of affairs. On that ground alone, I commend it to the House. The House is also greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has handled a Bill which has such a desirable object.

We have heard a great deal of criticism today about the power which the Secretary of State is taking powers by the Bill to reduce subsidies after a certain period. I have said twice already, and I say again now, that the House ought to know exactly what the position is. The Secretary of State is taking power to reduce or abolish subsidies after ten years if, at that time, he considers it to be necessary. Hon. Members opposite have tried to make out that this is a completely new power. I repeat that it is nothing like a new power. The greater part of it was contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, a Socialist Act. A certain amount of research was done on this subject and it was found that it was the repetition of a power provided for in 1935. I subsequently found that this power was originally invented by the Socialist Government of 1924, who abolished subsidies in the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, by the procedure introduced by none other than Mr. John Wheatley, the then Socialist Minister of Health.

The point requires a little time to explain. It is true that in 1924 the Government took the right to abolish subsidies if the local authorities did not carry out their work within a certain time. The purpose was to make local authorities get on with the job.

I recommend to the hon. Member that he should read the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924. He will find that the reverse is true. The Minister took power to alter or abolish subsidies having regard to the expenses actually incurred by local authorities, and he took that power not after ten years, as this Bill provides, but after two years. In that Act, the retrospective provisions were very much more serious than they are here.

That is just not true.

If hon. Members do not know what the Minister's power was under the 1924 Act, they should look it up. He took power to abolish subsidies in respect of houses which had been approved, but had not been finished, so that the subsidy could have been abolished in respect of local authority houses eighteen months or so after approval was given.

The hon. Gentleman should not be so juvenile.

Any criticism of this Bill on that score is quite without foundation.

I do not want to make a long speech, but there are one or two points which I feel should be made before we conclude our consideration of the Bill. We have heard a great deal from the benches opposite about trusting or not trusting the local authorities. It seems that hon. Members opposite do not trust the local authorities when there is a Tory town council. We have heard a great deal of mistrust directed against a burgh called Milngavie, which is alleged—I do not agree—to charge rents which are too high. But there has not been a word of criticism from hon. Members opposite about the Council of Dunbarton which was letting modern council houses at 2s. 10d. a week. Nobody could support that for a moment.

What the Bill does is to give my right hon. Friend the power he should have had at that time to bring disciplinary action against a local authority behaving in that way. Further, if there are local authorities—which I do not admit—charging unreasonable rents, equally the Bill gives my right hon. Friend power to take disciplinary action against them. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I am very glad that the Bill gives my right hon. Friend these powers, which he should have had long ago.

The Bill has many other desirable provisions regarding the provision of houses to let and many other matters, but I shall say no more about them now. After all the study we have devoted to it, I am convinced that the Bill gives local authorities and others in Scotland a first-class opportunity to get on with the job of bringing to an end our awful housing problem. It offers a real contribution to the solution of that problem in Scotland, and I commend it to the House.

6.29 p.m.

I shall not follow the red herrings which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has drawn across the trail, but I must refer to one point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). The hon. Gentleman said that we on this side of the House were half-hearted in support of housing associations. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the Committee stage many of my hon. Friends and I repeatedly said that we would welcome any Measure which increased house building in Scotland, but that we did not consider that this Bill would do anything to increase the number of houses built in Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) said that the Bill should be called the "Housing (Scotland) (Abolition of Subsidies) Bill." I think that it should be called the "Housing (Scotland) (Rent Increases) Bill," because that is its primary purpose, not the purpose which the Under-Secretary of State gave, namely, to build more houses in Scotland. Earlier, the Minister said that the power to reduce subsidies already existed in legislation. If that were the real intention of the Bill, the Government would have introduced a Bill to reduce subsidies at this stage which would have been much more easy than to introduce an order later. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not think that we on this side of the House are so naive as to believe that the Government would reduce subsidies by legislation on the eve of an election. Therefore, they propose to do it by what I regard as the rather underhand method of reducing subsidies by Statutory Instrument.

The Under-Secretary of State said that Clause 29 was controversial. We can agree with that. The Clause imposes a Scottish rent structure for the first time, in spite of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has stated on many occasions that it was the function of local authorities to fix rents. However, because a certain authority in Scotland had a rent structure with which the Secretary of State did not agree, he has given that authority notice that, unless it toes the line, he will impose a rent structure on it in the very near future. The significance of that is that, if and when a rent structure is imposed, every Scottish local authority which does not have a rent structure in line with the one imposed by the right hon. Gentleman will be technically in default in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman. Consequently, such authorities will have their rents increased.

No one who is aware of the appalling housing conditions which still exist in many Scottish towns can honestly and sincerely believe that the Bill is designed to meet the urgency of the problem. It is a Measure which is sinister in its intent and callous in its practical application to the needs of the thousands of homeless families in Scotland. A statement of the most profound truth is unexpectedly to be found in paragraph 3 of the White Paper, Housing in Scotland, where it is stated:

"The housing needs of Scotland are still very great …'

The Government then proceed to force the Bill through the House. Its provisions will so perpetuate the present state of affairs that should we have another ten years of Toryism—I am certain that Scottish people will have the good sense to ensure that we do not—the same words in the White Paper will be even more appropriate in 1971.

The philosophy behind this Bill is neither new nor surprising. It is, in fact, contained in paragraph 9 of the White Paper, which might easily have been written by the Conservative Central Office rather than by a Department of the Scottish Office. Paragraph 9 states:

"Local authorities have no duty to meet all the housing needs of their areas…."

It is from this premise that the Government operate and force through a Measure which could hardly be more calculated to reduce the ability of local authorities to build houses.

We see the real purpose of the Bill in the first sentence of paragraph 8 of the White Paper, which reads:

"There is, therefore, an urgent need to stimulate further progress by private enterprise in Scotland…."

The provision of houses by private enterprise would be all right if it were being done in conjunction with a large local authority building programme, encouraged by a policy of low interest rates and substantial subsidies.

But in the circumstances which will operate under the Bill it is nothing short of a tragedy and offers no hope for those desperately in need of a house. This sentence in the White Paper illustrates once more the old story of the right hand not knowing what the left hand doeth. At the moment that the Government are expressing the urgency of stimulating private enterprise building in Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his credit squeeze in the past six months, has forced at least one big contractor in Kirkcaldy to curtail his speculative building programme. I am sure that that can be said for other parts of Scotland.

The demand to purchase new houses has declined in the past few months. Even prospective buyers in professional employment and well-paid and secure posts have been refused loans by building societies as a result of the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This confused Government will not allow local authorities to build houses for such people, nor will the Chancellor of the Exchequer permit them to secure a mortgage for a house.

Even in Kinghorn, in my constituency, where no local authority houses are being built, a number of houses built for sale by private enterprise have been standing empty for several months despite the fact that many people in Kinghorn are waiting for accommodation. Only last week I had to interview several people in Kinghorn who were aggrieved that the municipality was not doing any building at the moment largely because of the inadequate subsidies, which will become even more inadequate once this Bill becomes an Act. Private enterprise building is merely touching the fringe of the housing problem in Scotland. Many people in the lower income groups are homeless or are living in overcrowded conditions or in unfit houses. For them, this Bill offers a very bleak prospect indeed.

During the Committee stage, I asked the Under-Secretary of State if he would amend a certain Clause so that when the new hospital in Kirkcaldy is completed the authority could build 90 houses to accommodate the special staff which will be required since the services of those people could not be obtained from among the existing population. The hon. Gentleman refused my request. In fact, he went further and said that he was sure that Kirkcaldy could quite easily accommodate those 90 people in the 8,000 houses in the area.

We can imagine what would happen if the municipality accommodated those 90 people, especially since in March this year about 600 people in Kirkcaldy were homeless. About 2,500 people, including people waiting to be married, living in over-crowded conditions or in unfit property, were on the waiting list. Since the marriage rate in that borough is in the region of 400 a year, one realises how preposterous it is to suggest that Kirkcaldy could accommodate those 90 people without an additional subsidy or grant from the Government.

As a result of the new subsidy structure proposed in the Bill, the accident of geography will make the acquisition of a new house beyond the bounds of possibility for many people. The matter will depend on whether the authority in the area in which they live qualifies for the higher or lower subsidy. It has been said that the new system of subsidies will help the poorer authorities and that lower subsidies will be paid to the richer authorities. But the criterion by which the Government determine whether an authority is rich or poor is wrong.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West referred to the redistribution of subsidies on this basis and said that fair shares for all was a Socialist principle. That is quite true, but it depends on how one determines who are poor and who are rich and who are in need and who are not in need. Under the criterion envisaged in the Bill, it is certain that there will not be a fair determination as between poor and rich authorities. The whole basis of the new grant system in the Bill depends on an equality of valuation throughout the country. But it is clearly demonstrable that there is no such equality. Fifeshire as a whole has been assessed at a much higher value than, for example, Lanarkshire. This may seriously affect the grant position. It has already affected the Exchequer Equalisation Grant.

No one can logically argue that the gross annual value of municipal houses in Dunfermline or Kirkcaldy should be higher than in Aberdeen or Edinburgh, yet the figure on which the amount of subsidy to be paid will to some extent depend shows Kirkcaldy at £54, Edinburgh £48 and Aberdeen £46. Despite the high figure in Kirkcaldy, I believe that they will still qualify for the £32 subsidy initially.

The other arbitrary but key figure in the subsidy formula is the now famous or infamous £60. When the Secretary of State discovers that too many authorities are qualifying for subsidy, all he requires to do is simply to issue an Order increasing that figure to £70 or £80 and then bang goes the £32 subsidy for another group of local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman could quite easily go on with this procedure until no authority qualified at all.

In view of the time, I will curtail my remarks, because several hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I would not like to keep them out when they have points to make, but I should like to add that another part of my constituency will be penalised and will receive only £12 subsidy not because the authority is rich but because, unlike many local authorities, it has built a large number of houses under Labour legislation in the inter-war years. This has given the authority a pool which will help it to some extent, but it will not help the authority to build houses at a £12 rate subsidy.

The Government have mised a first-class opportunity to give real hope to all those people who are on the housing waiting list in Scotland. The Under-Secretary ought to have scrapped this vindictive Measure and given us a Bill to encourage and assist local authorities to solve this terrible human problem.

6.42 p.m.

The Bill is not quite a private landlord's charter, but it is the prelude to it. It purports to lay the foundation for the solution of the problem of Scottish housing not by prodding local authorities to do more, but by encouraging private enterprise to build houses to let.

I am amazed to hear hon. Members opposite. Their faith in the ability of private enterprise is so naïve, so touching and so contrary to all the available evidence and all experience in Scottish housing. Private enterprise has stopped building houses to let in Scotland because it could not find people willing to pay the rent to enable it to make a profit. Today, it still cannot find enough people to make house building attractive to private enterprise.

It may well be that the subsidy Clauses, along with the powers sought by the Secretary of State in Clause 29, will achieve the object of raising rents. These Clauses and powers may well create conditions in which the Government will find it politically possible to do what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was seeking to do when he moved a new Clause yesterday. The impatience of property owners in Scotland was quite clearly reflected in Committee and in the House. They cannot wait the length of time involved under previous enactments to have decontrol put into operation.

The Bill, in effect, seeks to breach the whole concept of social housing. We are all aware that the most effective way of sustaining privilege and achieving social segregation is to ration by the purse. This is the favourite method of hon. Members opposite, and this is the purpose of the Bill. It outs across any idea of determining housing priorities. Priority will be determined by the purse. I should like to give a timely warning. It is possible to reduce the demand for housing by pricing it out of the working-class market and putting it beyond the means of people to pay, but the ultimate effect will be felt in industry. It will create a pressure on industry which will be inflationary in its effect.

The major defect of the Bill, as we have said before, is that its policies relate to the problems of English housing and there is no point of similarity between the two countries in that respect. I am pleased, in a way, that we have finished with the Bill. It has been a depressing Measure. It offers neither a solution nor any hope of one. It is a measure of the Government's despair of ever tackling the housing problem. It has been a most depressing experience to sit in Committee and in the House listening to the stonewalling speeches of Government spokesmen and the lack of ideas.

It is full of ideas.

It has been a depressing experience to watch the passage of the Bill through Committee and the House. The only hope is that the people of Scotland will have learned a lesson and will have a change of Government quite quickly.

6.47 p.m.

We are now coming to the end of the Bill. Today, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland demonstrated vividly the nature of his handling of the Bill throughout every stage of it. Continually, he put up his own Aunt Sallies and knocked them down. Continually, he stuck to a brief in which his civil servants had thought out points which we might raise, and when we did not raise them he did not have the gumption to leave those parts of the brief on one side.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who is not now in his place, spoke this evening in the final stage of the Bill. I am sure that he is overjoyed that we have reached the final stage, because he wanted us to get rid of the Bill, in his own words, so that we could go on to the Licensing (Scotland) Bill—"pubs" for Scottish people being of much greater interest to him than homes for our people.

"I feel"—

and I am now quoting—

"that it"—

that is, the Bill—

"will be received with general satisfaction by every local authority in Scotland, because it brings to an end a period of suspense which must have had some effect on their housing programmes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1946; Vol 420, c. 1794.]

That was said on 19th March, 1946, when we, now on this side of the House, were introducing a Bill which raised subsidies so considerably, and it was said by a man who is now known as Lord Strath-clyde. I wish that his son, the Under-Secretary, had taken his advice and had learned from his father that where there is suspense about the amount of subsidies it leads to fewer and fewer houses being built.

The Bill does the opposite of ending any suspense. It ushers in an era of what we can only describe as tragic uncertainty for every local authority in Scotland, even for those which back benchers opposite say will have an increased subsidy of £32. There is no certainty even for those that they will continue to have that increased subsidy.

At this stage the Bill, except in one or two very minor matters, is exactly the same as the Government presented it to us. We are not at all surprised that it is almost exactly the same, because it illustrates very vividly the class prejudices of the Tory Government and the Tory Party. Anyone who has the least interest in Scottish housing will realise that this is a most glaring piece of class legislation.

The debates, ourtailed as they have been at every stage, have shown the antagonism of Front Bench Members and back-bench Members on the Government side towards the ordinary people and the antagonism that they have towards local authorities whose main desire is to provide housing for the majority of our people. Even more, it has demonstrated the desire of hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. West (Mr. Hendry), to support the members of the property-owners association. The Clause which the hon. Member moved last night—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in order in speaking about something which is not in the Bill?

The hon. Lady is not speaking about the Clause at the moment. She is talking about something else—I do not quite know what.

I am speaking about a matter which is quite definitely in the Bill: I am speaking about the whole purpose of the Bill, and I am certain that that is in order, Sir.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West was, perhaps, braver than some of his hon. Friends, because he came clearly into the open last night. But my hon. Friends and I have no doubt that one of the chief purposes of many of the provisions in the Bill is to allow those same property owners to get higher rents for some of the shocking old properties in Scotland. There is no doubt whatever about it.

On this Bill, which is of such great importance to Scotland, the use of the Guillotine shows the arrogance of the Conservative Party and its determination to push a Measure through regardless of lack of discussion. Again, those are not my words. I have borrowed the words of the present Secretary of State for Scotland when he spoke on 3rd March. 1947, on a matter of nothing like the great importance of this.

rose—

I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have only seven minutes left. Twenty per cent. of our time on Third Reading was taken by the Minister's Speech.

Throughout the consideration of the Bill, the Government's attitude towards local authorities has been one of extreme distrust. Their attitude has been, "You will do as we tell you, or else—". What a way to treat responsible men and women who give freely of their time and energy in the interest of the welfare of their communities!

The Bill is entitled "the Housing (Scotland) Bill." What a misnomer! It is a Treasury Bill. It has nothing to do with building houses in Scotland. It should never have been presented by any Secretary of State for Scotland who is worth his salt. It has been said, not only by my hon. Friends, but by the Minister of State, that the Scots are the worst-housed people in the whole of Western Europe. This is a desperate disease which is afflicting Scotland, and it needs a desperate remedy, but the Bill will certainly not provide us with that remedy.

There are many figures which I could quote, but there is no time to do so. All I can say is that if we looked merely at the housing problem of Glasgow, the Bill would not do anything to help. Houses are what is needed by the thousands of people who are living in slums, by the 40,000 young people with children living in cramped quarters in single rooms as sub-tenants. The Bill will not provide any extra houses for those people.

Of course it will.

I turn now to the subsidy question. We are told by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West that the Bill will provide a remedy. What have the Government decided? Faced with the outstanding problem of Scottish housing, they looked at what we are spending on subsidies. Any worth-while Secretary of State would have gone to the Government and said, "We need a bigger global sum for this purpose." But that is not what the present Secretary of State did. He said, "This is the global sum. So we will take money from some local authorities which still desperately need to build houses and give it to other local authority". Yet, at the same time, the Government find more than £80 million to give the Surtax payers. What an indictment!

Division No. 155.]	AYES	[7.0 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Curran, Charles
Aitken, W. T.	Bryan, Paul	Dalkeith, Earl of
Allason, James	Buck, Antony	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Arbuthnot, John	Bullard, Denys	de Ferranti, Basil
Atkins, Humphrey	Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Digby, Simon Wingfield
Barber, Anthony	Burden, F. A.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Batsford, Brian	Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Drayson, G. B.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	du Cann, Edward
Bell, Ronald	Cary, Sir Robert	Duncan, Sir James
Berkeley, Humphry	Channon, H. P. G.	Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Biffen, John	Chichester-Clark, R.	Eden, John
Biggs-Davison, John	Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Bingham, R. M.	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Bishop, F. P.	Collard, Richard	Emery, Peter
Bourne-Arton, A.	Cooper, A. E.	Errington, Sir Eric
Box, Donald	Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Fisher, Nigel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Cordle, John	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Boyle, Sir Edward	Corfield, F. V.	Foster, John
Braine, Bernard	Costain, A. P.	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brewis, John	Coulson, Michael	Freeth, Denzil
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Craddock, Sir Beresford	Gammans, Lady
Brooman-White, R.	Critchley, Julian	Gardner, Edward
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Cunningham, Knox	George, J. C. (Pollok)

My hon. Friends and I want to ensure that our Scottish people are decently housed. We would welcome any provision which would supply us with houses. Bu how many houses, at best, will be gained from this pump-priming—1,000? Many local authorities will be forced to continue to build the same number as at present, which is a very great reduction on what they built seven years ago.

We want to get rid of the slums and the single ends. We want the ordinary decent people of Scotland to be able to have a gracious way of living. The Bill will not help towards those ends. In this affluent democratic society under a Tory Government we cannot, apparently, afford the finance to deal with the shocking problem which faces us in Scotland.

We tried to help throughout the Committee stage. Hon. Members opposite agreed to subsidies for farmers without any discrimination at all, but there was not a word from them about interest rates. A sensible interest rate would be as good as a £75 subsidy a year on each house, but the policy of the Government, incompetent as they are—

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring the Proceedings on the Third Reading to a conclusion.

Question put. That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided; Ayes 212, Noes 157.

Gilmour, Sir John	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Russell, Ronald
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	McLaren, Martin	Scott-Hopkins, James
Goodhart, Philip	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)	Sharples, Richard
Goodhew, Victor	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Shaw, M.
Gower, Raymond	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Shepherd, William
Green, Alan	Maddan, Martin	Skeet, T. H. H.
Gresham Cooke, R.	Maginnis, John E.	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maitland, Sir John	Smithers, Peter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Marshall, Douglas	Speir, Rupert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.	Stodart, J. A.
Hay, John	Mills, Stratton	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcoln
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Montgomery, Fergus	Studholme, Sir Henry
Hendry, Forbes	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Morrison, John	Tapsell, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hocking, Philip N.	Nabarro, Gerald	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Holland, Philip	Neave, Airey	Teeling, Sir William
Hollingworth, John	Noble, Michael	Temple, John M.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Hopkins, Alan	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hornby, R. P.	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Hughes-Young, Michael	Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Hulbert, Sir Norman	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Turner, Colin
Hurd, Sir Anthony	Peel, John	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Percival, Ian	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Iremonger, T. L.	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Vaughan, Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Pilkington, Sir Richard	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
James, David	Pitt, Miss Edith	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Pott, Percivall	Walder, David
Jennings, J. C.	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Walker, Peter
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Ward, Dame Irene
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Pym, Francis	Whitelaw, William
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Ramsden, James	Williams, Dudlay (Exeter)
Kerby, Capt. Henry	Rawlinson, Peter	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Kershaw, Anthony	Rees, Hugh	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kimball, Marcus	Renton, David	Wise, A. R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Woodnutt, Mark
Lindsay, Sir Martin	Ridsdale, Julian	Woollam, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh	Rippon, Geoffrey	Worsley, Marcus
Litchfield, Capt. John	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Longbottom, Charles	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Mr. J. E. B. Hill and
Loveys, Walter H.	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)	Mr. Michael Hamilton.

