§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI desire, in a few sentences, to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Education some questions in regard to the release of children from school who are under a statutory obligation to attend school. I should like to remind the Committee of the history of this question in the House of Commons. Very soon—a week or two—after the outbreak of the War in 1914 demands were made in this House for the release of children of school age to help, particularly in the work of agriculture.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAnd a very good thing too!
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEThe right hon. Baronet says, "And a very good thing too." He is consistent, because he has always opposed in this House any legislation to restrict the labour of children. He is taking the same attitude that he took in regard to legislation for the protection of children trading in the streets. From the first there was opposition in the House to the withdrawal of children of school age from school. I want the Committee to remember that I am speaking, not of the children who may legally leave school, but of the children who are under a statutory obligation to attend school, in compliance with the law passed for their express protection. The Committee knows that the Government to some extent gave way, and said that in cases of proved necessity, and under certain rigid conditions, the statutory law would. not be insisted upon, and no obstacle would be placed in the way of the local authority granting exception for special purposes at an age somewhat earlier than the legal age for leaving school. Many of us heard that decision with extreme apprehension. I think our fears are now proved to have 1276 been justified, because education authorities all over the country have been availing themselves of this concession—if that is a right word to use!—and great numbers of children have been withdrawn from school for the purpose of work in various industries in the country. I think we are entitled to have fuller information than has yet been given us in regard to the extent of the withdrawal of these children from school.
Mr. RUTHERFORDOn a point of Order. We are now discussing a Vote about the law courts in Scotland and the hon. Member is talking about children going to school?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Question before the Committee at present is the general one on the whole number of Votes that are set down on the Paper. So far as the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) is concerned, he is not out of order. I will endeavour to keep the discussion as closely as possible to the point.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI am, if I may say so, dealing with a question of administration that properly falls within these general purposes.
§ Sir J. D. REESWhat is the Vote?
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEThe Education Vote.
§ Sir J. D. REESWhat number?
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEThe hon. Baronet will be able to see the number for himself by referring to the Paper which has been issued. I am sorry I have not it with me, or I would give him the number of the Vote.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI presume it is Vote I. of Class 4 on which the hon. Member bases his remarks.
Mr. RUTHERFORDOn a point of Order. An hon. Member moved a Reduction, but it was not put, and if that is so, of course it would be on Vote I.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAs I said before, the Question before the Committee is a general one covering all the Votes which are in the Vote of Credit, and it is entirely at the option of hon. Members when they are called upon to move a Reduction or not as they like. I have called upon hon. Members, so far as possible, in the order in which their names appear on 1277 the Paper. It is, of course, open to any Member to speak on any topic covered by this Vote of Credit.
§ Mr. CURRIEWith the greatest deference, on the same point of Order. Did you notice, Mr. Maclean, that I had given notice of Motion in regard to No. 12, which I should have supposed came immediately after No. 11?
Mr. RUTHERFORDMight I just call your attention to this, Mr. Maclean? It has already been laid down from the Chair that it is not possible to go back. I think it was laid down as long as twenty-five years ago that, in order to secure something like continuity of the different subjects even on a Vote of Credit, it is not possible to travel right back to anything you like on the whole series of matters.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a point of Order. Is it the case that an hon. Member secures priority by putting a notice on the Paper? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI will take the last point of Order first. It is a method of convenience, in order to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that Hon. Members desire to take part in the discussion, for hon. Members to put their names down, but it does not by any means secure them any right of priority. With regard to the other point, it is not the duty of the Chairman to call an hon. Member's attention to the fact that he has intimated a desire to take part in the discussion. He ought to have risen, but he did not rise, and I called upon the hon. Member who caught my eye. I regret that it is not possible to go back. We must take the position in which the Committee finds the discussion and proceed from that.
§ Mr. CURRIEI endeavoured to rise, "but I thought you had some reason for calling upon the hon. Member. I began to rise, but did not fully rise, I admit.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOne often notices physical motions of that kind, but one does not always associate them with a desire to catch the eye of the Chairman. I am sorry I did not see the hon. Member.
