HC Deb 05 February 1934 vol 285 cc817-87
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

Before I call upon the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to move the first Amendment on the Paper, may I point out that a number of Amendments appear on the Paper later on in his name and in the names of the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) and the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins). I assume that these form one block of Amendments dealing with the same matter, and, if I am correct, I would ask the hon. Member for Aberavon to develop his case on these Amendments in moving the first Amendment.

3.43 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, to leave out from "shall" to "submit" in line 19.

I am obliged to you Captain Bourne for your suggestion which will, I believe, considerably facilitate discussion on this Clause—a matter of some importance having regard to the fact that the time is precious under the guillotine. This Amendment will give us an occasion to discuss the whole policy embodied in Clause 13. This is an extremely important part of the Bill. It contains the provision which the Government propose to make for those juveniles who will be unemployed in increasing numbers during the next few years, at least. We come therefore this afternoon to consider the policy and the concrete proposals of the Government for dealing with those unemployed children and that policy can be very briefly summarised. The Government know full well that additional children will be turned out of the schools during the next three or four years and that in 1937 those additional children will represent over 400,000, between the ages of 14 and 18, more than there are at present. To those additional children and those who are unemployed now the Government say, "You shall still go into industry; you shall still leave the sheltered area of school and go out either into work or into unemployment."

Anyone who has made a study of the problem, and especially those who have read the illuminating reports issued by the universities, realise the great tragedy which lies before thousands of the youth of our country during the next few years. Those reports establish one or two important facts. They establish the fact that even if there were no increase in the child population coming into the area of work, there would still be a gigantic problem of unemployment. New developments in industry, processes of rationalisation and so forth, make it inevitable that industry will not continue to absorb an increasing number of young people. When to the contraction, which is due to the technique of industry itself, we add the larger numbers who will be turned out from the schools in the next few years, it will be realised that a grave and tragic problem lies before the country in this respect.

The Government have said that school life is not to be prolonged. They have definitely decided—I hope after serious consideration—that the school age is not to be raised. Instead of a raising of the school age we are to have a system of junior instruction centres. Last Monday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour seemed to deny that this Bill embodied the policy of the Government in relation to these juveniles. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, in particular, appeared to dispute my assertion that the Government had announced their policy as far as these children are concerned in this Bill; that they had said that they were not going to raise the school age, but that they were going to insure these young people and that they were going to create a system of junior instruction centres. The hon. Gentleman asked me to quote any phrase used by him which would bear out that statement. On that occasion I spoke from memory, but I have looked up the records since and I find that on 9th November the hon. Gen- tleman was asked the following question by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor): whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age? The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was as follows: It is not part of the Government's policy to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age, but the Noble Lady will find the policy of the Government in regard to juveniles above the existing school-leaving age in the Unemployment Insurance Bill circulated to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1933; col. 301, Vol. 281.] That seems to be clear and emphatic and to show that here we have the Government's policy in relation to these children. It is quite an inadequate policy. Some people say that if you raise the school leaving age, you will not have so much unemployment. At any rate, it is certain that those children who would be kept in school till the age of 15 at least would not be unemployed. Since this is the policy of the Government, it is essential that we should examine it with very great care. I will give the figures of the children going out in the next few years, from which it will be seen how inadequate the policy is. This year there are 55,000 more, in 1935 there will be 115,000 more, in 1936 306,000 more, and in 1937 443,000 more children between the ages of 14 and 18 in industry than there are at the present time. This increase will be due to the birthrate after the War period. The Minister has given us figures which show that he intends in the first year to provide for 100,000 places in the junior instruction centres, but he will have to reassure me on this point before I believe it. I see very considerable difficulties in providing for these 100,000, and I have doubts whether the Ministry will provide places for so many youths.

In regard to finance, it is estimated, I gather, that these 100,000 will cost about £13 per head, and that will be made up of a contribution from the Exchequer, a contribution from the local authority, and a contribution from the Insurance Fund. We have already said from this side, and we say it with emphasis to-day, that there ought not to be one single penny from the Insurance Fund towards the financial maintenance of these junior instruction centres, that the money paid by those children and the employers, and by the Exchequer too, into the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be used definitely, specifically, and solely for the payment of insurance benefit and not for the maintenance of junior instruction centres. The whole cost ought to be borne by the National Exchequer. The finances of the scheme inflict an added injustice upon the distressed areas, because the bulk of these centres undoubtedly will be erected in the distressed areas, and the £280,000 which is budgeted for from the local authorities will mainly come from those areas which are least able to bear that financial burden.

I hope the Minister and the Committee will pay some regard to this point, that the figure of £13 is rather a significant and illuminating figure. With slight adjustments, it is the figure which shows the cost of educating each child in our elementary schools. In other words, you are going to pay per head for instruction in the junior instructions centres a little bit more, as a matter of fact, than you are paying already per pupil in the elementary schools. That is to say, the junior instruction centres will be at least as costly as educating those children would be if they were kept in the elementary schools. I think the Minister will agree that if he intends really to erect a big, broad system of junior instruction centres, which will provide for almost every unemployed child, if not all, then he has to provide for many more in the next few years than 100,000. Looking at the figures and at the present unemployment, I imagine that instead of budgeting for 100,000, the Minister will have to budget in three or four years' time for about 500,000 going to the junior instruction centres. I think it is reasonable to assert that between the ages of 14 and 18 in the next three or four years there will be half a million unemployed.

If the Minister will make a calculation and say, "I am going to have these 500,000 children in the junior instruction centres at £13 a head," he will see that he has to find round about £6,000,000, and that is more costly than raising the school age. If anyone will look at the financial estimate that was made during the period of the Labour Government, when the then Minister of Education brought in a Bill to raise the school age, they will find that he made a financial statement. I looked it up this morning, and I believe I am right in saying that the actual cost of raising the school age, apart from maintenance grants, was put at about £2,500,000. Figures were also given for maintenance grants for 60 per cent. of those who attended the schools, and that figure was about £3,500,000, so that to provide for maintenance grants and for raising the school age would cost little if anything more than it is going to cost to provide for junior instruction centres.

On the grounds of broad public policy and of sound economy, which is not always financial economy, and on the grounds of the personal interest of these children, who are bound to deteriorate by prolonged unemployment, I say that the Government in this case are following a wrong and a false policy. But while we emphasise the need for raising the school age, we are also of opinion that since the Government have determined on a system of junior instruction centres, I believe I am correct in interpreting the views of the party to which I belong when I say that, while we emphatically declare that this is a third-rate policy, as it were, we equally say that since the Government have determined to embark upon it, we want to make the best job of it that we can.

As I understand the Clause, it is not at all certain that the Minister will get these junior instruction centres, because the Clause is curiously and somewhat vaguely worded. If it is examined, it will be found that discretion seems to be left to the local authorities. There will be some authorities, undoubtedly, who will be keen on getting junior instruction centres going. There will be other authorities who will not be keen. My Amendment is designed—and I move it on behalf of the party, as far as we are able to do so under the Bill—to make it absolutely certain that no education authority will have any opportunity at all for evading their duty in providing junior instruction centres. If hon. Members will look at the Clause, they will see that: Every education authority shall …. take into consideration the number of persons in their area between the minimum age for entry into insurance and the age of eighteen years who are capable of and available for work but have no work or only part-time or intermittent work, and if, having regard to that number, they are of opinion. First of all, I would like to ask the Minister this specific question. How are the education authorities to ascertain the number of unemployed in their area? What facilities have they to find out the number? As I understand the Bill, it does not provide for lads going into agricultural occupations to be insured. They will be outside insurance. The local education authorities—I am not clear on the point—as far as I can see, will be absolutely dependent on the Ministry of Labour for those figures. Or is it intended that they should take upon themselves the duty of ascertaining the numbers of unemployed? If it is intended that the education authorities should take upon themselves this duty, then it appears to me that the Government are thrusting upon them an obligation which they ought not to bear. It ought to be the duty of the Ministry of Labour. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that view, I would like to ask him to explain to the Committee what machinery he intends to erect in order that local education authorities may know the exact number of children unemployed in their areas.

As a matter of fact, this Bill does not give us the number of children who will be unemployed. It does not give us, as far as I can see, even the machinery to find out the number. For years, we have had complaints that the extent of the problem is not known. Children are unemployed, and no one has been able to assert with any definiteness the number. I should have thought that in 1934 a Bill dealing with unemployed children would at least have made it very sure that the machinery of the Bill would find out the number actually unemployed, or provided some machinery to find out the extent of the problem. I have studied the Bill rather carefully in regard to this matter, and, as far as I can see, there is not in the Bill definite machinery for finding out the exact number of children who will be unemployed in any area.

The Clause says that discretion will be left to the authority. If the authority are of opinion that the number who are unemployed warrant it, then the junior instruction centre shall be set up. The discretion left to the authority gives room for great play, to say the least. Some authorities will think that junior instruc- tion centres ought to be established if there are 20, shall we say, unemployed. Other local authorities will say, "We do not think that 20 or 30 warrant our organising junior instruction centres." They may say, "We agree that if there are 50, then we shall organise them." That play of discretion left to the local authorities in this Bill gives room for—I do not want to use the word harshly—evasion of the duty of providing these centres for all the children who are unemployed.

I do not see any inducement in this Clause, or in the whole of the Bill, to children who leave school without work, and even those who have had work, for registering that they are unemployed. There would be an inducement if an insurance benefit were paid, but no insurance benefit is to be paid under the Bill between the ages of 14 and 16 years, and, therefore, there is no practical inducement on the part of the children to register at the Unemployment Exchange. I know that the Minister is taking power in the Bill to compel children to attend. I cannot see that exercised very frequently. The Education Act is to be invoked if children do not go to instruction centres where provided.


The hon. Member is now entering into a discussion on Clause 14.


At any rate, I would like to know from the Minister what action he intends to take in order to ensure that the junior instruction centres shall be established for every unemployed child throughout the length and breadth of the land. Perhaps I may raise the point, by reference to the definition Clause, that the education authority mentioned here is the education authority responsible for higher education. That, in England at least, means that the county authority will be responsible. I hope I may say, in passing, that the Minister will keep an open mind on that point. I know that there are pros and cons, but I hope he will keep his mind open to the necessity for some flexibility which will allow of the local education authority which is only responsible for Part III being able to deal with the whole problem.


I hope the hon. Member will not enlarge upon this. He himself has an Amendment on the Order Paper.


I will just mention it, as I do not know whether it will be reached under the operation of the Guillotine. I am getting in as many of the points as I possibly can, in order that the Minister may have his mind open to the problem. Undoubtedly, every one in this House will agree that the continued education of the children who are unemployed is absolutely necessary both for themselves and in the wider interests of the nation. We gave evidence of complete sincerity when we coupled the raising of the school-age with some assistance in the way of maintenance grant. That policy is not adopted by the Government. The policy of junior instruction centres has been substituted for it. These centres do a very fine piece of work undoubtedly of a curative kind when they save the children—I have seen them—from the worst effects of unemployment, but they cannot make a constructive contribution to the needs of the nation, or even to the needs of industry. But, in spite of their defects, for instance, that a boy may be here to-day and gone to-morrow, that you cannot determine a long-term system of education, that you cannot develop your junior instruction centres to meet the need of modern industry—in spite of all their defects, we on this side say very definitely that in every area, and for every child unemployed, provision should be made for their continued education, and, in the circumstances of the Bill, should be provided for in junior instruction centres.

4.11 p.m.


I hope that nothing I shall say will be taken as a reflection upon the Minister. On the contrary, I think that we owe him a great debt of gratitude for his recognition in this Bill of the vital importance of the education of these young persons. In fact, I will go further and say that it is a great victory for the Ministry of Labour. They have stepped into the real gap left by the Board of Education, who have been quiescent about a policy, afraid to progress, and not been ready with a plan. Everybody who cares for the welfare of these young persons must be grateful, therefore, to the Ministry of Labour filling up the gap left by the Board. Of course the hon. Member above the Gangway is right. It would be, of course, far more satisfactory to this great inflow of young persons in the next three or four years, this great army between 14 and 18 years of age pressing into the already overcrowded labour market, to stem that inflow, to keep them at school, to plan, not a make-shift system, but a real educational policy, to prevent this overcrowding in the already overcrowded labour market. In saying that, I do hope it will not be suggested that we are ungrateful to the Minister of Labour for putting this problem into the forefront of the Unemployment Bill. It is a recognition of the co-relation of the two problems, of the fact that they are inter-connected, and that you cannot divorce one from the other. For that reason, we are grateful.

I remember in 1930 the great effort we made during the Labour Government to persuade Miss Margaret Bondfield to put an obligation on the Government to provide courses all over the country, so that wherever there was a young person out of work, the class, the school, the training centre would be available. We met with a good deal of opposition, but we eventually persuaded Miss Bondfield. She capitulated with grace, as we would expect her to do, as a result. She took on the obligation of providing centres, and they were started. It was a good battle worth winning, and if every successful battle brought such good results, whether it meant a Minister giving way or not, I should be glad to take part. I hope that we are going to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and to stir up in him a desire to rid the Ministry of Labour of this work. I am going to make the bold statement that I believe the Minister of Labour would be only too willing to hand over this work to the right Department, namely, the Board of Education. That Department is paid to educate and train children. There is something rather cynical in seeing the President of the Board of Education merely a passenger in this Bill. I think that his name is mentioned only once.