NOES
Abse, Leo	Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Hunter, A. E.
Albu, Austen	Evans, Albert	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Baird, John	Fernyhough, E.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Fletcher, Eric	Irving, Sydney (Darttord)
Beaney, Alan	Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Janner, Sir Barnett
Benson, Sir George	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Blackburn, F.	Forman, J. C.	Jeger, George
Blyton, William	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)	Galpern, Sir Myer	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Bowles, Frank	George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)	Kelley, Richard
Boyden, James	Ginsburg, David	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Gourlay, Harry	King, Dr. Horace
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Greenwood, Anthony	Ledger, Ron
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Grey, Charles	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Callaghan, James	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Chapman, Donald	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Cliffe, Michael	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Loughlin, Charles
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Cronin, John	Hannan, William	McCann, John
Crosland, Anthony	Harper, Joseph	MacColl, James
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Hart, Mrs. Judith	Mclnnes, James
Darling, George	Hayman, F. H.	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Healey, Denis	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Herbison, Miss Margaret	McLeavey, Frank
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Deer, George	Holman, Percy	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Dempsey, James	Holt, Arthur	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Diamond, John	Houghton, Douglas	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Dodds, Norman	Hoy, James H.	Manuel, Archie
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Marsh, Richard
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Milne, Edward

Mitchison, G. R.	Reynolds, G. W.	Swingler, Stephen
Monslow, Walter	Rhodes, H.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Moody, A. S.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Moyle, Arthur	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Oliver, G. H.	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Timmons, John
Oram, A. E.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Tomney, Frank
Oswald, Thomas	Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)	Wainwright, Edwin
Pargiter, G. A.	Ross, William	Warbey, William
Parker, John	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Paton, John	Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Whitlock, William
Pavitt, Laurence	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Wilkins, W. A.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)	Willey, Frederick
Peart, Frederick	Small, William	Williams, LI. (Abertilliery)
Pentland, Norman	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Popplewell, Ernest	Sorensen, R. W.	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Probert, Arthur	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Randall, Harry	Steele, Thomas	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Rankin, John	Stonehouse, John
Redhead, E. C.	Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Reid, William	Swain, Thomas	Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton

University Grants And Salaries Of University Teachers

7.10 p.m.

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the rejection by Her Majesty's Government of the recommendations of the University Grants Committee and their refusal to agree to an adequate increase in the salaries of university teachers, since these decisions will seriously prejudice the rapid expansion of university education which is urgently needed in the national interest.

We had originally intended to debate this matter during the discussion on the Consolidation Fund (No. 2) Bill. We decided, however, on that occasion to withdraw the debate, and I do not regret that we did so. First, it enabled the House to discuss at very considerable length the problems of the nursing profession. Although, unhappily, we have not been able to move the Minister of Health from his adamant position to do anything satisfactory to improve nurses' conditions, at least I think we can claim that we have helped to expose the whole of this problem to the country.

Secondly, I think it more satisfactory that we should have a separate debate on the problem of university grants and university salaries. Thirdly, it has enabled me to receive a great many more communications from universities. I do not recollect in recent times having so many letters from so many different people and so many different institutions on a single issue as I have had in these last few days. May I say to those who were kind enough to write to me that it would be quite impossible for me in the course of a fairly short speech to cover every point which was introduced by my correspondents in their various letters.

The Motion is concerned with two issues, which are distinct but nevertheless related. The first is the fact that the Government have rejected the recommendations of the University Grants Committee. I believe this is the first time this has happened; it is virtually unprecedented. Secondly, there is the question of the salaries of university teachers. These two questions are distinct but related, because in our opinion the salaries of university teachers have a considerable bearing on the capacity of the universities to carry out the programme the Government have set before them.

Although salaries are not by any means the most important issue—that has been made clear to me by a great many correspondents—yet there is no doubt that here we have another group of employees and professional workers who are being denied what they regard as a reasonable increase in salary because of the pay pause. I can speak with some experience about university teachers, having been one myself for about eleven years. They are not, I think, normally inclined to make a fuss about their salaries and conditions. The Association of University Teachers has been severely criticised by some of them lately. As one who for a short period was a local officer of the Association, I can confirm that not a great deal of interest is normally taken by university teachers in these matters. They are naturally preoccupied, being academic people, with their studies, with their research and with their teaching. They do not much like getting involved in politics.

To understand their complaint it is necessary to go back two-and-a-half years. In November, 1959, a claim for a 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. increase in salaries was put forward. It was put forward because the Association and the university teachers regarded themselves as very much out of line with the pay in the Civil Service and in the scientific Civil Service. It has always been their view that the correct comparison to make was between a university lecturer and a principal in the administrative grade of the Civil Service.

In May, 1960, some months later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced new salary scales which, though not going so far as the universities wished, nevertheless involved increases of about 12 per cent. This, however, still left a difference of £220 per annum between the maximum salary of a university lecturer and the maximum salary of a principal in the Civil Service. To give the absolute figures, it left the university lecturer on a top salary of £1,850 against the principal's salary of £2,070. Within a few weeks of this announcement, however, there was a further increase in Civil Service pay, back-dated to October, 1958, which brought the salary of the principal, the maximum salary, up to £2,325.

It was regarded by the university teachers at that time as, to say the least, dishonest on the part of the Government that they had negotiated with them all this time and yet never disclosed, what must already have been their intention, that they were increasing the salaries of principals so soon after their decision about university teachers. There was indeed a sharp reaction on the part of the universities and a new claim was submitted in October, 1960. Very shortly after that there was yet another increase in Civil Service pay, an increase of 4 per cent. which brought the maximum of the principal in the administrative grade to £2,418, leaving a gap between his pay and that of the university lecturer on the maximum level of no less than £568.

The University Grants Committee, after hearing evidence, agreed to present a further claim on behalf of the university teachers in April, 1961. I must emphasise that the delay in this matter was largely due to the moderation which was enjoined by the University Grants Committee upon the university teachers. They accepted this advice and they moderated their claim. The University Grants Committee submitted this claim—having announced that it accepted it in effect—only in July, 1961. So it was told that it had been caught by the inception of the pay pause.

Over and above this treatment, university salaries had become out of line with two other comparable occupations, occupations which, though very honourable, are not generally regarded as ranking for the same salaries as those of university lecturers. I refer to lecturers at technical colleges and those at teacher training colleges. Their salaries are settled by the Minister of Education, not by the University Grants Committee nor by the Treasury. Despite the pay pause, in the autumn of 1961, in November, those two classes of professional workers received increases of no less than 16 per cent. and 20 per cent., respectively. This, of course, put them as to salaries in a very unusually favourable position compared with university teachers.

I do not want to weary the House with a lot of comparisons, but there are some things which must be said. A lecturer at this point—and up to the recent announcement it was still the case—had a maximum salary of £1,850 and a minimum salary of £1,050. A lecturer at a technical college began at £1,600, that is to say £550 a year more than that of the university lecturer, although not going up quite so far, in this grade, to £1,800 a year, on an increment of £40 a year. A senior lecturer, who frankly is not very much above the university lecturer, had his salary going up to £2,000 a year. The salary of the teacher training college lecturer begins at £1,170 and rises to £1,650. There is no doubt that this business of the relative rates of pay of civil servants, lecturers in technical colleges and teacher training colleges on the one hand and university lecturers on the other is causing a great deal of concern to university teachers. I put it like this. In the case of technical colleges, a man of 25 with a Ph.D. can expect to earn a salary of £1,600 on a job offered to him at a technical college. On the present scales, it would take him ten years to reach this salary in university teaching. I cannot believe that that is a logical or sensible relationship.

Perhaps an even more striking example is this. There is no significant difference today in the maximum salaries between a university teacher who, in the majority of cases, is of first-class honours standard—I do not think it will be denied that on the whole the university teachers are drawn from those with the best academic qualifications—and the executive officer of the Civil Service who has qualified with the necessary passes in his G.C.E. examination.

I have nothing against the executive officers. I have known many of them and worked with them as well, but I do not think that if we wish to encourage people to go through a long period of training in the universities—and we wish to give some encouragement to those with academic qualifications—it makes much sense to keep them at the level of executive officers in the Civil Service. The consequence of this, is a feeling of great frustration amongst university teachers. I will quote a few comments from their letters.

First, from a lecturer in Birmingham to the Association:

"After some 20 years' experience in schools and university, I now earn £1,800 per annum. A student in this Department (Education), aged 21, will take his first post as lecturer in a technical college next September at £1,600 per annum."

Another comment is from the Director of Studies of the Tait Institute of Mathematical Physics, University of Edinburgh:

"A final year Ph.D. student in this Department … has recently been applying for posts in universities and technical colleges. He has now decided to accept a lectureship in… a technical college on a salary scale of £1,225–£2,025 … in ten increments. He turned down the offer of a lectureship at…university on a salary scale of £1,050–£1,850 in 13 increments."

Perhaps more impressive still is a letter from Oxford about two research workers:

"One has the following background: B.Sc., Imperial Coll. 1954, Ph.D., Imperial Coll. 1957, 3 years post-doctoral work at Harvard, 2 years in Oxford. The other is aged 28, like the first, and took a B.Sc. at Belfast in 1955 and a Ph.D. in 1959 and has had two years at the University of Illinois and one year in Oxford since 1959. Both men are interested in academic work but have said that they cannot afford to accept lectureships at £1,050 plus to begin with…. Instead both are going to work for Du Pont in the U.S.A. at starting salaries of 11,500 dollars, or £4,100 per annum."

Another example showing the absurdity of the present situation is from a lecturer at the London School of Economics:

"My particular story is that when I joined the L.S.E. five years ago as an Assistant Lecturer in economic history I left a Technical College post in London and dropped in salary a little over £300 a year—expecting of course that in time this loss would be recovered. Since then I have been promoted to Lecturer but the man who took my Technical College post has also been promoted—as no doubt I would have been had I remained there—and the consequence is that the gap between his salary and mine is now of the order of £800 a year. His salary in fact is two-thirds as large again as mine, and he is teaching the identical subject in an identical course."

That does not make sense. I cannot imagine a Treasury Minister being able to find any satisfactory explanation of such a ridiculous situation.

It is not surprising that in these circumstances university staffs are angry and aggrieved. First, they look upon this business of being caught by the pay pause as a mean and petty way of handling their problems. It is mean and petty, particularly when we take into account that it was only their own moderation that delayed this claim, and we know that the Government have increased the salaries of comparable people in the technical colleges and teacher training colleges since the pay pause. Secondly, they are concerned not only about the problem of their relationship to these other grades, but also about the whole prospect now facing the universities.

A number of questions arise out of all this, which I think the Government ought to answer. The first relates to the pay pause itself. I appreciate the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. I should like to put to him and to the Chief Secretary this question. The pay pause is supposed to be over in the strict sense of the word. We are now apparently in the second period, the interim period, and I ask the Government if it is really their view that in every single case where they control salaries and rates of pay they are going rigidly to refuse any increase in pay above 3 per cent. per annum, whatever the shortage that results, however much the universities are run down, however much the hospitals are deprived of adequate staff, however much Commissions may recommend increases, as they have done very substantially in a recent report on probation officers.

Are the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary saying, "No, you can only have 3 per cent. We are not interested "—because that is what they seem to be saying—" in your particular case. We do not mind what happens. It must still be 3 per cent." If that is the case, I must ask this question: how do they justify the pay increase to lecturers in training colleges and technical colleges? These increases, I repeat, occurred not during the interim post pay pause period but in the strict phase of the pay pause. Incidentally, how do they justify the increases in Army pay which have been announced recently, and which exceed the 3 per cent.?

The second question I want to ask is this: do the Government consider the present relationship between salary scales in the colleges of advanced technology and the teacher training colleges and in the Civil Service administrative grade and those in the universities as correct? The university teachers are entitled to an answer to that. Do the Government take their stand on the ground that they wish to raise the salaries of the civil servants higher in relation to university teachers, and, equally, the salaries of the teachers in the technical colleges and teacher training colleges? If they do, then I think that at least they ought to say so; they should tell the universities where they stand on this matter. If they do not stand by these differentials which is a very important change, I ask: how can they justify continuing with it?

My next question is this. In one case the salaries were determined by the Minister of Education and in the other case by the Treasury. What co-ordination exists between these two Departments? So far as the universities are concerned, although I think that for the most part they prefer to be under the University Grants Committee, they are rather beginning to wonder whether they would not have been better off even under the present Minister of Education. This may have a rather important consequence, with wider issues, such as the whole way in which the Government handle the universities.

Do the Government realise the effects of this upon the supply of university teachers? I have quoted, I think, enough examples to show how serious they may become.

That brings me to the second issue in this debate—the grants to universities. I should like to begin with the basic question: are we as a country at the moment expanding our universities fast enough? How do we stand in relation to other countries? I think that anyone who looks at the figures and facts available today cannot do anything but conclude that by almost any standard our position is profoundly unsatisfactory. I shall quote three separate assessments of the comparable position in different countries. The first is the well-known research carried out by U.N.E.S.C.O. in 1957, where it gave the approximate number of university students per million of the population. At the top of the list is the U.S.A., as we would expect, with 16,670. Very nearly at the bottom of the list is the United Kingdom, with Ireland, Turkey and Norway below and everyone else above, with 1,815. That is to say, in proportion to the population there were nearly ten times as many university students in America as there are in Britain. I will quote a number of other examples—Australia, 6,000: Canada. 4,550; France, 3,880; Egypt, 2,810; Denmark, 2,800; and even Portugal at 2,480 is well above our level.

It may be said that these are doubtful figures. I will give some more figures. There are the figures recently published by the German Advisory Council for Higher Education. Here it is the number of university students per 10,000 of population. They seem to me to be very much in line with the U.N.E.S.C.O. figures, though they are in every case, as one would expect, a little higher, because they are more recent figures. Per 10,000 of the population France scores 43·3; Austria 39·7; Sweden 39·4; Switzerland 36·2; Belgium 35·1; Italy 33·6; Germany 32·5; Holland 31·4; Denmark 29·7; Norway 21; and Britain at the bottom of the table 19·9.

I will tell the House about another estimate which has been made privately and which we have done our best to check. It is the other way round. It is the percentage of young people going to universities. In the United States it is 1 in 4; in Canada 1 in 9; in Australia 1 in 9; in France 1 in 10; in Russia 1 in 12; in West Germany 1 in 16; and in Britain 1 in 24.

Can anybody in the face of these figures, even when allowances are made for uncertainties in the statistics, deny that this is totally unsatisfactory? Right hon. Members opposite want us to enter the Common Market. What sort of competition shall we face when we have such a very bad record in university competition compared with the other members of the Common Market?

What is the Government's plan for dealing with this? It is proposed that the numbers should be increased from 110,000 now to 150,000 in 1966–67 and to 170,000 in 1973–74. Even assuming that these targets are reached, are they high enough? In effect, especially in the early years, they are intended to keep pace with the bulge in the education system arising from the high birth rate immediately after the war. To illustrate the significance of that, I would point out that the numbers of children in the appropriate age group will rise from 575,000 now to 856,000 in 1965. This is a very large increase.

What does this mean? Assuming that we reach this target, what does it mean as a percentage of the appropriate age group going to universities? These are the figures. From 4·1 per cent. in 1961–62 there is a small rise to 4·5 per cent. in the current year. There is then next year a fall to 3·8 per cent. Then there is a slight rise in 1972–73 to 6·3 per cent. and a further decline to 5·9 per cent. in 1973–74. Therefore, in the years of the bulge there is an actual decrease in the proportion of the appropriate age group going to universities; and after twelve years all we shall have done on the Government's plan, assuming that it is fulfilled, is to struggle up to where West Germany is today.

These figures assume that there is no increase in the proportion of the school population going into sixth forms and staying on at school longer. All that the figures do is to take account of the bulge, not of any progress or advance in education. But are we not striving all the time to increase the proportion of children going on to sixth forms? Is not this the job of the Minister of Education? I pay him the compliment of saying that I believe that he wants to do this. Are not teachers all the time anxious to have larger sixth forms, or more children doing this kind of work? Are not parents? Are we not trying to improve our standards in the schools all along? Are we not trying to offer greater opportunities to more children all the time?

What happens if that is taken into account, because it is happening? I am glad that it is happening. The Crowther Report estimated that the percentage of children in sixth forms would have risen from 10 per cent. to 13 per cent. in 1966. This assumes an increase of ½ per cent. per annum. I am told by a very good source, though I have not been able to check this, that in fact the rate of increase will be a good deal greater than that.

indicated assent.

I see the Minister of Education nodding. I am told that it will be as high as 1½ per cent. cumulative per year. If that is the case, according to my calculations, it will mean that by 1967, even on the Crowther figures, there will not be 150,000 children waiting and able to go to universities—that is, even assuming that the target of 150,000 is reached. There will be 185,000. If it is 1½ per cent. cumulative, the figure will be vastly greater than that.

There is no escaping the conclusion that in the years of the bulge this will mean that a minimum of one-quarter, even as high as one-half, of the children in sixth forms who wish to go to universities, who are capable of going to universities and profiting from education there, will not find places in the universities. I beg the Government to consider the social consequences of this, apart from anything else.

It cannot be denied that the target itself is inadequate. We should be aiming at about 200,000 places in universities by at least the later 1960s. Even so, we should still be a long way behind many other industrial countries.

The question now is whether the target will be reached. Nobody believes that this is possible after the rejection of the University Grants Committee's proposals. The Government will say, as indeed their Amendment implies, "We are increasing the grants by 55 per cent. over a five-year period and the number of students will increase by only 35 per cent. Surely this must be all right. There is ample money there to take account of the demand".

That argument does not stand up to examination. First, the fact is that in terms of university finance, quite apart from any increase in the number of students, quite apart from any increase in the number of staff, quite apart from any change in the salary scales, movement up the salary scales increases the total expenditure on salaries automatically by about 2½ per cent. a year. Secondly, there is certain to be a rise in the incomes of the non-academic staffs. After all, this is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is planning for. I am not saying that there will be a very great rise—perhaps 2½ per cent. a year. This is to be expected.

Thirdly, we face the prospect of many new universities. I do not regret them. It is necessary that we should have new universities, though they present some awkward problems. There is no denying that they will cost, precisely because they are new, a good deal more per student than the older universities.

Fourthly, we want the percentage of science students to increase. Is not that part of the Government's policy? It so happens that the staff-student ratio in science, as we can well understand, is substantially higher than it is in other faculties.

Yet another reason for the doubts of the universities in this matter is that the Government are putting more work on the universities and unloading it from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Agricultural Research Council, and the Medical Research Council. I suppose that is the way the Chief Secretary hopes to save money on the Estimates—saving it at the expense of the efficiency of the universities.

Perhaps the most convincing figures here are these. It is worth comparing what the universities are faced with now with what they have had in the last few years. Last year, the increase in the number of students was 4,000 and the grant increase was £4 million. In the next five years they are expected to increase the number of their students, on an average, by 8,000 a year, but the grant increase is not £8 million but £5½ million a year.

In the light of that, it is not surprising that the universities feel rather strongly on the matter, and when the Chief Secretary says in his statement that

'… it is the Government's wish that the additional funds should be applied as far as possible to achieving the figure of 150,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 166.)

there is a certain amount of hoarse laughter from the universities. Indeed, their reaction has been a most extraordinarily violent one from people not accustomed to getting very excited about these matters. It is not only the universities; the British Medical Association has also issued a statement indicating its deep concern about the salaries of medical teachers.

But the most impressive statement of all out of the many that have been issued and out of the resolutions that we have seen in the newspapers has been that of no less a body than the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 27th March. This seems to me to crystalise the attitude of the leaders of the universities. What do they say? They say that they are

"… profoundly disturbed by the Government's announcement about the resources to be made available to universities during the coming quinquennium"

They say that they feel bound to state their opinion that the target of 150,000 … could not be reached by the date specified with the limited provision which the Government proposed to make.

They go on to say:

"Moreover, if universities were to disregard their other obligations in an attempt to come as near as possible to this target the inevitable consequence would be a wholly unacceptable deterioration of standards, not only in staff-student ratios and research but also in academic and residential accommodation."

The Committee goes on to make three fundamental points. First, it says:

"From the Government's statement it emerges that no adjustment of the non-recurring grants "—

that is, the capital grants:

"previously announced is contemplated to compensate for the rise in costs which has occurred since they were first announced. Even if those grants were originally sufficiently large to enable the desired objective to be achieved, they cannot now cover the cost of the necessary buildings at current prices and therefore the buildings programme to increase the number of places to 150,000 cannot be completed by 1966–67."

The second point is:

"An aggregate increase of 3 per cent. in the bill for academic salaries is entirely unrealistic, and the increase, no matter how distributed, will not enable universities to retain and recruit the academic staff required for the proposed expansion "—

I hope that the Government will note this:

"nor can it be supposed that the promise of a review next year will enable lost ground to be recovered."

Do not let the Government imagine that their usual tactics of holding everything back until a General Election is imminent and then showing the green light will really satisfy the universities.

Finally, the Committee states:

"It is … abundantly clear that the grants for the first years of the quinquennium will scarcely cover the increasing costs of existing commitments. …"

That is the statement of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

Who are those people? They are not notably grasping sectional leaders. One could hardly find a body of men with a higher sense of public duty or, indeed, with a higher general level of intelligence. They are devoted to education. They are deeply concerned about the need for expanding university education. I think that nobody will deny that they are men of integrity and wisdom. They are not irresponsible, nor would they have put out a statement in those strong terms if they had not felt very passionately that they had to do it. Yet to those people the Government now say, "You need more money, for expansion. You cannot have it—but you must expand all the same."

I can only describe what the Government are doing in this matter as discreditable in substance, dishonourable in presentation, and deplorable in its consequences. It would at least have been a somewhat redeeming feature of the whole thing if the Government had come clean and said. "We cannot and we will not reach even this inadequate target"; if they had said. "Sorry, the rate of expansion must be cut. We do not attach so much importance to university expansion after all."

One thing I do ask is that at least the Government, in view of this most unusual situation that has developed between them and the universities, should now publish the recommendations and Report of the University Grants Committee so that we may know what it recommended. Again, I emphasise that the University Grants Committee, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any Treasury Minister will agree, is a highly responsible body. It has never before had its proposals rejected. It acts on behalf of the Treasury in dealing with the universities. Everything that the universities put up is first of all screened and cut down by that Committee. Are we really to suppose that it has no idea of the financial position of the country? Do we really think that it did not take that into account in presenting its estimates of what was necessary?