Mr. RUTHERFORDBefore we leave the matter of order, might I ask, for the convenience of the Committee, to what point we have got?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANClass IV., Vote 1.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI should not like to make any extended demand upon the patience of hon. Members. There will be plenty of time for other points to be raised, if it is in order to raise them. When I was interrupted by these very numerous points of order, I was about to say that the very last thing in my mind was to charge the Board of Education, either the representatives of the Board in this House or the permanent officials of the Board, with any lack of sympathy or any lack of interest in this great question. I am quite sure, from the replies that have been given in this House, from the statements that have been made to deputations which have waited upon the Board of Education, that the Board is fully sympathetic towards this question and fully realises the great importance of it. I only regret that the Board of Education has not a free hand in this matter, but is controlled to a large extent by other Departments and cannot wholly act upon the merits of the case. But I think we are entitled from the Board to more information, and I want this afternoon to ask my right hon. Friend if he will now give us the statistics relating to the children who have been released from the elementary schools who are under a statutory obligation to attend school.
I should like to ask also whether, in addition to giving us the total number of exemptions, he could also give us more detailed information with regard to the respective ages at which children have been released from school. Some, for instance, have been released at so early an age as eleven years, some at twelve, and some at thirteen. I hope my right hon. Friend can give us detailed information, not only as to the total number of children exempted, but the ages of the children who have been exempted. Then I want also to ask for a statement as to the present policy of the Board in this matter. I want to ask what safeguard the Board insists upon when children are exempted. I want to ask whether local education authorities obtain permission from the Board of Education before they disregard the statutory law, and I want to ask whether any education authorities have exempted children of school age without the permission of the Board or in defiance of the opinion of the Board; and I would venture to suggest that it would be a helpful thing if the 1279 Board would issue some account of the correspondence which has taken place on this matter with the local education authorities, showing the views they have expressed and the conditions they have tried to lay down in the interests of the children.
I want to ask the Committee to think for a moment if they will see how important this problem is. When the House of Commons in years past has been discussing any great question of social reform, or any great social problem, it has repeatedly been brought up against the fact that the problem which it is discussing was due to the absence of education, or to a faulty and inadequate system of education, and during long years the State has built up a system of education which is still very incomplete, still very partial, still very inadequate, and in a few weeks all that system, inadequate as it was, is swept away—the greater part of the safeguards erected for these children are swept away, and that creates a very great problem for the future. In five, six, seven, or eight years we shall have a generation who will have been taken from schools when they were still infants, who will grow up into men and women uneducated, and deteriorated in many ways, mentally, physically, morally, by reason of the fact that at the age of eleven or twelve or thirteen years they were withdrawn from all educational influence and care. For I would ask the Committee to observe that this is not a temporary matter. The children who were withdrawn in August or September of 1914 have not gone back to school. If they were then twelve years of age they are now approaching the age, or have perhaps have exceeded the age, when they were under any statutory obligation to attend school, and the interruption to their education, which was represented eighteen months ago as a temporary interruption, is now in the vast majority of cases a permanent interruption. Therefore, we are creating for ourselves by this policy a vast social problem for the future. I decline to believe that the resources of this country have reached such a state that it is necessary to adopt this policy, and to release children at the elementary schools for various forms of industrial work. If there were a serious shortage demanding the labour of infants I cannot understand why the secondary schools are not first raided, for obviously 1280 children of secondary schools have been longer at school than children at elementary schools, and, therefore, though I should equally deplore it in that case, it would be less of an evil to take older children between the ages, roughly, of fourteen and sixteen or seventeen than to take these children at the elementary schools, whose ages are less than fourteen, and sometimes some years less than fourteen.
One other piece of information I would like to ask for, if I am not making too great a demand upon the patience of my right hon. Friend, is as to the occupations to which these children have gone, because the agricultural industry is not the only industry that has claimed these children. Factories of various kinds have claimed them also, and many local education authorities have not restricted the use of these children for the purpose of agricultural employment. I hope, too, we may hear whether, in the case of those children who have permanently left school whilst under the statutory age, any scheme of further educational care has been developed by the Board of Education, and to what extent it has been put into operation. Finally, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will receive with sympathy—I feel sure he will, from all he has said in the past—the inquiries and the recommendations of a committee of persons interested in child-life and education, who are inquiring into this matter, and who desire to co-operate with the Board of Education in solving this problem, and in putting before him various; suggestions to meet what, I am sure he will acknowledge, is a very serious problem?