Good work has been done by these training centres during the last three years. Everybody who has seen them in operation knows their value, limited though it be, and it would be a disaster if they were closed down. That is the greatest tribute to their work. It is recognised that they are helping to save from the wreck of our industrial life a number of young persons at a very critical stage. I have in my mind one centre in the north-east of London. When it was opened there was a good deal of opposition and resentment among a lot of the young persons at having to attend such a course. They regarded it rather as a reflection that they should be dragged back to school after they had gone out into the labour market and for a time earned their living. After a short experience, however, their whole attitude changed. These centres depend on the headmaster and the staff, and sympathy and understanding are needed. It does not want too much—and this is no reflection on a great profession—of the ordinary attitude of the school master. If the head of an institution of the character mentioned is to be a success, he must put himself in the position of these young persons and act as their guide, philosopher and friend. After a few months, the attitude of the young people in the training centre I have mentioned changed, and enthusiasm took its place. The centre is almost run by the young people themselves, and committees are formed to administer it. At one centre they have even succeeded in forming an old boys' club, which I had the honour and privilege of taking round the House of Commons on one occasion.

Though these centres are under the Ministry of Labour, they are run by the local education authorities, and, on the whole, the Ministry of Labour has helped them in every way with a desire to make the course a success. Many of these young people have found in the light of experience that they made a mistake in their early life in being, through financial considerations, drawn into blind alley occupations. Many of them have revealed talents at these centres, and have shown that it is possible to develop—


I am loath to interrupt the hon. Baronet's panegyrics, but I cannot see how he is using them as an argument that these centres should be handed over to the Board of Education.


Perhaps my panegyrics rather suggest the opposite, but I hope to be able to show that if they are to be efficient, the right authority is not the Ministry of Labour, but the Board of Education. The real difficulty is that the numbers are constantly fluctuating owing to the needs and demands of industry. When times are good, the numbers are small, and when times are bad these courses expand in number. In one centre which I have in mind, they had a staff of six or eight instructors a year ago, but now there are only about 30 or 40 children and the centre is able to justify only two instructors. It will be clear to the Minister that if this system of training is to be a real success we must have competent, able and efficient instructors. If we are to obtain them, they must be sure that they will have permanent employment. The real difficulty has been to expand and contract the training staff according to the needs and requirements of industry. Of course, that is a great argument for keeping young persons at school where they are in a properly organised educational machine, where the whole organisation is complete, and where the buildings and staff are available. If we are to have an elastic system that will meet the needs of industry, it is vital that it should be part of the educational organisation. The teachers should be part of the educational staff and on the superannuation fund, and should not be temporary. We shall not get good men and women for this work unless they are given permanent employment and the status of a teacher with superannuation.

This work should be done by the Board of Education; the more it is investigated, the stronger is the case for that. I hope the work will be recognised as a part of education and not as part of unemployment. It would enable the local authorities to set up a proper organisation to train the right teachers, and, what is perhaps more important than anything, to have the proper buildings. I am informed that in London they are now having to improvise buildings apart from the ordinary education system. Such buildings are always unsatisfactory, especially when we are dealing with unemployed persons. The first requirement to success is proper handicraft classes and manual training, and that means at once proper equipment, which is impossible in temporary makeshift buildings. Though I give the Minister every credit for taking on this work and for his imagination and wisdom in seeing that it will not go by default, I hope that he will be willing to treat sympathetically any Amendments to hand over the work to the Minister who should be responsible for it, namely, the President of the Board of Education.

4.25 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

This discussion has spread over different aspects of this question which go beyond the Amendment immediately before us, but I do not regret that in the least, and I hope that I shall be able to deal with the points that have been raised. The effect of this and the other Amendments consequent upon it is to make it obligatory on the local education authorities to submit proposals for these courses in every place. That clearly seems to me to go rather too far, because, taken at its face value, and literally, it would mean that every education authority would have to submit proposals for these courses of instruction regardless altogether of whether there were any boys and girls unemployed. It goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the object which the hon. Gentleman who moved it has in view. There is nothing between us in the object we have in view. We both want to secure that in every reasonable case where these instructional courses would be likely to do useful work it will be obligatory on the local education authorities to submit proposals. It may be that the words in the Bill do leave it a little doubtful as to whether or not these proposals should be guided entirely by numbers, and make it too easy for local education authorities to escape their obligations. I will make this offer to the hon. Member. If he cares to put down an Amendment on Report stage which will make it clear that these authorities shall submit proposals in cases where they are necessary, then I will see, so far as I can, that that Amendment is taken, because I will put my name to it. I hope my object is perfectly plain. It is that in every case where these courses can reasonably be asked for the education authorities shall submit proposals. So much for the actual Amendment.

The hon. Member went on to discuss generally the question of juvenile in- structional centres, and I should like at once to thank the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for what he said about both the work of those centres and the Ministry of Labour. He has, I think, a true appreciation of what we are trying to do, and was good enough to say that what we have done in the past has been of the greatest possible service in the interests of the boys and girls themselves. A great part of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and some parts of the speech of the hon. Baronet were directed to showing that the school-leaving age ought to be raised from 14 to 15 or 16, or whatever it may be. I want to say quite plainly that I have caused this Bill to be drafted in such a way that there is nothing in it to prejudice that question one way or the other.

I read with great care the evidence on the subject taken by the Royal Commission, including the evidence of the Association of Education Committees. It is clear that they were suspicious—when they were discussing the question of the closing of the gap—that by giving their assent to the proposals to close the gap they might in some way be prejudicing the question of the raising of the school age. They regard the age between 14 and 16—I am neither quarrelling with their idea nor accepting it—as a potential age for education and not for industry. One of them, indeed, used the phrase, "The educational sanctity of the age between 14 and 16." It was, therefore, a great satisfaction to me when I received a letter from this Association of Education Committees on 23rd January which seemed to show that they had seen that their suspicions with regard to the prejudging or the prejudicing of the raising of the school age had been unfounded. The letter reads: I am directed by the executive committee of the Association of Education Committees to give you an assurance of the loyal co-operation of the local education authorities in this country in administering the provisions relating to education embodied in the Unemployment Bill when those provisions are in operation and in making the working of those provisions as successful as possible. They go on to say, as they have a right to do, that they still hold the view that the interests of the children would be better served by raising the school age to 15. I would point out that there is nothing in this Bill which would prevent anyone, whatever his views about the school age, from giving whole-hearted support to what we are doing in the matter of these juvenile instructional courses.


Does that letter cover also the views of the County Councils Association?


No, the Association of Education Committees. Feeling the enormous responsibility which rests on the State and on the Minister of Labour to ensure that something shall be done for these children when they leave school, the moment this Bill was printed I took the course of submitting to the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment, of which Lord Goschen is Chairman, a series of questions in which I asked them what advice they could give me in order to ensure that these courses should be as useful as possible and what recommendations they could make to ensure that they should fulfil the purpose we all have in mind. I received a unanimous report on 20th January last, and I was so anxious that that report should be before this Committee to-day that I had it printed, and it was available for hon. Members last Friday. This Advisory Council is an extremely valuable aid to any Government and any Minister. It comprises representatives of the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Association of Education Committees, and the London County Council—each of them having two representatives; representatives of the Federation of Education Committees of Wales and Monmouth, the National Confederation of Employers Associations, the Trades Union Congress General Council, four representatives of teachers' organisations and representatives of the Juvenile Advisory Committees and the London Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment. It will be agreed that any report from them is worthy of the most careful consideration by this House.


I have just been to the Vote Office to get a copy of the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I find that it is not a Parliamentary Paper. He said that he had taken steps to get it into our hands. It is rather difficult for hon. Members to get a non-Parliamentary Paper.


I am sorry to hear that, and I will see what can be done. It was published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, and I think it can be obtained free by any Member who wants it. I did my utmost to see that it was made available at the earliest possible moment.


What does the report say?


I do not suppose the hon. Member wants me to read it, but the Council set forth a scheme which they think should be adopted for junior instruction centres. They make certain recommendations with regard to the establishment, the general purposes of the scheme, the different types of courses and the arrangements for boys and girls with special qualifications; and so on. It has been suggested by Members like the hon. Baronet that these centres should be under the Board of Education and not the Ministry of Labour. On that I would point out that steps have already been taken to secure the closest possible co-operation with the Board of Education. The Bill provides that the Minister shall not approve any proposals submitted to him unless they are in accord with a scheme made by him with the consent of the Treasury after consultation with the Board of Education. It is a matter of opinion whether these centres should be under the Board of Education or Ministry of Labour, and I am going to give my reasons why I think they should be under the Ministry of Labour. But I think we shall all agree that one Department should be responsible and not two, and that there ought to be no divided authority between the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Labour.

I wish to put before the Committee one or two considerations which I think will persuade them, as they have persuaded me, that the Minister of Labour is the appropriate Minister. First of all, this system of juvenile instructional centres has been in existence now for something like 10 years, and we have had tribute after tribute to the way in which the work has been carried out. A tribute was paid by the Royal Commission, we have just heard a tribute from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, and there has been an increasing volume of appreciation of what has been done. I do not know how many hon. Members have visited these centres, but I myself have seen a good many of them, and have been immensely impressed by the way in which the teachers are carrying out their most responsible and difficult duties. The Goschen Report said in paragraph 3, on page 5: It is natural, with the large number of different authorities, that varying views should be expressed, but the general consensus of opinion among authorities was undoubtedly in favour of a continuance of the present scheme without any material alteration. The most important direction in which changes have been recommended is towards greater elasticity in the administration and financial control of the scheme. My point is that the Ministry of Labour have had experience of these centres for a considerable number of years, and the evidence is that we have discharged that duty in a way which has earned the commendation of those who have had to consider this question. This service, and the use that we make of it, depend very largely upon employment or unemployment, because the establishment of a centre may be determined, and should be determined, by the conditions and the prospects of employment in particular districts. It is essential to link up the question of instruction and the conditions at the centres with the question of finding work for the boys and girls who are at the centres. The establishment of centres is bound up, in regard to the procedure, with the payment of benefit in the case of insured juveniles. In the case of those who are not insured the question of employment or unemployment, particularly with regard to girls, is a very important factor. It is very relevant in this connection, that, if the authorities exercise their powers under the Choice of Employment Act, they do so under the central supervision of the Ministry of Labour. The Minister of Labour is responsible centrally for the arrangements, whether the work is done by the local education committees or by the Employment Exchanges—in some areas the education, committees do it and in others it is done by the Ministry of Labour. In all cases he is responsible for the way in which the Act is administered, because he has to find the money, he has to accept responsibility for the Act, and he has to answer questions in regard to its operation.

The object of these courses is, as I have stated and as the Goschen Committee pointed out, both educational and industrial. What I am clear about is that, although we are responsible, we shall and must work in the closest possible co-operation with the Board of Education. There is one further quotation which I want to make from the Goschen Report. Paragraph 19 says: We agree with the recommendation we made in our First Report that the instruction provided at Junior Instruction Centres and Classes should not take the form of training for specific occupations, but that, for the majority of pupils, it should be mainly practical in character. Subject to these general considerations, discretion should be allowed to Education Authorities to develop their own ideas according to conditions in each area and to the type of boys and girls in attendance. In my belief, experience has shown that the most appropriate Minister to have direction and control over these juvenile instruction courses is the Minister of Labour, for the reasons that I have given, and because of their close connection with industry and the placing of juveniles in employment; but it is equally important that the Minister should act in the closest co-operation with, and obtain what assistance, advice and help he can from, the Board of Education in every possible direction.

I have endeavoured to justify my belief that these courses have fulfilled a very useful purpose. We are determined that they shall be extended to cover, so far as practicable, every boy and girl who may need to have recourse to them. By so doing, and by placing a statutory duty upon the local education authority to provide such courses, we have made a very great advance on anything that has been done before. We are fulfilling what I believe to be a primary duty of the Government at the present time, which is that they should do all that they possibly can to meet the tragedy, beyond belief and beyond compare, of boys and girls going straight from school to unemployment, with nobody to look after them or to accept responsibility for them, but left at the outset of their lives with a handicap that may last throughout the whole course of their future careers.

4.53 p.m.


I understand from your Ruling, Captain Bourne, that we are discussing two of the major Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), one of which would make training centres available for all juveniles who are unemployed, and the second of which deals with the question of central responsibility. Our view is, as my hon. Friend said earlier in the Debate, that this is the wrong way to deal with the problem which faces us. The Minister closed upon a note in which he deplored the fact that children walked straight out of school on to the streets without any employment. That is the situation to-day. There are not enough jobs to go round. Although it may be true that a substantial proportion of juveniles obtain temporary employment as soon as they leave school, there are numbers in the most distressed areas who walk out of school, and the State ceases to have any care for them. The right way to deal with the situation is not to allow juveniles to go into the over-stocked labour market, but to raise the school-leaving age.