We had better realise the effect of all this. Either entry is to be cut back, in which case not only will there be those numbers of frustrated sixth formers which I mentioned earlier would exist even if the target were reached—and there will be a lot more as well—or there will be a general downgrading of quality, both in teachers and in teaching. There will be a further loss of staff, and a vicious circle of worse conditions making it harder to recruit adequate staffs.

Or, if it is said by the Government, as it may be, "We cannot afford so much research; they will have to do more teaching and less research," I ask is that the way to keep our people here? Is that the way to try to persuade them not to go to the United States, which is always offering them very attractive prospects and salaries? Is that really the best this country can do in 1962? Are we really in such a bad way, is our economy in such a mess, that we cannot even plan for this limited target and pay university teachers enough to keep an adequate supply of them?

Brains and skill are the nation's chief assets; we have not much else. What was it that Aneurin Bevan used to say of this country? He said that it was an island with coal underneath and fish all round and that was about all. The coal industry is getting more efficient every day, but it alone certainly cannot solve our problems. As a nation that lives by importing raw materials, manufacturing them and selling them again, it must be obvious that this is our main material, and it is simply foolish not to make the very most of it we can. All our prospects of higher productivity and higher prosperity depend on this. I should have thought that everyone was really agreed on that.

I know that the Government will plead the pay pause and speak of their economic difficulties in recent months. Let us assume that that is so. I have never denied the case for restraint in incomes—of course I have not—but I do say that people will accept a rational argument both for restraint and for economy if they believe that restraint to be fair and sensible. What they will not accept is a rigid, unimaginative attitude masquerading as strength. What they will not accept is a policy which they believe, however attractive it may appear to Treasury Ministers in the short run, is likely to be thoroughly bad for the nation in the long run. To quote the famous words, what these people will not support is "A formula for national decline."

That is what the Government offer them. I beg the Government to think again. This is not a matter for next month or for the next election. Let the Government face up to their responsibilities for the future of the nation—for nothing less than that is involved—or make way for those who will.

7.50 p.m.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

"while approving the decision to authorise increases in university teaching salaries in accordance with the principles set out in the White Paper on Incomes Policy (Command No. 1626), welcomes the proposed 55 per cent. expansion in the recurrent grants from the Exchequer to the Universities, and hopes that these substantial additional funds will be applied towards the objective of increasing the number of student places from 110,000 to 150,000 by 1966."

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quoted figures purporting to show that other countries are giving a university education to a much higher proportion of the young men and women of what one might call the relevant age group than we are. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, it is more than thirty years since I held a teaching post in a university, but I still believe that when drawing conclusions from comparative figures one must be scrupulously careful to make sure that one is comparing like with like.

In this case, for example, one has to look at the content of the education. A good deal of work done in sixth forms in this country will be done in colleges ranking as universities in some other countries. One has to look also at the teaching methods and teaching facilities. One has to look at the proportions of students in residence and at the standards of entry. The fundamental fallacy of the comparative figures that are often quoted is that they are based on university entrants, whereas what matters to a country's future is not the number who start but the number who complete the course. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman, in his concern for the country, will not argue that it should count to a country's credit to have numbers of failed B.A.s.

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has read a book called The Universities of Europe, by Mr. Anthony Kerr. It is a very interesting and up-to-date book. On the continental universities, the writer says:

"They allow almost anybody one year, then weed out most of their freshmen at their first-year examinations."

Of France, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, he says:

"A large number of possibles are weeded out by the second baccalaureat examination. This leave the probables who ought to get through; but a lot don't because they have chosen overcrowded faculties in which teaching arrangements are chaotic."

This is what the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to emulate—

Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I ask him two questions? Is he suggesting that the universities here do no weeding out in the course of students careers? If so, he had better inquire. Secondly, would he give what he regards as the correct figures of comparison, since he challenged the three series that I quoted and has yet produced no alternative?

I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman and I should like to leave sufficient time for other hon. Members to speak. Of course, I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figure for which he asks. The total number of people who fall by the wayside for any cause whatever in this country is 14 per cent.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Belgium. Of Belgium, this book says:

"71 per cent. fail in their first year at Louvain, 68 per cent. at Brussels."

It goes on to say:

"The Louvain failure rate may be slightly higher because of the social standing of the university, which has, in the absence of competitive entry, two unfortunate effects:—(a) more young men, not really qualified for university work, go there simply because it's done: (b) more girls go there simply to meet them."

We have a different idea here of universities.

The true comparative test is what percentage of the whole relevant age group of the population succeeds in graduating. In Britain, during recent years that has been between 3½ per cent. and 4½ per cent. In France, it has been 3⅓ per cent.; in Germany, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it has been 2½ per cent., and in Holland it has been 1½ per cent. One reason for Britain's very low rate of failure to complete the university course is the high ratio of staff to students for which we budget, and for which we intend to go on budgeting. In France, it is 1 staff to 16 students in medicine, 1 to 20 in science, and 1 to 60 in the humanities. In Britain, it is rather better than 1 to 11 overall.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those figures for the Continent include the technical universities, which correspond very largely to the engineering faculties in our own universities?

The figures which I gave were for the Universities of Louvain and Brussels.

I want to come on to the question of salaries, on which the right hon. Gentleman spent much of his time. I agree that university teaching staff have been less generously treated than teachers in primary and secondary schools during the last twelve months. This came about entirely because the university staffs do not come within the purview of the Burnham Committee. No one has ever urged that they should. Indeed, there is no reason at all why the salaries of professors should be in any particular way related to the salaries in primary schools. There is a much closer relationship between the universities and colleges of advanced technology—the C.A.T.s. Hitherto, the proportion of vacant posts in the C.A.T.s has been high.

In the universities the proportion of vacant posts has been low. The 17 per cent. rise in salary in the C.A.T.s from 1st January this year should make posts as lecturers there very much more attractive, though, of course—and this applies to some of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman quoted—the colleges of advanced technology do not offer nearly as good career prospects as universities.

The Government, in this case, had to choose either to fix a rate of salary increase that would conform with incomes policy, or alternatively to authorise higher increases in which case the Government would seem to be dishonouring their own incomes policy right from the start. The Government decided on the former course. They decided on that because the incomes policy is of overriding importance for national expansion and development; and without that the universities themselves could not develop as they should. Surely the universities have suffered as much as anyone from the erosion in the value of their income resulting from inflation in the past. The Government do not believe that recruiting or staff numbers in the universities will suffer; but, in any event, we have promised to take a fresh look at salaries next year in the light of all the circumstances then.

Of course, high academic attainment should be properly paid, but university salaries will never compete with those in industry either here or in America. Yet many people prefer university life to much greater affluence in an industrial appointment. Indeed, the more intelligent one is, the less likely one is to act like Economic Man. Most hon. Members come into this House not because they think there is money in it, but because it is the job that they think they would like to do.

Some of the comparisons suggested for fixing university salaries are quite invalid. There is no relationship between the job of a lecturer in a university and the job of a principal in the Civil Service. In any case, in recent years the recruitment to the higher ranks of the Civil Service has been feeling the competition of the attraction of a university appointment, rather than vice versa, which deals with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We certainly intend to carry out the expansion of the universities and to provide for proper staffing in quantity and quality.

In the year before the war. the overall ratio of staff to students in British universities was 1 to 11·9. Now it has improved to 1 to 10·7. As I said, it is a much better ratio than is the normal practice in universities abroad. In this field the real test whether or not salaries are at the right level must be whether that scale attracts and retains the right numbers and quality of staff.

There is nothing exactly like university work. Therefore, one cannot arrive at the right figures for salaries simply and solely by external comparisons. One of the things to be taken into account in next year's review will be whether staff numbers are rising appropriately to meet the expansion in student numbers. They have certainly done so in the last few years. University teaching staffs have, in fact, recently been increasing rather faster than student numbers. Since 1958, the number of students has gone up by 11 per cent.; the number of teaching staff by 16 per cent.

Ten years ago the number of university students in Britain was 83,000. Five years ago it was 90,000, and at that time it was expected to reach 102,000 by now. The Government, the University Grants Committee, and the Universities have bettered that figure of 102,000 by a long way. The actual figure today is not 102,000, but over 111,000. How does the right hon. Gentleman square his allegations of Government indifference to the universities with that fact?

The war ended seventeen years ago, so in the next quinquennium our first and foremost duty is to provide extra university places to match the bulge in numbers consequent on the high birth rate immediately after the end of the war. The figures that I wish to give to the House now are fundamental to an understanding of the problem which faces the country and faces us all. The number of young men and women of university entrance age in 1961 was 683,000. The bulge affects the numbers from now on, and the peak of the bulge is reached in 1966 with a figure of 916,000. Then, after 1966 and 1967 it falls away rapidly. In 1970, it is down to 722,000 against a peak of 916,000. In 1973, it is estimated that it will be 731,000. In other words, we face an increase of 35 per cent. in five years, and then a drop.

In those circumstances, what is the right course for the Government and the universities to follow? Is it to go steadily for higher standards and not worry overmuch about meeting the needs of a generation who were caught up in the bulge? Or, alternatively, is it to make a great effort to increase student places by 35 per cent. in five years, even if it means some crowding and some postponement of higher standards until the peak of the bulge has passed? The Government's hope is that the universities will go for the latter course, and that they will use their largely increased grants towards the objective of increasing student places by 35 per cent. in five years.

This is an unprecedented rate of increase. During the last five years it has been 21,000. During the next five years we are hoping for 39,000. No one from the university side has ever suggested that the universities could be expanded significantly faster than this, and that is the answer to those who think that between now and 1967 we ought to be planning to expand these places to provide for what is called the trend as well as the bulge.

If the universities can match with student places this abnormal rise of 35 per cent. over five years in the age group concerned, we shall be entitled to say that no one has had a reduced chance of getting to a university through being born in the top year of the bulge. Over and above that, one must take into account that there will be by that time at least 6,000 more places in the colleges of advanced technology than there are now, and over 20,000 more places in teacher training colleges than there are now.

The opportunities for higher education in this country today are better than they have ever been before, and the figures that I have given prove that five years hence, the most difficult time of all, when we are at the peak of the bulge, the opportunities of higher education for each young man and woman should be significantly greater than today. It will be a great British achievement, and it is from 1967 onwards that we can start again to give each young man or woman a better chance not only of higher education—we shall certainly do that—but of university education.

From that date onwards the number in each annual age group falls sharply, but we are planning for a continuing increase in university places. Under our plans now, and up to 1966–67, a steady 4·6 per cent. each year of a rapidly increasing number of people of university entry age should be able to get to a university. As the university expansion proceeds onwards to 170,000 in 1973–74, the proportion should rise to 6·4 per cent.

This is a country of very high university standards, and if we can achieve that it will be a striking tribute to the universities, to the University Grants Committee, and to the Government, for we shall have doubled our university population within twenty years.

A mistake which I have noticed in a number of letters to the Press and otherwise in the last few weeks—it may have occurred in some of the letters which the right hon. Gentleman has received—is to suppose that the Government's new announcement last month had something to do with building programmes. There is an entirely groundless allegation that the Government are asking the universities to take in more students and then making that impossible by cutting back the building grants.

I made no new announcement last month about building grants. They were announced last year when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorised a programme of building starts in the next four years totalling between £100 million and £110 million. These figures, I know, are difficult for us all to grasp, but £100 million would be enough to build two new towns for 50,000 people each, with all the houses and buildings and main services. This gives an idea of the magnitude of the university building programme which my right hon. and learned Friend authorised last year.

It compares with £64 million worth of building work started in the last five years, so there is an increase of more than 50 per cent. This figure of £100 million to £110 million excludes expenditure on medical schools. It excludes the expenditure on the great Imperial College development. It excludes all the cost of the land, professional fees, equipment, and furniture for the new buildings. All that is extra. Much of this equipment is exceedingly expensive. For special needs additional grants can be authorised. Last year, for instance, right outside all other grants, a £2 million programme for the installation of computers in universities was authorised

Taking all those together, the non-recurrent grant of about £28 million in the present university year will rise to over £40 million in 1966–67. The building programme is very important indeed to expansion. I know that there is some anxiety in the universities about whether the value of this huge programme will be eroded by increases in building costs. I have informed the University Grants Committee that if further increases in building costs take place the Government will sympathetically consider increasing the building programme figures. But, of course, the main purpose of the Government's policy on the incomes side is to put a stop to the increases in costs which have hit the universities so hard in the past.

Now I come to the recurrent grant. In 1951–52—ten years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer—the recurrent grant to the universities was £17 million. In 1956–57. it was £28 million. The Government announced at that time that it would be increased in the fifth year—1961–62—to £39½ million. The universities have done much better than the target of 102,000 students by 1961–62. They have raised the number to 111,400. The recurrent grant for this academic years actually £49½ million, excluding local rates of £1½ million. For the next five years, the Government are making additional money available on a far larger scale. The £49½ million for this year is to be increased to £76½ million in 1966–67.

I noticed that The Times described this rate increase as "thoroughly disappointing". One needs to remember that the outlook and attitude of The Times vacillates. In a leading article five years ago it described the prospective rise from £28 million in 1956–57 to £39½ million in 1961–62 as "a vast increase." Therefore, £11½ million is "a vast increase", and £27 million is "thoroughly disappointing". Queer.

In the first year of the new quinquennium starting on 1st August, 1962, the increase will be from £49½ million to £56 million—£6½ million, not £5½ million, as the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently mentioned. That will be an increase of over 13 per cent., whereas the increase this year in the age group seeking entry to a university is not 13 per cent., but about 4½ per cent. Looking five years ahead, the Government's desire is that the universities should use these vastly increased resources to plan for student numbers of 150,000 by 1966–67, if possible. On the basis of 35 per cent. more students, the increase of 55 per cent. in the grant will increase the grant per student by 15 per cent., and, of course, it will be adjusted upwards for any increase in academic salaries over that period. That is always done.

It is quite true that the University Grants Committee would have liked the Government to provide a bit more, but these are massive figures on any reckoning. The Government always take the University Grants Committee's advice as to the allocation of the total Exchequer grants between different universities, but it must be for the Government, and the Government alone, in the light of all competing claims, to decide how much can be provided globally for university education.

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will concede that, in the last resort, it is for the House to decide. The House is in charge of our finances. Would he tell us what the recommendations of the University Grants Committee were?

The relationship between the University Grants Committee and successive Governments of different parties has continued over a long period, and it has always been accepted by the House that the recommendations of the University Grants Committee are not disclosed. Apart from that, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's correction.

The fact that the Government must decide what figures to recommend to Parliament is no discredit to the University Grants Committee. Indeed, the devoted work of that Committee has been absolutely essential to the relationship between the Government and the universities. It has preserved university freedom in a way which other nations envy. But, as I have said in every debate on the right management of public expenditure, to govern is to have the courage to stand up to those who argue for embarking on everything that is desirable in all directions all at once, because that way, inevitably, lies overstrain, inflation and national disaster.

Any authoritative body, expert in its own particular field, as the University Grants Committee of course is, would be likely at this time to recommend the Government to spend rather more, if possible, whether it was advising on the Navy, the Army, or the Royal Air Force, on roads, or hospitals, or scientific research, or overseas aid, or What you will. It is the Government alone who must carry the responsibility of recommending to Parliament how far one can go in each direction, so as to get our not unlimited resources used to the very best national advantage.

Total public expenditure on university education is not, of curse, confined to the recurrent grant. It includes non-recurrent grants for building and capital development, and also the awards to students from central and local funds. Five years ago, those in total added up to £50 million a year. Today, they are over £100 million, and in five years' time the figure will be about £155 million. I know of no major service growing faster than this, and these figures prove the outstandingly high priority which the Government give to university expansion.

The Government's whole desire is that the rise in the number of university places over the next five years shall match the swift rise in the university entry age group, and we are prepared for public expenditure amounting to £1,000 per student per annum to bring that about. The one question, I grant, is whether the new salary scales will attract and retain teaching staff in sufficient numbers. I think that they will, but that 3 per cent. increase in the salary bill has been fixed in accordance with national considerations which extend beyond the position of the universities alone, and that is why we intend to review the scales next year, as I have said.

Meanwhile, it is not for the Government to say just how the money which the 3 per cent. increase represents should be spread over the various grades in the universities so as to produce the best results. The University Grants Committee has just recommended, and the Government are prepared to accept its recommendation, that the increase should be concentrated on lecturers and assistant lecturers. When we receive the report of the Robbins Committee, we shall be re-examining the whole field of higher education in the light of whatever it may say—not only the universities, but technological establishments and teacher-training as well. In any event, Robbins Committee or no Robbins Committee, I am sure that it would be right to make a further review of the university financial situation in say, two years' time, in the light of how the University Grants Committee thought then that the expansion was going forward, how prices, and so forth, were moving, and how the long-term economic outlook has developed.

Meanwhile, the fact remains unchallenged and unchallengeable that the increased grants to the universities which I announced the other day are of unprecedented size, and if it were not for the national reasons of incomes policy which obliged us to authorise no more than a 3 per cent. addition to the salary bill, I believe that it would be recognised by everybody that, even at a time of stringency, the Government were prepared to treat the universities with a generosity never paralleled before in our history.

8.18 p.m.

The real question to be discussed in this debate is the attitude of the Government to the future of the universities and their relationship with the University Grants Committee. Those of us who know him understand that the Chief Secretary has an interest in the universities. Unfortunately, it is not only to this side of the House, but also to the vice-chancellors, the university teachers and, indeed, the University Grants Committee itself that he has given the impression that he neither understands the present situation of the universities nor the prospects before them. I will comment at this moment on only two matters in his speech.

First of all, the crux of the university problem is in the plight of the lecturers and others on whom the Government have imposed a pay pause, or whatever it may be called. This has led to the widest and deepest dissatisfaction in the universities. Secondly, when he said that the whole thing is to be reviewed in two years, this is an example of the very attitude of mind of which the universities complain, because they want to know what the Government's long-term policy for them is. While it is bad enough with a quinquennial review policy, one cannot run a university with a biennial policy, putting up and putting down grants and pay. It is impossible.

I have a vested interest to declare, because I am Rector of the University of Edinburgh. But, even if I were not a rector, I would still regard the universities as the crown of our educational system. They are vital to this country, because first of all this country depends on the skill of its people to a greater extent than ever before and the universities have to play a leading part in training that skill, and, even more important, because the universities are the determining factor of the quality of life in this country.

Again, when the Chief Secretary speaks of the numbers going into the universities, I dissent from his view that it is only the very clever who need to go to university so that they may be turned into machines through specialist courses for doing some particular job. This has never been the attitude of the rich in this country. They have never felt it was only the clever who deserved a university education, and I could not accept that it is. Further, it has not been mentioned in this debate that one of the great opportunities which Britain has just now is to offer advanced education to the peoples of the Commonwealth and other countries in our unrivalled universities.

Lastly, if I may say a word for Scotland, for more than 200 years the genius of the Scottish people has been expressed in its Church, its law and its universities. When the Chief Secretary has the time I recommend him to read a book called The Democratic Intellect by Mr. Davey. It is a most interesting account of the relationship of universities to the community.

Against that background, what are the Government doing for the universities today? There are 110,000 university students. With the Principal of Edinburgh I shook hands with some 900 of the new intake to Edinburgh last year. And they are the lucky ones. There are hundreds and hundreds of boys and girls in this country who ought to be going to universities and who are not going there now, let alone what will happen in the next few years. These new students are full of enthusiasm and eagerness, but few of them have been very far away from home for long periods. They go to cities like Edinburgh and have to find places to live. They find insufficient library accommodation even today. They find insufficient books. And they need guidance. The Chief Secretary mentioned that the failure rate in the universities is around 14 per cent. to 15 per cent. That is true. The tragic thing is that 15 per cent. of those now entering the university will not complete their course, and the reason why they will not complete their courses is not because many of them are not up to university standard, but because half of them do not know what a university is about. They do not know what to read. They do not get sufficient guidance.

I think that Edinburgh does a remarkable and wonderful job considering the expansion which it has already gone through. Now the Government come forward and say, "We expect the universities to take in another 40,000"—and of that 10,000 are to go to the Scottish universities alone—" in five years, and after that a further 20,000".

I was brought up in St. Andrews. When I was a boy it was true of St. Andrews, as Mr. Belloc wrote of Oxford: that the professors were great figures that

"Sailed in amply billowing gown

Enormous through the sacred town."

They were ranked well above earls or knights or other aristocrats, and only just below reigning golf champions. They had prestige; they ruled the university. But it was a small university.

Now the professors are taken up with every form of administration. The universities have expanded, and the expansion has laid ever-greater weight on the lecturers and the non-professorial staff. These are the very people in the universities who feel most aggrieved. If I may again recommend still further reading to the Chief Secretary, let him acquaint himself again with "Lucky Jim" and its account of the feelings of university staffs. I would just quote this from a university professor:

"I am one professor with 20 non-professors under me on the permanent staff, not to mention 30 or so other research fellows, students, etc., 40 technicians, librarians, secretaries, etc. This is unbearable for me and my staff."

One thing we have got to do, if we are to expand the universities, is to follow what happens in America and create multiple-senior posts, but it is going to cost money. Then the Chief Secretary spoke of the ratio of the students to the college staff. Figures of these are extremely misleading. I think he is right in saying that over-all it is about one to eleven or so. But who does it include?—the medical staff, in the infirmary, for instance? My information is, bearing in mind that the university covers every range of subjects from Sanskrit to dermatology, the ratio of students to senior staff is no better than it is in grammar schools, and probably much worse than it is in the public schools. This is the situation we have to face if we are going to expand the universities.

In the medical schools, the ratio of staff to students is one to 7·4.

But who does it include? Who are the medical personnel? Does it include them. I wonder?

We have all received, of course, the official protests of the various societies. But what concerns me is the number of individual protests one gets. I will just quote one or two

"It is difficult to convey adequately the sense of despondency and frustration which hangs over this university."

