LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is little more than drafting; and it makes clear that grants for the year 1958–59 are not affected. I beg to move.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

LORD LATHAM

I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Darwen in what I thought was a most thoughtful and informed speech. I had rather expected that the noble Viscount, the Lord President of the Council, would be present to-day, because I propose in the course of my remarks to seek to confute a number of observations made by him in winding up for the Government in the Second Reading debate on June 10. In that speech the noble Viscount scattered comparative figures of expenditure on education in what I thought was a spirit of carefree abandon, without much close concern for the precision, or indeed in some cases the accuracy, of his figures.

Before I deal with that matter, however, I want to make it perfectly clear again that we on these Benches are opposed to bringing educational expenditure under a block grant system, because we are convinced that, whatever may be its purpose, its effect will be to reduce expenditure and therefore to hamper the development and the expansion of education. For education cannot escape from the general purpose of the block grant—namely, to reduce the Government's contribution to local government expenditure. The expenditure on education represents something in the region of 80 per cent. of the grants to be merged, and I think it can be fairly said that informed opinion takes the view that education will suffer as a consequence.

9 In the course of his speech, the noble Viscount, the Lord President of the Council, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 209 (No. 73), col. 700]: I am bound to say that I find the charge that the object or purpose or intention behind the Government's action is to cut expenditure a trifle offensive, because it is clean contrary to the repeated assurances of every Minister who has handled this subject, inside Parliament or outside, and clean contrary to the terms of the Bill itself, which provides, in Clause 2 (1) (c), that the formula for general grant is to provide for the development of services. In point of fact, Ministers have made quite different statements. In the White Paper published under the authority of the Minister of Housing and Local Government paragraph 26 plainly states as follows: The proportion of grants to rates is now as six is to five, and it is still increasing. Incidentally, something can be said about that in regard to de-rating when we reach that part of the Bill. It goes on: It is important to reduce this dependence of local government on Exchequer grants if it possibly can be done. That is fairly definitive. But the White Paper issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland went a little further and left out the words, "if it possibly can be done". That Minister said: The Government's view is that this opportunity should be taken to make some reduction in the level of Exchequer grants. That, I submit, is a pretty definitive declaration that it is one of the purposes of this legislation. The noble Viscount, the Lord President of the Council, referred in his observations to Clause 2 (1) (c) of the Bill and said that the formula for general grant is to provide "— and I stress that word— for the development of services. There is nothing in Clause 2 (1) (c) to require that the Minister should so regulate the distribution of the block grant as to provide for the development of educational or, indeed, any other services. The words of the subsection are: that the Minister shall take into consideration— … the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop those services. There is nothing there about provision, and the Minister can just as well take the 10 view that there is no need to develop the services as that there is need to develop the services. He is to determine what developments are reasonable; and he is to determine also whether "regard to general economic conditions" should lead to a restriction of the money spent upon those services.

It is conclusive that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce expenditure. The association of local education authorities, which I understand include all the education authorities of England, Wales and Northern Ireland except the London County Council, are bitterly opposed to this proposal. They have in fact issued a pamphlet, and I should like to read one or two excerpts from it.

LORD HYLTON

Before the noble Lord does that, could he tell us whether he is referring to the Association of Education Committees? He referred to the local authorities. Perhaps he is really referring to the Association of Education Committees, a rather different body.

LORD LATHAM

I candidly admit that the description was perhaps a little inexact. It is true that the association to which I am referring is representative of education committees.

LORD HYLTON

Thank you.

LORD LATHAM

But I think the noble Lord will find it difficult to distinguish between the authority, the knowledge and the experience of education committees and of education authorities. After all, it is the Association of Education Committees which does most, if indeed not all, of the negotiation with Government Departments on educational matters, acting with full authority for the local authorities concerned. I do not think that one can in any way depreciate the importance of this Association. This is what it says in its pamphlet: We have sought in this pamphlet to show that the block grant is restrictive of development, inequitable between authorities and inefficient in achieving either value for money or similar standards throughout the country. We have shown that it is unsuited to a period of rising costs and that by it risks which the Treasury is better able to underwrite are to be transferred to the local authorities. Having set in motion a process which must inevitably stunt growth, the Government can afford to preach educational advance until they are blue in the face. 11 That is pretty energetic language. It goes on later to say: They "— the Government— will be able to claim all the credit for the nobility of their educational aims whilst the local authorities will receive all the odium if their conduct conforms to the restrictive pattern laid down by the Treasury. That is a pretty grave indictment of the Government's policy, but it is the case that the present Minister of Housing and Local Government spoke in similar language with similar misgivings in 1943. He was then under the beneficent, progressive influence of membership of the London County Council. As I pointed out in my speech on June 10 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 209, No. 73, col. 689] the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, speaking on the occasion of the publication of the Education White Paper which preceded the Bill which ultimately became the Act of 1944, said: My fear is that not only these big reforms which the White Paper envisages but all the kinds of things we have long known, for instance, over-large classes, will fail to be dealt with unless my right honourable friend the President is able to reach a more favourable agreement with the Treasury. It will be a bad thing if the Treasury gained for itself the unenviable reputation of having stood in the way of what might have been the greatest advance ever in the quality of the British people. That is a pretty strong, forthright statement. But the Minister made another equally strong statement at the same time. I quote from the proceedings of the Standing Committee of another place, February 4, col. 110: I am not "— said the present Minister— in the least afraid of the prospective cost of £10 million per year for nursery schools. That sum will be more than offset by the consequential savings in the improvement of the quality of our population that this development will bring about. That is precisely our case: that money invested on education shows a handsome return, a permanent return in the benefit of the nation and of its people. Of course, £10 million in 1943 would be nearer £20 million to-day, having regard to the fall in the value of money. I have been unable to ascertain what actual expenditure there is at the present time per annum on nursery schools, but I should be very surprised to learn that it was a figure in any 12 way approaching £20 million which would be the representative figure of the £10 million used by the present Minister.

The Times said—and The Times was right: The only justification for this Bill is that it would reduce taxes and put up rates Mr. Fisher, who was President of the Board of Education some forty years ago, said, with abundant wisdom, I think: If we want education to progress we must finance it by the percentage grant ". In 1914, the Kempe Committee, which was the short title for the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, said the same thing. The Times has also stated that local authorities generally will be influenced towards greater economy by the imposition of the block Exchequer grant.