I venture this prediction: The longer we delay raising the school-leaving age the higher will that age have to be raised when we tackle the job. There is not the slightest doubt that raising the school-leaving age to 15 might have been satisfactory two years ago, but it is not so to-day. If this question is not dealt with in the next two years, we might find ourselves driven by the adult population to keep everybody out of employment until the age of 18. I am satisfied that there is no hope of dealing with the unemployment problem by tinkering with it along these lines. The only way to face it is boldly to say that the young, immature, unwanted, cheap, inexperienced worker should be kept out of industry altogether. The Government are not choosing that course. They are choosing what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon called the third-rate one—it is probably the 15th rate—of establishing training centres.

Our first series of Amendments is to make the suggestion that if the Minister believes in training centres he ought to provide them for all children who are out of work. He makes what is described as a concession—and no doubt my hon. Friend will say what he thinks about it—that would not meet the point. It is a test of the intention of the Government to care for the unemployed juveniles. It is no good saying that you can care for them when they are measured by thousands but that you do not care for them when they only exist in tens. If the Government have taken this problem to heart, if their heart is bleeding about the plight of the unemployed juveniles, and if they think that training centres are the way to deal with the situation, they ought to have elaborated a system whereby every unemployed child could have the advantage of them. This is a Bill described by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary in the most wonderful terms. I used to think that they were modest men, but after their description of their own Bill as the most glorious for generations, I thought that they must have lost some elements of their modesty since they went back on to that bench. If the Bill is intended as a permanent Measure, if it is, so to speak, laying out the plan of our development in this field for the next five or 10 years, we must have regard to all the implications of the proposal. That is why the proposal for raising the school-leaving age ought to have been included in it.

We are apprehensive with regard to the Minister's proposal to keep to himself central control of the training centres. No Department of State ever willingly cedes any territory to another Department; we can take that as a fundamental principle of the art of administration. When the right hon. Gentleman's Department was originally established 15 years ago, all that it was able to take to itself were two functions which the Board of Trade were willing to relinquish. Before the War, when the National Insurance Bill came along, many people who were in favour of provision against sickness among working-people had the greatest doubts about the method proposed for doing it. They foresaw what has happened. We now have a public health service on the one hand and, on the other, a large vested interest calling itself National Health Insurance, and both touch each other at a 100 points. They will place some Minister in the very near future in the position of having to knit them into one public health system. What is the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman? Here is the Minister of Education primarily, but not absolutely, responsible for the educational system of the country, and here is the Minister of Labour dealing with people who have left school and have entered the industrial field. Some of them have walked straight into unemployment, some have walked straight into jobs, but sooner or later he finds them on his hands, and he says, "These people are now outside the educational field and in the industrial field, and therefore I ought to be the person to look after them through my training centres."

He adduced as evidence in favour of that suggestion the fact that the Ministry of Labour centres in the last 10 years have worked very well; and he went on to say that the teachers were carrying out their duties extraordinarily well in difficult circumstances. They would have carried them out equally well had they been under the Board of Education. But the situation is different to-day. During the first 10 years we have been merely nibbling at this problem, but now, if the Government are to be believed, we are to prepare ourselves for a very considerable establishment of centres up and down the country—a large network of training centres dealing with juveniles under 18 who during the next few years ought to be in the educational sphere and not in the industrial sphere. Although it is true that the right hon. Gentleman says that this is going to be done through the local education authorities, he will be the real central authority.

I have two points of substance to raise. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the arrangements to be made are to be made in consultation with the Board of Education, but the proviso to Clause 13 indicates the kind of relationship that there will be between the Treasury, which is the top dog, and the Board of Education, which is the under dog. It says that: The Minister shall not approve any proposals …. unless they are in accord with a scheme made by him with the consent of the Treasury after consultation with the Board of Eduction. Having had consultations with other Departments myself, I know that that might mean much or it might mean little, but I know that the consent of the Treasury means everything, and I am not satisfied that the words of the Bill are going to yield results of the kind that many people who are interested in the question of juvenile unemployment would expect. Although the right hon. Gentleman may understand the labour problem, yet, in putting people into training centres, he is dealing with a field of future large-scale experiment which he has not dealt with in the past, and, if I were a betting man, I should be prepared to wager that the Treasury would get the better of him; and I am not satisfied that they would not get the better to at least the same extent of the Board of Education. Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman, in the next five years, gets all his training centres, once they are in the hands of the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Labour will fight to keep them; there is not the slightest doubt about that. As I said earlier, no Department willingly relinquishes any scalps that hang at its belt. They will want to keep them, and I can see, within the next five years, these training centres becoming a new vested interest in the way of the proper educational advance of the young people of the country.

If they were under the Board of Education, I can imagine a President of the Board of Education realising that sooner or later large numbers of these people were going to fall into his net, making his plans accordingly, and doing nothing that would militate against the ultimate entry into or continuance in the schools of children over 14 or 15 years of age. I can see him fitting his training centres into a general educational plan. I can see him seeing that equipment and so on was being so devised that it might be utilised for full-time secondary education up to the age of 16. But—and this is not personally against the right hon. Gentleman—I cannot for the life of me see the Minister of Labour, however assiduous he is in his duties, doing that. On the contrary, he has admitted that his point of view is different, and in five years from now these centres will hang like millstones round our necks; they will be a definite barrier to further educational progress. The right hon. Gentleman—and this rather confirms my point—talked about the curriculum; he talked about having regard to different employment conditions, about having regard to the prospects of employment, and the importance of linking up the instruction and curriculum with placing and finding work. Members on this side of the Committee are suspicious of these terms. We have that suspicion which all of us have of all Governments, but these words appear to us to be especially dangerous. All our trade union organisations fear the possible use of instructional and training centres for the training of cheap, half-trained labour which will enter into competition with the fully trained unemployed labour that is surplus to the market.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about elasticity in the curriculum, and I agree with that, because I do not want to try to make these university colleges; I want to make them something that young people in this very unstable age would find of interest and value to them. But, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to have sole regard to different employment conditions, the prospects of employment and the linking up of these centres with placing and finding work, I am satisfied that they are going to be centres for training cheap, immature labour to take adult jobs, especially in developing industries, and I should hope that that is not what the House would wish. The right hon. Gentleman told us at the end of his speech that this was a great advance. A greater advance would have been the raising of the school-leaving age. Whether this is an advance or not lies on the knees of the gods. We are afraid that it may prove to be, not a step in advance, but ultimately a step backwards. It is not that we are in any way criticising the humanitarian feelings of the Minister; it is that this departure is one which will inevitably, in our view, lead not so much to helping the children as to retarding their progress in the future. I hope that hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee will realise that this is not a small, narrow, party point, but a point of very considerable substance, indeed one in connection with which the Government might well take off the Whips and allow Members of the Committee to vote freely according to their conscience as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in his foreshadowed enormous development of these training centres, or whether in the circumstances the right thing would not be to let the responsibility for these centres rest with his colleague in the Cabinet, the President of the Board of Education, rather than with the Minister of Labour.


Before I call on the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I think I ought to point out to the Committee that the discussion has gone somewhat beyond the two main points which were, very properly, referred to in his speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). Indeed, I think that that was inevitable if the arguments were to be properly put. I merely wish to safeguard the position of the Chair by pointing out that, if the discussion continues on these rather broad lines, the arguments must not be repeated when we come to a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.10 p.m.


I want to make a few comments on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). His panacea for the difficulties with which it is proposed to deal by a much more general establishment of training centres—and the Amendment on the Paper would make it obligatory on the Minister to do so in all cases and for all classes, whether juveniles or others—is the immediate raising of the school-leaving age to 18. I want the Committee to consider what that would do. It depends entirely upon the class of education that is to be given between the ages of 14 and 18. If it is to be a literary education, the result will be to educate an army of potential clerks for whom there will be no employment, because, the more clerical work becomes mechanised in our banks, insurance companies and institutions of that kind, the less work will there be for clerks who used to look to those institutions for employment. If, on the other hand, the education is to be vocational and industrial, with a view to fitting the young persons concerned for earning their living in the industries of the country, I can see very little difference in result, as far as the unemployed young people are concerned, between what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield is suggesting and what is suggested in this Bill. They will get precisely the same education in the one case as in the other, though in the training centres it will be more concentrated on trying to fit them for something which will earn them a livelihood in the future. Therefore, the general raising of the school age to 18 will not get us out of the difficulty.

On one point, however, which the right hon. Gentleman made, I am in very considerable agreement with him. I should oppose this Amendment root and branch, because it goes further than the Bill and makes practically mandatory the establishment of these training centres all over the country forthwith. In many parts of the country, particularly in my own constituency, there is in certain industries an immense proportion of unemployed people. That applies particularly to the furniture trade, and the manufacture of furniture after a fashion by young people and others who are trained at these centres is precisely one of the favourite jobs there. I have very great sympathy with the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association. The branch of that body in my constituency has represented to me that the establishment there of a training centre where instruction in the making of furniture was one of the principal lines would merely be half-training a number of young people. It would be nothing like the old system of a full apprenticeship under the supervision of competent workmen, but would merely be turning out a number of half-baked and probably cheap furniture tradesmen to compete with the 30 per cent. of skilled workmen who are now unemployed in the district. It is, therefore, very necessary that the education authorities should consider precisely the state of employment in their different districts, and whether, when they have trained these young people at the centres, they will be doing them any good, or merely turning them out only to find themselves in a congested industry where there is already immense unemployment among skilled workers who are perfectly competent and have been waiting, perhaps for years, for a job.

I shall certainly not support the Amendment, nor can I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield that the difficulty can be got over by keeping these young people at school without telling us what they are going to learn during the further four years that they would be at school, or whether it is going to make any difference at all to them ultimately. I am not opposing the proposal in the Bill, but I put forward a plea for very earnest considera- tion on the part of both the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education in starting these training centres—not merely to take an empty building, but two or three people there, and say, "This is a training centre." I want to give training in certain specific trades. It is an enormously important thing to have training in those trades where young people will have some chance of earning a living.


They are not training centres. I think the hon. Baronet is probably confusing training centres for unemployed above 18 with those for unemployed below 18. These are junior instruction centres, and the plea of the Minister all the time is that they are not to be training centres in the ordinary meaning of the word.


I may have used the wrong phrase. At any rate, they are centres for giving courses of instruction to young people. I presume they are places where they are going to be trained in order to do something. I have no doubt the hon. Member is right. He knows a great deal more about it than I do. If there is some real distinction between the two things, I adhere to the exact words in the Bill. They are "places where courses of instruction and training will be given." That is the marginal note of the Clause. I support the Clause as it stands, although I wanted to enter that caveat on behalf of these young people that we are not going to find any solution for them by merely giving them courses of instruction. It wants very careful consideration what you are going to instruct them in. I am equally certain that the specific of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, which is going to get all over all difficulties, of including in the Bill compulsory provisions to keep all these young people at school, without telling us how that is going to improve their chances in life, is certainly no solution of the difficulty of juvenile unemployment.

5.18 p.m.


I think possibly the hon. Baronet is still suffering under some slight misapprehension. The Minister, when quoting from the Fifth Report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment, referred specifically to para- graph 19, in which the Council say that they agree that the instruction should not take the form of training for specific occupations, but that for the majority of pupils it should be mainly practical in character. Therefore, it is not our intention that these junior instruction centres should give any training for a specific industry. If the hon. Baronet will look at Appendix II of the report, page 18, he will see set out the kind of training that the council had in mind.


Will the hon. Gentleman give us a little further information? What are these practical courses if they are not to relate to any use which will enable young persons to earn their living?


It would be detaining the Committee unduly if I read it all out, but I should be glad to hand the hon. Baronet my copy of the Report. Perhaps he will read it during the next speech or two.

5.20 p.m.


To me this question of instruction centres is, to a very large extent, a fad which has been played about with by Ministers of Education and others for many years, with very limited practical results. In my own teaching days I had some experience of working in some of the first tentative efforts in this direction, and felt how very limited the value of this education was. I have been in close touch since with classes in the West of Scotland which have been run under the Ministry of Labour in Scotland, financed by the Ministry of Labour but controlled and directed by the education authority. It seems to me that before we start this type of instructional centre we should first start to train teachers to do this kind of work and, before we start to train the teachers to train the youngsters, we should start to get some idea in our heads of what we want a human being to be and what we want him to do, because, in my opinion, these instruction centres are a pure case of the blind trying to lead the not so blind youngsters. That is my contribution on the general issue. I am not speaking from abstract theory, but from a contact with this educational experimentation, which has been going on now for something like 30 or 40 years, with the poor kid as the corpus vile who is to suffer from our kindly desires to reform him into some other kind of human being than we are ourselves.