As has been said, it is not that all the people who are complaining are aggrieved simply because their salaries are too low. They are aggrieved by the whole attitude of the Government. They are aggrieved at the lack of facilities with which they have to do their work. They are aggrieved at the Government's decision to curtail university development by refusing the necessary finance in a way which our universities have not before experienced.

If I heard him aright, the Chief Secretary said that, in spite of this, there would be no difficulty in getting or retaining university staff. I have not one correspondent who has not emphasised the point that it is now extremely difficult to hold staff let alone get more. I quote again:

"What is quite clear, however, is the almost certain effect of this derisory increase in academic salaries. Unless something is done quickly to make them more attractive, it will be very difficult even to retain the existing staff and the recruitment of extra properly qualified staff to cope with the proposed expansion of student numbers will be impossible."

I have another letter from a professor who points out that he is losing one of his staff who was earning £800 a year as an assistant lecturer who is going to a college of advanced technology at £1,600. Comparisons with technical colleges and the Civil Service are perfectly valid and, from the academic point of view, the position is quite indefensible. I would really ask the Chief Secretary to listen to this from a professor in a modern British university. This is what he is compelled to do:

"I have had to adopt all kinds of subterfuges here to provide research facilities such as providing simple statistical equipment and running a seminar programme for graduates and under-graduates with outside speakers who need expenses paid, providing even a small amount of research assistance so that some of the routine work can be reduced. I have done this, in collaboration with others, by doing the odd bit of consultancy work and writing the odd article and having the proceeds paid over the Department instead of to me."

That is what has to be done in a university in Britain today. Professors have to scrounge for money to make it possible to carry on. No wonder there are difficulties in getting staff. It is not only America but Commonwealth countries who snap up our best people even before they have taken degrees, and they will take more as the years go by. The Government hope that they will get this increase in quantity, with no reduction in quality—a hope which is shared by no one in the university world. If the Government base their hopes for an increase on quantity alone, they must recognise that the quality, which is already strained in the universities, will fall.

The Chief Secretary says, "But look at the vast increase: 55 per cent." That may be so. but I urge hon. Members to look at the figure more carefully. In recent years the University of Edinburgh has had increases totalling about £100,000 per year, but only £30,000 of this has proved to be available for new academic developments, because the rest has been absorbed in rising prices and costs. The figure given by the Government does not mean that we shall get an increase of 12 per cent. rising to 50 or 55 per cent. We shall, in fact, get an increase of 7 to 8 per cent. for the first year, 4 to 5 per cent. thereafter, rising to a total of 30 per cent. The whole point is that this is not sufficient to take in the number of new students for whom it is necessary to cater.

In addition, there is a grave need to look at the system of degrees. I realise that the Government will say that they are awaiting the Robbins Committee. But there is already an obvious demand for most of the courses to be 4-year courses and for an intermediate degree to be taken by students before they go on for specialist degrees. All this will cost money. The Government may have some economies in mind, and I realise that some people have suggested that the universities should cut down on research. If that were done the universities would be finally killed, because research and teaching go together and, as the Guardian wrote today, if one wants them to encourage interest and curiosity in the minds of students one must allow the senior staff some time off in which to do research work. Others have suggested the use of buildings on a sort of shift system. That might prove, though I am not sure, a temporary expedient, but as a long-term proposal it just will not do.

I urge the Government not to be under any misapprehension about the feeling on this. It is not some wicked plot conjured up by those villainous people, the "faceless Liberals" or a Poujadist dream. It represents widespread disatisfaction and protest against the lack of a policy. It is not a protest against a policy of restraint over salaries. It is a protest against the lack of policy over profits, salaries and wages. It is a protest against the pay pause and its unfairness. It is a protest against the treatment of the universities compared with the technical colleges the Civil Service and other bodies stronger than the university teachers.

We detected in the Chief Secretary's speech an undertone showing that the Government are only too ready to take advantage of the dedication and goodwill or people such as teachers, nurses, and so on as an excuse for putting off their reasonable rewards. It is a protest against the present priorities and against the apparent view that the facilities offered in universities not only to the senior staff but to the students are adequate.

At the root, there is a protest too against the whole form of society which offers enormous rewards to speculation and gambling but which penalises those who have learned their businesses and professions and have gone into dedicated work such as teaching.

8.34 p.m.

There are, I think, four main points to be dealt with apart from the wider matters raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The first is numbers, the second standards, the third concerns money—which affects both—and the fourth is the relationship between the universities, the Government and the House of Commons. I shall say a few words about each of those four.

First, numbers. There is a very widely held view that a massive increase in the university population is vital to our future, both to the quality of our living and to the day-to-day business of earning our living. It is less widely recognised how great the present expansion is. I shall not go over the figures again in detail, but they show that it is very big: 89,000 five years ago; 111,000 now; 150,000 planned for five years' hence; and 170,000 planned for five years beyond that.

I make one point about numbers. I believe that the 150,000 represents, probably, the absolute maximum—I believe that the universities would take this view—that we are likely to be able to attain by 1966, assuming financial resources can be provided. I believe that 170,000 in 1970 will be possible, although, in my view, we should be aiming higher than that. I do not think that it will be possible, as the Leader of the Opposition said, to think in terms of anything like 200,000 by the late 1960s. I do not believe that the universities themselves would for one moment accept such a figure, although, as I say, I do accept figures of that order for 1970 or 1972 or round about that time.

We should add in our figures the number of those going into other forms of higher education, notably teacher training colleges, where the number of places is being doubled, and the colleges of advanced technology, where an extra 6,000 or so are being provided in this quinquennium.

Now, standards. Obviously, these are linked with the problem of numbers. Is 150,000 by 1966 too fast or too slow? The tenor of the debate has been to say, "Too slow". The evidence, so far as we can gather it from the University Grants Committee—this is a difficulty to which I shall refer later—seems to be that, if anything, it is too fast. In an article in The Times of 3rd April an attempt was made to piece together the evidence leading up to the present situation. Five years ago, according to that article, the U.G.C. said that 124,000 places would be needed by the mid-1960s and 135,000 by 1970.

This figure was subsequently revised in 1960, according to the article, to 170,000 or 175,000 by the early 1970s, but with no suggestion that the figure for the mid-1960s could, so far as I can interpret the article, be anything remotely above the sort of figure we have in mind in this debate.

It seems to me that 150,000 for the mid-1960s, if standards are to be preserved, represents about the maximum in the first five years, financial resources permitting. I am glad that standards and not only numbers are emphasised again and again, not least in the letter which I and, I expect, other hon. Members received today from the Association of University Teachers, which says:

"We urge the universities of this country not to accept more students than they consider can be properly taught within the limitations of finance and staff which have been or may be announced."

We must link the two together.

In considering standards and numbers and the timing of the operation, I draw attention to what Crowther said in another context. Crowther, looking at his problem, wanted to see a larger number and a raising of the school-leaving age. Because he wanted that, he did not say, "Let us do everything now", but he said, "We think that the best date for making the big move ahead in time is 1968". In other words, he looked five years ahead, although he wanted it now. His view was that we must choose the best moment for making the change.

If we look at the criticism that we are not providing places at the universities for a greater proportion of the school leavers, the same problem arises. We want a greater proportion of the number of school-leavers to go to universities. The question is: when can this be done? Can we increase the proportion and also cope with the population bulge between now and 1966? It is from that problem that emerge the static figures concerning proportions of the population going to universities quoted by the Leader of the Opposition and admitted from this side of the House, namely, 4·5 per cent. now, the same percentage up to 1966, but a jump to 6·5 or thereabouts on the 1970 figures: figures which I should like to see increased. We must relate the two problems.

Thirdly, I turn to the question of money—money as affecting salaries and money as affecting grants. First, on salaries. While admitting straight away that the 3 per cent. award is a very severe one, I remain an unrepentant defender of the pay pause. I can think of no other group of people which stands to gain more by the success of such a policy than university teachers. The Leader of the Liberal Party described the pay pause as an expedient. It is precisely because up to now there has been no attempt to create a pause in which to get massive national support from different bodies of opinion—employers, unions, the Government and others—around which could be evolved an incomes policy that university salaries have sagged and lagged behind those paid in many other types of employment. The same goes for nurses and for people in many other categories.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the same does not apply to the salaries of technical college teachers?

In addition to trying to get a policy adopted which can totally change the position of public employees and people doing jobs which cannot be measured by productivity, we must consider immediate recruitment problems. The simple fact is that the immediate teacher recruitment problems in schools and in the technical colleges during the period of the pay pause were of a different order from the recruitment problems in the universities.

I do not say that, if only 3 per cent. could ever be allowed for university teachers, that situation would necessarily continue, and a serious recruitment problem could not arise. I have never regarded the pay pause by itself as a permanent solution. I have regarded it as a jumping-off ground from which a sane incomes policy could be evolved. It is in that sense that I hope hon. Members on both sides and those in the universities will view it.

I should like to make a point which has been made before, namely, that it is not salaries about which the universities are mainly concerned. Their main concern is the grants, and I should like to say a word or two on those. Our problem is that we do not know what took place between the University Grants Committee and the Treasury. We do not know what the Committee asked for and we do not know what the gap is. We do know, however, that the university world, or a very large proportion of it, seems to be seriously concerned about this matter, and that in itself should concern us.

It is true that the University Grants Committee has dissented from the Treasury award, I think for the first time; that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors is on record as being extremely perturbed about it, and that individual members of university staffs have gone into print and written to Members of Parliament about it. Valuing, as we do, the place of university education in our society, this matter should concern us seriously. We know some of the problems which concern the universities and that they are carrying forward into the next quinquennium various liabilities which have not yet been discharged and which, they suggest, have not been sufficiently allowed for.

We know that they feel that equipment in many cases is being run down and research work is being held up. I could quote many other examples. These are perturbing things. I heard with interest what the Chief Secretary said about his willingness to look again in two years' time at some of these problems. I hope it represents his view to say that these points need serious reinvestigation in relation to grants, and that this re-examination should be made as early as possible.

This brings me to the question of the relationship between Government and universities. This controversy arises because the confidential arrangements between the University Grants Committee and the Treasury have broken down, on the face of it: or. at least, have not resulted in agreement. This poses serious problems which should be looked at and which will, presumably, come to the surface when the Robbins Committee reports.

The universities, vital to us, are in financial terms 75 per cent. dependent upon Government grant. This is a very big figure indeed. When problems arise, the House is asked for its opinion and is asked to vote the money concerned. Do we do it totally on a blank cheque arrangement when there is a dispute in being, or should we know more about what we are being asked to sign? In the future relationship between the House, the Government and universities, as the proportion of Government money grows and the sheer quantity of it grows, while wanting, as we do, to find proper machinery to preserve the fullest possible academic freedom, it will be necessary to know more about the arrangements and the facts and figures than we know at present.

We simply do not know, on the present issue, whether the Treasury is questioning the accountancy of the University Grants Committee, or taking a different view of the priorities for universities in Government expenditure. I do not think that the people at the Treasury are the right people to handle this problem. The time has come when someone else, be it the Minister for Science or the Minister of Education, has to take upon himself the job of being the political spokesman for this vital area of public expenditure and make his case as the spokesman for that area of education and of the national life to the Treasury which would then have the problem of examining the priorities between that Department and other Departments.

I ask the House, in concerning itself and showing its proper anxiety on this subject, to remember that we are in the middle of a period of very rapid expansion and that the forward movement in the percentages of population going to the universities will come in the 1966–70 period rather than in the 1961–66 period. But everything that can be done in the matter of grants so that the universities can plan sufficiently ahead should be done as soon as possible.

8.49 p.m.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) that the Treasury should not have charge or this problem. Unless something is done, and quickly, about the strangulating effect which the Treasury has had over the whole field of our economic policy, and not only university policy, over the past years, our educational effort will decline further and further.

A complete lack of imagination and of drawing any kind of priorities has characterised the Chief Secretary's speech. I am sure that hon. Members who have had many letters from university teachers will agree that had those teachers been present they would have been gravely disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's speech. While he was speaking I wondered how many further resignations from the university service will be caused directly by his speech. Many university teachers are pondering whether in the face of smug complacency and obstinate ignorance which the Chief Secretary displayed it is worth their while to make, as they do in many cases, financial sacrifices in respect of themselves and their families to do something which they believe to be profoundly worth while.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, this is more than an argument about a percentage in salary increase. It is an argument which goes to the root of the future of university education. Besides salaries, there is the disappointment about the size of the recurrent grants for the next quinquennial period, and there are also the inadequate capital grants for building. I suggest that of these the first, the question of the salaries, is by far the most important. One can, if necessary, improvise a little with building, and, although one does not like this to be done, even with equipment, unless one can retain a teaching staff of requisite quality in the universities the whole character of our education will change.

While I do not wish to take up much of the all-too-little time available for this debate, I must make a point about the nonsense of the pay pause and the 3 per cent. This seems to have become the new doctrinal totem pole around which the Conservative Party prances in a tribal dance. Surely this issue, if no other, illustrates that it is quite impossible to have an overall 3 per cent. application unless before one operates the percentage increase principle one has already got the relationship of one job to another right. If injustices exist and one persists in making a uniform increase, one merely perpetuates and increases those injustices.

Everyone talks about an incomes policy. But what are the Government doing about incomes other than salaries and wages? There is no corresponding attempt to restrict the growth of incomes outside the large but by no means tremendous range of direct Government employment, and even within the Government service itself exceptions have been made between the technical colleges and the universities.

I would not for a moment suggest that the Scientific Civil Service or the technical college staffs are overpaid, but if the outcome of this decision is merely to man up the colleges of technology at the expense of the universities, I do not think we shall have done a very clever thing for our education policy.

Last week, as the Chief Secretary may have noticed, a vast number of new posts in colleges of technology were advertised. One college advertised 26 new posts. At the same time, a number of university posts were re-advertised. For a large number of years Sheffield University has not been able to get its mathematics and physics departments up to full establishment. A lecturer in civil engineering left to take up a post in a college of advanced technology with an increase of £800 in salary.

This discrepancy is not confined to the natural and applied sciences and to engineering. A brilliant young economist at Sheffield is contemplating applying for a comparable job at a technical college, the advertisement for which says that an academic degree is desirable but not essential. The salary at the technical college would be £1,855. His present salary is £1,150.

A lecturer at Sheffield, who has spent twelve years at the university and now earns £1,200 a year, recently had letters from former students with second class degrees and with no university teaching experience. Each had a job at £1,500 a year—£300 more than he is getting—and they asked him to help them by supervising their work for the M.A. thesis. It is impossible, in such circumstances, to expect our universities to retain the number and quality of their present staffs. Equally, under the prevailing financial conditions, it is extremely unlikely that the amount of research which is a necessary ingredient of any university will be maintained.

I do not want to traverse university education as a whole, tempting as that may be, as many points have been made already. Professor Balchin, in The Times on the 3rd April, and the Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, have stated the main points fairly and clearly. I understand that the recurrent grant, which has only been notified to the universities this week, means that Sheffield University will only be able to carry out next year 13 per cent. of the development it had planned, and to increase the number of students by only 30 per cent. of what it had hoped to do.

It seems clear, as the university authorities understand it, that instead of having 3,507 students next year the number will have to be cut down to 3,400. In 1966–67, they expect, under the financial provisions which will apparently be available, to be 500 down on what they expected and hoped to provide for. This raises the essential point as to whether or not, with the existing financial provisions, the universities will be able to hit their target of 150,000 students.

At Sheffield, there are special problems. The number of students has been increased to four times the 1939 figure, and there are also difficult problems in building, including costs. But all those I have spoken to stress that they make no complaint about the University Grants Committee, and are not suggesting that Sheffield is not having a fair deal. They expect that their experiences are being shared by other universities throughout the country.

The Government may say, "You can just provide teaching facilities". But that is not a university education. If this attitude of the Government means, as I think it must mean, the cutting back of the amount the universities expected and hoped to get through the recurrent grant and for building work, they will have to postpone work on amenity buildings, halls of residence and similar works. That will be extremely detrimental to university education.

In a recent controversy in Sheffield about the amount of petting, if any, which went on in the students' union, one student, a little lightheartedly, said that, if students did not sit two to a chair, not more than 10 per cent. of them could get in a building, and that if things went on as he foresaw the students would be sitting four to a chair before long.

The crucial issue is whether the universities are to be allowed to continue to provide education of the quality we want and, through their research, to make their contribution to the future, not only of education, but of the whole country. The Government should reflect that it is future university students who must be the technical college teachers and scientific civil servants and who will provide research in industry. If we cut down the standard and facilities of present university staffs this may have a cumulative effect in future.

We have not had from the Chief Secretary answers to the questions which the universities want answered. I hope that he will give them, and give them very quickly. First, is this an attempt to cut down and degrade the status of the university teacher as a profession? Secondly, are the Government concerned about the future expansion and prospects of the country or do they put the simple political issue of the pay pause before the future of university education?

9.1.p.m.

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has come in for some hard knocks during the course of this short debate. I came here in the frame of mind of delivering a rather hard knock myself. My knock, such as it is, will be much muted and very softened. The person responsible for that has been none other than my right hon. Friend himself.

I shall tell my right hon. Friend and the House why that is. It seemed to me that one of the most disturbing features of this whole question of university grants was the non-recurrent grants. This resulted in the vice-chancellors pointing out, in their comment on the Government statement, that

"From the Government's statement it emerges that no adjustment of the non-recurrent grants … is contemplated to compensate for the rise in costs which has occurred since they were first announced."

That seemed to go to the nub of the problem, because decisions about capital investments in the universities have to be made now in a matter of months if we are to accommodate the increased numbers of people we expect to go to university. Here were the vice-chancellors saying, "We cannot see how we can put up the buildings to house the students nor provide them with the laboratories and other technical facilities needed because the grants will be insufficient."

I know how difficult this problem has been, because since the announcement of the scale of the level of non-recurrent grants in 1961, in a matter of months building costs have increased by 12½ per cent. I have with me figures which show that all that the universities had to cover those inflated costs was 5 per cent. My right hon. Friend told us that should building costs be inflated it would be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insulate the universities from the eroding effects of the inflation in the building industry. That is what I understood him to say. I hope that he is nodding agreement. At least, he has not got up to correct the impression that I have formed. I therefore assume that it is a correct impression.

I can think of no more hopeful thing that he could have told us this evening. This will make a tremendous difference to the universities when they look ahead to the building which they know is necessary to house and provide suitable facilities for the increased numbers they expect to go to university.

That is one feature. The correspondence I had dealt with this particular aspect which I considered to be the nub of the problem. I had many other letters which dealt with the salaries question. Looking at it as objectively as I could, it seemed that a number of people in our universities have had a raw deal on the question of salaries. There seems to be a pre-pay pause content in their claims. For various reasons this has not been fully honoured. There is the 3 per cent. increase, but, there again, I detect a sign of hope that the question will be reviewed next year. [An HON. MEMBER: "In two years' time."] No, the question will be reviewed next year. Many hon. Members on this side of the House will look to the Treasury Bench to honour this handsomely, because there is no question in our minds that there is a very serious situation over recruitment to the teaching profession in the universities.

One other point which still leaves me in not a dissatisfied frame of mind, but one far from satisfied, is the question of recurrent grants. These do not seem to me to be very high. The question invariably asked when we want more money spent on a particular project is that of priority. I would have thought that as a matter of priority the question of expenditure on our universities must be No. 1.

The Leader of the Opposition quite clearly pointed out to the House that it is brains and skill on which we depend in this country. I cannot for the life of me see, even with the increased expenditure that the Government have announced recently, that they have come to grips with this problem and acknowledged what I think ought to be acknowledged, that this transcends all other demands place on the Treasury.

This leads me to my concern with the level of recurrent grants which have been awarded to the university. It seems to me that the present quinquennial grant starts from too low and too unrealistic a figure. Since the last quinquennial grant, in 1957, there has been a significant rise in unavoidable costs for which no provision has been made whatever. I am thinking of wages and salaries—they have gone up; National Insurance charges have gone up, pensions have gone up; taxes have gone up; books and periodicals and the binding of books—all these charges which come out of recurrent expenses have gone up, and, indeed, also the maintenance of buildings.

In addition, the universities are in the process of facing an increase of salaries for non-medical practitioners which could add nearly £750,000 to the universities' wage bill, and this follows an increase, incidentally, of an award to medical technicians. The University of London alone, in my constituency, has had to pay out £150,000. It seems to me that none of this has been taken into account.

The increase which has been announced looks good on paper, but in point of fact what will happen is that the universities, instead of being able to say, "This is extra. We can go forward and it will help us to expand" will find that the extra money has to be used to meet outstanding bills from the previous quinquennial. In other words, the universities, like many people in our society, are living on an overdraft, and an overdraft which is far too heavy for them to deal with.

It is that which leaves me with this feeling of discontent that the Government, in their ordering of priorities, have not seized the occasion in the way that I had hoped they would. I am glad, however, that they have at last agreed to insulate the universities from the erosion of inflation with regard to building. I was also glad to hear my right hon. Friend point out that the percentage of graduates in this country compares very favourably with that of some countries of comparable economic wealth. The figures quoted by the Leader of the Opposition were not comparable or relevant figures in this respect.

We can only hope that the Government will show a greater measure of urgency about this problem when they come, in a couple of years or so, to examine the recurring expenses of the universities and that they will look upon what seems to be the very reasonable demands of the universities in a more charitable light. After all, the complaints that we have had have not been from unreasonable men. I have constantly been struck, in all the correspondence and verbal exchanges I have had with people from universities, by their moderate attitude. It is that which has made me come to the House with a somewhat heavy heart this evening.

9.10 p.m.