I think that I should here say, even though the noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, is not present, that even The Times has committed the heinous sin of referring to this grant as a "block grant." The noble Viscount took great exception to that and imputed all sorts of sinister political motives to my friends and to my Party for using the word "block". But whatever the noble Viscount may say, it is a block grant, and it will have the effect of being a block grant. The Times then went on to talk about the block grant "cutting away the fringes and the frills." Is there any great virtue in that? After all, in education as well as in most other human activities of a collective character, what is a frill to-day becomes an accepted necessity and provision tomorrow; and very often the "frills" and fringes "constitute what goes to make up what we sometimes term the arts and graces of life.

My noble friend Lord Darwen has referred to the great work which the late George Tomlinson did as Minister of Education in reducing the cost of school places—it was, indeed, a first-class piece of work. I well recall that, not long after the passing into law of the 1944 Act, the London County Council were consulted as to the proposed regulations and plans for nursery schools; and the extravagant basis (I use the word "extravagant" advisedly) upon which those plans had been worked out, not by a local education authority but by the Ministry of Education, was almost terrifying. I remember an important member of the 13 London County Council who was at that time closely associated with education in London saying that "if nursery schools are going to cost this sum per place; there will not be many nursery schools built." I cite that case because it is often assumed that the Party represented by noble Lords opposite is the only Party in public affairs in this country concerned with efficiency and with economy.

Now let me deal with the figures which were used by the noble Viscount in his speech on Second Reading. He sought to show, by using certain figures, that under the present dispensation there had been a much larger expansion of education than under the previous Labour Government. He said that in the last completed year of the Labour Administration, in 1949–50, there was spent on education £277 million, and that in the present year, after six and a half years of Tory Administration, the figure was estimated to be £613 million—double, he said, that of the Labour Government. But, of course, there are certain adjustments to be made to those figures. The first adjustment is that since 1949–50 the pound has fallen in value from 100 to 72, so that, in real values, the estimate for 1958–59 is worth not £613 million but £441 million. Moreover, the numbers of pupils to be educated have risen. The Ministry's estimate for 1949–50 assumed an average of 5½ million pupils on the registers of our maintained and assisted primary and secondary schools. For 1958–59 the comparable figure is 6,797,000—or an increase of 22 per cent. If that difference is taken into account, as it must be, then the comparable figure for 1949–50 is £338 million, and not £277 million.

Moreover, apart altogether from the general difference of content in the estimates of the two years, it should be remembered that responsibility for the supply of milk in maintained schools was transferred from the Ministry of Food to local education authorities from October 1, 1954, and for the non-maintained schools from September 1, 1956. Moreover, the estimates for 1958–59 include £12,400,000 for the provision of milk which they necessarily did not include in 1949–50, when this matter was dealt with in the estimates of the Ministry of Food. Accordingly, if those adjustments are made, the difference between 14 the figures for the two years is not £336 million, but £95 million. Expenditure is not being doubled; it is increased by something less than one-third.

I would say, in that connection, that it is the case, as all history shows, that a good deal of the expenditure now being incurred arises from policies adopted, and expansion and development projects initiated, by the Labour Government when it was in office. We must remember that it took several years to reconstruct the structure of education in this country following the war, and following evacuation and the occupation of many school premises by civil defence forces and for other warlike purposes, and also to repair the damage done to hundreds of schools in this country by bombing. I well remember the preparation of the educational development plan for London under the 1944 Act which, may I stress, was not a Tory Act but a Coalition Act—and no one would wish to withhold sincere praise from both Mr. Butler and Mr. Ede for the work they did in connection with that Act and its passage to the Statute Book. The London County Council plan was not formulated until early 1947; then it had to be examined and lodged and approved by the Ministry, and, as I have said, the larger expenditures under the Tory Government—which, I admit without reservation, except the one I have just made, the Tory Government are entitled to regard with some amount of satisfaction—was in great measure the result of the fructification of plans for expansion and development set on foot by the Labour Government. There was a new spirit abroad in this country.

The noble Viscount, the Lord President of the Council, used some other figures which have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Darwen. He compared the rate of increase in expenditure on education between 1930 and the outbreak of war, where there was a percentage grant, and that on public health, in respect of which there was no percentage grant. The comparison, of course, is not entirely valid because the cost of the two services was governed by various factors, of which the percentage grant was only one. But taking the figures for 1930–31 and 1938–39 given in the return published by the then Minister of Health, entitled Local Government Financial Statistics, we find that the 15 total increase in expenditure was 21.7 per cent. The increase on education, elementary and higher, was 14.9 per cent., not 16 per cent. as stated by the noble Viscount, although I concede that it was an understatement by him, rather than an overstatement.

On public health, excluding hospitals, there was an increase of 36.4 per cent., not 40 per cent., as stated by the noble Viscount; but he left entirely out of account the fact that during that period, accounting for a considerable measure of the percentage fall of expenditure on education, the school population fell by 10 per cent. while the total population—the population using the public health services, rose by 4 per cent. Moreover, the average salary per teacher was almost constant during that period, and teachers' salaries of course, constitute the largest element in educational expenditure. The increase in public health expenditure was due to a very large extent—not wholly, but to a large extent—to the absorption of the Poor Law services by local authorities. So it will be seen, I submit, that the figures used by the noble Viscount and the deductions made by him from them are in a considerable measure and to a disabling degree fallacious.

We oppose this Bill and seek to take education out of the block grant and to retain it on a percentage grant basis. because we, and a large volume of informed and experienced opinion, take the view that the result of placing education within the block grant will be to restrict its development and hamper its expansion, with serious long-term consequences for the children and the adolescents of this country. It is a step which we in our view feel that the nation cannot afford to take. Accordingly I support the Amendment.

LORD CHORLEY

I also should like to support the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Darwen moved so ably. In doing so I desire to make some remarks of a rather general character which may perhaps have been more appropriate on the Second Reading of this Bill, but unfortunately I was not able to attend the Second Reading owing to absence abroad on business of a more or less semi-national character. Apart 16 from that, I would certainly have made these observations on that occasion.