I am really not so concerned as to whether control shall lie with the Minister of Education or the Minister of Labour. When I consider the two of them side by side, it is a Hobson's choice. I am not satisfied that either of them has the specialised knowledge for the effective running of such instruction centres. When I say that I do not distinguish them from the general run of humanity, because I do not believe there is the knowledge available anywhere and, therefore, it is a matter of very small moment to me whether the Minister of Education or the Minister of Labour takes responsibility for running the instruction courses. Nor am I greatly concerned as to where the book-keeping entry for the cost shall lie. It will come out of the Treasury. But I want to have some idea as to what the rate of expenditure per child taught is to be. We found in the last phase of this business, that in Glasgow the Ministry of Labour were prepared to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of these centres. I can remember how those in charge of Glasgow education jumped for joy at such a very generous allowance. Then the Minister of Labour came along and said, "But that 100 per cent. that we are going to pay must not exceed a certain amount per head of the pupils taught," with the result that the thing was run on the cheapest and nastiest plan—so much for elementary schools, so much for advanced division or central schools and so much for secondary education. I want to know what the level is to be for the instruction centres. I want particularly to know why the Minister bars out from himself the possibility of paying expenses of young persons attending instruction centres. He allows himself the right to pay expenses for those over 18 attending instruction centres, but he does not allow the payment of expenses for those under 18.

When one turns to the report of the Advisory Committee and sees the type of instruction that is recommended, it involves educational visits of one kind or another, and open-air exercise. An intimate friend of mine had charge of one of these courses in Glasgow. She taught some 20 or 30 girls. She tried to carry out the widest educational ideas that she could. She took them to visit some of our great municipal enterprises, to local swimming ponds and to public parks. She sometimes got a friendly cinematograph proprietor to arrange a special show. She sometimes got a benevolent owner of a factory to provide the youngsters with a tour round their works and some refreshment in the middle of the day. But every time she was arranging any one of these things she had first of all to consider the terrible problem that to go to these places involved a penny tram fare, and that was a serious consideration to these youngsters. This teacher could only do the work effectively by imposing on all her friends for donations and subscriptions to the travelling fund of her pupils, who were supposed to be 100 per cent. maintained by the Ministry of Labour. These courses are bound to be more costly than ordinary educational work if they are going to be properly done, and the Minister must not lay down a meagre rate of cost and he must not bar out the payment of expenses on a reasonable scale, whether it is for travelling costs in connection with instruction or for support. Imagine a boy in one of these centres going out to play football, as he is encouraged to do in the Report, equipping himself with a football jersey and a pair of trousers out of 2s. a week allowance! Fancy a girl going to a gymnasium—which is down in the instructional course—and providing herself with a pair of shoes and a gymnastic costume!


The hon. Member has an Amendment on the Paper which raises this point. He must postpone that discussion till then.


I was remembering your warning that those who did not get their points in now would have a very thin chance of doing so. I emphasize that if the Minister of Labour insists upon resisting the Amendment and takes the main responsibility upon his own shoulders, he must face up to that responsibility in a somewhat more generous spirit than has been evident in the recent administration. The whole of this stuff in the past has been cheap and nasty. The inspiration of it is, to be kind to the poor—the poor, dear poor! That is the conception. That is all wrong. You do not educate people in that way. You have to get into the minds of these youngsters that they are responsible citizens with the rest of us, and have a right to play, to work and to use their brains. You have to see to it that their courses of instruction are run on such a line that they are not regarded in the educational world as some cheap and nasty way of dealing with the poor unfortunates and down-and-outs of the community; and to secure that they are really educational centres with a dignity, and not something which is a cross between education and the poor house. I hope that the Minister will give his very serious attention to this matter. An educational system is there which has been developed for a long period. No one says that it has reached its final form of perfection, but the educational system which is proper for the whole run of the community is the educational system to which unemployed youngsters should be directed.

5.32 p.m.


On a point of explanation. Arising out of my speech, the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to furnish me with a copy of the Fifth Report of the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment for my inspection, and he referred me to pages 18 and 19. I should like, therefore, to let the Committee know what I find on page 19. The committee said: It is not necessary in this Memorandum to give an exhaustive list of subjects, but it may not be out of place to mention merely, in the suggestive sense, a few groups of such subjects as may be appropriately included in the Curriculum: (a) Woodwork. Furniture repairing and making of small articles for the home, e.g., stools, cabinets for wireless sets, etc., pot stands, small cupboards, bookshelves, etc. Decorative woodwork; fretwork, carving; turning; picture framing; staining; varnishing and painting. If that is not turning out a half-baked furniture maker, I do not know what is.

5.33 p.m.


My main purpose in rising is to try to find out, if I can, the effect of the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to my Amendment, but, first of all, I should like to say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I am sure that, if he looks into the problem again, he will alter his mind as to whether these centres ought to be under the Board of Education or under the Ministry of Labour. If he will come down to my division he will find that the boys who go to the juvenile instruction centre are housed in a building which has already been condemned by the Board of Education, but which is satisfactory to the Ministry of Labour. It is a shocking building, dirty and inadequate for its needs. My hon. Friend would find that that is not the only instance where the Ministry of Labour have accepted such buildings. If they were under the Board of Education it would be possible to apply the Act providing for the feeding of school children in respect of those boys and girls, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with that. What does the Minister of Labour mean by the concessions which I gather he is trying to make this afternoon? As I understood him, he said that our Amendment puts the duty too rigidly upon the local education authority, that there is not enough flexibility in it, and that, therefore, he is prepared to consider words which will impose the duty upon the local education authority of providing these junior instruction centres where it is reasonable that they should be erected. What does he mean by that?

I am rather troubled, not only by the words of this Bill, but by the finance governing the junior instruction centres. He is estimating, through the Actuary, that he will get 100,000 unemployment children into the junior instruction centres. Does he mean that by means of the words he wants to put in he will make provision for more than 100,000 being sent to the junior instruction centres, and, if so, how many does he envisage in the immediate future for whom he will be able to make provision? If hon. Members look at the finance of the scheme, I think that they will find that for every expansion of provisions for junior instruction centres there is a corresponding weight of expense on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Actuary has balanced the fund with a certain income and expenditure. One of the tremendous drawbacks, as far as the expansion of these centres is concerned, is the fact that every expansion of any magnitude in the provision of junior instruction centres will mean that the fund will become unbalanced in that respect, and will not be solvent. They will be a burden on the fund. Therefore, the fact that they are paid for out of the Insurance Fund will in itself, I am afraid—I am suspicious, anyhow—prevent the expansion of the junior instruction system to anything like the degree to which it ought to expand in order to meet the problem of the number of children unemployed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) pointed out that the Treasury has a much stronger word to say than the Board of Education in this respect. The consent of the Treasury has to be obtained. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to let us know something more definite as to what he means. Our position is plain. We have said, "Raise the school age." It is clear that the Government do not intend to raise the school age. I admit that the words in the Bill do not prevent the raising of the school age. The Minister of Labour has given us the words, but the Ministry of Labour retain the power and the substance. When the whole system of juvenile instruction centres are argued, we shall have the condition of things which was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. Vested interests will have grown up, and the fact that these centres are established will undoubtedly be a bar to the raising of the school age. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) may shake her head, but it is clear from the answer which she herself received, that this is the policy of the Government.

Viscountess ASTOR

Not the Government's policy.


I should like the Minister to tell us something about the general conditions which are to obtain in these centres, the numbers he is going to have in them, and the numbers necessary before a junior instruction centre is erected. What is he to do about the tenure of those who are employed? The teachers employed in these centres, in almost every case, I think, have no security of tenure at all. They can be employed to-day and dismissed to-morrow. The scales of salaries paid are in many instances inadequate. They are undercutting labour.


The hon. Member is now really raising a discussion which should be raised on the Estimates of the Ministry.


I submit that it would be a good thing, if the Minister is to have our whole-hearted support for these centres, that we should know exactly what he intends both as to the numbers that will be needed for a centre to be erected, and also as far as the organisation is concerned.

5.41 p.m.


I came down to this Debate this afternoon with very strong views with regard to the raising of the school age, and those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are fortified in those views by a very able statement sent to us by the Educational Institution of Scotland. I listened with the greatest attention to the comprehensive and conciliatory speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I was greatly impressed by the statement which he read by a well-known body called the Association of Educational Authorities, representing, I have no doubt, all the educational authorities in England. They have satisfied themselves, after a very careful discussion of the two questions, the raising of the school age now, and the strengthening and broadening of the instruction centres, that if they agree to support the Minister of Labour in his idea of extending juvenile instructional centres, it in no way debars the question they have at heart, namely, the extending of the school age. As an old Parliamentarian I am satisfied that those of us who believe in extending the school age should know that in a Bill of this kind which deals with unemployment, it would not be appropriate to lay the burden upon another Minister—who would be the President of the Board of Education—of extending the school age.


Presumably this matter would be discussed by the Cabinet, and the Cabinet could easily have taken a decision to raise the school age.


It is obvious that a Bill of this kind must have been discussed in its entirety by the Cabinet, but I have no doubt that the Cabinet took the view, which is the view of old Parliamentarians, that in a Bill of this kind dealing mainly with unemployment, the proper way of dealing with unemployment, whether juvenile or senior unemployment, is to carry on the main Government policy of the Unemployment Acts. The question as to the best thing to do at the present moment for boys between 14 and 18 must have been considered.




Just one moment.


The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a sufficiently experienced Parliamentarian not to object to a point being put which has a reasonable bearing on the matter we are discussing. On the 9th November, 1933, the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education asking whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age. The Parliamentary Secretary replied: It is not part of the Government's policy to introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age, but the Noble Lady will find the policy of the Government in regard to juveniles above the existing school-leaving age in the Unemployment Insurance Bill circulated to-day."—OFFICIAL OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1933; col. 301, Vol. 281.]


That statement in no way militates against the Government's attitude to-day. The question of education and the extension of the age must be left to a later date. The problem before them at the present time is the problem of unemployment, and I make bold to say that one of the most serious aspects of that problem is the question of juvenile unemployment. I think the Government have gone a long way to meet that very difficult and very delicate situation. I have listened with very great care and attention to the able speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and I have not heard them decry the work of the juvenile instruction centres. They have never said that those centres were bad. There has not been a single attack upon the work of the junior instruction centres, and when I find not only in this Bill but in the statement made by the Minister a definite assurance that these instruction centres are to be carried out by the Minister of Labour in close conjunction with the Minister of Education, I have great hopes that these centres will fulfil the high promise which they offer in dealing with the problem of unemployment.

The Minister of Labour has gone a long way in attempting to meet the Amendment. He began by expressing full sympathy with the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Aberavon, and pointed out that if it would help matters in any way, he could conserve his right to advocate the advancement of the age as long as he was prepared to let the Minister of Labour have discretion as to the obligation placed upon the education authorities. Speaking for a rural constituency—a great many of my colleagues represent rural constituencies—I think it would be a very serious obligation to be laid upon education authorities in rural constituencies to have to create or erect junior instruction centres where there is no need for them; and I am glad to hear the Minister of Labour say that discretion may be used in cases of that kind. I hope that I have made my position clear to the Committee. I believe the day will come when there will be an extension of the school-leaving age, and that this is the appropriate and proper time for an extension of the junior instruction centres. That is the clamant need of the situation for juveniles at the present time. I am satisfied that the Government and the Minister of Labour have approached the question with a sincerity, calmness and honesty to do the best possible for the young people, and because of that spirit of conciliation and wisdom, I shall support the Bill.

5.47 p.m.


I take an optimistic view of this matter. It may be unwise to prophesy, but my feelings are that before a few years have passed, if this House continues, and still more am I confident if there is to be another House, we shall see an extension of the school-leaving age to 15, if not to 16. I am convinced that pressure from outside and in- side is increasing. Recent Debates have shown that, apart from the old reasons for an increase in the school-leaving age, purely national reasons, the pressure of industrial circumstances, are such that the House will have to agree to increase the age to 15, if not to 16. If that change is coming, and I am sure it is, it is far better that we should be prepared for that day, and that we should put the work in the hands of the particular authority which will ultimately, and before very long, have to do with these children.

The psychology of the individual in connection with these training centres is of prime importance. I am not blaming the Minister of Labour or the late Minister of Labour, nor am I blaming the Employment Exchanges, but anyone who is familiar with this subject must know that among the young people there is a prejudice against the Employment Exchanges. They regard them as places where there is a close inquisition into their means, and where there happen many things which they do not like. It is unfortunate that they should believe these things, but the fact remains; whereas on the other hand the school has the goodwill of the children. They have been accustomed for many years to compulsory education, and do not object to it in the slightest. Therefore, it is far better that they should be put in touch with the particular body with which they have been in touch for so many years, which has the entire good will of the child and the parents, rather than they should be brought into contact with a body for which, wisely or unwisely, they have no great affection.

I am a little apprehensive about the tone of some of the speeches in regard to the education of children of 14 years of age. It seems to be the opinion of many that by some Divine invocation, when a child reaches the age of 14, it must not receive any more general education and that it must be either technical or instructional education. How long has it been settled, and who has settled it, that because a child happens to go to an elementary education centre he should receive a general education up to the age of 14 and that after that age the general education must cease? Why is it necessarily essential that after 14 the child must be trained in some kind of technical education? You do not necessarily need to give technical education at that age. Up to the age of 16 the child is employed in learning how to learn, and if you give it a general education it will mean that when he goes out he will have learned something of a general character which will fit him for any occupation.