I have considerable sympathy with the content and substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). He has echoed the complaints of vice-chancellors that the financing for the coming quinquennium does not take account of the rise in costs which occurred in the last quinquennium, or the rise in costs which will occur, presumably, in the next quinquennium. This is a fair criticism which the Government should meet. The hon. Gentleman attached too much importance to the review next year. The attitude of the university teachers on that point is sound. They say that the Government's policy will discourage recruiting and that it cannot be corrected by the review next year.

Those hon. Members, chiefly the Chief Secretary to the Treasury himself, who tended to minimise the difficulty of maintaining full teaching staffs in the universities were wrong. It is now some years since universities have been able to fill all their establishment posts in many departments, particularly maths and physics. Some universities have had vacancies for anything up to six years. There are considerable staffing difficulties. The present announcement of the Chief Secretary will increase these difficulties. Next year there will be a difficult situation which it will not be possible to cover by a review.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) raised a number of points in his very interesting speech. I want to touch on one or two of the points he raised. I intend also to touch on various points raised by other hon. Members, but I must sit down at twenty-minutes past nine. My prepared speech has gone by the board, as so often happens. However, the hon. Member for Tonbridge raised two or three crucial points. He said that 200,000 is not a possibility by 1966, desirable though it may be. That is no doubt true enough. It is essential to realise that the essence of the problem of numbers was known many years ago. It was known soon after the war. It was certainly known in the early 1950s. One of the charges which must be levelled most strongly against the Government is that every decision they have taken has been too late. Had they been deciding some years ago on the expansion of the universities on the proper scale, 200,000 would not have been at all out of the question by 1966, but I grant that it is now.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge also talked about the general administration of universities. On the whole, I do not agree with him. I am not sure that he put forward a point of view which he wanted to be accepted as his definite and final opinion. He rather suggested that there is a big question mark about the position of the University Grants Committee and how the universities should be administered in future.

Generally speaking, the University Grants Committee system is an admirable system. Somebody said recently that, from the point of view of the universities, it is "control by people we like." It might have been added, "It is control by people whom we understand and who understand us." It is good control, provided that it can match up to the major policy questions. In the present situation, I do not think that the U.G.C. is strong enough.

I shall not try to go into details, but the number of members, the single or full-time member, the representation of women, and the representation of Scotland—about which I have heard complaints from Scottish university teachers—are all matters which could, with the increase in the number of universities, be improved.

We need a stronger body, but I am not sure that we need the kind of Ministerial control suggested by the hon. Member. We want a body that is strong enough to carry out a major policy programme, yet, if it is at all possible, we want to keep the good features of the present system.

The Chief Secretary dealt rather light-heartedly with some of the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend—at least, I thought that he was being light-hearted; there may be other phrases for it. When my right hon. Friend used those figures, he did so with a caution. He said that they had to be taken with all the necessary modifications; he was clearing away the obstacles beforehand.

One set of figures referred to the number of university students per 10,000 of population in a number of European countries. The figure for this country was 19·9, and at the top of the table was France with 43·3. That table did not include the United States. From a letter by Mr. John Eaton, in The Times—which, perhaps, the Chief Secretary saw—it would seem that the United States figure on the same basis would have been 165. We can make all the modifications and qualifications we like, but the fact remains that we do not show up well.

We can take the Chief Secretary's own test, the product of the universities. It is only a few years ago that in this House we were throwing backwards and forwards the numbers of technologists—university-graduate-level applied scientists—produced by us, Russia, Germany, the United States, and so on. I am sure that the House will remember the striking disparity in the proportion of our production of applied scientists and that of the United States. With all the modifications and qualifications, it is quite clear that this country is not doing everything it should be doing in university education.

On the question of staff-student ratio I feel myself on somewhat uncertain ground. I thought, from memory of the last statement of the U.G.C., that our staff-student ratio was about 1 to 8, but the Chief Secretary said that it was 1 to 11. I must be mistaken, so perhaps I may either have a reply this evening or the Chief Secretary may write to let me know what I have forgotten. I may have mistaken the figures in the U.G.C. Report, but I do not think so.

That apart, the Chief Secretary differentiated according to faculties when he talked of staff-student figures in universities in various countries. He did so only in relation to medicine in the case of this country, but it is high time we had some figures of this sort. The other day I was given, as probably a number of other hon. Members have been given, an illustration, and it was one out of many. It was that of a chemistry department in a big university in which the staff-student ratio was 1 to 30. That is a department in which there is a considerable amount of "lab" work, and one in which one would therefore expect a pretty favourable staff-student ratio.

I think that it will be found that there are difficulties in the staff-student ratio in a number of these major departments—major in the sense of the intellectual importance of their work and in the sense of the importance of their work to the nation—and a certain amount of ease in a number of comparatively minor departments—minor by the same standards. In the Scottish universities, for instance, it would not be difficult to pick out a number of departments of very much less national importance than chemistry, mathematics and physics departments, and point to a staff ratio that is very much better than the national average. It would not be difficult then to go to some of these major departments and point out a ratio which is very unfavourable. I wish that the Chief Secretary would in the future give to the House some information of this sort and let us know, not only the broad overall figures of university staff-student ratios, but something about the ratios in individual departments of study.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) wishes to rise to speak at twenty minutes past nine and therefore I must bring my remarks to an end. It seems to me that the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, is one which I and I believe the House as a whole would come near to echoing. We are not satisfied with the Government's position in this matter.

9.20 p.m.

I am greatly obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), who has spoken with his usual moderation, for allowing me time to wind up the debate for the Opposition. It seems not surprising that the Treasury Luddites have found themselves in isolation. When we began this debate we noticed the Minister of Education who, unless appearances are deceptive, seemed to show an increasing distaste for what the Chief Secretary was saying. Finally, he made it clear that he could not stomach it, left us and did not return. I am not surprised.

All that the Chief Secretary has had by way of solace has been a couple of speeches from his back benches, which in continental assemblies would be explanations of votes. I can understand the difficulty of each of the hon. Members in casting their votes, as no doubt they will do.

We should not regard this debate in isolation. This is a further step in a lessening of the priority which is being afforded to education. First, we had the replacement of the percentage grants by the block grants. Next, consider a few of the things which have happened during the past few months. We had an easy simple economy at the expense of modernising the older schools. We had the row with the teachers. We had the failure of the Department to match its five-year programme of school building. Now we have this row with the universities. This shows an increasing unwillingness to face the priority which education today demands. That is really the importance of this debate.

I am in this difficulty, that I doubt whether I have ever spoken in a debate reinforced with a larger pile of correspondence complaining of the action of the Government, but I call in aid something that was said a long time ago—long before the present dispute arose. Sir Douglas Logan, the Principal of London University, said some time ago:

"There has been no dearth of ministerial pronouncements about the importance of expanding the facilities for higher education, but when the crucial point is reached of providing the universities with the necessary finance there is an unfortunate difference between what is said and what is done."

How right he was. This is really the issue. If we are talking about the importance of education, we have to be prepared to afford it the priority which the Minister of Education knows has to be afforded.

It is for this reason that I shall not waste any time on the speech of the Chief Secretary. An eminent don has given me a warning. He mentioned the right hon. Gentleman and one or two of his right hon. Friends, and said: "After listening to such right hon. Gentlemen I have come to the conclusion that the Tories have taken refuge in stupidity." He advised me that this was a very clever tactic and that I should not reply to them on their own terms. I do not intend to do this. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he was talking a lot of nonsense. He made a very partial quotation or two from a book and then left the subject the moment he was challenged. This is not dealing seriously with higher education.

I am glad that the Minister of Education has returned to the Chamber, because he knows the importance of these issues. At the moment, we are concerned, above all, with two major Reports—the Crowther Report, which we have had, and the Robbins Report, which we are awaiting.

The trouble about the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken—and this is partly Treasury action—is that we are facing a position where we cannot get the Crowther Report implemented, though everyone in education knows that its implementation is a matter of urgent necessity. Its implementation has been prejudiced. We have had the Report for a couple of years.

Looking to the future, the Government's present action is prejudicing the Robbins Committee Report. We all know what the Robbins Committee will recommend. The Minister of Education knows well enough. Day by day we pay attention to the evidence being given to the Robbins Committee, and that is why it was so pathetic when the Chief Secretary produced one or two quotations out of context. We know that the Robbins Committee will say that we are appallingly behind other countries in our provision for university education.

I stress university education, because, whether this is intentional or not—and I give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, because I do not believe that it was intentional but was an accident; I do not think that he ever looked at it—what has happened now is that the Government have discriminated against the universities. This can be the only effect of the salary awards which have been made.

I have no quarrel with the award to the training colleges. I have no quarrel with the award to the technical colleges. But if they get increases of 20 per cent. and 16 per cent., and the universities get only 3 per cent., this is discrimination against universities. This is why I think that the Minister of Education should have intervened in the debate. I can only assume that he has not done so because he does not see eye to eye with the Treasury.

This is one of the things on which the Robbins Committee is to advise us. Without waiting for its Report, knowing full well that it would say that there was a serious deficiency in the provision of university education in this country, we have seen this discrimination against the staffs of the universities.

If we look at the present position—and this is why I intervened when the Chief Secretary was speaking—I think that the right hon. Gentleman was less than fair to the universities. We are facing a dispute between the Treasury and the universities. The vice-chancellors have said that the building programme will not support 150,000 students at the universities in 1966–67. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes this, he must produce the evidence on which he does so. But this is a matter on which we can come to a very firm conclusion because we know what happened over the previous quinquennium.

We know that the rate of increase is less than it was over the previous five years. We know, too, that the vice-chancellors say that it is impossible to reach this target as far as the recurrent grants are concerned. This is the revealing thing. They say that even if we endeavoured to reach it—which we cannot do—there would be a deplorable lowering of standards. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will deal with this point.

We are concerned about the expansion of university education. If there is this dispute between the Treasury and the University Grants Committee, we had better be advised which body can properly advise us. What we are facing here is the position that, on the best advice available to us, we cannot reach the Government's target for the expansion of the universities.

This is vitally important at this point of time, because the birthrate declined until 1942, and this is the watershed. All that we have been doing so far is to maintain what was reasonable against the birthrate in 1942. This is the year in which it is just affecting the universities, and what we are concerned about is what steps we are taking to deal with an entirely new situation. The bulge which the right hon. Gentleman has seen through the primary schools and the secondary schools is now coming to the universities. We have had no anticipatory steps taken at all, and we are told, on the last occasion on which this problem can be tackled, that the Government are not facing it.

If this problem were no worse than this, it would be grave enough, but it is far worse. I am glad that the Minister of Education is now here. He has been stoking up the interest of pupils in the secondary schools to stay on into the sixth forms—a very proper thing to do in the national interest—but at this very moment, when we are getting a response to this appeal for children of quite outstanding ability voluntarily to stay on in sixth forms, the Treasury puts on the lid.

This is a very dangerous and explosive situation. We shall have the position very shortly in which there will be at least four applicants for every university place, and, patently, the Treasury is not doing its utmost to meet it. This will be a tragic waste of ability, and a tragic rebuff to all those in secondary education who have tried hardest to expand the sixth forms.

When we think of the young people whom we encouraged to look forward to further education into the universities, we find that the crucial question here is one of staff—getting the lecturers and university staff. We really have not faced the problem at all. If we do no better than accept this shortfall target of the Treasury, we shall need an extra 8,000 at the universities. What greater discouragement could we have had than what has been done by the Treasury? How are we to get the staff? It is no good saying, "Here are some very high-minded people going into the universities, regardless of the salaries which are afforded." This is more than a question of salaries. It is a question of the scope of activity which they are to be afforded within the universities.

One remarkable thing—and I know that there is an explanation for this—is that if one looks at the Estimates in their new form, in which they are more intelligible than they were, one finds that the estimate for the universities, together with research, is £13¼ million less than it was for the previous year. I know that there are explanations, such as that the universities' figures were previously for fourteen months, and that the Atomic Energy Authority is making a profit on the sale of materials and electricity, but this is not the picture of Britain as we want it. We cannot afford to say that we are making fortuitous economies at the expense of the universities and research. This is the field in which we ought to be straining every nerve to see that we are using all the resources we can to persuade people to come into fundamental research and doing all we can to expand the universities to the utmost

I have had a whole series of letters, such as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called in aid. showing that the position is quite fantastic. I have had letters from professors who have said that they have had a short list, and that, from that short list they had taken the least able, because three or four people went off to the C.A.T.s, the training colleges or other employment, because there was a differential of £500, £600. £700 or £800.

But, as I say, it is not only a question of salary differential, which we cannot ignore. It is also a question whether we are to get research facilities. It is the explanation of why 75 physicists as we know, have gone to the United States. At least half of those, we have been told, would have held a chair in this country if they had stayed in this country. It is no good saying it is a question merely of going to the United States because salary prospects there are greater. They have gone to the United States not only because of salary differentials, but because they have there a better opportunity to carry out research, and this is much more important, I believe, even than the rebuff which has been given to the university staffs over salary claims.

This is really, it seems to me, the major question which is affecting Britain at present. The Chief Secretary produced his figures and then rapidly retired. Let me just give him a couple of figures. A child in the United States has three times the opportunity of going to university that a child in this country has of going into the sixth form. Is this a comparison which we can afford much longer? The position in this country is that we have the lowest proportion of our population going to the universities of any highly developed country in the world. Does the Chief Secretary deny that? If he does let him fight it out with the Minister of Education. That is his statement, which he made not very long ago.

I called in aid the Minister of Education. As he said, we are largely losing the battle for exports because we did not invest sufficiently in education in the 1930s. That is the view of the Government Front Bench. If this is the position we cannot afford to say that we cannot deal adequately with the universities. We have simply got to, in the national interest. It seems to me that this is one of the overriding national priorities. I know that the Minister of Education—he is very good in this field—likes to try to make education an all-party matter. He simply cannot do it. This is becoming every day a more and more explosive question which will be before long, if the Government go on like this, one of the major issues dividing the House.

We demand, in the national interest, that we ought, deliberately and patently, say that we are putting a premium on skill and intelligence. That is, after all, our major resource. We are fortunate in the skill and intelligence of our people, and this is the resource we must use if we are to remain a great people. As the years go by, it will become too late. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government set themselves a far too modest and inadequate a target. It will be an absolute national catastrophe if we fall short even of that

9.38 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey) began by saying that he did not propose to comment on the speech of the Chief Secretary, which. I thought, was prudent of him, but he then went on to say that the debate this evening was characteristic of the whole policy of the Government in their neglect of education. Well, I have not heard that particular speech made for two and a half years. I used to hear it quite often some years ago. It is. of course, absolute nonsense.

If one looks at the whole period since 1951 in money terms—I speak from memory, but I am pretty sure I am right—the amount spent by the central Government and local authorities on education has gone up from £380 million to very nearly £1,000 million, and the proportion of the national income devoted to education has gone up from 3 per cent. to 4½ per cent. at a time—and this is important—when other forms of economic activity just as essential to the nation's life have also increased their share of the national income.

No one doubts at all the very great importance of the subject we are discussing. As the House knows, I spent nearly three years as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I know very well just how much this question of the supply of university places means to everyone concerned—the schools, the parents and the universities. All hon. Members realise that the steady improvement in educational standards since the passing of the 1944 Act has brought about a corresponding rise in the number of those who could benefit from full-time higher education. Nor can there be any doubt that adequate and increasing provision for higher education is one of the marks of a forward looking and progressive community.

I want tonight to consider the Government's provision for university expansion under a number of heads, and I will start with the subject that has been dealt with prominently, the number of university places. Here it is surely important to bear in mind both the immediate problem which faces us during the next five years and the longer-term future. The immediate problem arises because there will be 35 per cent. more people of university entry age in 1966–67 than at present. That is why the Government hope that the universities will provide as far as possible for an increase in student places of 35 per cent. in the next five years.

In my view, this represents the fastest practicable rate of university expansion, and no one conversant with our universities has ever suggested that they could be expanded at a faster rate. Before the Government's recent statement no target as high as 150,000 places by 1966–67 had ever been set. If the universities can match with student places this rise of 35 per cent. over five years, then we shall be entitled to say, as my right hon. Friend said today, that no one has had a reduced chance of getting to a university through being born in the top year of the bulge. That would be an achievement of which the nation could feel rightly proud.

One point seems to have been missed by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. It is, after all, not only student places in the universities that will rise during this period. By 1966–67 there will be at least 15,000 places in our Colleges of Advanced Technology, compared with 9,000 now. Do not let us under-rate the importance of these colleges. They are a fine tribute to the work and imagination of successive Ministers of Education, and it is worth remembering that a good deal of the work being done in them is at least of pass degree standard in the universities.

Well over 30,000 students are today doing full-time courses in regional technical colleges, and their numbers will steadily increase in the 'sixties. We are also in the middle of a very rapid increase in the output of the teacher training colleges. The present total of students in these colleges is 36,000, and this total will rise to 48,000 by 1966.

It is important to remember, when considering the present situation of higher education in Britain, that there are today as many students pursuing courses above A level outside the universities—both full-time and sandwich courses—as there are inside them. I maintain, therefore, that there is nothing whatever to be ashamed of in the provision we are making for full-time higher education during the coming five years. But I want to look beyond that. The targets already announced by the Government contemplate from 1967 onwards that each 18-year-old will have a substantially better chance of getting to a university than is the case at present. From 1967 onwards the number of 18-year-olds falls sharply for a number of years, but we are planning a continued increase of university places after that date. The Government's plans mean that up to 1966–67 a steady 4·6 per cent. of a rapidly increasing age group should be able to go to university, but the Government's plans mean also that by 1970 this proportion will rise to a little over 6 per cent. and by 1973–74, the year by which the expansion will have reached about 170,000. the proportion will be 6·4 per cent.

These figures mean that we shall have approximately doubled our university strength within a period of twenty years. I repeat that I believe that the Government's proposals for the immediate five years ahead and their plans for the longer-term future can command the confidence of the House.

I turn now to grants and university finance. My right hon. Friend dealt fully with this subject in his speech this afternoon, and I shall only repeat what seem to me to be the crucial figures. In the first place, the total of non-recurrent grants which are running at £28 million in the current university year will rise to over £40 million in 1966–67. I must say that it seemed to me that The Times in its recent article on the subject overlooked this aspect completely. In 1956–57, capital expenditure was £9 million. This year, it is over 200 per cent. up, at £28 million, and by 1966–67 it will exceed £40 million.

Of course, the Government realise the anxiety felt by the universities regarding increases in building costs. This point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) in a speech which to my right hon. Friend and myself seemed entirely within the conventions of a speech made on these occasions on the Government side of the House. My right hon. Friend, as he told the House, has already informed the University Grants Committee that, in the event of further increases in building costs, the Government will sympathetically consider an increase in the programmed figures, I could not accept for a moment that the universities are not being treated generously from the point of view of their share of the total capital investment programme. It is worth remembering also that the Government have made a special effort to let the universities know where they stand well in advance so that they can get ahead in good time with the planning of their programmes.

With regard to university finance generally, it seems to me that there are certain figures which more than any others are relevant when one is trying to form a judgment on the Government's proposals. At the end of the last quinquennium, that is to say, the year 1956–57, the recurrent grant paid each year by the Government to the universities worked out at an average of £313 per student. Today, that figure has already risen to £444 per student, and by the last year of the present quinquennium it will be £510 per student. This means that the Government are planning for an increase in recurrent grants per student of £66 or 15 per cent. during the next five years. Of course, this figure is certainly an under-estimate because it makes no allowance for additional items like salary increases including the salary increase of 3 per cent. just announced which will require further earmarked grants.

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South and some of the Government's critics outside have made the mistake of supposing that the cost of salary increases has to be met out of the ordinary recurrent grant. This is not so. During the present quinquennium so far, earmarked grants for salaries have been made on two occasions, and in the present year the cost of these grants alone is £8¾ million. The 3 per cent. salary increase will require another earmarked grant.

Ought we not to keep clear the distinction between a change or increase in salary scales and the increase in salaries as people move up the scales? What the universities are pointing out is that normal increases as people move up the scales involve them in any case in a very considerable automatic increase in expenditure.

I appreciate the point the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I am not, I think, making an unfair point in return when I say that some people at least have made the mistake to which I have referred.

Furthermore, in addition to the cost of financing non-recurrent and recurrent grants to universities—this, too, has been forgotten in the debate—the Exchequer contributes the major part of the cost of awards to students. The rise in the total cost to public funds of these awards is estimated at about £10 million over five years—from £25 million in 1961–62 to about £35 million in 1966–67.

The Anderson Report is no longer news in the public Press, but do not let us forget that the Government's new arrangements following the publication of that Report will enable a greater number of students to obtain awards and will reduce very significantly the contribution made from parental income. If one takes the sum, first, of nonrecurrent grants, secondly, of recurrent grants and, thirdly, of student awards, the present programme for university development implies a cost to public funds rising from £104 million this year, when there is a student population of 111,400, to about £158 million in 1966–67 with an estimated student population of about 150,000.

With due respect to all the Government's critics, wherever they may be, I do not agree that we can be accused of neglecting university education at a time when we are planning for a total level of expenditure on the universities which will mean for the first time an annual level of expenditure of over £1,000 per student per year. Six years ago this figure was only £550 per student per year. That is my answer to all those critics of the Government, including, perhaps, some of those who are interrupting now, who have not had the opportunity or, maybe, the inclination to study all the facts fully.

I should like to say a few words on staff. I know that the limitation of 3 per cent. on the increase in salaries is hard, but I do not believe that it could have made sense for the Government, only a few days after they issued the White Paper on incomes policy, to announce salary increases far above the 2 to 2½ per cent. mentioned in the White Paper. The Government would have been accused, and rightly accused, of dishonouring their own policy.