§ Sir J. D. REESI do not want to delay this Vote, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he is replying to his hon. Friend behind him, if he will take due note of the fact, and give some explanation, why it is that the very class of children who have enjoyed all those advantages on which the hon. Gentleman expatiated, and the loss of which he described as such a disaster to the country, is the class above all others which has not shown up well in the present crisis and has produced those younger men who have shown want of proper patriotism in going to fight for their country. Rather than dwell on what the hon. Gentleman said, with which I express myself in the 1281 utmost disagreement, the occasion of this Vote should be taken to impress on the Board of Education that their methods should be entirely altered, that patriotism should be one of the chief things taught in the schools, and that not so much the right as the duty, and the necessity to live for that duty, should be made the main object of the public education of the country.
§ Colonel YATEI appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply to this discussion not to interfere in any way with the discretion of the local education authorities in permitting children to be released from school for agricultural employment. In Norway the whole of the schools are closed during the summer when agricultural pursuits are in operation, and I think we might well take a lead from them. I ask that full discretion may be given to these local authorities to permit children to go in the summer and work in agriculture. It improves their health, both physically and morally, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to the demands made by the hon. Member opposite who spoke last, but will allow these children to be employed in this way.
§ Sir JAMES YOXALLThe hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the practice in the Scandinavian schools, but may I point out that those children attend school during the long winter months to a much later age than is the case in this country? A very one-sided case has been put before the Committee by the hon. Member who has just sat down. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), I heard his few remarks with amazement, if not with dismay. They are remarks which are founded upon anything but the facts of the case, and they draw attention entirely to a small section of the population in one or two parts of the country alone. The hon. Member omitted to refer to the fact that the great bulk of the volunteers to the Army and Navy, amounting to nearly 6,000,000, were drawn from the very class who have passed through the very schools which the hon. Member condemns. A more unfair inference could not be drawn from the actual facts by any hon. Member professing to have any knowledge upon the subject. The hon. Member for East Nottingham further stated that the falterers came from one class of the population. Does the hon. Member not know that the tribunals are considering cases of exemp- 1282 tion from all classes of the population, and is he not aware from the experience of those tribunals that some of the most trivial excuses come from the classes whom the hon. Member presumes to defend in this House?
§ Sir J. D. REESThe hon. Member is taking very great pains to demolish propositions put up by himself, but he is referring to things that have nothing whatever to do with what I said. Class refers to age, those maturing at a given time for military duty.
§ Sir J. YOXALLThe hon. Member's remark applied to the class of population whose children went to these schools, and his argument was that the schools in question required to be revised and checked, and if he did not say that, then his remarks had no bearing whatever on the question. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) that there is very small fault indeed to be found with the action of the Board of Education on this matter. I agree that the Board of Education under difficult circumstances have done the best they could, and they have restricted within most reasonable limits the withdrawal of children from school. The hon. Member opposite expressed the hope that there will be no interference with the powers of local educational authorities in this matter. I think that many of the education authorities in some of the rural districts have shown a most short sighted attitude, and in many cases they have been sacrificing by their action the future interests of the children. It has been proved that if the farmers cared to employ adult labour they could obtain it, and it has been shown to be the case by the Agricultural Labourers Union, and by other bodies associated with agriculture, that if the farmers care to pay a fair rate of wage they can obtain labour, but in order to save a few shillings out of the enormous revenue they are reaping during the War, they ask for the labour of children between eleven and eleven and a half years of age who have to leave school, not during the summer only as has been stated, but in some cases all the year round. That is what hon. Members are asking should be permitted to go on without interference. I only wish the Board of Education had greater powers to restrict that sort of thing, and I wish they had been stricter 1283 in the matter than they have been. I fully recognise the difficulty, and I do not wish to be unreasonable.