It is very easy to criticise the junior instruction centres, just as it is extremely difficult to manage them, but in spite of all criticisms they are to be congratulated heartily on the success they have obtained up to now. Even if they had been worse than they are, even if they do not realise all that we wish, I would plead for their continuance, because of their very valuable service in regard to the problem of providing useful opportunities for young people to improve themselves. Anyone who knows anything of the problems affecting the poor streets of London knows of the large number of children who are wandering about the streets, with nothing to do. It is essential that we should give them some educational interests. Perhaps there might be educational interest in a visit to the House of Commons. Whatever they do, for goodness' sake let us give them something to occupy their minds, because at the present time they are at the street corners, and there is danger that they will fall ino juvenile crime.

Two years ago I said that if you cut off the small amount of dole to the young people, although it might be quite logical to do so, you would be inevitably creating a class of boys and girls who might not have very high moral scruples, and might gravitate towards the criminal class. The figures which we now have prove that every word I said then was correct. It may be said that it is bad for a boy or girl to have too much pocket money; but if you take it all away, the temptation to go wrong is great. Young people in these circumstances have said to me. "If I cannot get money in one way, I will get it in some other way." You are putting a great strain on these young people, and if you can occupy them in a way that will help to diminish the temptation to crime, which is very great to those who have no money in their pocket, it will be a great blessing. We must remember that in the case of many of these young people who loll about the streets there is no room in their homes for games or recreation, they have nothing to do and the temptation is so great that even those of us who may hold up our heads to-day might have surrendered to them had we been faced with such temptations in our youth.

I am grateful for what has been done, and I think the time has come when we should hand this work over to the Minister of Education, to whom it properly belongs, and let the child understand that there is nothing penal about the instruction centres. These young people, I am afraid, do regard these training centres as something penal, which they are not. I want to remove that impression from their minds and to associate the centres with education as part of their lives and part of the enjoyment of their lives, to fit them to render service to themselves and the nation. We should make a great advance if we availed ourselves of this opportunity, with the extension of the school-leaving age in sight, of handing this special work to the Minister of Education, to whom it properly belongs.

5.57 p.m.


I think it will be agreed by all that something ought to be done, and it requires to be done urgently, for the young people between the ages of 14 and 16. The subject that we have discussed is whether instructional centres under the control of the Minister of Labour should be continued or whether the Minister of Education should take over the education of these young people. Various criticisms have been made. It has been argued by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that the instructional centres are at present in bad buildings. He gave one instance where the instructional centre was in a building that in no sense was suitable, and he said that if it had been in an educational centre the accommodation would have been much better. The reason why this provision is being put forward in the Bill is in order that there may be money to provide proper buildings and proper instruction. The experiment of the instructional centres has been tried and, after hearing all that has been said, I think we must agree that the experiment has proved good, that instruction centres of this sort are required and that under the Bill there will be funds to provide proper buildings and equipment.

The hon. Member who has just spoken is an expert on this subject. In many cases I believe it to be true that the boys and girls at 14 who perhaps at school have not perhaps been most suitable to take in a great deal of the education that they received are at that time psychologically in need of some sort of change. In a good many cases boys and girls of 14 are prepared for the change of going out of school, looking perhaps for employment, starting, as it were, on a new phase of their life and, while in that phase, getting some new form of definite instruction. I mention that point because the hon. Member said that psychologically they preferred to stay at school, because it was good. That may be so in some cases, but in a great many cases they want some chance at the age of 14. From that age and upwards the boy's parents consider what his future is going to be, and perhaps they may desire him to specialise in some subject because it is going to be of use to him afterwards. At that age they are generally looking forward with some particular ideas as to their training.

The suggestion has been made that this form of training in instructional centres will be cheap and nasty. I ask hon. Members to examine the Report of the Advisory Council; to look at those who served on that Council. There were representatives of the Association of Education Committees, representatives of the Trade Union Congress General Council, representatives of teachers' organisations, of the London Advisory Council and of juvenile advisory committees; and in their Report these people are definitely in favour of the scheme of instructional centres going on. They desire a continuance of the scheme without any material alteration, and say: The most important direction in which changes have been recommended is towards greater elasticity. It has been suggested that these centres have been made a success so far because there have been few people attending them, but now that there are to be many more juveniles to receive instruction, the whole outlook will be changed. If hon. Members will look again at the Report they will find that this point is dealt with. The Council say: The element of compulsion will introduce a slightly different attitude. But they still recommend that these instructional centres should be continued to facilitate the absorption or reabsorption of boys and girls into employment as soon as an opportunity may occur. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that we were going to train people, I think he said, in a half-hearted way for various trades, and that trade unions were suspicious of cheap immature labour being trained to take away adult jobs. Before I would seriously consider that, I would ask whether it is going to benefit the child; what is going to be the benefit of this form of training on the children? The workers of this country are not so jealous of their rights as to want to deprive younger people of an opportunity of training for their jobs. Let me again point out that five representatives of the Trades Union Congress served on the Committee, and they agree that these training centres should be continued. It has been suggested that in many of these centres trades will be taught in which there is already a great amount of unemployment, and that, therefore, it will be no good. I agree, but that is a reason for keeping in as close touch as possible with the Ministry of Labour. If these instructional centres are under the Minister of Labour, it will be his duty to see that the schemes are kept in touch with the unemployment which may exist in certain grades. It is no use having extra schemes for training boys in trades where there is already a vast amount of unemployment.

The hon. Member for Aberavon said that these schemes would be expensive and would hit depressed areas very hard. He objected to depressed areas having to put up 25 per cent. of the cost. The hon. Member is in favour of raising the school age. If the school age were raised, local authorities would have to find 50 per cent. of the cost. In this case it is only 25 per cent. Therefore, depressed areas are doing better under this scheme. The hon. Member also said that it is now definitely clear that the Government's policy is not to raise the school age. In that case, why is not the age of 14 mentioned in the Bill? In every case we find it referred to as the age up to which people are obliged to keep their children at school; not once is the age of 14 mentioned. In every other Bill the age has been definitely mentioned, and the fact that in this Bill it is omitted, and a rather cumbersome term is inserted, implies that this is not the final scheme of the Government, that this is not the end of their policy, but that in the circumstances it is considered the best, and in the interests of the child.

I think it is well to keep these instructional courses under the Ministry of Labour, because there are other children who do not want to remain at school; they want to find work. The Ministry of Labour will be paying a large share of the cost, and the scheme will help depressed areas. We are right in keeping these courses under the control of the Minister of Labour. It does not rule out raising the school age in future, if it be advisable, and children between the ages of 14 and 16 are going to receive what, I believe, parents are asking for to-day, that is, some definite instruction, some chance to receive instruction, while they are unemployed. The fact that the employer will have to notify the Employment Exchange when a child leaves enables us to keep control of the child. If the child is not working we shall know; and when it is not working it will be attending some definite instructional centre where it will be able to develop its talents, get a new start in life, and in that way the State will get far more benefit than if we raised the school age and forced all parents to keep their children at school, and at the same time put 50 per cent. of the expenditure on depressed areas.

6.11 p.m.


It seems a very curious commentary on our present social system that we should be considering the possibility of so many thousands of young persons being unemployed. By the Amendment we are anxious to give the benefit of these instructional centres to as many children as possible, and we think that the Clause as it is, even with the concession granted by the Minister, does not do that. We are afraid that those educational authorities who are not quite so anxious about instructional centres as they ought to be; those localities where the rates are the first consideration and the welfare of the children very often the last, will, even with the concession granted by the Minister, still be able to put considerable difficulties in the way of juvenile instructional centres. We want them to work as well as possible. A good deal has been said about these instructional centres training children for certain occupations. As a matter of fact, nothing of the sort can possibly happen. The children may get some physical exercises and discipline, and a certain amount of instruction, but we may as well look the fact in the face and realise that their main purpose is to keep them out of mischief during the time they are unfortunately unemployed. That is the damning fact in this case from an educational point of view. Strictly speaking, they are not of any educational value as they now stand.

We want to persuade the Minister that this work would be better done under the Board of Education. I am certain that, as a result of the wider experience we are likely to get under this Bill, it must inevitably hasten the day when we shall really tackle the question of raising the school age. It will be terribly expensive, far more than many hon. Members realise, but I think, after we have had actual experience, that we shall then set about doing the thing in the right way and raise the school age. A member of the Liberal party spoke about young persons standing at street corners, and suggested that this led to their becoming criminals. I deny that. From my own experience, the trouble is not that boys and girls may actually become criminals, but that they become far less effective as good citizens. The gap between 14 and 16, and the gap between 16 and 18, should be filled. Although the Government are taking certain powers by this Bill in connection with these centres, I am satisfied that the persons whom it is intended to benefit would much rather be at work. When they leave school at 14 or 15 they want to go into industry and earn their living. That is what they have in their minds. A good deal of the talk about training comes to nothing when we realise that the labour of these children is chiefly in minding a machine day after day, week after week and year after year.

A good deal of what I have heard has amazed me. Do hon. Members realise that under this system of junior instruc- tional centres you get the students in to-day and out to-morrow? There is, therefore, no chance of doing anything at all in the way of real education. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) talked about the welfare of the child and said that it should come first. I entirely agree, but in the next breath she made the point that if the local authorities had to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of raising the school age, then the interest of the child played a very secondary part.


I merely referred to the 50 per cent. in answer to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who had said that these instructional centres would be very hard on the depressed areas because they had to pay 25 per cent. I did not give the 50 per cent. as a reason for not raising the school age but as a reply to the hon. Member. I gave the welfare of the child as my reason.


I am very pleased to hear that from the hon. Member. I am sure that the sooner we get a direct vote of this House to show how many Members are prepared to fight for the raising of the school age to deal with this problem, the better it will be, because we shall know where sympathy begins and where practice comes into operation. The Amendment is directed chiefly to two points. We believe that every effort should be made to bring all local authorities under the provisions of this Clause. We have never recognised that the Clause is the best way, but if it is to be the second best let us apply it to as many children as possible. Do not let this House make the mistake of believing that the system now suggested is any effective substitute for the raising of the school age or for any scheme of education. I would sooner by far that the Board of Education took this matter in hand at the start. I am satisfied that it will be the board's task sooner or later to tackle this question.

Then there is the question of the provision of decent premises, hygienic premises such as the Board of Education will demand. If we are to have these juvenile instructional centres I hope that the Ministry of Labour will not approach the problem with the idea that any ramshackle building is good enough for these children. I hope they will realise that if they are to get the best out of this un- satisfactory system it is better by far to equip the buildings properly and to get proper teachers to look after the students. Incidentally, I hope that the Minister will offer sufficient inducement to get the right men and women to look after these children during this critical time in their lives. That is the secret of the success of these junior instructional centres: We must have men and women who understand the everyday life of these children, who are able to sympathise with their aspirations, and their desire eventually to becomes good citizens. I would rather that the Board of Education had tackled the matter. Apparently the Minister of Labour has no intention of giving way, but it is as well for us to lay it down definitely now that we consider that education is the prerogative of the Ministry of Education.

6.22 p.m.


I rise to oppose the Amendment. It seems to me that it has been impossible to tell whether some hon. Members who have spoken have spoken for the Amendment or against it. I therefore say in advance that I am speaking against the Amendment. Let me state what I conceive to be the problem. At the present time there are about 100,000 children between 14 and 18 who are unemployed, although there are only about 70,000 who are registered. As far as I can tell only one-sixth of these are in any kind of juvenile centre, half of them being claimants and half not. In other words, only about one-sixth of the number are now in any kind of centre. Looking at the figures for the whole country, if you take London and the South-East and the South-West and Midlands, you find that the figure of juvenile unemployment is one point something. In the South-West it is a little higher. In other words juvenile unemployment is concentrated in Scotland, where the figure is 9.3. That is by far and away the highest figure. In Wales it is 8.9, in the North-West and North-East. When the accession to the numbers of the school-leavers occurs, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), and we get a total of 443,000 in 1937, we shall get a concentration of those numbers in specific areas.

I do not agree with the hon. Member who said that the problem of juvenile unemployment is very important. It is not very important. The problem of adult unemployment is important. Juvenile unemployment is comparatively unimportant in this country at the present time, compared with the real problem, which relates to those between 18 and 50. Therefore, the really important thing is to consider whether we can insert in this Bill some provision for the withdrawal of children between 14 and 18 from the labour market. I regard that as the problem. I do not care very much whether the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Labour is the central Department. The problems raised in the Goschen Report are problems of curriculum and so on. That report is a very idealistic report. It is a report based on the best of what is. Therefore, while opposing this Amendment because it means almost nothing—this Debate is not about the most important part of the Clause—I say that the essence of the problem with which we are face to face as a country, irrespective of party, is whether it is possible to get any withdrawal of labour from the market between 14 and 18.

The point, therefore, is that this scheme must be under the Ministry of Labour, and these words which the Minister has so carefully inserted in the Bill are the key words. But everything depends entirely on whether the true interpretation of Clause 1 is adhered to, and whether the findings of the Goschen Report are adhered to. In other words, as with so many other things in the Bill, it seems to me that all depends on the administration of the Bill. There are provisions here for dealing with essential parts of the problem, that is keeping in touch with the juveniles, keeping them fit, withdrawing them from industry and apportioning the cost in a fair way. I would urge on the Minister that when these centres are multiplied, as I understand it is intended they should be, every existing building should be used. It is quite clear that this cannot be a full course of instruction; everyone admits that. But I would cut down the second part of the Clause providing training for people over 18, at any rate at Government expense. I would cut out every penny spent on those over 18 until the problem of 14 to 18 is tackled in a national way.