As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, the real test of any university salary scale must be whether it attracts and retains the right numbers of staff. There is nothing else like university work. Therefore, one cannot arrive at the right figures for salaries simply by means of external comparisons. I do not believe that it is a valuable relationship to compare the job of lecturer with that of a principal in the Civil Service. Recruitment to the higher ranks of the Civil Service has been feeling the competition from the universities much more than the universities have been feeling competition from the Civil Service.

One of the things which has to be taken into account in next year's review, as my right hon. Friend made plain, is whether staff numbers are rising to meet the expansion in the student numbers, as they certainly have done in recent years. There is no need for the House to be too pessimistic on this point.

I hope that the Government will not only consider the numbers of university teachers, but will also pay some attention to the quality. Can he explain how he will keep university teachers if they can go to technical colleges and earn salaries of £800, £900, or £1,000 a year, doing exactly the same job as they are doing in the universities?

My right hon. Friend this afternoon made clear, first, the genuine difficulty there was with staff in technical colleges, and, secondly, he drew attention to the importance of quality.

With regard to the comparisons which are often made between this country and other countries, I only wish to remind the House of what has already been said in the debate. This is a fact that we cannot get away from. In Britain, rather more than 3·5 per cent. of the university age groups succeed in graduating compared with 3·3 per cent. in France, 2·6 per cent. in Germany, and 1·7 per cent. in Holland.

There is nothing to be ashamed of here. It is a complete fallacy to draw sweeping deductions simply from the figures of university entrants irrespective of the number of people who complete their courses. One must consider the content of university education as well. A good deal of the work done in sixth forms in this country would be done in the first year of a university course in a number of other countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby), in his very interesting speech, raised the whole question of our system in dealing with university matters and the question of whether the present methods of financing university education fit the change in public attitudes and the enormously increased level of expenditure.

Of course, the present system by which public funds are provided for the universities to cover three-quarters of their expenditure, and to do it without risk of interference by the Government or by Parliament with the academic freedom of the universities, has been highly commended, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) very correctly said, particularly by people concerned with these problems in other countries. But it is thoroughly natural, in view of the changes that have taken place, that people should be thinking about the system itself. This is one of the reasons why the Robbins Committee was appointed, to consider this, among all the other problems of higher education. But I would like to add one point in particular about the present relationship between the universities and the Treasury.

I first came to the Treasury seven years ago and, as the House knows, I have always kept in close touch with educational matters of all kinds. There are many arguments that can be made for or against the present system, but from my own experience I can say to the House with confidence that it could not reasonably be argued that universities at any time suffered financially from the fact that their grants came from the Treasury and were settled by a Treasury Minister instead of being within the responsibility of another Minister. I am certain that that is true.

I know that many people are concerned about the prospects for research during the coming years. Let me assure the House that the Government are just as concerned with the improvement of research work and with our constantly pushing back the frontiers of knowledge as are the universities themselves. It is quite true that, because of the very large increase in the student population, the teaching functions of the universities may well have to be uppermost during the years immediately ahead, but I believe that the proposed level of grant is such as to enable a high level of research and original work to be carried on as well.

I should like to remind the House again that we must view this question of university expansion against the background of the national pattern of further education which is both changing and expanding all the time. Until quite recently the universities had almost a monopoly of education in Britain, and the curriculum of our independent schools and the grammar schools has always been geared to the requirements of university entry. But today, with the introduction of colleges of advanced technology and the higher entrance standards to our teacher-training colleges, all that is past. Whereas, immediately after the war, full-time higher education was almost entirely confined to the 16 universities which existed at that time, by 1970 there may well be 100 institutions in Great Britain substantially engaged in providing full-time higher education.

I do not believe that there is any reason to be ashamed of our national achievements in this field. The grants announced are part of a prospect which is indeed an encouraging one for this country. I confidently invite the House to reject the Motion and to support the Amendment which was so ably moved by my right hon. Friend.

Question put. That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

Division No. 156.]	AYES	[10.0 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Pargiter, G. A.
Albu, Austen	Hannan, William	Parker, John
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Harper, Joseph	Parkin, B. T.
Baird, John	Hart, Mrs. Judith	Paton, John
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Hayman, F. H.	Pavitt, Laurence
Beaney, Alan	Healey, Denis	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Benson, Sir George	Herbison, Miss Margaret	Peart, Frederick
Blackburn, F.	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Pentland, Norman
Blyton, William	Holman, Percy	Popplewell, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Holt, Arthur	Probert, Arthur
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)	Houghton, Douglas	Proctor, W. T.
Bowles, Frank	Hoy, James H.	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Boyden, James	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Randall, Harry
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Hunter, A. E.	Rankin, John
Brockway, A. Fenner	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Redhead, E. C.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Reid, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Janner, Sir Barnett	Reynolds, G. W.
Callaghan, James	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Rhodes, H.
Chapman, Donald	Jeger, George	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cliffe, Michael	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Robinson, Kennet (St. Pancras, N.)
Cronin, John	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Crosland, Anthony	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Ross, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kelley, Richard	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Darling, George	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	King, Dr. Horace	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lawson, George	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Ledger, Ron	Small, William
Deer, George	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Dempsey, James	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Sorensen, R. W.
Diamond, John	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Dodds, Norman	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Steele, Thomas
Driberg, Tom	Loughlin, Charles	Stonehouse, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stress, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	MacColl, James	Swain, Thomas
Edelman, Maurice	Mclnnes, James	Swingler, Stephen
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Evans, Albert	McLeavy, Frank	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Fernyhough, E.	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Fletcher, Eric	Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Timmons, John
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Tomney, Frank
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)	Mallalleu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Wade, Donald
Forman, J. C.	Manuel, Archie	Wainwright, Edwin
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Marsh, Richard	Warbey, William
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Milne, Edward	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mitchison, G. R.	Whitlock, William
Gourlay, Harry	Monslow, Walter	Wilkins, W. A.
Greenwood, Anthony	Moody, A. S.	Willey, Frederick
Grey, Charles	Moyle, Arthur	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mulley, Frederick	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Oliver, G. H.	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Oram, A. E.	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gunter, Ray	Oswald, Thomas	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Owen, Will
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)	Paget, R. T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
		Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr.

NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Black, Sir Cyril	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Aitken, W. T.	Bourne-Arton, A.	Cary, Sir Robert
Allan, Robert (Paddington S.)	Box, Donald	Channon, H. P. G.
Allason, James	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Chichester-Clark, R.
Arbuthnot, John	Boyle, Sir Edward	Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Braine, Bernard	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Atkins, Humphrey	Brewis, John	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Barber, Anthony	Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Collard, Richard
Barter, John	Brooman-White, R.	Cooper, A. E.
Batsford, Brian	Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Cordle, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Corfield, F. V.
Bell, Ronald	Bryan, Paul	Costain, A. P.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Buck, Antony	Coulson, Michael
Berkeley, Humphry	Bullard, Denys	Craddock, Sir Beresford
Biffen, John	Bullus, Wing Commander Eric	Critchley, Julian
Biggs-Davison, John	Burden, F. A.	Cunningham, Knox
Bingham, R. M.	Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Curran, Charles
Bishop, F. P.	Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Dalkeith, Earl of

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 237.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rees, Hugh
de Ferranti, Basil	Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Renton, David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Drayson, G. B.	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Ridsdale, Julian
du Cann, Edward	Kerkshaw, Anthony	Rippon, Geoffrey
Duncan, Sir James	Kimball, Marcus	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David	Kirk, Peter	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Eden, John	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carahalton)	Leather, E. H. C.	Russell, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	St. Clair, M.
Errington, Sir Eric	Lindsay, Sir Martin	Scott-Hopkins, James
Fisher, Nigel	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Sharples, Richard
Fletcher-Coolie, Charles	Litchfield, Capt. John	Shaw, M.
Foster, John	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	Shepherd, William
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Gammans, Lady	Longbottom, Charles	Smith, Dudley (Br'tf'd & Chiswick)
Gardner, Edward	Loveys, Walter H.	Smithers, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Gilmour, Sir John	McAdden, Stephen	Speir, Rupert
Glover, Sir Douglas	McLaren, Martin	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia	Stevens, Geoffrey
Goodhart, Philip	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Goodhew, Victor	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Stodart, J. A.
Gower, Raymond	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Studholme, Sir Henry
Green, Alan	Maddan, Martin	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Gresham Cooke, R.	Maginnis, John E.	Tapsell, Peter
Gurden, Harold	Maitland, Sir John	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Marshall, Douglas	Teeling, Sir William
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Marten, Neil	Temple, John M.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Mills, Stratton	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hay, John	Miscampbell, N.	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Montgomery, Fergus	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Hendry, Forbes	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Turner, Colin
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Nabarro, Gerald	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Neave, Airey	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hilt, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Noble, Michael	Vane, W. M. F.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Hocking, Philip N.	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Holland, Philip	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Walder, David
Hollingworth, John	Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)	Walker, Peter
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Wall, Patrick
Hopkins, Alan	Peel, John	Ward, Dame Irene
Hornby, R. P.	Percival, Ian	wells, John (Maidstone)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Hughes-Young, Michael	Pilkington, Sir Richard	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hubert, Sir Norman	Pitt, Miss Edith	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hurd, Sir Anthony	Pott, Percivall	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hutchison, ichael Clark	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Wise, A. R.
Iremonger, T. L.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Woodnutt, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho	Woollam, John
Jackson, John	Pym, Francis	Worsley, Marcus
James, David	Ramsden, James
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Rawlinson, Peter	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw.

Question put. That the proposed words be there added:—

Division No. 157.]	AYES	[10.10 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Bingham, R. M.	Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Aitken, W. T.	Bishop, F. P.	Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Black, Sir Cyril	Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Allason, James	Bourne-Arton, A.	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Arbuthnot, John	Box, Donald	Cary, Sir Robert
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.	Channon, H. P. G.
Atkins, Humphrey	Boyle, Sir Edward	Chichester-Clark, R.
Barber, Anthony	Braine, Bernard	Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Barter, John	Brewis, John	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Batsford, Brian	Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Brooman-White, R.	Collard, Richard
Bell, Ronald	Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Cooper, A. E.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Cordle, John
Berkeley, Humphry	Bryan, Paul	Corfield, F. V.
Biffen, John	Buck, Antony	Costain, A. P.
Biggs-Davison, John	Bullard, Denys	Coulson, Michael

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 161.

Craddock, Sir Beresford	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Critchley, Julian	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Rees, Hugh
Cunningham, Knox	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rees-Davis, W. R.
Curran, Charles	Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)	Renton, David
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Ridsdale, Julian
de Ferranti, Basil	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Rippon, Geoffrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kershaw, Anthony	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.	Kimball, Marcus	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Drayson, C. B.	Kirk, Peter	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
du Cann, Edward	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Russell, Ronald
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David	Leather, E. H. C.	Scott-Hopkins, James
Eden, John	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Sharles, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Lindsay, Sir Martin	Shaw, M.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Shepherd, William
Errington, Sir Eric	Litchfield, Capt. John	Skeet, T. H. H.
Finlay, Graeme	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (SufnC'dfield)	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Fisher, Nigel	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Smithers, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Longbottom, Charles	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Foster, John	Loveys, Walter H.	Speir, Rupert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Gammans, Lady	McAdden, Stephen	Stevens, Geoffrey
Gardner, Edward	McLaren, Martin	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David	McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia	Stodart, J. A.
Gilmour, Sir John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Glover, Sir Douglas	McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Studholme, Sir Henry
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Goodhart, Philip	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Tapsell, Peter
Goodhew, Victor	Maddan, Martin	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Gower, Raymond	Maitland, Sir John	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.	Temple, John M.
Green, Alan	Marshall, Douglas	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Gresham Cooke, R.	Marten, Neil	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Gurden, Harold	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Mills, Stratton	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Miscampbell, N.	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Montgomery, Fergus	Turner, Colin
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hay, John	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Nabarro, Gerald	Vane, W. M. F.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.	Neave, Alrey	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Hiley, Joseph	Noble, Michael	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Walder, David
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Osborne, John (Hallam)	Walker, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Wall, Patrick
Hocking, Philip N.	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)	Ward, Dame Irene
Holland, Philip	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hollingworth, John
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John	Peel, John	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Hopkins, Alan	Percival, Ian	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hornby, R. P.	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hornshy-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Pilkington, Sir Richard	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hughes-Young, Michael	Pitt, Miss Edith	Wise, A. R.
Hulbert, Sir Norman	Pott, Percivall	Woodnutt, Mark
Hurd, Sir Anthony	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Woollam, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Worsley, Marcus
Iremonger, T. L.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Pym, Francis	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jackson, John	Ramsden, James	Mr. Whitelaw and
James, David	Rawlinson, Peter	Mr. Michael Hamilton.

NOES
Abse, Leo	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Albu, Austen	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Forman, J. C.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Cronin, John	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Baird, John	Crosland, Anthony	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Darling, George	Galpern, Sir Myer
Beaney, Alan	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Greenwood, Anthony
Benson, Sir George	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Grey, Charles
Blackburn, F.	Deer, George	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Blyton, William	Dempsey, James	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Diamond, John	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Loics. S. W.)	Dodds, Norman	Gunter, Ray
Bowles, Frank	Driberg, Tom	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Boyden, James	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John	Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Edelman, Maurice	Hannan, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Harper, Joseph
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Evans, Albert	Hart, Mrs. Judith
Callaghan, James	Fernyhough, E.	Hayman F. H.
Chapman, Donald	Fletcher, Eric	Healey, Denis
Cliffe, Michael	Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Herbison, Miss Margaret

Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Ross, William
Holman, Percy	Manuel, Archie	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Holt, Arthur	Marsh, Richard	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Houghton, Douglas	Milne, Edward	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Hoy, James H.	Mitchison, G. R.	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Monslow, Walter	Small, William
Hunter, A. E.	Moody, A. S.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Moyle, Arthur	Sorensen, R. W.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Mulley, Frederick	Soekice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Oliver, G. H.	Steele, Thomas
Janner, Sir Barnett	Oram, A. E.	Stonehouse, John
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Oswald, Thomas	Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Jeger, George	Owen, Will	Swain, Thomas
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Paget, R. T.	Swingler, Stephen
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)	Pargiter, G. A.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Parker, John	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Parkin, B. T.	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Pavitt, Laurence	Timmons, John
Kelley, Richard	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Tomney, Frank
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Peart, Frederick	Wade, Donald
King, Dr. Horace	Pentland, Norman	Wainwright, Edwin
Lawson, George	Probert, Arthur	Warbey, William
Ledger, Ron	Proctor, W. T.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Whitlock, William
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Randall, Harry	Wilkins, W. A.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Rankin, John	Willey, Frederick
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Redhead, E. C.	Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Loughlln, Charles	Reid, William	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Reynolds, G. W.	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
MacColl, James	Rhodes, H.	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mclnnes, James	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Robertson, John (Paisley)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Mr. Ifor Davies and
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)	Mr. McCann

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, while approving the decision to authorise increases in university teaching salaries in accordance with the principles set out in the White Paper on Incomes Policy (Command No. 1626). welcomes the proposed 55 per cent. expansion in the current grants from the Exchequer to the Universities, and hopes that these substantial additional funds will be applied towards the objective of increasing the number of student places from 110,000 to 150,000 by 1966.

Rating And Valuation

10.20 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs

(Dr. Charles Hill)

I beg to move,

That the Valuation (Statutory Deductions; Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.

The Order brings up to date the scale for making deductions from the gross value to net annual value for the purpose of assessment for rates. As the House will appreciate, these are the deductions which take account of the average cost of repairs, maintenance and insurance of rated properties. The Order is made as a corollary of the extensive changes which will occur in the levels of gross values generally as a result of the revaluation which comes into effect as from 1st April next year.

Perhaps I owe the House in the first place a word of explanation about the statutory deductions. First, they do not arise as regards certain kinds of property—for instance, factories, utilities, and land, with or without ancillary buildings—for these properties are assessed directly on their net annual value. This is largely because the rental levels of these classes of property usually exclude maintenance costs and leave them as the tenants' own responsibility.

For other kinds of property, including in particular houses, shops, offices and the like, the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, requires that the gross value, calculated by reference to the rental value on the assumption that the landlord is responsible for repairs, must be taken first and then the net annual value must be calculated by knocking off a scale-deduction in respect of maintenance and so on.

Some hon. Members may doubt whether it is necessary to go on with this distinction between the two, but that is another subject not for argument tonight, because it is a statutory requirement of Section 22 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, that certain properties must start with a gross value. My task has been to see that the scale of deductions from gross value to arrive at the net annual value, and therefore the rateable value, is a fair one.

I may be asked why revaluation necessitates a new deduction scale, a new Statutory Order. After all, the present scale of deductions is basically a percentage scale—fixed, incidentally, in 1928. It was appropriate enough from 1928 until the late war. Indeed, it has not been all that inappropriate since the war, but now that the new revaluation is due to take place there is strong argument for this change. As the House knows, the revaluation will show a very marked rise in the levels of gross value. For example, houses will show gross values on average four times the pre-war figure. In terms of the current figure, it is three times.

It is important to get this absolutely clear. The so-called pre-war valuation figures were based on valuations done in 1934 and 1935. In 1956 there was a revaluation on 1939 values, and the change between the pre-war position and the 1956 position was an increase of 1⅓. The change between the 1956 position in terms of valuation and the forthcoming position is a threefold increase. In short, the forthcoming revaluation means a fourfold increase in terms of pre-war values and a threefold increase in terms of current values.

Let me say just a word about the revaluation aspect. Contrary to the expectations of my predecessor, and those of the Opposition—for had it not been contrary to their expectations they would not have moved that the power to derate or abate should be used when the increase in the revaluation of domestic properties was 25 per cent. or more—the share of rate burden on householders generally following this revaluation has not increased. It has decreased by a very modest amount—1·6 per cent. to be exact, but it is as well to take it as being at roughly the same level, because appeals of one kind or another may affect the position marginally.

How have we arrived at that overall calculation? Taking domestic properties for England and Wales as a whole, the position is roughly the same. The first stage was a revaluation—not, as one weekly newspaper implied, by the Minister of Housing and Local Government but by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue. Two adjustments were then made. The first adjustment was made on the assumption that the House would approve the new scale of statutory deductions, and the second was made in terms of what the rate deficiency grant would be in relation to the new valuations.

As the House will appreciate, a calculation is made of the yield of a 1d. rate per head of population for each area, and a similar calculation is made for the average for the country as a whole. The difference between the two figures gives rise to rate deficiency grant. By the application of the existing formula of rate deficiency grant to the new valuation figures the contribution made by the rate deficiency grant—as it were, the Exchequer's contribution as a ratepayer—increases from about £110 million to about £134 million.

When one is speaking of the burden of the rates and the Exchequer contribution, it is as well to reflect that that contribution consists not only of the general grant—currently, at a level of £472 million a year—and not only of specific grants, but also of the rate deficiency grant, which now runs, as I say, at about £110 million a year and which as a result of revaluation is likely to run at a figure of some £134 million as from 1st April next year. The Exchequer's share of local expenditure is now of the order of about 52 per cent.

Taking into account, first, the application of the new scale of statutory deductions and, secondly, the new results in terms of increased Exchequer contribution flowing from the application of the existing rate deficiency grant arrangements, the share of burden on the householders as a whole is roughly the same, or with a reduction of about 1·6 per cent. As the White Paper clearly demonstrated, the position varies in different areas, giving extreme cases of an increase of some 27 per cent. in the share of rate burden borne by householders in Bournemouth to a decrease of 24 per cent. in the share borne by the householders in Halifax. So within, as it were, the first category—the share of the rate burden borne by the householders—there is a varaition above and below, but on average the position is approximately the same.

Hon. Members will have seen from the White Paper that apart from industry, the increase in whose share of the burden is some 43 per cent.—an increase of approximately £34 million gross and, after allowing for taxation, some £17 million net—there is a fall in the proportion of the rate burden borne by every other group of ratepayers.

It is interesting to observe that in the case of shops, for example, which have enjoyed derating of 20 per cent. in the last few years, despite the disappearance of that abatement on 1st April next year, there is, following this revaluation, a decrease of some 13 per cent. in the share borne by that category—which also includes offices. I should add, in order to remove any doubts on the point, that so far as Schedule A is concerned this revaluation is for rating purposes only, and I am authorised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it cannot therefore affect assessments for Income Tax under Schedule A. These will continue on the present basis unless and until it is changed by a Finance Act.

To come back to the main calculation, valuations in terms of house property are four times what they were before the war and three times current levels. But repairs, since pre-war days, have gone up even more. The cost of repairs, etc., is estimated to be four-and-a-half times what it was in 1939. To put it in another way, if we take the figure of 100 for 1939, the current figure is estimated to be 452.

As I have said, the present scale of deductions from gross value is basically a percentage one. I should like to deal with the reason that a new scale is needed. It is needed, firstly, because the cost of repairs has gone up more than the valuations themselves, and, secondly, because the principal element in the current scale is a percentage element. As the value of the property rises, so the percentage falls. If there had been no change in the scale, properties which are at present enjoying the higher percentage of allowance would slip down the scale so that the percentage deduction would be smaller. It has therefore become necessary, with the revaluation and with the new estimate as to the cost of repairs, to introduce this new scale.

How has it been ascertained that the cost of repairs has gone up from 100 as the pre-war level to 452 today? The first stage in the process was an investigation, I think in the early 1950s, by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors as to the validity of the pre-war scales, based on a knowledge of costs actually incurred. The result of that was to justify—somewhat belatedly it may be thought—the pre-war scales of deduction as appropriate to the circumstances of their day.