It seems to me that the whole of this proposal to substitute what my noble friend Lord Latham has very properly said is essentially a block grant (in spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said on the Second Reading) for the percentage grant is an altogether retrograde step on the part of the Government. The percentage grant system has been tried out over a long time, and I think it has been the general opinion of all those who have studied local authority matters that it has stimulated and assisted the progressive local authorities to get on with the job of carrying out what is very largely, in most of these cases, national policy. The block grant, on the other hand, has always been used —and it seems to me that it is really quite dishonest to pretend that it has not—when the object of the Central Government has been to economise and cut down on expenditure. Surely that is, in fact, the whole object of these present proposals. If it had not been for the financial difficulties—which nobody would pretend were not serious—we should not have been confronted with these proposals at all; and it seems to me that the suggestion which has been made, that this change has nothing to do with the economic difficulties but is a good thing in itself, is really just dishonest.

However, whether or not there is a case to be made for the use of block grants as opposed to percentage grants in regard to local authority government in general, I feel that education is undoubtedly a field of activity in which this policy is not only mistaken but likely to be thoroughly disastrous. This proposed change is perhaps the most disastrous mistake that the present Government have made since they came into power. I think that anybody, looking around the world to-day and studying the situation of this country in relation to Russia, the United States and other countries, is bound to come to the conclusion that our only chance of our holding our heads above water is by having the best educated people in the world. There is nothing the Government are doing at the present time to ensure that. This substitution of block grants for percentage grants in regard 17 to education is a thoroughly retrograde and disastrous decision for the Government to take.

Those of your Lordships who have been reading a most interesting, instructive and informative book by Mr. Gunther about his recent visit to the U.S.S.R. (it certainly is not a book which is full of praise for what is going on there) cannot have failed to be struck by his observations on the subject of the intense enthusiasm of the Russian people—not only of the Russian Government, but of the Russian people—for education, and on the way that that enthusiasm has been stimulated by the enormous economic resources which the U.S.S.R. Government has been putting into education over these last years. On the technological side this point has been driven home in this country time after time, and not least in your Lordships' House. In fact it has been driven home with such effect, on a number of occasions, that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and other members of Her Majesty's Government accepted the danger of the situation, with the result that considerable financial steps have been taken to step up technological education in this country, with the approbation of everybody concerned.

One only wishes that that effort could have gone a little further, but a really substantial attempt has been made, certainly from the point of view of providing laboratories and workshops and for the material side of technological education, as a result of the changed policy of Her Majesty's Government—a change which resulted from information from the U.S.S.R. on the progress being made there. In that country they are turning out twice the number of engineers that are being turned out in the United States of Arnerica—a most astonishing fact, but one about which there seems to be no doubt at all. This astonishing progress in technological education in the U.S.S.R. is based on a sound foundation of general education in the schools and universities generally, because the Russians appreciate perfectly well that the technologist has to be more than a mere specialist: he has to be well educated from the start. It is here that this Bill seems to me to be letting down education in this country. It is interesting to note that practically all who are engaged in education are unanimous in taking this view. All educational organisations, whether of 18 teachers in elementary schools, in secondary schools or in universities, are protesting against the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this particular matter.

It may be said that it is to the advantage of people who are teaching to have at their disposal as much money as possible; and one appreciates that there is something in that argument and that there may well have to be some other authority which, in given circumstances, has to determine that no more money can be spared. But Her Majesty's Government have not made out that case at all, and it seems most unfortunate that those upon whom the education of our children depends should be given this feeling of frustration as a result of this policy which, at best, is not really going to save a great deal of money. It would be wise if, even at this eleventh hour, Her Majesty's Government were to do what they could perfectly well do—accept this Amendment and cut out education from the destructive effect of this policy.

I should like to finish my observations with a few remarks of a rather more detailed character on the likely effect of this policy on the student population at our universities, which is the side of the matter that particularly interests me, as a university teacher for thirty years. The major part of the financing of students at universities is done by local education authorities. That is an integral part of the whole system and a very large number of boys and girls who are going to our universities, and on whom the future of our country depends, are going to universities on the basis of the grants they receive from local education authorities. It is the experience of everybody in the university world who is concerned with this side of the matter that there is a great deal of difference between local authorities in the way they carry out their duty of providing the finance for boys and girls going to universities. It is no good pretending that in this respect there are not progressive and backward authorities. Time and again the associations of teachers have brought this matter to the notice of the Ministry of Education. I have myself been on delegations-from the Association of University Teachers to the Ministry when officials have made no question at all but that there is this difference between progressive and backward authorities, and have indicated the kind of steps which they 19 would try to take in order to encourage the more backward authorities to carry out what is undoubtedly their duty, that of providing the requisite sums of money for these boys and girls going to universities.

Even under the percentage grant system this has proved an exceedingly difficult task, and it is clear that the Ministry of Education themselves are not satisfied with what has been done. Is it not perfectly clear that under the new system the brake is being applied and that backward authorities will be even more backward in carrying through their duties of providing the necessary maintenance grants for students at universities? The result will be that students will have less and will find it much more difficult to carry on their studies effectively. Probably they will be fewer and the whole tone of the work will be degraded as a result of this policy. So I join with my noble friends in asking Her Majesty's Government to think again before they throw this spanner into the wheels of education by insisting on applying the system of the block grant to educational work.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think any Minister answering at the Box could complain of the care that has been put into the speeches in favour of this Amendment or of the tone in which they have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Darwen, has a special connection with education, and he obviously feels very strongly about it. If he will allow me to say so, I thought he was most generous in regard to imputations which he did not make with regard to the feelings of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. I would ask noble Lords to approach this matter objectively on the basis that we have good reason for our view and a firm belief in the importance of education. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, mentioned his regret that my noble and learned friend the Lord President of the Council was not here to-day. My noble and learned friend is fulfilling a very longstanding engagement to visit a research station, which was made before he had in mind that the House might be meeting on a Monday, and he regrets that he is not here to-day. I hope that he will be here to-morrow when 20 certain educational aspects, at any rate, will be dealt with.