I feel more and more that something like the spirit with which the problem is being tackled on the Continent has to come in this country, if we are to face the 14 to 18 problem in a national way. I mean that every existing course, building and teacher that can be got hold of should be brought into a big movement to deal with the period from 14 to 18. If that is not done, what happens? We have a few juvenile centres up and down the country. I am certain from what the Minister has said that his intention is not just to nibble at the problem. The problem must be tackled in a national way. That means very close co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education. It has nothing to do with the raising of the school age, which many hon. Members, including myself, favour. If you raise the school age to 15 there still remains the problem of those from 15 to 18, and it is a problem that has to be tackled quite apart from the mere raising of the school age, whether it comes this year or next. I do not think that any hon. Member except perhaps the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) wants to raise the school age to 18. We know nothing about the curriculum or the course or the cost, but we can do something during the period 15 to 18 if it is handled in the right spirit. The teachers are not there.

I can quote a case of what is probably the best kind of course, here in London. Just over the river a man has combined a day continuation school with an unemployment centre. He has an absolute grip on those between 14 and 18, and in practical courses everything that the Goschen Report recommends is being put into practice. I refer to the Battersea Day Continuation School. That kind of centre can be extended right through the north-east and Scotland. But it requires a genius of a teacher, and the heartiest co-operation between the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Education, and various voluntary bodies. I suggest to the hon. Member for Aberavon that if we utilise what is in Clause 1 it is possible to make it really valuable for the country.

6.29 p.m.


It seems to me that the last point made by the hon. Member who has just spoken undermines the whole of the case that he sought to make during his speech. If it is a fact that someone who has been running a day continuation school has also been running one of these centres with special ability, it seems to me that that rather supports the case that we have been putting. [...] am sorry that once again we are going to be "boxed up" in these discussions, and that we shall be compelled to finish at half-past seven o'clock the Debate on two Clauses which might well have taken all day and even another day as well. The Committee ought to realise that this question of juvenile training centres has only been in the experimental stage up to the present. It was only in 1929 that the Minister got real power to establish centres. There were provisions in earlier Measures, but it was not until 1929 that there was any real power, and at that time Parliament thought we had found a method of ensuring that every boy and girl would go into these centres.

It was laid down that the Minister with the local education authorities was to make regulations "so far as practicable." That is equal to the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite that he is prepared to accept some alternative suggestion if the numbers are reasonable, or if the conditions are reasonable, for making enforcement orders, so to speak. What does he mean by "reasonable"? It seems to me that in this Clause the Minister is not getting any further than the 1930 Act. Under the next Clause he is taking compulsory powers, but how is he doing it? He is taking powers to compel boys to go to these centres under the 1921 Education Act. The Minister of Labour is relying upon the Education Act, 1921, to deal compulsorily with these boys under 16.

There are very wide powers under the 1930 Act, and I am sure that all who remember the Debates on that Act will agree that it was generally considered that the Minister had all the necessary power to see that in practically every part of the country, boys came into these instructional centres. What are the facts? The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) has pointed out some of the figures. The commission's report states that during the first six months of 1932, the average number of juveniles on the registers of Employment Exchanges and juvenile employment bureaux ex- ceeded 120,000, of whom slightly more than half were insured. In no case did the number actually in instructional centres exceed 20,000 for the whole of the six months. The Committee will want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is taking effective steps to deal with that situation, and to see that the great bulk if not all of the remainder of the 120,000, who are not yet in instructional centres, are going to be brought into them in future years. As I say, this has been in an experimental stage. In 1921 it was realised for the first time that not only were we going to have upon our hands large masses of unemployed boys and girls, but that the numbers were actually going to increase in future.

I wish to pay my tribute to the work that has been and is being done in instructional centres, under great disadvantages, but that work varies. There are places where one finds the kind of genius of whom the hon. Member for Kilmarnock spoke, who can handle boys in a remarkably successful way. I know one case in which boys of 18 have actually requested that they should be allowed to remain in a centre, which is a tribute to the training in that centre, but, as I say, the work varies. Whether it is on the Board of Education side, or on the Ministry of Labour side, it will be difficult to get the right kind of men and women teachers to handle boys who have previously left school and gone out for some time into the workaday world. A boy of 18 who has been in industry is a different type from the boy who has continued in a secondary school, and we must realise that the problem raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) is not merely one of raising the school age. I am in favour of doing so, but I want the Committee to realise that the object of the Amendment is that the Board of Education should be responsible for this work rather than the Ministry of Labour and that this should be a continuation of education.

I do not think we can deal adequately with this question of keeping a grip upon these boys and girls who have left school, except through the Board of Education. In the first place, the education authorities in these various areas know the histories of the boys and girls concerned and, with all due respect, the same cannot be said of the Ministry of Labour. In the Chester-le-Street area the Employment Exchange supplies dozens of schools, but the people in charge of the exchange cannot have the knowledge of a boy's record which is possessed by the education authorities. Then there is a traditional kind of authority in regard to education in the schools which I do not think instructional centres as at present composed can possess. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say clearly what he expects from this Clause. As I say I regret that our time is so short because we are now dealing with what is perhaps the biggest subject coming under Part I of the Bill. Can the Minister give us any reason for supposing that there is going to be a definite advance, either as regards the numbers going to these centres, or the curriculum, or the grip upon the boys and girls? I think we require a stronger reason than we have been given up to the present for placing this training under the Ministry of Labour.

This is not a criticism of the way in which the Minister has met this problem as an experimental matter, but I emphasise that it has only been experimental up to the present. I have received the impression from this Debate that the Committee consider that we are going to develop just a little bit in regard to this question, and to get into these centres a few more than have been there in the past. But this question now is permanent and is so big that it wants handling in a radical and fundamental way, different from the way in which it has been handled up to the present. I do not think that this Clause, even with the larger powers under Clause 14, will achieve what the Minister wants. I do not think we shall meet this problem properly until we do so from the point of view of raising the educational age, but, if we cannot have that, the next best thing is the continuity of the grip of the educational system upon these boys and girls.

6.40 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR

I deeply regret that I have not heard the whole of this Debate, because, having children between 14 and 16 years, I feel some interest in this question. Knowing that the Opposition were going to oppose this proposal, I wished that new Members of the House of Commons had been able to see for themselves what the Opposition did in regard to this question when they were in office. If new Members had had that experience, they would get up one by one and point their fingers at the Opposition. What happened would make the gods weep. We heard the Opposition for years talking of what they were going to do when they got into office. They got into office and they had a majority in the House of Commons in favour of raising the school age. Sir Charles Trevelyan was Minister for Education and Mrs. Wintringham, then Member for Louth, and I went to him about it. There were Liberals in favour of raising the school age; some Tories were also in favour of it, and as I say we had a majority for it. Some of us fought our elections on it and nearly lost, because the proposal was not popular. This was a reform which the party now in Opposition had been preaching throughout the country, but when we raised the question and when they were in office, what was the reply? We were told that it was not popular. We said we had known that all along. Why did not the hon. Members above the Gangway raise the school-leaving age then? They always said they intended to do it, but when they got office they did not do it. I am annoyed at the National Government's attitude towards the question, because I feel that if they do not do it, it will, never be done. If the Socialists, by any chance, did get into power there would be no money for the instructional centres, let alone the raising of the school age.


You wrecked our Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR

I have not forgotten what happened. You yourselves brought in a controversial Clause which absolutely wrecked the Bill. If hon. Members do not know that they ought to know it. I deeply regret that the Government have not gone boldly ahead and raised the school age. I am certain they will have to do it because the question of industry taking in juveniles and leaving out parents is becoming a serious problem. I was speaking yesterday to a great educationist who said that in the mill towns in the North, the great problem was where the parents were unemployed and yet the industries were taking in juveniles. That is something which the country will not stand, and the Government will be forced to move, and I hope myself that they will move soon. [Interruption.] There is no truth in your opposition to-day, no truth anywhere. There is no real honesty about it. The National Union of Teachers have got so much money that they pay people to agitate, and they are putting up the backs of honest, decent citizens against the teachers, because these men are paid. They have paid jobs, and if they did not agitate, they are frightened that they would lose their jobs. There are plenty of the best people who will tell you that the poor fellows have always to agitate, because if they do not, they will lose their job. It would be cheaper, I think, for the country to buy them out.

I have always believed passionately in raising the school age, and I do not think any fair-minded parents in this House, if they looked at it from the national point of view, or even from the individual point of view, would deny what I have said a hundred times in this House, that the years from 14 to 16 are the most delicate in the child's life. I agree with the hon. Member below me who said that our education system from 14 to 16 ought not to be so technical, but that we ought to give these young people a general education, so that they would be ready to go into any kind of industry that was necessary. I feel strongly that, from a national point of view, we are wasting some of the best of our young citizens, simply because nobody has had vision and courage enough to go ahead. The National Government at least are trying to do something, and they should have the commendation of the whole House, and not the condemnation of the Opposition.

I was talking to a really able Labour man only this last week-end. He is interested in education, not from a political point of view, but really from an educational point of view. I was talking about this very Bill, and while he regretted that they cannot raise the school age, he said, "Next to that, the Government are really doing a splendid thing." I might say also that he thought it was far better to keep these instructional centres under the Ministry of Labour than under the Board of Education. Not only that, but I could quote Miss Hawtrey, whom I think most hon. Members know. She was on the Hadow Committee, and she is one of our first and foremost educationists, and she says that it is far better that these centres should be under the Ministry of Labour than under the Board of Education. Hon. Members know that if I thought the other way, I should say it, but it is not what I think, but what far better people think, people better than anybody in this Committee, people who watch the question not from a party point of view, but from an educational point of view throughout the country. Therefore, I do not think the Government need worry about this Amendment.

I congratulate the Government on these centres, which are, it is true, experimental, but it is very important that we should get the best instructors that we can. I do not know if this arises exactly on this Clause, but there will be some difficulty about the teachers. I think, however, we could easily get over that difficulty if the Ministry got a rota of teachers attached to certain areas, so that they would always be ready to go where they were needed. The difficulty will be that some of the children get into these centres only for a few months and then go out again. That will be our real problem, but it is easy to get over that difficulty, as I say, if the Minister will have a rota of teachers for certain areas, so that they can go where they are wanted. Then you would be certain to get the very best teachers; and it would have to be a permanent job. I do not say that we have tried, but we will try, and sooner or later we are going to see it come to pass, that we shall take all children in this country out of industry up to 16 years of age. I am certain that we shall come to that, and I know that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had his way, we should do it to-day. I do not want to press him for an answer now, but I know the kind of man he is. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask him!"] I do not want to put him wrong with the Cabinet. He has got to lead the Cabinet, instead of being led by them, and I want him to keep the position he has got. [interruption.] There is no question of wanting him to be honest; he could not be anything else.

I hope very much that this House of Commons will not be put off by this Bill to slacken their efforts for the juveniles of the country. I remember very well, when there was a Motion years ago about juvenile training centres, that some of our diehards wanted to do away with them. One of my Labour friends said, "If I were a Tory, they are the last thing that I would do away with, because there is nothing that helps Socialism, or Communism, or you might even say Fascism or any other of these 'isms,' more than idle boys and girls walking about the streets." I should look with horror on the prospect of a Socialist Government, and I think that the best way to keep people from being taken in by that spurious humbug, or perhaps I should say that propaganda, is to give them a proper education up to the age of 16, to take them out of the labour market till they are 16, to train them and equip them, and show that we, the National Government, have a realisation of our duty to them.

The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said he wanted every child in the country to have the same advantages. I say that that is impossible, because we cannot give them the same parents, and even if we did give them the same parents, we should not give them the same natures. We cannot guarantee that, but the National Government ought to go down to history as the Government whose first care was the young people of the country. Hon. Members who are voting for the Government are grateful to them for all that they are doing, and particularly to the Minister of Labour, who has made a brave and gallant fight for these juveniles, and clone more than any other Minister of Labour ever did before—far more than you of the Opposition ever did. We shall have a great fight with the Opposition about compulsory juvenile training and all the rest. However, we are not concerned with the Opposition, but we are very much concerned with our own National Government, and we beg them to go even further than they are going to-day, and to do something positive, definite and even more constructive than just to run these juvenile training centres.

6.54 p.m.