Then, as many hon. Members will recall, the Girdwood Committee on house maintenance investigated the cost of repairs, and it showed that by 1953 the cost of repairs, taking the pre-war figure as 100, had risen to 316. By the same method of calculation, using the same elements in the calculation, but applying the different costs of today, it has been ascertained that the appropriate cost figure for today, compared with the prewar 100, is 452.

There is one qualification of the general proposition, and that is that an anomaly in London has been corrected. Those hon. Members who study this will recall the maximum scale in London, which became the fixed scale. It has been thought desirable, with the concurrence of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Joint Standing Committee, to merge the two scales, taking in relation to that part of the scale to which the property relates, an intermediate position.

This does not mean that the middle range of houses in London lose, as they at first appear to do, a benefit of between £1 and £4 which they have hitherto enjoyed. After all, taking like for like, house for house, the house in London is likely to have a higher gross and a higher net value than the equivalent house outside, and so will enjoy the bigger rate of deduction by the application of this scale. It has been thought reasonable and sensible to do that.

That is the case for the Order. First, that a new scale is necessary in relation to the revaluation which is taking place. Secondly, because repairs are four and a half times what they were pre-war, whereas revaluation is four-fold in relation to pre-war. For those reasons I submit that this new scale is necessary, is appropriate, and I invite the House to approve it.

10.38 p.m.

We are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having guided us so well through this extremely complicated and obscure field of local government, and indeed of valuation. This is one of the most difficult sides of valuation.

I do not say this by way of criticism, but what the right hon. Gentleman said will not exactly thrill or raise the temperature of the House, except for one remark about Schedule A, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what it meant. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving us an undertaking which lasts precisely until next Monday, or is he departing from the usual policy of members of the Government about this time and committing the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget statement?

May I bring the kite down immediately? I was stating the position as it is.

I think that the House, and indeed the country, will be grateful to know that between 10.40 on Thursday night and 3.34 or 4.15 on Monday no one need worry about what is happening to his Schedule A. I am sure that that will be a great source of comfort to everyone.

I perhaps unwisely tried to test the statutory deductions which are being made to see how they compared with the previous ones, and perhaps wisely I took the figure which did not appear in the obliging appendix to the White Paper. It seemed to me that the results I obtained either showed the inadequacy of my arithmetic, which I am perfectly happy to believe, or that they are in some ways somewhat unjust.

I took two houses with gross values of £40 and £50, both of which, under the existing scales, have a statutory deduction of £10, leaving a rateable value of £30 and £40. On the four and a half times principle, if the gross values are four times the early figure, the statutory deductions would be four and a half times. So in each case there would be a statutory deduction of £45 under the new scale. Entering into the new scales at £160 and £200, respectively, four times £40 and £50, my calculations show that in the case of the £40 one the statutory deduction is £46—it is as near as may be £45—and the statutory deduction in the other case is £54. So the house with the high value figure is getting substantially more benefit than does the other. As I say, that may well be an arithmetical miscalculation on my part. I would not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to work it out at this time of night, but no doubt he has the benefit of advisers and a table, and, therefore, I should like to know whether I am right or wrong about that.

I wish we could have a Standing Order or rule in this House that any Minister who says he has consulted local authorities should be made to lay on the Table the results of his consultations. The right hon. Gentleman has told us he consulted the local authorities before producing these scales. More definitely and precisely he said he obtained the agreement of the London County Council and the Standing Joint Committee in regard to the changes in the London figures. About that I want to say something in a moment, but I should like to ask him the same question I asked him before, which is, whether this mystic word "consultation" means that the whole of these figures are substantially accepted by the local authorities' associations as being reasonable ones, or whether the responsibility rests with the right hon. Gentleman and the local authorities have just simply had an opportunity of saying what they think about them.

The other query I should like to raise—again a technical matter, perhaps—is that it is very interesting to find that these new calculations of what were the costs of repairs to a house are, as it, were, the old Girdwood extrapolated from 1953 to 1962. Well, I seem to remember that when Girdwood was the subject of some controversy in regard to Rent Act increases it was not regarded by everybody as being the impeccable authority it is now said to be, and I am just wondering whether, if Girdwood was not regarded by all hon. and right hon. Members as a first-class authority in 1953, how reliable it is in its new form. How accurate have these inquiries been? How reliable is the information, which is a vital part of this whole calculation as I understand it? It would be nice to have some information about the degree of reliability which ought to be placed upon these figures.

This is a very important stage in the process of recasting our system of valuation. It is not, I was excited to learn, the final stage. We were informed in Appendix 3 of the White Paper that adjustments in respect of gas and electricity hereditaments will have to be made by Order requiring an affirmative Resolution. That excited me because I could see that we might have a renewal of those cosy evening encounters between the right hon. Gentleman and myself which are now playing such a big part in the lives of us both. When are we likely to have the new Order for gas and electricity hereditaments? I presume it will not be before Easter, but will it come fairly soon?

The right hon. Gentleman dealt, if I may say so, in a very interesting way with the remarkable development that, in spite of all the prophecies, the valuations of domestic property have not moved in the way it was thought that they would. The right hon. Gentleman is a tough warrior, and I never thought I should ever see him look defensively at me, but he did look at me rather defensively, I thought, when saying, in effect, that we on this side had made just as big an error in estimating as the Government made, and that the Opposition had shown that they shared the same views. Bless my soul—what else could we do but accept what the Government said about it? We do not have access to valuation officers. We have no facilities whatever for doing more than accepting the Government's word.

The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor has had many hard knocks in the House—and still, fortunately, gets them—but nobody has ever suggested that, when he made a definite assertion, he was likely to be misleading the House. It was, therefore, natural that we should accept that the movement would be in a certain way. I think that everyone will be very pleased that it will not turn out like that. Obviously, a good deal of hardship, trouble and difficulty will be avoided.

Speaking of the global average, the right hon. Gentleman explained that this result was due to two major influences: one, the share borne by the rerating of industrial hereditaments; the other, the part played by the rate deficiency grant. My only comment on the fact that this happy effect has arisen out of industrial rerating is to say what a great shame it is that it did not happen a good time ago. After all, in 1956, on 16th March, Mr. Sparks, then the Member for Acton, who was a most devoted student of local government and planning matters, particularly of local government finance, obtained, with the enthusiastic support of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), a Second Reading for a Bill to provide for the rerating of industrial hereditaments. The Bill was killed upstairs in Committee, and the Government, no doubt, would not disclaim all responsibility for its throat being cut at that stage. Certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary would. not, because his part in it was direct and immediate.

If only the Government had listened to the voice of the two prophets in the wilderness, one on each side—let us not make a party issue out of it—there would have been a tremendous saving in the burden of local rates on the domestic ratepayer. It is a great shame that we have had to wait so long to see a major part of the Labour Party's programme being taken up, too late, by the Government and at last showing its value.

This leads me to ask whether these effects, which have been mentioned as affecting the average, also explain the local disparity between one place and another. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Bournemouth and Halifax. Is the fact that Bournemouth will have a heavier share of local expenditure falling on the domestic ratepayers and Halifax will have a smaller burden falling on them due again to the fact that Halifax valuations have generally been lower than Bournemouth valuations and, therefore, have been brought up rather more than proportionately to the national average standard of valuation? Is it due to the fact that industrial rerating has played a larger part in Halifax than in Bournemouth, or is it due to the operation of the rate deficiency grant? We want to know how far these statutory deductions will operate fairly. The case that they will operate fairly on average has been demonstrated by the right hon. Gentleman. Will they operate fairly between one locality and another? If, for example, the valuations in Halifax have been jumped very quickly because they were below the average, they will be affected more than other areas. It would be helpful to know the causes.

This leads me to ask about London. I agree that the amount involved is small, but I was surprised to read about this London change, not because I was concerned about change of any sort, but because it seemed to me surprising that it was being done by Statutory Instrument. The differential between London and the rest of the country is entrenched in the Act itself. Section 5 (6) of the 1955 Act gives the Minister power to vary and, in particular, it mentions the difference between London figures and provincial figures. It is, therefore, surprising to find that in a matter of principle, of making a difference between London and the rest of the country, which has been passed by Parliament and entrenched in the Act, the Minister should be abolishing it by Statutory Instrument. That is rather different from going up and down with the percentages or changing methods within the particular ranges. It is rather different to have abolished the distinction altogether without legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman is well advised, and no doubt is not in danger of being challenged in court, but it seems to me a curious thing to do. Far be it from me to teach the London County Council or the Standing Committee its job, but I should have thought that this would fall rather heavily on Londoners, becaues the rates paid per head of the population in London are much higher than in any other part of the country. I presume that that will continue under the new system.

London is one of the places where the share of rates falling on the domestic ratepayer will go up by 7 per cent., which is a considerable increase. All these forces seem to be in the direction of increasing the domestic burden in London, and I am not happy that the statutory deduction is to be relatively, though of course not absolutely, reduced. I should not for a moment think that there is anything about this proposal which should be challenged. Generally we accept it and will not vote against it, but I should like these obscurities to be cleared up.

10.55 p.m.

I agree with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that this is a comparatively obscure matter and I shall try in the course of my remarks to stick very closely to the actual subject of the Statutory Instrument which is under debate.

I have no hesitation in welcoming this Order and I think that under present legislation there is no doubt that these proposals are about right. It certainly was wise of my right hon. Friend to adjust the percentages which are affecting the statutory deductions. He has used a multiplier of four and half, which I think in the present situation of the cost of repairs is perfectly reasonable.

These statutory deductions are comparatively important matters with regard to the rateable values of property in the household sector. I am one of those who have consistently said that they approve of the rating system. I think it is a satisfactory system. But I think that even a satisfactory system can on occasions require a major overhaul. I believe that a major overhaul of the rating system would not be inappropriate in the comparatively near future. I believe, certainly, that a minor overhaul of one of the components of the rating system—namely, the system of statutory deductions—is considerably overdue. That is not, however, to say that I disagree with the present proposals of my right hon. Friend.

My first reason for suggesting that it would be desirable to have an overhaul of this narrow part of the rating system is that I believe there are two essentially diverse components of gross value. One is a "static component," and that is the component which we are considering tonight—the statutory repairs deduction. I think that when the Minister pointed to the fact that there had not been an alteration in these statutory deductions since 1939 my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that this component of the gross value, namely the statutory deduction, is indeed a static component. I take just one example of the house with a gross value of £50 in 1939, given in Appendix II of the White Paper, which had a statutory deduction of £10. and that £10 has persisted as the statutory deduction over the twenty-four years right up to 1963.

I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the Girdwood Committee's Report on the cost of repairs in 1953. My right hon. Friend said in fact that the cost of repairs in 1953 had gone up by 316 per cent. since 1939, but the "static component" of the gross value had not altered at all in the intervening years.

There is a second component of the gross value, which is arrived at by deducting the statutory deduction from the gross value to give the rateable value of a particular property. But rateable value is only an index. It is only a multiplier. So to that extent I describe rateable value as a dynamic component, because when rate poundages change, as they do, with rising costs, then the burden of rates increases on the ratepayer, and to that extent rateable value in itself is a dynamic factor within this system and is constantly adjusting itself to current prices, unlike the statutory deduction factor, which I call the "static component" of the gross value of properties which does not vary in between revaluations.

So I believe that it would be better if both these components were flexible and both could be a variable. As the cost of repairs rose the statutory deduction could rise, and that would compensate owners of properties for the increase in the cost of repairs which takes place.

Secondly, there is the factor of the "gross value" of the property determining the statutory deduction. For example, there is the case of two almost identical flats with the same cubic capacity, one in central London and the other on the outskirts or in the provinces. The one in central London, by reason of extra amenity, has a much larger gross value than the suburban or provincial flat. The cost of repairs and maintenance of both are more or less the same, but in the case of the central London flat, the statutory deduction, which is supposed to cover the cost of repairs, is very much greater than that which can be deducted from the provincial flat, although they are similar physically.

Exactly the same position obtains with regard to three- or four-bedroomed houses. For instance, a house on the seafront at Brighton and another similar one in a backstreet in Brighton would have dissimilar gross values and a dissimilar statutory repairs deduction, although the cost of repairs would be more or less the same.

There is, therefore, a case for a very careful review of this system of statutory deductions. It may well be thought possible that domestic hereditaments might be assessed direct to net annual value, and that we could abolish this system of statutory deductions once and for all. Quite a proportion of the hereditaments which have been referred to by my right hon. Friend are assessed either direct to gross value or direct to net annual value, and I believe that this is a subject which could well be looked at by an expert committee.

I have no wish to detain the House. I have tried to stick very closely to the very narrow subject under debate. In current circumstances, this Order is justified. I hope that before another Order of this nature is laid the whole system of statutory deductions will be reviewed as part of a comprehensive review of our rating system.

11.3 p.m.

I do not want to detain the House long, but I wish to illustrate one or two points where the figures underline the need for a change in approach to this problem. The White Paper, "Revaluation for Rates in 1963," says on page 2:

"The present scale applies equally to all types of property assessed to gross value. So will the new scale."

That is true, but it does not apply equitably. It is more important to get an equitable balance than it is to get an equal balance.

In examining the new scale, we can forget about the amounts up to £55, giving 45 per cent. deduction of the gross value. These properties are probably assessed at less than £12 now. They are the smaller, older properties, mainly in slum clearance are likely to come down before the 1962 list comes into operation.

In the group exceeding £55 but not exceeding £430, one can have, for example, a house with an old gross value of £60, with a rateable value of £48 and a statutory deduction of £12. It is probable that the new valuation figure, if we follow the examples given in the White Paper, will come out at about £180 gross value, and £130 net value. In other words, we have a £50 statutory allowance. If one breaks it down, one finds that the cost of painting the house externally is £40 or £45 and the cost of painting a room at £15, which is not unreasonable. If the house is a three-bedroomed house with a bathroom, two reception rooms, a kitchen, landing and entrance hall—a modest house—we find, taking fire insurance, a general repairs allowance at £10 per annum and management, that the actual cost on this house is £72 to £75, but the statutory allowance is £50.

I fully appreciate that this statutory allowance has to be from all properties generally and that some will cost less, but some will cost more. For that reason J think that the whole approach to the problem is wrong. I shall not pursue that further, but I would remind my right hon. Friend that I put down an Amendment to the Bill when it was before the House. If it had been accepted it would have saved him having to bring in this Order because the net annual value would have been direct figure valued. However, we are not debating that, we are debating this Order.

In regard to the figures in paragraph 5, in which there is reference to four-and-a-half times 1939 values, it must not be overlooked that we were using a level applicable in 1928. At that time the cost of the labour element in the cost of repair was about a quarter. As the years have gone by, the cost of the labour element has increased until now it is about half, or sometimes slightly more.

No.

It is easy for anyone to say "No" when considered statistically, but when one has to face clients and pay bills for repairing property it is different.

Some of us have repairs and have to pay for them. We know that when we pay the bill the figure is such that to say, as the hon. Member has said, that the labour cost is half, is nonsense.

If one examines the cost of putting a slate on a roof one finds that a good Welsh slate costs 12s. 6d. or 13s., but it will cost about 28s. to put it on a roof. In the repair and maintenance of a house one is not putting a new roof on every week, but a single slate may get damaged. If we take constructional costs of putting up a new house, this multiplier is probably right, but when a man has to be brought five or six miles and paid for travelling to and from the job, on a small job one finds that the labour cost element is high—understandably so—and the multiplier is wrong. The statutory deductions should have been greater to get a true reflection of proper repair and maintenance cost at present.

On the whole question of whether we should value in this fashion, if we take shop property, which is now assessed at gross value, we find that nearly all shops are let on net terms, the tenant undertaking repairs and maintenance. The valuer is faced with the job of adjusting the figures, or grossing up, and there has to be an adjusted gross value and a further mathematical calculation. That applies to 90 per cent. of the valuation list, according to the figures. I cannot help but feel that here is a clear-cut example of the need for a change to net value, which would have made this Order unnecessary.

Another point of difficulty is that these figures will probably be out of date by the time the second valuation list comes into operation, yet again one will have to consider a fresh Order. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the whole question of whether this is the way to deal with rating assessments.

11.10 p.m.

I should not have intervened had it not been for the exaggeration to which we have just listened by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees). The hon. Member started by talking about £40 a year for painting. He said that labour costs accounted for 50 per cent. of this. This is nonsense.

I did not say £40 a year. I said that it cost £40 to paint a house. I scaled it down and assumed that it was done once every five years.

The hon. Gentleman can make that qualification. He said it cost £15 a room. At 50 per cent., labour costs would account for £7 10s. of that. I can tell the House that the men who are doing the job do not get that money. Somebody else is getting it. I know these people. I talk to them. I know something about the wages they are getting. If these are the charges which are being made for work, it is not due to the wages being paid at trade union rates. It is due to the excess which is being put on by those who employ the labour. If the hon. Member wants to talk about these costs, he must direct his attack, not at those who are doing the job, but at those who are employing the labour.

11.11.p.m.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) that we should try to devise a new way of dealing with statutory deductions, because the present way is not satisfactory. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) in his realistic outlook towards the cost of repairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West said that before the revaluation comes into effect we may well be quite out of date in this present valuation of repairs. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that in 1953 the cost of repairs had already increased by 316 per cent. on the earlier figure, yet no alteration was made. Therefore, we are already several years behind in making alterations in these statutory deductions.

The figures given in the White Paper are terrifying. We are told that the present assessments of property are to be increased fourfold. Thus, a property now assessed at a gross value of £100 is expected under the revaluation to be assessed at a gross value of £400. This is terrifying. No matter how we try to kid ourselves that the real thing that matters is the rate poundage, we know very well that—

My hon. Friend has repeated an error which has been made elsewhere. In comparing the current valuation with the valuation as from 1st April next year, one is to the other as 1 is to 3. It is when one compares the pre-war valuation with the new valuation that the ratio is 1 to 4.

I accept my right hon. Friend's correction. He made that quite clear in his opening speech. It is just as terrifying if it is only three times as much instead of four times as much—in other words, a gross value of £100 will be £300 in future. I was saying that however much we say that it is the rate poundage that matters and not the rateable assessment, we know that this rate poundage gradually creeps up to about 20s. in the £, although in the first year local authorities may reduce the rate poundage. We shall never get any better figure, by which I mean lower figure, until we transfer a good deal of what are really national services from the shoulders of the ratepayer to the shoulders of the taxpayer.

Order. The hon. Member is going a little wide of what we are debating.

I accept that Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but as the debate has ranged rather wide I thought that I might be permitted to go as wide—but let me now come to the Order itself.

What is the magic of the existing scale that we still use it, and merely increase it by certain percentages? Why do we consider that the 1925 scale was right, and that we can take account of the existing cost of repairs just by increasing that scale by percentages or fractions? This Order merely amends the old scale. It does not even give a higher percentage all the way up, with the result that the proportion allowed for repairs in relation to the larger rateable values is not as great as that at the lower rateable value levels. I do not know what justification there is in principle for that. Why should it be assumed that the more highly rated house does not need as much repair, in proportion, as does the less highly rated one? The result of it is that the more highly rated house to some extent subsidises the general rates.

The real complaint about this Order which perpetuates the 1925 scale is that that is not relative to the cost of repairs. My right hon. Friend talked about re pairs increasing to a figure of 452 as compared with 100 some time ago, but that does not bear any relationship to the actual cost of repairs to the in dividual. The new scale is not based on what it costs a householder to repair or decorate his house, but on some per centage scale which was worked out in 1925 and has since been maintained. The Order seems to perpetuate some thing that has no relationship to fact at all—

Does it say anywhere in the Acts that this is a deduction for repairs at all? I am not sure that it does. In any case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no provision for additional relief for excess repairs in the case of rating as there is in the case of Schedule A. I have always understood that the statutory deduction for Income Tax Schedule A was called a repairs deduction, but I have never understood that the statutory deduction for rates was linked with repairs at all.

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who is so well informed in these matters, does not appreciate that the difference between the house that is let with the responsibility for repairs, insurance and maintenance on the tenant, and the house which is let with those items a responsibility on the landlord, is the difference between the gross value and the rateable value. Therefore, the statutory deduction from gross value in order to reach the rateable value is necessarily the statutory figure, though not necessarily the real figure, representing repairs, maintenance and insurance.

One refers to repairs and maintenance, because those are the main items. I understand that the statutory deduction is supposed to represent the cost to the individual of repairs, insurance and maintenance of his house; it does not represent that figure by being some statutory deduction from the gross value. I should like to see, properly calculated, what it costs the individual at present to repair and maintain his house. If that were done, I think that we should get a different sort of figure from the figures set out in the Order.

11.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government

(Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

I will try to reply briefly to some of the points of detail which have been raised in the debate. I think that there is no dispute that the Order as it stands is a good Order which ought to be approved. At the same time, I appreciate that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned about a number of minor issues.

The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was concerned to know how far there really had been consultation with the local authority associations. Their comments on the Government's proposals were asked for before the 1963 revaluation estimates were available. They all expressed concurrence with the proposals which had been put forward by the working party considering this matter.

The hon. Member for Widnes was also a little concerned as to whether the figures were correct—whether when one had a look at the new scale, one was ensuring in every case that it was exactly an increase of four-and-a-half times in the statutory deduction. He quoted two examples—a house of a gross value of £40 now and a house of a gross value of £50 now. Under the old fixed scale the deduction was £10. He said that if we now assume new gross values of £160 and £200 respectively, the new statutory deduction, according to his mathematics, would be £46 and £54 respectively. His mathematics, I hasten to assure him, are perfectly correct.

The point is that the new scale smoothes out the hump that previously existed and the amount climbs steadily with the gross value. Indeed, the figures that he pointed to show the need for the new Order. If no new Order had been made, a number of houses which previously received a fairly high statutory deduction—the small houses—would have found themselves, under the old scale, in a bracket which gave them a very small percentage statutory deduction.

