CIVIL SERVICE (ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS).

HC Deb 10 April 1940 vol 359 cc618-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir James Edmondson.]

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)

I desire to take this opportunity of raising the question of the action of the Government in suspending the examinations for the Civil Service. I make no apology for bringing up this question at the present time when there are matters of grave interest and importance that are exercising our minds and hearts, because I believe the position and condition of the civil government of this country and its administration are of vital importance, not only in peace-time but in war-time, and are matters of lasting concern to the good government of the country and the well being of the people. There is a number of hon. Members who desire to take part in this discussion, and therefore I am going to tell a plain tale quite plainly and put the case as I conceive it objectively and in the hope that the Government will really give consideration to the point of view which is held by hon. Members in all parts of the House in opposition to the decision which they have up to now taken.

I will begin by making a short reference to what took place during the last war and in the years that followed. In the last war all the ordinary examinations for the Civil Service were suspended and were not recommenced until the year 1926. It is true, of course, that there were the Lytton and Southborough examinations, but they were on an entirely different footing from the ordinary Civil Service examination, and, therefore, we have the fact that it was not until eight years after the termination of hostilities that the normal competitive Civil Service examinations were recommenced; that is, some 12 years in which they were suspended. In some cases the period was even longer than that. The examinations for the higher grades of the Civil Service were not held until the year 1928 or 1929, a suspension of some 14 or 15 years altogether. These facts, which I think are perhaps not fully recognised, have an important bearing on the issue of the suspension of the examinations at the present time.

These matters were brought before the Government, and the reason which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave as the most prominent, and originally almost as the sole, reason for suspending the examinations was that it was im- practicable or undesirable to bring together a large number of examinees in one place under the conditions prevailing in war time. I do not want to be discourteous to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, or to incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, but my view of that argument for not having examinations at the present time can be characterised only by the one word "bunk." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well that there are large congregations of people coming together, not for such an important thing as serving their country in the Civil Service, but for entertainment and amusement—which I should be the last to suggest should be denied to them—in theatres and cinemas. Only two nights ago, I attended a big meeting in the Usher Hall in Edinburgh at which well over 1,000 people were present. There are large entertainments in the open air, such as football matches, at which thousands of peoples congregate. There are meetings in the Royal Albert Hall and other places at which thousands of people come together. The main or sole argument that the examinations cannot be held because of the large concourse of people who would be present at one and the same time cannot be sustained.

Further, I would remind the Financial Secretary that those who desire to see this suspension of examinations brought to an end are prepared to suggest to him—what must be present already in his mind—that the numbers could be broken up quite reasonably and examinations of much smaller numbers of competitors be held simultaneously in a number of different places, not in one city, but in many parts of the country. That proposal is not being put forward now for the first time, for it has long been put forward for other reasons. There would be no serious difficulty in making that administrative change in the method of holding examinations at the present time. After what I have said, I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be surprised if I say frankly that I do not believe this alleged reason is the real one, and I am all the more surprised that the Government, through the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, are putting it forward in view of the fact that, as I am prepared to admit, there are genuine difficulties and obstacles in the way of the full resumption of Civil Service examinations. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been candid and had put forward those objections, the House and those who are interested in the matter could have dealt with the objections seriatim, discussed which of them are permanent and binding, which of them could be met in certain ways, and which of them have no relevance or binding character. It seems to me that the only ground for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department taking the view which they do is that they want to rule out entirely all discussion of the real reasons, that they are not prepared to face the question of which examinations could be held at the present time and should be held, which could not be held, and which might be held in part or with certain reservations.

Before I come to that matter, however, let me deal with the question of what are the objections that we see to this suspension of the examinations, and what will be the consequence if the policy which the Government are pursuing be persisted in. There are four important sets of considerations which are relevant to the issue. In the first place, there are the candidates themselves. Representing as I do one of the divisions of Edinburgh, I have had many complaints from parents and from possible candidates about the very grave hardship which is inflicted upon them owing to this stoppage of the examinations. There are boys and girls who have for several years been devoting themselves to preparations for these examinations. They have understood that they would have an opportunity of serving their country in this way. Now, suddenly, they are told that that opportunity is entirely cut off from them. I want the House to realise that this is not merely a temporary block on their aspirations. It is a permanent block, because if a few years are allowed to elapse—if, to put it no higher, two or three years elapse—before the examinations are resumed, there will be no chance of these particular candidates being examined, unless the whole system of regulations is entirely altered, because the age of candidates for examination is very strictly limited and unless a candidate can enter at the suitable age, he or she is debarred not merely now but permanently from sitting for the examination. All these boys and girls who were hoping to serve their country in this way will be prevented from doing so, and the whole object of their lives will not be achieved.