As there have been several references to the Board of Education, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a word or two from the point of view of the Board, with particular reference to the Amendment before the Committee. But before I do so, may I thank the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) for her kind allusions to myself? I feel inclined to reply to her in words which, I think, Sydney Smith used of William Pitt: He is a remarkable man; he knows what I think better than I know myself. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), in moving the Amendment, desired that the work of the junior instruction centres should be placed, not upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but upon my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education, and that argument was reinforced in moving and eloquent terms by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and other hon. Members. Before I state briefly the point of view of the Board of Education and show how difficult it would be for the Board if the Amendment were accepted, may I say that the hon. Member for Aberavon provided me with a distinct objection to his own. Amendment in a speech which he made in this House last Monday, when he declared: it is absolutely impossible to plan any educational scheme inside of the junior instruction centre."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1934; col. 105, Vol. 285.] If that is the view of the hon. Member, I am a little suspicious when, only a week later, he moves an Amendment seeking to place on the Board of Education responsibility for schemes which, in his own view, cannot possibly be of an educational character if they are inside the instruction centres. I fear the hon. Member when he brings the board a gift like this. He may be digging a pit for me. But I can tell him that in vain is the net spread in the sight of the Board. We at the Board of Education have had practically no experience of these junior instruction centres, but, on the other hand, within limits my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has had considerable experience. Authorities like the hon. Baronet and others agree on the whole that the work has been done very satisfactorily and has indeed been invaluable, and it seems to me that that is one very strong reason indeed against our transferring the work to the Board of Education, which has had little or no experience of this kind.

These junior instruction centres must depend to a large extent on the question of employment and unemployment, and it is clear in the first Sub-section of Clause 13 that the condition that will govern the establishment of these courses will be the extent of employment, and not only the actual state of employment, but something which the Board of Education have no means of knowing, and that is the prospective state of employment in a particular area. These are considerations which would be within the province of the local authority, and it would be impossible for the Board of Education to give guidance in regard to them. If the Board had responsibility for these matters, it would be necessary almost every time to refer to the Ministry of Labour, which would be extremely embarrassing and administratively very difficult for all.

Then, again, on the question of attendance at these centres; attendance, I understand, is often bound up with the question of paying unemployment benefit, and that is not within the province of the Board of Education. If points that might arise in connection with it were addressed by the local authorities to ourselves, there again they would have to be referred to the Ministry of Labour for information, confirmation, and so forth. As regards those not drawing benefit, employment is really the important factor, and there again it is a matter for the Ministry of Labour rather than for ourselves to deal with. I would remind the Committee that under the choice of employment procedure it is not the Board of Education but the Ministry of Labour that guides the local authorities. It is that kind of procedure which is obviously relevant to the unemployed, uninsured, juveniles. Certain requirements are placed upon the local authorities, and in certain cases which there is no reason to believe will ever occur, a local authority can be compelled in the last resort by mandamus to do certain things. Considerations which would lead to a procedure of that kind must themselves relate to matters dealing with employment and unemployment, and the Ministry of Labour could alone speak with direct authority and decide whether or not the state of affairs was such that the local authority must be coerced. The Board of Education could not have the information that would enable them to take steps of that kind; they can only be taken by the Ministry of Labour, and not by ourselves.

Incidentally, I would point out to the hon. Member for Aberavon that he has left Clause 14 unamended, the Clause dealing with the attendance of the school children, which is to be within the purview of the Minister of Labour. If that Clause is left unamended, we shall have a dual control; on the other hand, the Minister of Education, responsible for providing classes, and on the other, the Minister of Labour, responsible for the attendance. Another point arises in connection with the central contribution from the Unemployment Fund, for which the Minister of Labour is responsible. The Board of Education has no control over the Unemployment Fund.

The object of these classes, although educational—and there I differ from the hon. Member for Aberavon, who thinks that they are not educational at all—is also industrial. As far as the Board of Education is concerned, I say here and now that it will act in the closest and most cordial co-operation with the Minister of Labour. We shall place at his disposal certain of our inspectors and our experience, and give him any help that we possibly can to make these centres a great success.


Would the hon. Member deal with the point raised by the Noble Lady—the possibility of a rota of teachers, because of the difficulty of changing numbers?


I was just going to deal with that point, although there is no Amendment on the Paper concerning it.

Viscountess ASTOR

I brought it up only as a suggestion.


As no Amendment was down, I did not give it any detailed consideration. I am aware of the point, and also that no serious difficulty has arisen in the centres which have been established. It will, however, be very carefully considered. One of the objects of these centres is to improve the employability of those who attend them, and, so far as I can judge, a good deal of the success of the centres must depend upon the extent to which they help the juveniles to secure employment or to return to the employment they have lost. That, again, is a matter which is the immediate concern of the Minister of Labour. Although it concerns the Board of Education as well, the primary responsibility must lie upon my right hon. Friend. I hope, from what I have said, that the Committee will realise the practical difficulties which this Amendment would involve for the Board of Education. I suggest that it will be far better to leave the matter in the extremely capable hands of the Minister, which will be reinforced, as far as possible, by the co-operation of the Board.

7.5 p.m.


The hon. Gentleman is a good man battling with adversity. I think that the main difficulties which he mentions do not really exist. He has told us of the difficulty of establishing these centres under the Board of Education. He has told us that the Ministry of Labour has had some experience of them—on an extremely limited scale and not in any extensive way, but merely as a kind of stop-gap method of dealing with a problem which was not considered to he permanent, but only a passing phase. The hon. Gentleman goes on to assure us that the Minister of Labour will have the very cordial co-operation and assistance of the Board of Education. Why should the Ministry of Labour not give the Board of Education their cordial co-operation, and let the Board embark upon this new venture? After all, if the two Departments are going to swop experiences, I believe that the Board of Education is the right medium for this work.

We are dealing with a problem which is not, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) said, an unimportant one but a very important and a growing problem, and one which will dominate the situation. It has been created in the last seven or eight years by the growing perfection of scientific methods and mechanical progress. We are not stopping that progress; nobody proposes to do anything of the kind. The mechanisation of industry is a process which will continue. The constant infusion of new ideas creates this problem for us, and what we should be doing is to deal with it from a bigger point of view altogether, because it is one of gigantic dimensions. Speaking as a craftsman, I believe sincerely that every intelligent man should learn and practise a trade. I do not believe in the idea that it takes years and years to learn a job; I believe that a man can learn the basis of a job easily, and that age and experience then perfect him in method and make him a more or less skilled craftsman.

My difficulty is: what are these boys and girls going to learn? Is it a trade? Is it an occupation? Are they going to learn to make soapboxes and three-legged stools? When they have learnt a craft, where do they go? How are they going to continue? It is easy to put boys and girls in classes, but when they leave the classes, having learnt something of the job, they return to homes in which there is not a square foot where they can continue the job, which they have probably begun to like. If you teach them a job, every trade is filled to overflowing. There is a vast percentage of unemployed men and women now in every skilled occupation in the country—cabinet-making, joinery, metal-work, building, brickwork; everything is filled to overflowing already. What are these boys and girls going to do, and how are you going to keep them at their jobs? A boy goes into a class and in three months work is offered to him and he must take it, and so the job is dropped. You have done something: you have kept him off the street, and that is perhaps the best thing you could have done, but this method that we are now discussing does not touch the fringe of a problem that grows in intensity and must increase in intensity.

I shall vote for this Amendment, because I believe that the Board of Education is the right Department to take these young people in hand. I do not believe that the Ministry of Labour can teach them jobs, but I do believe that the Board of Education can teach them the humanities. If you cannot teach them a trade, teach them to build up their characters; give them a liberal education; teach them to become better men and better women. It is all very well to say that education is all right for men who are going into certain professions. I do not believe in that theory that the finesses, the niceties and the graces of life—literature, art and music—should be kept for those who follow the learned professions. I want to see, not every gentleman a bricklayer, but every bricklayer a gentleman in the truest sense of the term, and I want him to be able to appreciate the best that the President of the Board of Education appreciates. Why not? We can only begin by enlarging our scope, our vision; by recognising that we have to face a great, growing and mighty problem and that we must find a solution to it or our race will deteriorate. If we tackle it on the lines I have suggested—perhaps not very adequately, but to the best of my ability—we shall reach a solution of our difficulty, and ultimately find our way out of the morass.

7.12 p.m.


I have listened, not quite to all but to nearly all of the Debate to-day, and it has been devoted to greater issues than those raised in the Clause. I was responsible recently for moving the rejection of a Bill to raise the school age to 15, and I am glad to say that I was successful, and that that proposal will not be realised during the present Session of the House. Nevertheless, despite the fact that this House has already, on my motion, rejected that proposal, it has been the subject of a good deal of discussion to-day. It would have been an advantage if we could have had this Debate to-morrow, because in to-morrow's newspapers we shall see the unemployment figures made up to the end of January, the figures for juveniles for the first period during which what the educationists call the "bulge" has begun to show itself. The first unduly large number of school-leavers left school at the end of the Christmas term. It is the first time that the higher birth-rate immediately following the War has reflected itself, and therefore, when your papers are published to-morrow morning, you will see a substantial increase in the number of registered juveniles. That, of course, you have every year, and we cannot judge the situation merely by what happens at the end of one term. The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), was talking of the number of juvenile unemployed at some time in 1932. Since then that total has dropped by 40 per cent., taking the figures as they were before Christmas, and the problem is therefore not one of the magnitude which he was describing. As a matter of fact, its general magnitude is not as great as has been indicated.


Not by the Minister of Labour himself?


No, nor by anyone else. If the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) would listen, he would hear of something to his advantage. At the end of December—or rather, just before Christmas—73,000 registered juveniles were out of work in this country, and there may also be a few between 14 and 16 who did not appear on any of the registers. That represented a decrease of nearly 25 per cent. on the two previous months. Of those unemployed juveniles not more than one-tenth had been out of work for as long as three months. I want the Committee to realise that the problem which exists is not the problem which has been stated by so many speakers in this Committee this afternoon. The problem which most of them describe does not exist at all in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) spoke. There is not going to be a great rush to open a juvenile instruction centre in his constituency because only 91 persons were registered there as unemployed juveniles on 18th December. Obviously you cannot run much of a centre with 91 juveniles, not more than a dozen of whom in all probability have been out of work for more than a fortnight.

Let us realise the truth of the situation. Even when the bulge is fully shown, the bulk of the towns in this country will not have a juvenile instruction centre, because there will be no job for it to do. There will be a few cities like Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester, where the situation is bad. But take a city like Birmingham, one of the six cities which, according to local claims, are the second largest in the Empire. There were 358 juveniles unemployed on 18th December in the whole of that city, which to-day has a population of 1,000,000 persons. The number is so small, and when you bear in mind that the bulk of them have not been out of work for more than a few days—


Do these figures apply to children between 16 and 18, or those from 14 to 18?


To both. They are in two categories. There is a table published showing boys and girls separately—the insured from 16 to 18, and the uninsured from 14 to 18. It is on page 26 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for January. The problem which has been described to us is, therefore, one which has no reality. Let us take a town like the one I formerly represented—Reading—which has only 82. Plymouth, which is naturally rather worse, has 371.

Viscountess ASTOR

This is only the hon. Member's annual little leg-pull. Let him have his fun.


We have at least had the advantage of inducing the Noble Lady to listen to the Debate. Take a town with which I am familiar—West Bromwich—which adjoins a constituency for which I stood on two occasions. The present Member spoke and deplored the situation. In West Bromwich, an important industrial centre in the Black County, there were only 19 juveniles on the exchanges in December. In the light of all these figures, what is the use of the Board of Education setting up long-period permanent classes to deal with juvenile unemployment?


The hon. Member would not suggest to the Committee that the figures he has given for the children between 14 and 16 represent the whole of the unemployed between those ages? He only refers, I think, so far as these children are concerned, to those who actually register and who by no means represent the whole of the unemployed between 14 and 16.


Those from 16 to 18 are practically all insured. The remaining group is 14 to 18, who are uninsured. What is the practice to-day when children leave school? They are all advised to register at the juvenile Employment Exchange. It is invariably the case—


Give us statistics, and not a general statement.


I am already answering one question. I can give particulars of those who do register, but obviously I cannot give particulars of those who do not. I can, however, give reasonable indications to show that that number is small. What is the practice? Most parents are very busy during the two or three months before the children leave school and the parents themselves are successful in placing the bulk of the children. In December, the number of juveniles placed by the Ministry of Labour was 28,000. On 18th December, only 73,000 were left on the registers in Great Britain. When we bear in mind that 28,000 are placed by the Exchanges in a month when the register total is 73,000, and that a large number of the juveniles place themselves, we can say with truth that the personnel of the juvenile unemployed completely changes in a month, and, in many parts of the country, in a fortnight. That is the situation which exists. The situation which I am describing and which anybody can find out for himself, is not the situation to which most hon. Members have addressed themselves in the Debate. I suggest that legislation ought to be based on facts, and not on theories which people elaborate from their heads.

The plain truth of the matter is that at this moment in this country, if we leave out of account one or two peculiarly situated areas, there is no juvenile unemployment problem at all. Now we shall have the experience which will face us during the next two years. The birthrate was very high after the War and it is just now reflecting itself. Those who left school just before Christmas are the advance army of that rather larger number of children who will be leaving during the next two or three years. It is conceivable that in a year from now, as a result of this increase, despite the improvement in trade that we all hope will come about, there may be some increase in volume of juvenile unemployment. Even if it were to be double what it is now, the system laid down in the Bill is far more calculated to handle the situation than any permanent system under the Board of Education. I rejoice very much that the Ministry of Labour is going to deal with this job, and not the Board of Education.

I am not one of those who believe that a child should be compelled to remain at school until 15. Those areas which have adopted the by-law raising the school age to 15 do not enforce it effectively, for the exemptions they grant are so extensive that in actual practice the number of children remaining at school over 14 is not materially affected.