LORD LATHAM

Certainly I understand. My point was that I did not wish it to be thought that I was acting discourteously in controverting the speech of the noble and learned Viscount in his absence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I fully appreciate that, but I wanted the noble Lord to know the reason why my noble and learned friend is not here.

I should like first to deal with some of the specific points that have been raised, then to deal with the more general argument for the line that the Government have taken. The noble Lord, Lord Darwen, gave a quotation from what my right honourable friend had said, and I think that his general point was expressed in the three objections which he made: first of all, that the general grant would cause impaired flexibility; secondly, it was a threat to the partnership of local and national Government; and, thirdly, that under the percentage grant an authority had to find 40 per cent., whereas under the general grant it had to find the whole.

With regard to the first point, on flexibility, I think that the answer to the noble Lord lies in the principles (they are set out in Clause 2 (1)) on which the Minister is to take into account: they are the foundation of the general grant. The noble Lord will remember that these are, first, the latest information as to the level of prices, costs and remuneration; secondly, probable fluctuation in the demand; and, thirdly, the need for developing the services. I point out to the noble Lord that the Minister must take all these points into consideration, and if he does so I find it difficult to see the argument that one is adopting an inflexible method. On the second point—and this is a very important point, which I should like the noble Lord to consider—I could not agree with him more strongly that, in order to have a well functioning State, one must have a real partnership between local and national Government. A great test is whether both, not only national Government but also local government, are healthy.

I put this point to him, and I hope he will consider it, because it is the result 21 of many years of thought on this point: I believe that more important than the financial methods is that the partnership should be between bodies with a reasonable degree of independence, and that the organs of local government ought to be able to stand up and form their views according to their own thoughts. If one puts it, with regard to a specific service, that this is a service where there is a national policy but a local putting into effect of the policy, I still think it is of vital importance that the organisations of local government should be independent and should not be mere agencies of Whitehall.

LORD CHORLEY

Would the noble and learned Viscount go so far as to say that they should be able to ignore national policy? Because if they are independent they are in a position to ignore national policy.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think the noble Lord can have heard what I said. I said that the whole basis of the educational service is a national policy put into effect locally, and that is what they have to do. The noble Lord has made his point, and I will answer it. You must still, in my view, have sufficient independence in order to give your local authorities a true right of choice. They cannot ignore the national policy; it is impossible for them to do so; and in a moment, if the noble Lord will look at the sections of the various Acts to which I shall refer him, he will see that they are prevented from doing that. He is putting an absolutely unreal and impossible situation in endeavouring to hoist me upon the horns of that dilemma. The third point which the noble Lord made was that the percentage is a composite figure of 40 and 60, instead of the authority being able to decide its own figure, on the basis (which is really my answer to the noble Lord. Lord Chorley) that the central Government (a) can say what will be the policy and what will be the standards, and (b) provide sufficient money for these standards, on the principles to which I have referred. I do not think that there is the difficulty which he says there is.

The noble Lord, Lord Latham, dealt with the various figures with great care and skill—and I hope when I use any such adjective it will be understood that there is no irony and that I am trying 22 to deal with the point. I listened very carefully and took down what I could (which is much more difficult when listening) of what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said with regard to the figures, comparing 1949, 1950 and the present year. Let me put it as objectively and as conservatively (with a small "c" and not a large one) as I can. As I understood the figures, making all allowances for automatic increases—that is, increases to compensate for the change in the value of money and for the alteration of certain matters among departments and among authorities—there still was a rise of £95 million, or roughly 33⅓ per cent. That in itself shows that the Government are not neglectful of education—I am trying to put it as mildly as I can. Even if the noble Lord is right (and I am not going to argue old and forgotten strife) that these are due to proposals of his own Party, it still leaves the very considerable answer that the other Party have put them into effect none the less because they are his Party's proposals.

I would also put this point. I am sure that as a master of finance he would agree that we had periods of difficulty, such as last September, which was a period when we had to take stringent measures. if after those stringent measures, and after providing for automatic increases, one still finds an increase of 33⅓ per cent., then I think it shows that one is attaching a high importance to education. The other figures of my noble friend to which he took exception were between-the-war figures. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would agree with me that whether it is 14.9 or 16 or whether it is 40 or 36.9 per cent. is not a material conclusion which we should draw from the matter.

LORD LATHAM

I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount thought so when the figures were used on June 10.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I thought the noble Lord was chiding my noble friend for saying 16 when the real figure was 14.9, and 40 when the real figure was 36.9. I do not think that it affects the point my noble friend was making—namely, that when the percentage grant was operating, education was having difficulty in making the advance which it might have made in competition with other services. I would 23 put to the noble Lord that that is a fair point. It is difficult to assess the exact value of the point without going into all the circumstances over these years, but my noble friend's point that the percentage grant does not ultimately mean that education is to have a better chance than other services is shown, I think, by the quotation of the figures of that period when there were other services with strong claims which made a much greater increase than education. That was my noble friend's point, as I understood it. Again I venture to say that it was not an unreasonable one.

There was one other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. He quoted from a speech my right honourable friend the Minister made some fifteen years ago from the Back Benches, if my memory is right, in which he said that every Minister of Education ought to stand up to the Treasury. I think that that is really the effect of his speech. I respectfully submit to the noble Lord and to the House that in the framing of this Bill my right honourable friend has ensured that the course which he was advocating fifteen years ago will be pursued if these matters are properly taken into account.

Finally, the noble Lord dealt with his own fears about Clause 2 (1) (c). I would only remind him of the wording of the clause. In fixing the annual aggregate amount to be prescribed under the foregoing section the Minister shall take into consideration— (c) the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop those services. The point which I put to the noble Lord is that it is mandatory that the Minister must consider the need. Of course, he must also consider the extent to which, having regard to the general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop these services. So long as it is made mandatory that he must consider the need, I should have thought that in deciding beyond what is necessary and what is desirable every Minister—indeed everyone who had a position like the noble Lord on a great local authority—would have to consider the general economic conditions. Therefore, I suggest—I hope I have done it with the greatest desire to try to meet the noble 24 Lord's points—there is not the same reason for him to worry as he thought.