It is not only candidates whose hopes are being frustrated in this way—and here I come to the second point. Educationists all over the country are realising the grave disadvantage of the course of action which the Government are taking. They have been in the habit of holding up Civil Service work as something to which some of their brightest boys and girls should look forward, and they are complaining very bitterly that the objective of much of their training is being thwarted. I received a letter only this morning from the principal teacher of the North-West Civil Service College in Londonderry. This is what he says: I would like you to be informed of the effect of the temporary cancellation of these examinations on what I may fairly describe as a small school. Normally we carry from 110 to 130 students on our rolls, and normally we place from 70 to 80 of these young people in permanent positions in the Civil Service each year. On 1st September last our roll was 125; to-day it is 55, and there seems every chance that when the mid-Summer break occurs, should there be no prospect of competitive examinations in the meantime, we shall be compelled to close down, after carrying on for 30 years. I appreciate the fact that there must be some measure of unavoidable hardship in individual cases in times of war, but it seems to me that the Civil Service Commissioner and his staff could still function without impairing the national effort in any way. The young people between the ages of 15 and 18 who enter the Civil Service are not, of course, of military age, and it seems to me absurd that after undergoing preparation they should find their chances of competing for appointments withheld. What are these young people going to do, and how are they going to find work which is comparable in status with that provided by the Civil Service? In the larger towns there may be alternative work provided by war conditions, but in the country districts this work does not exist, at any rate on this side of the Irish Sea.' The third point to which I want to refer with regard to this suspension is its effect upon the Civil Service and the persons employed in it at the present time. The proper arrangements for the Civil Service depend upon a fairly regular intake and wastage in each year. By that means one gets a proper age distribution of the whole personnel of the Civil Service. If there is a suspension of the intake for a certain number of years, that normal age distribution is at once disorganised, and in that way the work of the Civil Service is made much more difficult to organise and the Civil Service is prevented from fulfilling its regular and proper tasks from year to year and over a period of years.

That brings me to the fourth, and what I consider in some ways to be the most important, point which calls for the special attention of the House. As I said earlier in my remarks, it is perhaps true that many people when they are thinking about these Civil Service examinations imagine that it was only for three or four years in the last war that the examinations were stopped, that if the present war goes on for the same length of time, it will be for only another three or four years, and that only for those two comparatively short periods will the normal arrangements of the Civil Service have been suspended. But as I have said, that was not the case in the last war, because at a minimum the suspension period was 12 years—from 1914 to 1926. There have been only 13 years in which the examinations have been carried on, and even that does not apply to all the grades. If we are to enter upon another suspension period, beginning in 1939, which is to run as long as the period of suspension on the last occasion—that is to say, 12 years—what will be the position in days to come? Supposing that that precedent is followed—and I am entitled to make that supposition, because we have had no positive assurance from the Government that it will not be—competitive examinations will not be renewed until about the year 1951. In that case, over the whole period of 37 years from 1914 to 1951, we shall have had only 13 years in which the normal competitive examinations have been the method of entry into the Civil Service. For 24 years out of 37, we shall have had an irregular entry.

This whole Civil Service of ours, which is the pride of the country, was built up after a tremendous fight in our democratic institutions, a fight to get rid of the privileges and methods of appointment which led to a great deal of dissatisfaction over long periods of history. We built up the system of competitive examination, which according to every opinion, has worked exceedingly well and has been of the utmost value in preserving the government of the country from corruption in every form. If the Government are allowed to get away with the line of conduct which they are taking and if they are allowed to suspend the examinations for as long as the suspension lasted in connection with the last war, it will mean that for two-thirds of a period of 37 years the principle of competitive examination for the Civil Service will have been abrogated in favour of the most undesirable system of appointment by recommendation and direct favour. That is a position to which, I think, this House ought to take the strongest exception and resist by every means in its power.