A number of hon. Members were concerned as to the reliability of the extension of the old scale. Was this really a fair and reasonable way of setting about it? We started, as my right hon. Friend said, with the assumption that under the old scale the cost of repairs in 1939 was 100. We know that the Gird wood Committee in 1953 said that, taking 1939 as 100, the figure would be 316. Extending the Girdwood formula, we have reached a figure of 452.

As far as the 1939 figure was concerned, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors had something to say on this in a report which it issued in 1951 entitled "A Memorandum on Rent Restrictions and the Repair Problem." Paragraph 12 of the report said:

"An analysis of records in respect of many thousands of dwellings has clearly shown that on average the actual expenditure was about equal to or slightly in excess of the relevant statutable deductions"

—that is, related to outgoings in 1939.

It would therefore appear that it is fair to take the pre-war statutory deduction as being realistic in relation to the cost of repairs, and therefore reasonable to carry it forward. We think that the Girdwood Committee formula and the figure of 452 is reliable. An independent calculation by the editor of "The Rating and Valuation Reporter" produced a figure of 459. I think that is a fairly good cross-check showing the reliability of the figure.

Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say exactly when this figure was determined? It is going to be operative from 1st April, 1963. Is he allowing for any projection of increased costs as between the figure when it was determined and the possible cost in April, 1963?

The figure was determined at the beginning of this year. One could project forward indefinitely. It may be that these costs will fall. There is power for my right hon. Friend to introduce a new Order in due course if that were found to be necessary.

The views of the professional bodies were sought on the broad intention of the Order, again before the 1963 figures were available, to see if they thought that we were approaching this problem in the right way, and the Rating and Valuation Association said:

"It seemed to the Council that a reasonably workable formula for universal application is the correct approach, technically and administratively, and that any scale suggested should be as simple as possible in its operation."

The Valuers' Institution said:

"The Institution believes that the method suggested … is the most acceptable basis of arriving at the equitable rate of statutory deductions and provided that the increase is based in the relative values of (a) the gross value of houses and (b) the costs of repairs, then the results should be satisfactory."

Broadly, I think that we have adopted a method which is acceptable not only to the local authority associations but also to the professional bodies who have views on these matters.

Do the Schedule A claims to the Inland Revenue throw any light on this? These are probably more up-to-date figures than anybody else has.

My right hon. Friend said something about Schedule A, which is a different matter.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that taxpayers send claims to the Inland Revenue for actual expenditure in excess of the statutory deduction. Nearly 1 million claims are put in every year. I am asking whether that information, in addition to the Girdwood Committee and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, has thrown any light on the present researches.

The answer is "No".

Has my hon. Friend had from the Institute of Chartered Surveyors a revised estimate of repair costs since 1953, or were the calculations made on that estimate?

No. I do not think that we have kept going back to these bodies and asking them for revised figures. What we have done is what I have explained. We started at 1939, at 100, brought it up to 1953, and extended it according to a formula agreed with the working party, and discussed with the various associations whether this was a fair basis for action, bearing in mind that we need a fairly simple and practicable approach to the problem.

The Schedule A claims showed no regular pattern. It may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, that if one looked at each individual case one would get a slightly different result, but I think that the majority of ratepayers would rather have the certainty that is represented by a formula of this kind than be told, "That is your gross value. Now make your case in respect of your own repairs in your area". It is not an ideal arrangement, but from the point of view of simplicity and advantage to the ratepayer this is a better way of dealing with it than trying every time to get at exact actual figures of repairs.

It seems to me that, on looking ahead, my hon. Friends the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) may be right in saying that we should consider a future review by experts to determine whether we should go direct to net annual value. At the moment we are governed by Statute. We have to determine gross value and then make a statutory deduction. From the point of view of the discussion tonight, however, that suggestion is in a sense academic. There is nothing that we can do about it except consider whether new legislation could be introduced in the future.

The distinction was originally made between gross value and net annual value because of the preponderance of rental evidence for the respective types of property. In the case of house property, I think that there is a much stronger argument for ascertaining gross value and then making a statutory deduction to net annual, than in the case of shops. As regards houses, in the existing state of the law we must assume the landlord primarily responsible for much of this work of repair.

The hon. Member for Widnes asked one specific question about when we could expect Orders on gas and electricity. I can only tell him that it may be in June or July, but the consultations with the various bodies are not yet complete.

Then there is the final point which he raised on the subject of London; an important point because he asked if we had the power to deal with the matter in this way. I would refer him to Section 5 (5) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, which provides that

"In the case of any class of hereditaments, the net annual value of which falls to be ascertained under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the said section twenty-two, the Minister may by order provide that, for the deductions specified in the said table, there shall be substituted deductions of such amounts, or of amounts to be calculated in such manner, as may be specified in the order".

The said table is to be found in the Second Schedule to that Act, and provides specifically for statutory deductions from gross value both outside London and in London. I think that makes it clear that there is power to deal with the matter in this way.

I may be a better mathematician than I am a lawyer, but the point which interested me was subsection (6) where it says that

"Subsections (1) and (4) of the said section twenty-two shall have effect as well in relation to hereditaments in London as in relation to heerditaments outside London, so however that in the application of subsection (1) of that section …"

this distinction shall be preserved in the Schedule. It seemed to me there was a distinction enshrined in the Schedule. I was querying whether the distinction in the Act was abolished by the Statutory Instrument.

I am advised that we can in fact do this, and it seems reasonable that it should be so done. I suppose that at most one could say that there should be two tables both giving the same figures. I think that we have done it in a sensible way.

I do not think that I can add anything to what my right hon. Friend said about the merits of the proposal. Of course, a house in London will have a greater statutory deduction normally than a similar house elsewhere in the country because it will also have a higher gross value. Average figures are always a little misleading, but the average deduction in London would be £45 deduction compared with an average deduction of £33 for the whole of the country.

I do not think that there is any other specific point with which I could usefully deal.

There was the one I raised about the difference between Halifax and Bournemouth, and whether the statutory deduction would bear equally in both those two extreme cases.

I do not think that I can off the cuff give the reason for the different figures for Halifax and Bournemouth. No doubt we could make an analysis of each area if the hon. Gentle-man put a specific Question on the point. I cannot say now why that difference should exist. I can only say, as my right hon. Friend said, that the Order has been thoroughly discussed with the experts, not only members of the professional bodies, but also with the local authority associations. I think that it meets with their general approval, as, I am sure, it will secure the general approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Valuation (Statutory Deductions) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.

Employment (Industrial Training)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

11.33 p.m.

The subject of this short debate is certainly less complicated than the last one, thank goodness. I think that it follows well upon the debate we had earlier today on the universities, though I do think, looking round the House, that this debate will be anything like so contentious.

I want to concentrate mainly on the improvement of apprentice training. However many scientists we may turn out from the universities, if we are deficient in craftsmen the national productive effort is certainly bound to suffer. The subject of this debate may be a minnow compared with the big fish of the Budget which we shall discuss next week, yet, whatever financial considerations or dispositions he may make, the Chancellor will be confounded in confusion, and so shall we, if industry lacks the skill in both quality and quantity.

Training in both management and the skilled trades is mainly a job for industry. In my view, it is not a subject where the Government should undertake large-scale interference or expenditure. Nevertheless, the Government do, and should, co-operate and, if necessary, prod industry.

In management, there are several organisations which do a good job. The Administrative Staff College makes a useful contribution. Recently, I heard that Birmingham University was pioneering a new emphasis on the study of certain aspects of modern management in its social studies faculty, and I think that it is to be congratulated on doing that. Beyond this, however, there is, I think, a strong case for setting up a post-graduate school of business on the lines of the Harvard school in the United States, and we could probably learn from some of the mistakes which have been made there.

The Institute of Marketing and Sales Management organises a series of worthwhile courses in selling. Again, a good case can be made for expansion here. It would probably pay off in exports if some tuition were given to people in industry, salesmen especially, on how to sell abroad. In general commerce and distribution, there is a great lack of organised training. Too much of the "Go as you please, and everything will come out in the wash" attitude prevails, and anything which my hon. Friend can do would be helpful in this direction.

What of apprentice training itself? This is the main theme of the debate. We have, of course, made a good deal of progress in recent years. I doubt, however, that we shall have gone fast enough. In the years from 1950 to 1958, the average number of boys entering apprenticeship was 93,000, or 35 per cent. of those entering employment. In I960, the number went up to 103,000, or 36 per cent. of those entering employment. In 1961, it rose again to 115,000, or 38 per cent. of those entering employment. In addition, there were, last year, 46,000 who were partially trained, most of them semi-skilled. We are training 22,000 more apprentices now than we were during the period 1950–58, and in 1961 we had 12,000 more in training than in 1960, an increase of 11 per cent.

A certain amount of progress has been made. However, the increased numbers are out of a very large increase in the pool available. It should be pointed out that 1962 is the peak year of the bulge. We must, therefore, in this year go forward not at a shuffle but at a stride. In this connection, perhaps the Minister will say what he thinks the prospects are for summer leavers.

In the whole matter of industrial training, we cannot afford to fall behind our competitors. In 1954, when the West Germans had a boom year of school leavers, almost half of their school leavers were trained in one way or another, most of them in skilled apprenticeships. Since then, the bulge in Western Germany has gone rapidly down. This should give us an opportunity to train nearer to the numbers in Western Germany. In fact, the West Germans are still ahead of us. I hope that, during the next year or two, we shall make a serious effort to catch up. Our target for apprentice training should be not 115,000 a year but as near as we can get to 150,000.

Productivity is skill equalising the machine, plus the skill to work the machine. The Industrial Training Council, which has the full support of my hon. Friend's Ministry, has undoubtedly been trying to hammer home the need for increased skill. The Council has done an excellent job through its advisory services, apprentice training centre courses, and its grants for group training. In this connection we should pay a tribute to the work of Lord McCorquo-dale, who was for two and a half years the first chairman, and also to the work of his successor. But is the work of the Council or its potential being exploited with sufficient energy? Every small manufacturing management should look at its own needs and see whether those needs can be met by the Industrial Training Council.

I have one criticism of the courses run by the Industrial Training Council for managements. I have no doubt that they are good courses, but I notice that they cost 45 guineas for four days. This seems to me a bit steep and it might deter some of the smaller firms. I do not think that a training course requires either Savoy treatment or Savoy prices and I hope that this will be looked into.

I said at the outset that the job of apprenticeship training was one for industry and not for the Government. Many bodies—employers' organisations, trade unions and industrial welfare societies—have contributed in recent years to an improvement in industrial training. During the last two or three years we have seen a new development in this connection through the educational authorities. These authorities have taken a hand in training by providing first-year courses in technical colleges, linked with local firms. This scheme should be expanded. Too few technical colleges have initiated such courses. These courses are good for the boys and are also helpful to many small firms which can use these boys. More of these courses are wanted.

Government training centres have also offered a fine standard of training. Some of our industries should copy the kind of course that is provided at these centres. I understand, however, that Government training centres are looked upon by the Ministry as being temporary. They are here for the bulge years. No fees are charged for the one-year course. I do not want to see the Government entering upon apprenticeship training permanently and on a large scale, but I wonder whether centres could not be expanded in scope, at any rate for a year or two, perhaps by a link-up with firms to whom fees would be charged for training.

I was a labour relations officer in a large firm many years ago and I was, therefore, concerned with apprentice training. We had a good school, but two things impressed me even twenty years ago. The first was that a boy could quite reasonably have been trained in a year less. Four years seems to me quite adequate for the training of an apprentice. The now accepted period of five years' training has been with us a long time. Methods have been improved since that period was fixed, and it was fixed at a time of heavy unemployment when the general view was taken that the longer the stay the surer the job.

I understand that both unions and managements have been considering this matter. I hope that they will stop procrastinating and that something will be done about reducing the period from five years to four. I should also like the Minister to use his influence to remove restrictions on the age at which boys enter apprenticeship. It can be quite disastrous for a young boy who has the ability to become a craftsman if he is barred because he is marginally beyond an arbitrarily fixed age of entry. Nobody tells a man when he should start to become a doctor, and I think that it is quite wrong that there should be a fixed age limit of 16. Consideration should be given to allowing at least a little scope in that direction. I should like to ask the Minister to consider what can be done to enable boys who are living in remote areas, where there are few opportunities to take up apprenticeships, to work outside their areas so that they can gain the skill which they want.

On quality and quantity of training, can we be satisfied that the training of our apprentices is up to standard? In Government training centres it is good. In our technical colleges there is too little of it but, again, it is good. In the best of our larger firms I think it is very good, but in many of the large firms and in most of the small firms too often the apprentice does too much labouring and too little learning. I wish that employers and trade unions would get together and agree on standards. They might even consider giving awards to the firms which maintain or improve upon the standards and use the Industrial Training Council in other directions.

We want quantity and we need quality. There is a view that the small firms are not doing enough in training in skill. There is some truth in this, and it would be fine if in the next year or two we could interest more and more small firms in making use of group training schemes that are offered.

But I do not think that some of the large firms are doing all that they might. I understand that Metro-Vickers trains apprentices two-thirds above its own normal needs. It does this because it takes the view that good trained men are the best advertisement for the company. Doubtless there are other firms which take the same line, but there are too many of our larger firms which bring in only a sufficient number of apprentices for their own needs.

In matching the need for industrial training with the expansion of our industrial effort which we must have, the larger industries have a special responsibility. Indeed, they have a national obligation, particularly those firms which are given Government contracts. This is a very wide field, and it may be that the Ministry would consider bringing pressure to bear upon those firms to which it gives a good deal of business.

There is, I think, some hope that in the next year or two we shall make a further advance. If it is to be an advance that will match our needs, it must be a quicker advance than we have made in the last two or three years.

I hope that this modest debate and contribution will help firms outside to understand that we in this House have a great interest in this matter. We believe not only that free enterprise should be free but that it must be enterprising. Above all, it must be more enterprising in training.

11.49 p.m.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) on raising this subject. He has called it a modest debate, and I see why he says that. But I agree very much with him that training for skill is a vitally important subject. There is hardly a more important one, because the skill of our people must make up for the lack of gold mines or oil wells in our soil. This is really the crux of the matter. The continuing prosperity of our country depends to a very large extent on the increase we can get in our skills.

We have to import so much that we can only live if we process cleverly what we import. As our industrial activity increases, so necessarily must our skill increase. We can therefore only pay our way if we have more skill. I agree also with my hon. Friend that we have to compete with other markets, particularly in this regard. We must measure ourselves not by our own—I hope not complacent—standards, but by other people's standards too. If the West Germans or the Russians or the Americans are going ahead in this field, then we must make sure that we can catch them up.

This is particularly true because the industrial revolution continues. New skills as well as the re-deployment of old skills are a necessary feature of our activity. I agree that we must train more people and teach them to higher degrees of skill. These are our two tasks.

The need to match these tasks is clearly seen when we remember that since the War we have never been able to catch up with the demand for skilled workers. Our expansion has been consistently held up by shortages of skilled labour. This is true even in those parts of the country where unemployment is above the average. Last December, for example—and that is not the best time of the year for employment—there were ten vacancies for machine tool setters—a job requiring a high degree of skill—for every one unemployed. The relation of demand to supply was 10–1 in that trade. For every unemployed turner, there were eight vacancies. And one could give many other examples.

We are thus faced with a consistently changing industrial structure calling for ever-increasing numbers of skilled workers. I must hand this to my hon. Friend he has pin-pointed some of the very important aspects of the subject. I do not believe that I can go into all of them in detail but I must obviously make for the main point he made. It is not original to say that the bulge in the number of school leavers, which reaches its peak this year, is not so much a problem but an opportunity to industry to make good this shortage of skilled labour. The only way it can be done is by increasing the number trained.

My hon. Friend gave the figures, and I do not quarrel with them. He has them pretty well right. But there are a number of additional points to be made. In addition to the figures he has given, it is a fact that more of these young people every year stay on beyond the minimum school leaving age of 15. That is a valid point. They are getting more education before they think of moving into industry. This is the opportunity for industry to train these children to higher levels of skill. That, too, is an important point.

It is not always realised that the field from which one draws apprentices is now perhaps much wider than the mere age of 15. I agree that we would like to see a real acceptance of the fact that a boy or girl can enter an apprenticeship at a later age if he or she has stayed on at school for an extra year or two. We want this to be generally and nationally agreed. For every five boys suitable for apprenticeship training who left school last year there will be six this year. If we maintain even the improvement we got last year, we shall have well over 120,000 boys entering apprenticeship training this year. My hon. Friend put the figure at 150,000.

I said towards 150,000.

Of course, I should like to see it 150,000. Last year we collected figures to cover more than the recognised apprenticeship training because it would be a great mistake to suppose that only those young people who in fact are craft apprentices get real training in industry or commerce. There are more concerned than those. There are, for example, a number of learnerships in the textile trade. There are a number of other efforts made to train young people outside the traditional forms of apprenticeship training. It is worthwhile emphasising that.

I have a few figures which I hope my hon. Friend will find of interest. In 1961 37.9 per cent.—I apologise for the percentages—of boys entering employment got apprenticeships, but a further 15.2 per cent. entered jobs providing training for a year or more. Those were for the most part planned training in various industrial operations. This is sometimes called operative training. That is not all. Many boys entered professional employment and a large number went into clerical employment, some of which certainly provides useful training. If we add all these categories together, we find that getting on for two-thirds go into employment where training is provided.

This is important because in these days the picture is rather projected of all young people preferring to go in for the dead-end job. I do not think that is true. Two-thirds, according to our records, go in for some training. I do not think that the lure of the quick penny or the brightly-lit cafe is as great as it is made out to be.

We are not satisfied that we have gone as far as we can in this matter. Nor is industry satisfied that we have reached a ceiling of endeavour in training. We all know that we can still do more.

In this context I particularly pay tribute to the I.T.C., which my hon. Friend mentioned. It has already done a great deal. All these arrangements take a little time to get under way, and this is no exception, but it is playing an increasing part, particularly in giving advice to firms on how to improve their methods of training and in encouraging group apprenticeship training schemes. Group apprenticeship training schemes are difficult in many ways, and one can understand why, but certainly in several areas, for example, in mid-Tyne, they can be said to have got off the ground and to be making progress.

Again, in looking at training arrangements one would make a mistake if one expected spectacular progress on any one point. We are not after headlines. We want better training for these young people. I do not for one moment pretend that what we are trying to do to secure better training is the best that anybody could possibly devise. But there is within the Ministry of Labour, certainly, and within industry certainly, both from the employers' side and from the trade union side, an urgent appreciation of the need to secure more training for more people of a better standard and content. This appreciation is growing and it only remains to consider whether we have quite the best methods.

I cannot comment at this moment on the methods of training for management, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind me correcting one slip of the tongue he made. My understanding is that the I.T.C. instructor training courses, while they may cost forty-five guineas, are for fourteen days and not for four days, which makes the cost more commensurate with the content. It is certainly not on the Ritz or Savoy standard. It is a down to earth and realistic standard.

The question was properly raised whether at the end of a period of training there should not be some form of test of competence. This is being considered. It is not the easiest thing to arrange. It is fairly easy to have a paper examination at the end of a period of training and say, "If you hold that piece of paper it makes you a better craftsman", but I am not sure that this would mean anything. There certainly is a case for a test of competence, but we are still left with the problem of deciding just what should be the test. This is not so simple.

We must, at any rate in the first stage, make clearly available to all those who do training, information about the standards reached and the methods used by those who are agreed to be the best trainers. This is the first thing to do. We have to spread as swiftly and as widely and as competently as we can information about the best methods. Having spread that information, we must try to ensure that those who do not recognise the best are encouraged to recognise it. This is perhaps the best way in which we can go about it.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister is actively considering the length of training. We are concerned to ensure that an unnecessary period is not spent on learning a traditional skill when new methods of teaching that skill may easily shorten the period required for training. We are very concerned about this. Because we are concerned, we are having direct talks with the major industries who train apprentices. We hope and believe that, with their agreement and support, we shall make some progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at jour minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Volume 657: debated on Thursday 5 April 1962

House Of Commons

Prayers

Oral Answers To Questions

Official Report, 4Th April (C 431)

Building Land (Registrations)

Official Secrets Acts (Prosecutions)

Parliamentary Commissioner

Law Reform (Limitation Of Actions) Act, 1954

General Commissioners Of Income Tax, Oldham And Chadderton

Council On Tribunals (Report)

Ghana

Former Civil Servants (Pensions)

Malaya

Former Civil Servants (Pensions)

Canada

Shipping (St Lawrence River And Great Lakes)

Commonwealth Relations

Sponsored Visits To United Kingdom

Republic Of Ireland (Royal Navy Air-Sea Rescue Work)

Former Civil Servants (Pensions)

Advisory And Technical Service

India

Her Majesty's Tour (Photographs)

Cyprus

Secretary Of State (Visit)

Swaziland

Constitution

Colonial Territories

Captain Gardner (Terminal Gratuity)

Uganda

Decentralisation

Molson Report

The West Indies

Commissioner-General

Education

Colleges Of Advanced Technology (Physics Research)

Teacher Training Colleges

Further Education

Nuclear Tests, Christmas Island

President Kennedy And Prime Minister (Meeting)

Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference

Commonwealth And European Economic Community

Surplus Skim Milk

General Maxwell Taylor (Visit)

Business Of The House

Security Procedures In The Public Service (Committee's Report)

Orders Of The Day

Housing (Scotland) Bill

Clause 18—(Advances To Scottish Special Housing Association For Provision Of Housing Accommodation)

Clause 21—(Amendment Of S 9 Of Act Of 1950)

Clause 29—(Default Powers Of Secretary Of State In Relation To Rents)

University Grants And Salaries Of University Teachers

Rating And Valuation

Employment (Industrial Training)