LORD LATHAM

Surely the noble and learned Viscount would accept the proposition that it may be mandatory to consider but it is not mandatory to accept that there is a need. The Minister can reject the claim that there is a need.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Of course, that is so. It is mandatory that he must consider. The Minister can be either right or wrong as a result of his considering. If he is right, cadit quœstio. If he is wrong, then another place is there to exercise Parliamentary control. But what is important is that he must consider the need; and I think that, in this year of grace, to impute that any Minister of any Party, if he considers that there is need, will not take the steps open to him, is out of date and belongs to a period of Party difference which happily has departed.

LORD LATHAM

I am not imputing improper motives to any person. I did not pray in aid that paragraph; the noble and learned Viscount the Lord President of the Council did so, and I ventured to criticise its terms. It is not mandatory.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think that there is any difference between the noble Lord and myself about the interpretation. I say that it is mandatory as it forces the Minister to consider, and I say, for reasons which I will develop in a moment, that it is inconceivable, if he considers that there is a need, that he should not carry it out.

On the general point that the Government have proposed a general grant because they consider it to be, first, a much better basis than the percentage grant system which gave financial assistance from the Exchequer towards local authority services, and secondly, because it is far more in accord with our general aim of increasing the responsibility of local authorities in managing their own affairs, I would say that here I do not think that there will be a great difference between the noble Lords, Lord Darwen and Lord Latham, and myself, because I think that both are seized with the importance of local government. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, would, I believe, take a different view. From his interjection I think that he would still go 25 back to what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said in 1935: that local authorities ought to be the instruments of the central Government and of the Party who constitute that Government. That is a view with which I disagree, and the whole basis of the Government's position—

LORD CHORLEY

I disagreed with the word "independent" which I thought went too far. I do not say that they are the mere servants of the central authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am glad to hear that. Then the difference between us is a matter of degree and not of kind. But we strongly believe that the aim should be to increase the responsibility of local authorities in managing their own affairs. I am not going into that matter in detail again, because it is a point that I developed in placing the Bill before your Lordships at the Second Reading; but we say, consistently with that view, that all the existing grants which satisfy the conditions requisite for inclusion in a general grant system are to be included. May I remind the Committee of the three conditions which. I suggested should be fulfilled? The first was that the service should be one which extends to the whole country on a reasonably uniform basis. The second was that the need for expenditure on the service should be capable of being reasonably reflected in objective features, such as population and the number of persons benefiting, and in physical features such as density and sparsity. The third was that the service should be one in which there is real room for local discretion and initiative in administration within the framework of any national plan or policy. I believe that the education service satisfies these requirements.

The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, stressed the importance of education; and there is no difference between any of us on that point. He also stressed the importance of technological and scientific education; and again there is no difference between us. The noble Lord was good enough to say that the Government had taken great steps—of course, it is always possible to suggest that they could have done more—in that direction. The third point he made was with regard to the importance of seeing that we are not outstripped by 26 scientific and technological education in the Soviet Union. Again, I entirely agree. There is no reason why the noble Lord should know, but I have often before made his fourth point: that you cannot leave scientists out on a limb; that they have to be, as he said, well educated and understanding of general problems as well. I assure the noble Lord that on all these points there is no difference between us. If I remind him of what the Government have done—for example, the introduction of the three-year training period for teachers, with which I am sure he will agree; the expansion of technological education and many other improvements that have been carried out—I do not think he can find a basis for saying that we desire to drag our feet. My colleagues have stated repeatedly that the Government are determined that the development of the education service necessary for our national wellbeing shall go ahead; they have undertaken that the Exchequer will make a contribution to the cost of this development; and if any further assurance is necessary, I give it now.

If there are fears for the future of the education service, once it is granted that the Government will keep their side of the bargain by making an adequate allowance in the general grant for the cost of the service, they must rest on apprehension that the local education authorities will not act with a sense of responsibility in devoting a proper share of the funds available to them to education. I do not think that that is a fair and reasonable apprehension; and I should not have thought that most noble Lords who have direct experience in the working of local government would subscribe to that view. I said that I would remind the noble Lord of the possible correctives—and I think I mentioned them on Second Reading. If any local education authority should be tempted to act in this way, the Minister of Education has powers under the Education Acts to deal with default under these Acts; and he will have new powers under Clause 3 of the Bill to act if the authority fails to maintain the necessary standards.

In any case, it is surely essential to our proposal for a comprehensive reform of local government and a strengthening of its fabric that authorities should have more responsibility for allocation of their financial resources between services; and 27 surely it is good democracy that problems of this kind should be the subject of lively and informed debate in local authorities. as well as in this building.

I come now to a deeper point, which I would ask noble Lords to have in mind. I respectfully suggest that those who are apprehensive about the future of the education service under the general grant are misunderstanding what are the real springs of progress in education, as in every other service. We have had great advances in education in recent years under the percentage grant. As I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Latham—and I want to make the point with the greatest fairness—we had a percentage grant between the wars. I would put it in this way: that progress was not as rapid. because, as I ventured to put to the noble Lord, of the competition of other services that in those conditions—and I do not blame or praise anyone—had a greater competitive power. But we are living in 1958, and it is the climate of public opinion which determines the rate of progress through the influences which it exerts, both nationally and locally, and the support it is prepared to give to further advances. I think one of the most cheering things about our time is that we have a more vigorous public interest in education than ever before—I am sure that that will be agreed, times of controversy apart, by any Member of Parliament or member of a local authority, and I should hope beyond that. I have not the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, of students, but, as he knows, I have various connections with various universities, and, broadly. I find no discontent from the students, of whom I see a great number, on the working and the support of grants from local authorities.

Therefore I feel that we have come to a time when public opinion, quite irrespective of Party, is strongly in support of educational advancement; and I am sure that in that state of things the cause of education will not go by default, and can be sustained along with the cause of greater freedom and responsibility for local authorities, both of which, I suggest, are important measures that we have in the body politic to-day. I have tried to put my reply in the form which accepts the value of the basis of the arguments, and I hope noble Lords will find 28 that, in those circumstances, it is unnecessary to alter this Bill on one of its cardinal points.