In these times I know we must all make sacrifices. I do not wish to lay any very great stress upon this matter. I only rose to reply to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member opposite. With regard to this question of exemptions from school by the local education authorities I think it is desirable to say a few words in a strong and pointed manner. There were 12,000 male teachers from public elementary schools now serving with His Majesty's Forces. Since the Derby scheme and the Military Service Act came into operation the number has been increased to over 20,000, and their places have had to be filled by makeshift teachers. Already I have had brought to my notice the loss educationally which has been caused by the absence of those teachers, particularly among the boys. I would ask my right hon. Friend to see that everything that can be properly and reasonably done is done to maintain in each boys' school at least one male teacher, and in the larger schools more than one, in order that the influence which male teachers exercise upon the boys in the school may not be entirely lost. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will listen to my appeal. It is not merely a question of these lads losing educational benefits for one and a half or two years, but it affects the whole of their school life. Although you may bring in women and makeshift teachers to take the place of the male teachers serving with the Colours, they cannot bring to bear on the boys the same influence which men alone can do. I have carefully watched the employment of girl teachers in boys' schools, and it succeeds up to a certain age, but beyond that age you want the masculine mind, with its natural kinship and mode of understanding the boys, just as you require women teachers for the girls. You cannot give to the boys the proper teaching they ought to have by a makeshift teacher of another sex. Therefore this is a most important matter for the Board of Education to consider. You should not allow the exemption of the children unduly from the schools, and you have also to remember the effect of the absence of the male teachers from the schools upon the boys who remain in the schools.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis)This Debate has come upon me like a bolt from the blue, because neither from my hon. Friend who spoke first or from any other speaker had I any notice whatever of the raising of these questions until this Debate had actually begun. A few questions have been addressed to me, and I shall do my best to answer them with the materials which I have been able to obtain at practically a few minutes' notice. My hon. Friend who initiated this Debate argued that practically no children should be exempted from attendance for the purpose of entering upon agricultural or other labour. The hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate), on the other hand, urged that all local authorities should be granted a perfectly free hand in this matter. It is really unnecessary for me to enter into a debate upon this particular question, because Parliament has already carefully considered the matter, and the lines upon which exemption is to be granted were laid down, with the consent of both parties, by the Prime Minister, and all that I have to say in the matter is that so far as the Board of Education is concerned it has done its very utmost to keep the local education authorities to the lines definitely agreed upon and laid down in Parliament by the Prime Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] In March of last year. To the extent of the powers we possess we have acted in accordance with the spirit of the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister. I have been asked how many children of school age have been withdrawn from school, and also to give as detailed particulars as possible of the children who have been withdrawn between various ages. A Parliamentary Paper has been published, which I hope will be in the hands of hon. Members tomorrow morning, which will give in detail the information for which my hon. Friend has asked. Perhaps I may be allowed to summarise it by saying that the number of boys between 11 and 12 years of age who have been withdrawn throughout the whole of the country is 143, and the number of girls is 1. In the case of those between 12 and 13 years of age the number of boys withdrawn is 4,208, and the number of girls 13; between 13 and 14 years of age, boys 3,511, and girls 78. The total number of withdrawals throughout the country is, boys 7,934, and girls 92.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEAll in contravention of existing by-laws.
§ Mr. LEWISYes, I understand the action that was agreed to by Parliament was that if local education authorities dispensed with their by-laws for this particular purpose they would only do so upon certain stringent conditions being adhered to.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERCould the right hon. Gentleman tell us out of what totals those numbers have been drawn, so that we may judge the proportion?
§ Mr. LEWISI regret that I am unable at this very short notice to give the total number of children between the ages of eleven and thirteen, but, of course, they will be several hundreds of thousands, at least. I am not at all sure that the number may not even be a couple of million—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—not so much as that?—but I should not like to tie myself down to any figure.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSWill the total number be given in the information to be placed in our hands to-morrow?
§ Mr. LEWISI am afraid it will not include that, but if my hon. Friend, or any other hon. Member, puts down a question upon that point, I shall be very pleased to do my best to supply the information.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEIt is already in the official reports of the Board.
§ Mr. LEWISThe information, at any rate, can be given at the request of any hon. Member. The proportion in itself is not large, but at the same time I frankly admit that the numbers do give the Board of Education considerable uneasiness. I think that every possible effort should be made to induce local education authorities to keep strictly within the limits of the lines that have already been laid down by Parliament. My. hon. Friend asked me whether the Board would issue any of its correspondence with local authorities upon this question. The Board have already published one White Paper. I am not at all sure that the letters which have followed are of sufficient importance to justify the publication of another Paper, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, so far as the Board of Education is concerned, all the letters that have been addressed to local authorities have been in the sense I have already indicated, namely, that of a strict adherence to the lines that have 1286 already been laid down. My hon. Friend asked what were the safeguards that the Board insisted upon? The safeguards are the conditions to which I have already referred, namely, that the employment of school children shall be regarded as an exceptional measure, permitted only to meet a special emergency; that it shall only be allowed where the authority are satisfied that no other labour is available, that in considering the available supply of labour the authorities shall satisfy themselves that all possible efforts have been made to secure adult labour, that every case shall be considered on its merits, that there shall be no general relaxation of by-laws, that the employment shall be of a light character and suitable to the capacity of the child, and that if permission is given at all it shall be given for a definitely limited period only. I am not quite sure, but I think my hon. Friend asked me what occupations the children so released had entered. So far as the Board of Education are aware they have nearly all gone into agriculture. Most of them, at any rate, have gone into agriculture. The latest return I have shows that 900 have gone into other occupations.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEMay I ask whether the permission of the Board has been obtained in the case of all these exemptions?