Viscountess ASTOR

There is not one word of truth in that.


The Noble Lady can select her own language in her own way. Let us take Plymouth. The exemptions there are 51 per cent. Does the Noble Lady suggest there is not one word of truth in that?

Viscountess ASTOR

The Noble Lady suggests that the reason why exemptions are 51 per cent. in Plymouth is because there are people on the education committee exactly like the hon. Member. They are people with no imagination and no vision at all. They have exactly the mentality of the hon. Member, who always speaks on every occasion, and knows nothing about anything that is really important.


That does not seem very pertinent. The Noble Lady suggested there was not a word of truth in what I have said. When I ask her to admit the truth of what I said she suggests that I am imaginative, and when I show that I was telling the truth she suggests that I am not imaginative. I do not in the least care on what ground she attacks me, but I do think it is desirable she should stick to the same ground of attack for at least 30 seconds together. There are other areas where the percentages of exemptions are even higher than Plymouth. The truth of the matter is, of course, that you cannot in practice raise the school age to 15, because the great mass of the people will not let you. Until we realise that fact, we might as well give up wasting our time discussing a totally impracticable policy. In the meantime, the Ministry of Labour authorises local authorities in those areas where a problem may arise to deal with it. The nature of the problem and the degree of casualness that is inevitably involved in this part-time system of training is such that it would be absurd to run it on the lines of the ordinary elementary or secondary school. I congratulate the Minister of Labour on the method he is planning. I am certain he is capable of dealing with any problem that may arise, and in his efforts he has the support of the vast majority of the Committee.

7.26 p.m.


The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has told the Committee that in certain cities like Glasgow and Liverpool there is certainly a juvenile unemployment problem, but that in Birmingham there is absolutely none. If he were to get "John Bull" for last week he would see a picture of hundreds of as fine looking youths as it has ever been my lot to see making application for a job in Birmingham. Hundreds applied for one job there, and their ages ranged from 16 to 18. It is true, as the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) said, that the hon. Member for South Croydon is one of the most reactionary Members of the House. He opposes any advanced idea that is put forward, and takes a delight in doing so. The Minister of Labour has lost a glorious chance in this Bill, because everybody knows how serious is the problem of what we are to do with the youth of this country. The Minister has tried to face it, and has thought seriously about it. I know that, because I have talked it over with him. It is no use, therefore, for the hon. Member for South Croydon to say there is no problem.

The Minister realises that there is a very serious problem. We are in a different age now. The Government are preparing

these youths to work in the way that I had to in the days of my youth. That day is past, however. Britain is no longer the workshop of the world, and there is not the work for these youths to do. The machine has displaced them, and the sub-division of labour and the reorganisation of the workshops has made it impossible for all the youths to be employed as they were formerly. The Ministry of Labour are going to educate these young men to work when they ought to be getting prepared for going to the university. I remember the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), when he was Minister of Education, stating how essential it was for the youths to get part-time education in order that they may be able to work. The noble Lord's class never prepare their boys to go as colliers or engineers in order to make them better men. They know better than that; they send their youths to the universities.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'in,' inline 12, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 329; Noes, 58.

Division No. 86.] AYES. [7.30 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Brass, Captain Sir William Cook, Thomas A.
Albery, Irving James Broadbent, Colonel John Cooke, Douglas
Alexander, Sir William Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Cooper, A. Duff
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Copeland, Ida
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Burghley, Lord Cranborne, Viscount
Apsley, Lord Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Craven-Ellis, William
Aske, Sir Robert William Burnett, John George Crooke, J. Smedley
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Butler, Richard Austen Cross, R. H.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Cadogan, Hon. Edward Crossley, A. C.
Atholl, Duchess of Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M. Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Dalkeith, Earl of
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Caporn, Arthur Cecil Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Carver, Major William H. Davison, Sir William Henry
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cassels, James Dale Dawson, Sir Philip
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Castlereagh, Viscount Denville, Alfred
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) Cautley, Sir Henry S. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Dickle, John P.
Bernays, Robert Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Donner, P. W.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W) Doran, Edward
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Drewe, Cedric
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Borodale, Viscount Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Duggan, Hubert John
Bossom, A. C. Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Boulton, W. W. Clarke, Frank Dunglass, Lord
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Clarry, Reginald George Eales, John Frederick
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Cobb, Sir Cyril Eastwood, John Francis
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Eden, Robert Anthony
Bracken, Brendan Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Edmondson, Major A. J.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Conant, R. J. E. Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Elmley, Viscount Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th) Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Salmon, Sir Isidore
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Mabane, William Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Everard, W. Lindsay MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Fermoy, Lord MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Savery, Samuel Servington
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst McCorquodale, M. S. Selley, Harry R.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Fox, Sir Gifford MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Fuller, Captain A. G. McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace McKie, John Hamilton Shute, Colonel J. J.
Ganzonl, Sir John McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Macmillan, Maurice Harold Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Maitland, Adam Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Smithers, Waldron
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Somerset, Thomas
Goff, Sir Park Marsden, Commander Arthur Somervell, Sir Donald
Gower, Sir Robert Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Meller, Sir Richard James Soper, Richard
Graves, Marjorie Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Grimston, R. V. Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Mitcheson, G. G. Spencer, Captain Richard A
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale Spens, William Patrick
Gunston, Captain D. W. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Guy, J. C. Morrison Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Stevenson, James
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Hammersley, Samuel S. Moss, Captain H. J. Stones, James
Hanbury, Cecil Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Storey, Samuel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Munro, Patrick Stourton, Hon. John J.
Harbord, Arthur Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald Strauss, Edward A.
Hartland, George A. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) North, Edward T. Summersby, Charles H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Nunn, William Sutcliffe, Harold
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. O'Connor, Terence James Templeton, William P.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Thompson, Sir Luke
Hepworth, Joseph Patrick, Colin M. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Peake, Captain Osbert Thorp, Linton Theodore
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G Pearson, William G. Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Holdsworth, Herbert Peat, Charles U. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Hornby, Frank Penny, Sir George Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Horobin, Ian M. Percy, Lord Eustace Train, John
Horsbrugh, Florence Perkins, Walter R. D. Tree, Ronald
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Petherick, M. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple) Turton, Robert Hugh
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Hurd, Sir Percy Pike, Cecil F. Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Pownall, Sir Assheton Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Jamieson, Douglas Procter, Major Henry Adam Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Pybus, Sir Percy John Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Radford, E. A. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Wells, Sydney Richard
Ker, J. Campbell Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Weymouth, Viscount
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Ramsbotham, Herwald Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Kerr, Hamilton W. Rathbone, Eleanor Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Knight, Holford Rawson, Sir Cooper Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Knox, Sir Alfred Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Reid, David D. (County Down) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Law, Sir Alfred Reid, William Allan (Derby) Wise, Alfred R.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Renwick, Major Gustav A. Withers, Sir John James
Lees-Jones, John Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Levy, Thomas Rickards, George William Womersley, Walter James
Lewis, Oswald Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock) Ross, Ronald D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Liewellin, Major John J. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Captain Austin Hudson and Lord
Lloyd, Geoffrey Runge, Norah Cecil Erisken.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Batey, Joseph Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Attlee, Clement Richard Briant, Frank Cove, William G.
Banfield, John William Buchanan, George Cripps, Sir Stafford
Curry, A. C. Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Paling, Wilfred
Dagger, George Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Parkinson, John Allen
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Harris, Sir Percy Pickering, Ernest H.
Edwards, Charles Hicks, Ernest George Rea, Walter Russell
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Janner, Barnett Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Kirkwood, David Salter, Dr. Alfred
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Lawson, John James Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Leonard, William Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lunn, William Smith, Tom (Normanton)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) McEntee, Valentine L. Tinker, John Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wallhead, Richard C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mainwaring, William Henry White, Henry Graham
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Maxton, James Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Milner, Major James Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Groves, Thomas E. Nathan, Major H. L.
Grundy, Thomas W. Owen, Major Goronwy TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment proposed: "In page 12, line 21, to leave out 'proceeding' and insert '.travelling'."—[Mr. Hudson.]


On a point of Order. Is it strictly in order for an Amendment to be moved when the Member moving

it is not the Member whose name stands on the Order Paper.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert)

That is not only in order, but it is quite customary for a Government Amendment which has only to be moved formally to be moved by any Member of the Government.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 346: Noes, 39.

Division No. 87.] AYES. [7.44 p.m.
Albery, Irving James Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Donner, P. W.
Alexander, Sir William Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Doran, Edward
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Drewe, Cedric
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Caporn, Arthur Cecil Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Carver, Major William H. Duggan, Hubert John
Apsley, Lord Cassels, James Dale Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Aske, Sir Robert William Castlereagh, Viscount Dunglass, Lord
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Cautley, Sir Henry S. Eales, John Frederick
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Eastwood, John Francis
Atholl, Duchess of Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Eden, Robert Anthony
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W) Edmondson, Major A. J.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Elmley, Viscount
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Clarke, Frank Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Clarry, Reginald George Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Cobb, Sir Cyril Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Bernays, Robert Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Conant, R. J. E. Everard, W. Lindsay
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Cook, Thomas A. Fermoy, Lord
Borodale, Viscount Cooke, Douglas Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bossom, A. C. Cooper, A. Duff Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Boulton, W. W. Copeland, Ida Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Cranborne, Viscount Fox, Sir Gifford
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Craven-Ellis, William Fuller, Captain A. G.
Bracken, Brendan Crooke, J. Smedley Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Croom-Johnson, R. P. Ganzoni, Sir John
Brass, Captain Sir William Cross, R. H. Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Briant, Frank Crossley, A. C. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Broadbent, Colonel John Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Culverwell, Cyril Tom Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Curry, A. C. Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Dalkeith, Earl of Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Burghley, Lord Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Goff, Sir Park
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Davison, Sir William Henry Gower, Sir Robert
Burnett, John George Dawson, Sir Philip Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Denville, Alfred Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Butler, Richard Austen Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Graves, Marjorie
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Dickle, John P. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Grimston, R. V. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Gritten, W. G. Howard Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Savery, Samuel Servington
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Marsden, Commander Arthur Selley, Harry R.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Gunston, Captain D. W. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Guy, J. C. Morrison Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Meller, Sir Richard James Shute, Colonel J. J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Hammersley, Samuel S. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Hanbury, Cecil Mitcheson, G. G. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Harbord, Arthur Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Harris, Sir Percy Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Smithers, Waldron
Hartland, George A. Morgan, Robert H. Somerset, Thomas
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Somervell, Sir Donald
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Moss, Captain H. J. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Soper, Richard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Munro, Patrick Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald Southby, Commander Archibald R. J
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Hepworth, Joseph Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Spens, William Patrick
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. North, Edward T. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Holdsworth, Herbert Nunn, William Stevenson, James
Hornby, Frank O'Connor, Terence James Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Horobin, Ian M. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Stones, James
Horsbrugh, Florence Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A. Stourton, Hon. John J.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Patrick, Colin M. Strauss, Edward A.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Peake, Captain Osbert Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Pearson, William G. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Hurd, Sir Percy Peat, Charles U. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Penny, Sir George Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Percy, Lord Eustace Summersby, Charles H.
Jamieson, Douglas Perkins, Walter R. D. Sutcliffe, Harold
Janner, Barnett Petherick, M. Templeton, William P.
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Thompson, Sir Luke
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Pickering, Ernest H. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Pike, Cecil F. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Ker, J. Campbell Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Pownall, Sir Assheton Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Kerr, Hamilton W. Procter, Major Henry Adam Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Knight, Holford Pybus, Sir Percy John Train, John
Knox, Sir Alfred Radford, E. A. Tree, Ronald
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ralkes, Henry V. A. M. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Turton, Robert Hugh
Law, Sir Alfred Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Ramsbotham, Herwald Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Lees-Jones, John Rathbone, Eleanor Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Levy, Thomas Rawson, Sir Cooper Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Lewis, Oswald Rea, Walter Russell Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock) Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Lindsay, Noel Ker Reid, David D. (County Down) Warrender. Sir Victor A. G.
Liewellin, Major John J. Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Lloyd, Geoffrey Reid, William Allan (Derby) Wells, Sydney Richard
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n) Remer, John R. Weymouth, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th) Renwick, Major Gustav A. White, Henry Graham
Loder, Captain J. de Vere Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Rickards, George William Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mabane, William Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Ross, Ronald D. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
McCorquodale, M. S. Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A. Wise, Alfred R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Runge, Norah Cecil Withers, Sir John James
McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton Russeil, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) Womersley, Walter James
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold Salmon, Sir Isidore
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Maitland, Adam Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Captain Austin Hudson and Lord
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Eriskin.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Cripps, Sir Stafford Groves, Thomas E.
Attlee, Clement Richard Dagger, George Grundy, Thomas W.
Banfield, John William Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Batey, Joseph Edwards, Charles Hicks, Ernest George
Buchanan, George Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Kirkwood, David
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Lawson, John James
Cove, William G. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Leonard, William
Lunn, William Nathan, Major H. L. Tinker, John Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Owen, Major Goronwy Wallhead, Richard C.
McEntee, Valentine L. Paling, Wilfred Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Parkinson, John Allen Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, William Henry Salter, Dr. Alfred
Maxton, James Smith, Tom (Normanton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Milner, Major James Thorne, William James Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.