LORD DARWEN

Before the noble and learned Viscount sits down, may I remind him of one thing? I do not feel that he quite answered my third point, and I wonder whether he really took it. It is that the block grant system encourages skimping, because in effect the authority which perhaps is not very devoted to the cause of education—we all agree that there are these differences as between one authority and another—is in a position where it can say: "We will not use any of the rates, but will simply use the money allocated to us by the Government."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry if I did not make my answer clear. The answer is really twofold: one is the maintenance of standards and the sanctions that are behind that; and the noble Lord may remember that I developed that point rather more fully in my Second Reading speech. The second part of the answer (here he may think I am too optimistic, but I have great faith in my countrymen) is the climate of opinion. I believe that to-day we can got that enthusiasm for education and learning in a way we have not been able to do for many hundreds of years. I hope the noble Lord. whatever he thinks of my powers of argument, may, on reflection, share my enthusiasm.

LORD CHORLEY

May I say I think the noble and learned Viscount is judging some districts of England from the point of view of his own country. Scotland, where there has always been a greater enthusiasm for education. I daresay that the local authorities in Scotland can be trusted, but there are some parts of England where, I am sorry to say, they cannot.

LORD LATHAM

Is not the noble and learned Viscount making too much of this point of the climate? I and others in this House remember the climate which followed the Fisher Act of 1918, how it was desirable to have expansion and development of the educational services; yet within two or three years economy measures were being exercised and all the climate of opinion associated with Fisher and his Act disappeared.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is not very profitable to put too much emphasis on the past. May I give this answer, which occurs to me at once? The Fisher Act was passed in 1918. Troubles occurred in 1921 and 1922. I am not going to embark on a defence of the Coalition Government at that time. I would only point out that the Act of 1944 (curiously enough I am one of the very few Members of this House here at the moment who was a member of the Government which passed that Act) has gone on for fourteen years, and I do stress the point which I made to the noble Lord earlier: that, with all the difficulties we had last September, education still continues to make the advance which his own figures admit. I have been studiously moderate in all the points I have made, and I know that no noble Lord will hold my moderation against me. I think that is a partial answer. But I think the much deeper answer to the noble Lord is the fact that we are just going over the threshold into this new scientific world, with a new industrial revolution occurring round us; and in those circumstances I believe that the popular imagination may be trusted to hold and to continue its pressure in the direction which I certainly think is right.

LORD SILKIN

We have listened carefully, as we always do, to the moderate way in which the noble and learned Viscount has put his case, but I think we can assume that the case he put is the strongest possible case that can be made for the block grant, and so we have the authoritative voice of the block grant put to us this afternoon. The noble and learned Viscount asked us to accept two propositions: first, that the Government had good reasons for their views, and secondly, that they had a firm belief in the importance of education. I readily concede both. But I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount in exchange to agree that we have equally good reasons—perhaps "equally" is not the right word, but we have good reasons—which are in our view as strong for taking the view that the block grant is a fundamental mistake and that it is against the interests of education, and that we have at least as firm a belief as the Government in the importance of education. If we can start the discussion 30 with the mutual acceptance of those two propositions, then I think we can carry the matter at little further.

I would perhaps put forward a third proposition, which I hope the noble and learned Viscount would accept; that is, that the percentage grant system has worked and the onus of proving that any change is desirable is on those who want to make the change. I would make my remarks on the basis that the Government have not discharged that onus. I will take the reasons which the noble and learned Viscount put forward for making the change. I think he has to show that the change is desirable for certain reasons, and I would ask him: Has education suffered as the result of the percentage grant? Has expenditure been extravagant? Could better use have been made of the money?

Nobody—neither the noble and learned Viscount, nor anybody else—has suggested that education has suffered because of the percentage grant. I think that possibly the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, supported by the Lord Chancellor, went so far as to say that it is not essential to have a percentage grant in order to get a developing service because other services have progressed much more than education during the relevant period. There may be many reasons why, for instance, the Health Services, or other services with which the comparison is made, have progressed more. The Health Service started from scratch and naturally development was more rapid. One can make that sort of case, but I think—here I would agree with the noble and learned Viscount—that this sort of comparison leads us along paths which can be very distracting, because it is necessary to get an exact analogy, and exact analogies are always very difficult, to draw.

I would base my case on the broad fact that during the period when the percentage grant was in existence we made good progress in education. The education services developed in a satisfactory way and without extravagance. If there had been any case of extravagance on the part of local education authorities which had not been detected by the Government at the time when they were making the grant, I am sure we should have heard of it since. But no single case of inefficiency or extravagance has at any 31 time been put forward by the Government as a justification for withdrawing the percentage grant system. Indeed, in one Report (I am not going to quote it, but I have it here) the Government actually say in terms that they have not been able to discover any case of extravagance. Therefore it is not on account of the defectiveness of the service, it is not on account of extravagance, that the change is being made.

Why is it being made? The noble and learned Viscount put two reasons. The first was that the block grant is a much better method of giving assistance to local authorities. Why? There is much to be said for the block grant in the case of other services; but in education, which comprises 80 per cent. of the total, why is it a much better method of giving assistance? After all, it is a natural thing, it seems to me, if we regard education as a national service administered by the local authorities, but not as agents, that the two parties should get together and consult, and that there should be this partnership in which there is an agreed percentage provided by each of the partners towards the cost. That seems to me a far better and far more reasonable method of giving local authorities assistance on education than the block grant, which is not a grant towards education at all.

Admittedly, it takes into account educational expenditure, but it is not a grant for education; and certainly it is not a better method. I do not think I am doing the noble and learned Viscount an injustice if I say that he really made no attempt to prove that it was a better method; it was an assertion. To deprive local authorities of the advantage of consultation with the Ministry of Education on educational expenditure and development, with all the experience that the Ministry have of similar services and developments being carried out by other authorities, and to leave them virtually to their own resources, except that the Minister will require a minimum service, is not, it seems to me, giving the local authorities a better method of assistance at all. In so far as the case for the second advantage is made out, that it gives them increasing responsibility, I agree that it is giving them greater freedom—but greater freedom to do less than they would do if there were a percentage grant. I would 32 respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Viscount did not make out the case for asserting that it was a much better method of giving assistance to local authorities than the percentage grant.