§ Mr. LEWISIt is not a question at all of obtaining the permission of the Board. That is not necessary. The local education authority has the right, if it chooses to exercise it, of releasing children in accordance with the conditions laid down by Parliament. I am glad to say that a large number of local education authorities, covering rural areas, have not thought it necessary to release any children whatever for agricultural employment, and, with regard to those that appear to have transgressed the rules laid down, the Board, wherever the occasion has arisen, has addressed a remonstrance to them. My hon. Friend asked whether, if representations were made to the Board by a committee which has been recently constituted for the purpose of considering matters like those referred to in this Debate, the Board would receive them. I need hardly assure my hon. Friend that the Board would receive with the greatest I respect any representations that might be received of the character he has mentioned.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWith regard to curtailing the employment of children?
§ Mr. LEWISSo far as curtailing the employment of children in agriculture is concerned, I have stated over and over again that the Board adhere to the lines laid down by Parliament, but whatever representations may be made by the committee that has been constituted for the purpose of considering these matters, will receive most respectful attention at the hands of the Board of Education.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI should like to ask a question, not in any critical sense. The right hon. Gentleman throughout his very sympathetic and full reply has constantly referred to conditions laid down by Parliament.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSENo. "Conditions that have been laid down by Parliament." I presume that he is referring simply to the answer given in this House by the Prime Minister and not to any decision that has been reached by this House, or to any Vote that has been taken by this House.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSI wish to add one word to the very clear statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. Of course, it is quite clear that no legislation has taken place in this House, but it was distinctly understood that the Board of Education and the local authorities would be governed in this matter by the restrictions which were announced by the Prime Minister when the matter was being discussed. I merely rose to correct one striking misapprehension of the hon. Member who raised this question (Mr. Whitehouse). In the course of his remarks, he asked why it was that children were not taken from secondary schools instead of children from the public elementary schools. He thought it would be better to take children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen than those under the age of thirteen. I do hope the idea will not go forth that children from either schools are to be taken. It is not a question of taking children from these schools; it is a question whether the local authorities should be in a position to grant permission to parents who ask that their children may be taken from school. Every pupil in a secondary school between the ages of fourteen and sixteen would be 1288 able to enter any employment if his parents wished him to do so, but they can only go from the elementary schools at the request of their parents and by permission of the local authorities. Further than that, the local authority must act and should act in strict accordance with the restrictions laid down by the Prime Minister.
§ Sir R. WINFREYI ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education because, whilst it is true that the Board of Education has laid down, as he says, certain safeguards, it has never attempted to see that those safeguards are put into operation. It is one thing to prepare a set of safeguards on paper and to circulate them amongst local authorities, and it is quite another thing to see that those safeguards are put into operation, and that is exactly where the Board of Education has failed. I happen to be a member of a local authority which has agreed that children of eleven years of age shall be allowed to be withdrawn from school. We have had no remonstrance from the Board of Education.
§ Sir R. WINFREYI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. We had not received any remonstrance up to the other day, and we carried that Resolution over a month ago.
§ Mr. LEWISIf the local education authority which my hon. Friend has in mind is the same as that which I have in mind, then a very strong remonstrance indeed was addressed by the Board of Education to that authority.
§ Sir R. WINFREYAll I can say is that I attended a meeting of this education authority on Wednesday of last week, and it had not reached us then. A year ago we agreed, reluctantly it is true, to allow children to be withdrawn from school at the age of twelve. We thought that was going far enough, and some of us reluctantly agreed to it. This year a resolution was passed, by six votes to five, that children of eleven years of age could be withdrawn from school. At the same time the Board of Agriculture have issued a notice to farmers that they can have soldiers who have been accustomed to agriculture to assist in farm work this spring at 4s. per day, and there is not a single farmer who has asked for a single soldier in that district. I say that 1289 is proof positive that these safeguards which the Board of Education talk about have never been carried out at all.