Furthermore, I think that he must take into account the views of those who are immediately concerned with education. Are they all prejudiced? Are they all speaking without knowledge, without understanding, without any appreciation at all of the point of view of the Government? Have they all misread the Bill? Have they not read subsection (2) of Clause 1? Do they not understand everything that the Minister and the noble and learned Viscount have said about the requirement that the service should not be impaired, and so on? In spite of all that, they are consistently opposed to this method of providing assistance. I must say that that fact impresses me immensely. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will agree that it is not a political objection. It is certainly not made on political grounds, because this opposition comes from all sections of those concerned with education. It is not based on pure suspicion or misunderstanding; it is based on a real and, in our view, justifiable fear that education will suffer because this is not the best method of giving assistance to the local authorities.

The second reason given by the noble and learned Viscount was that it was far more in accord with the increasing responsibility for managing local affairs, that it would give local authorities local discretion and initiative, and would enable them to decide for themselves how the grant should be spent. We are speaking of education. Up to a point I do not want local authorities to have this complete freedom to decide on how this money is to be spent. I want, and the nation wants, an efficient education service; and I do not want this efficient education service to be depreciated, or that it should suffer in order that there should be a better road service, or what you will.

Competition may be a good thing; but where there is a limited amount of money available and conflicting claims for it, you do not necessarily get the best result in the public interest by allowing it to be settled by the chairmen of the various conflicting services. As I said on Second 33 Reading, very often the result is determined by the personality of the individual concerned. I have had experience of this kind of thing. I have sat in a group where we have had to consider expenditure, and where the different chairmen have had to fight out among themselves how the available money should be spent, knowing that if a particular sum is given to one chairman for his committee then somebody else is going to suffer. I do not think that education, at any rate, is going to get the best results by this battle.

While the noble and learned Viscount may claim that this is a democratic way of settling things, I must say that I do not see the democracy in it. It is not the democracy that settles; it is the chairmen of committees, who have been appointed by the leader of the council, not necessarily in a democratic way, who argue it out among themselves—not necessarily on the best possible principles —and arrive at a result which I submit is not always the best one. It depends SO much on the personality of the particular chairman. It also depends on the weight which the local authorities attach to education. One authority may attach a great deal of importance and significance to education, and another less so; and in the case of those who attach less importance, then of course, education will suffer.

So I do not agree that the block grant system is in accord with the increasing responsibility for managing local affairs at all. In my view, this internal battle is not a good thing so far as education is concerned, and it seems to me that education can only suffer from this battle. I fully understand that we are now fighting a hopeless battle here—the Government have fully made up their minds as to what they are going to do, and I suppose it would be hardly credible that at this stage of the Bill they should accept our Amendment. I think all we can do is to put forward our case in the strongest possible way, and put on record the fact that we have the strongest of reasons for the view which we take. This is in no sense a political view. Like the education authorities, we have real apprehensions that the cause of education will suffer as the result of changing over from the percentage grant to the block grant.

I will just say this in conclusion. I have given the Government credit for 34 having good reasons for their views, but I cannot help thinking that one of the good reasons—and it may be a perfectly good reason, from their point of view—is that this system will save money; that at the end of the day the amount which they will have to provide to the local authorities by this means will be less than they would have had to provide if the percentage grant had been in existence. I do not say that I would condemn even that out of hand; I have no objection to saving money in a proper way. But I feel that this reduction in expenditure will be at the expense of education. It is for that reason that my friends and I consider that we should press this Amendment, and press it, if necessary—as I imagine it will be—to a Division.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I have listened to this discussion which has ranged over a very wide field of educational aspirations and ideals, but it comes down in the end purely to a question of finance. This is a proposal for a new system of Government grants towards education and other services, and there are two fundamental questions which arise. The one is what will be the aggregate amount which the State provides for this purpose: will it be more or less than otherwise would have been provided if the percentage grant system had continued? That, I agree, is a question which it is very difficult to answer, because there is no standard of any kind laid down in this Bill by which one can ascertain for the future what the aggregate amount to be provided is. It is true that the Bill says that the Minister must give consideration to this question, and, in giving consideration to it, he has to take into account certain specified factors; but that is all. It becomes a matter of judgment upon the part of the Minister what the aggregate amount of the general grant is to be. That is the one consideration.

The other consideration is how the grant will be apportioned among the recipient local authorities, and how that apportionment will compare with the apportionment which would have taken place under the percentage grant system. Now, as far as that is concerned, I have thought about this problem for many years, and I am not certain that the apportionment which is made under the percentage grant system is an equitable 35 one, because the percentage grant involves, broadly speaking, that those authorities that desire to spend most will get the largest contribution from the State. But the desire to spend is regulated, to some extent at any rate, by the resources which are available to the local authority. Those, of course, vary very considerably between one local authority and another, for some have relatively much higher rateable values per head of population than others. So it is true, I think, that the percentage grant system will tend to benefit those local authorities who have the largest rateable values per head at their disposal.

I can conceive that a general grant system can be worked out under which the grant to the local authority will be based upon an estimate of what is the reasonable cost of, let us say, educating each child, or each child in a certain age group, because the cost of education is not uniform for every child; it depends upon the age of the child and the kind of education, and many other factors. It is conceivable that some calculation of that kind is intended under this Bill, but the noble and learned Viscount has certainly not indicated that in any way whatever. If that were to be the policy I could conceive that a figure could be worked out which would be advantageous to the poorer local authorities and which would encourage the development of education in districts which at present may find themselves handicapped by their relatively low rateable values.

This, of course, is trespassing to a certain extent upon the First Schedule to the Bill, which contains more detail of the procedure by which the general grant is to be calculated; but I think it would be very desirable, and might allay a considerable amount of anxiety, if there were a specific statement in the Bill that a grant would be made for education based upon a figure which would be named expressly as being the estimated reasonable cost of educating each child, and that the grant would be based upon the number of children requiring such education in the district of each local education authority. At the present moment the Bill is expressed in extremely vague terms, and I am not surprised that many local education authorities have felt somewhat anxious about it.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, might I say a word? My noble friend who has just spoken approaches this matter, as always, with a very calm mind, and with the approach of the expert accountant. He has made an excellent speech for drawing attention to an important point. My noble friend who has spoken from the Front Bench this afternoon and the noble Lord who has just sat down, have long experience of local authority and educational authority work and management, whereas I was merely a humble servant of a local authority for twenty-odd years, but I have always followed the processes and changes which have taken place since the days of the old Education Department, right through the Board and on to the Ministry.

I have just been checking my memory with my friends, and it seems to me that the statements made by the noble Lords, Lord Latham and Lord Silkin, are unanswerable as to what the effect is in this matter. The point, which appeared to be a very sound financial point, that my noble friend, Lord Douglas of Barloch, made is this: that there is not the handicap to the low rateable value authority that one would think, under the process of the percentage grant, because the formula which is put into operation by the Ministry, in recommending to the Treasury what the percentage grant shall be, is subject to an actual deduction—so much in the £ for every overall increase in the rateable value, the product of the rate. It seems to me, therefore, that we have to keep especially in mind—and here I speak frankly from a Party point of view—what is the view of my own Party on education and how it should be developed.

We are not anxious for this or that particular area; we are anxious that there should be equality of opportunity for children in whatever area they are born, domiciled or brought up, and that that should not be subject to the whims and fancies of a particular section or a given time of representation on a local authority. It should be the policy of any Government, of any Party, to see that their general, overall educational policy is such that there is equality of opportunity for all children. That is why we think that the use of the percentage grant, 37 to come behind well based and well planned expansion by the local authority, is the better way to deal with it. If they are prepared to pay from local resources an extra contribution for expansion, they ought to be entitled, under the surveillance of some Ministry, to whatever grant can be paid in relation to their efforts for that expansion of education which alone can secure the ultimate efficiency and prosperity of our country as well as the happiness of the individual.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has made that interjection, because I feel it brings us down to the fundamental difference between us, which I am glad to think in this instance is not one on which we need assail each other's sincerity, but one on which we may well differ—as it is proper that Parties should differ—as to the methods by which we reach the objective we both want. I apologise to the Committee for not repeating to-day the reasons why I suggested that the general grant was better, because I had developed them at considerable length on Second Reading. Perhaps I may give noble Lords the references to them and deal with them very shortly. I dealt with this first point in the OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 209 (No. 73), col. 624, and with the point which most interested the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in the succeeding column, No. 625.

I put two points on which is the better system. If the amount which the local authority get from Her Majesty's Government depends on how much they themselves spend, we do not get that objectivity in decision which is what is wanted. The other is the point developed by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, very interestingly—the question of doing equity between large and small authorities. There is a danger—and it is for us to estimate the importance of the danger—that in the case of a small authority, afraid of the consequential burden on their rates, that amount—even after allowance is made for what the authority receives in the percentage grant—may dissuade the authority from worth-while expenditure. Again I am putting it quite shortly, but I should like the noble Lord to know that it was not through want of consideration that I did not deal to-day 38 with that point, which I endeavoured to develop on Second Reading.

The next point which I thought was of importance was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with regard to consultation. The noble Lord said that it would be very bad if local authorities were deprived of consultation with the Minister. This is rather trespassing on the next Amendment, but may I just explain the procedure for arriving at the amount of the general grant? The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have already issued a circular (Circular No. 34/58) which the noble Lord may have seen. This circular lays clown the procedure, under which the next stage of consultation is that the Departments concerned with the various services will issue a further request to authorities to deal with all the points, which I am afraid I have already elaborated in two speeches: information, prospective increases and so on.

The result of bringing the general grant into operation, therefore—and I believe this is important—will be to provide the Department concerned with the information. For example, the Ministry of Education sent out their circular, asking for full information, on June 16 last—though it is, of course, subject to the Bill's passage through this House—in order that there should be no delay before the first-year arrangements come into operation. So the result of the initiation of the general grant will be to give the Departments special and full information in regard to the matter, after which there can be the consultations which will always take place. That is a purely practical point which I believe will have its effect.

The only other point made by the noble Lord, perfectly fairly, was the question of those interested in education, especially education committees, to which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, referred. I believe it is significant, though again I do not want to put too much on it, that those who have devoted so much of their lives to local government in the local government associations have not shared that objection. I have been studiously moderate, I believe, in using every piece of information this afternoon—at least, I have tried to be. But I feel it is a significant point and one which rather harks back to the need for objectivity, which I mentioned earlier. The noble Lord has rightly said that this is a point 39 of division between us. I understand that he will require to take this Amendment to a Division, but despite that fact, I felt it my duty to give as full an answer as possible on the point, and that is why I

LORD HYLTON

I rise to support my noble friend on this point. This circular which has been received gives rise to formidable practical difficulties. As my noble friend has said, and as is well known to all noble Lords who are members of local government bodies, this budgeting process is a difficult and protracted business. My noble friend has said that it takes about four months in his county. The present proposition, as he said, is that by August 15 estimates for two and a half years have to be produced. That has this disadvantage, however. County councils, and no doubt other local government bodies also, normally meet early in July, and in my opinion these figures could not possibly be ready by early July. Yet if they are not presented to the full meeting of the council early in July, they cannot be presented until the first quarterly meeting, which is usually held early in October. Of course, it would be possible to call a special meeting of county councils, borough councils or other councils, but such a meeting would not he likely to be particularly effective if it were called in the month of August when 44 many small local authorities "shut up shop": they go away, and all the officials go away, too. This is a matter of considerable difficulty from the practical point of view.

There is a further disadvantage which my noble friend did not mention. The Minister is able to take into account what are called unforeseen increases during the period these estimates run; but I have great doubt (the noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong) whether the Minister could say that a substantial miscalculation in the estimates was an unforeseen increase. An unforeseen increase is one of those things to which my noble friend referred—namely, an increase caused by higher wages, prices and so on—and surely a mistake in estimates could not come under that heading. The Minister, therefore, is unable to deal with any mistake that may be made in this sort of blanket "estimate over a period of two and a half years. I do ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to give careful thought to this matter between now and the Report stage, because it is one that is worrying many local authorities.

LORD MILVERTON

Perhaps I may intervene for a moment just to correct the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, on one point. I understood him to say that the Association of Municipal Corporations support the terms of this Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

No; I did not mean to convey that. What I said was that they accepted the broad principle of the Bill. I have not heard that the Association of Municipal Corporations are against this Amendment, but on the oth