I said at the beginning that I thought the alleged reason put forward by the Government for this action was quite unworthy, though I used a stronger word. It is, of course, true that there are certain obvious difficulties in the way of the complete resumption of Civil Service examinations. It is clear that a man cannot, at one and the same time, be serving in the Civil Service and in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and the fact that we are calling up, by conscription, the manhood of the country, beginning with the age of 20, is a factor of supreme importance. It would be obviously unfair if we were to prejudice the position of men who are serving or will be serving in the war. If we fill the Civil Service to repletion with persons who have not served in the war, then when the war comes to an end, the men of this generation, who would normally find a field of employment inside the Civil Service will be prevented from serving their country in that capacity. In particular, it would be entirely wrong if we filled up with women, who are not subject to military service, the whole complement of established staff, thereby shutting out the men who had borne the burden and brunt of the war. We all recognise that that is a question which has to be faced.

In the second place, we realise that with regard to the higher grades of the Civil Service, where the intake consists of people who are within military age, you could not have any examination for them in the middle of their military duties. Those facts have to be dealt with, but I am sure that the Government and the Treasury have another difficulty present in their minds. Here again I think they can make a real case. What they do not want to do, even with the lower grades, is to take a number of boys or young men of 16 or whatever the age may be, bring them into the Civil Service, and put them on the established staff, only to find when they have been there for a year or some longer period that they have to go into the Armed Forces. The Treasury would then be under certain contractual obligations to them for pay, and this, the Treasury feel, would be unreasonable in the special circumstances. That is, partly, a real difficulty. It is also, partly the desire of the Treasury to deal with the young people of the country on the cheap. They want to put the Civil Service on an unestablished basis temporarily, during the period of the war, so that they will be under no obligation to the young men of the country. They can get those young men, as I say, on the cheap and turn them off as soon as they like.

In so far as this is a real objection, it has to be faced. In so far as it is a mere desire to do things on the cheap, I do not think we ought to look upon it favourably. That is the answer, as far as I can give it now to those real objections which I have indicated and which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary scarcely mentioned. So far, he has stood pat on the absurd contention about the difficulty of holding examinations in war time. In that connection, I would ask the House to consider what are the grades which have to be filled by competitive examination and I think when that is understood the weakness of the Government case will become more apparent.

A number of grades were being filled before the war by competitive examination. First, there is the grade of typists and clerk-typists—girls and women—the entrance age being 16½to 25. I am informed that the average number of candidates for that grade is something like 2,000. They are all females. Then there is the grade of shorthand-typists and clerk shorthand-typists, for which there is an average entry of 1,000, all females. Then there are clerical assistants who enter between the ages of 16 and 18 and of whom the average number entering is about 3,000. They are all females. None of those objections, which I believe are the real objections of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, would apply to those cases at all. There is no reason why those three sets of examinations should not be held. There is no question in this case of men being called up in the middle of their work in the Civil Service. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be fair and admit that if there are girls and women who wish to take those three types of examinations, then those examinations ought to be resumed at once and normal entry into the established Civil Service allowed in that way.

What are the other grades? There is the open clerical grade. This is a very large grade, for which something like 7,000 usually enter at the ages of 16 to 17. There are both male and female entrants. Here, I admit, the difficulties of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman begin. There is a difficulty as far as the male entrants are concerned. These men very shortly after their entry into the Civil Service would be liable to be called up for military training, but I do not think that should be a complete and final bar to them. I make two suggestions. First, it would be a not unreasonable proposition that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should look over the records of the past to see what proportion of women and what proportion of men candidates are usually successfull in these examinations. Then he could allot to women their proportion—or if he wanted to be on the cautious side something a little less than their proportion—of entries, so that girls who had fitted themselves to take this examination should have an opportunity of trying out their abilities.

With regard to the men, that is a matter which would have to be considered. It would be necessary to consider whether it would be posible to allow men to take the examination and not to start at all in the Civil Service but to proceed straight away to their military training, or whether they should be allowed to enter the Civil Service—the successful candidates, I mean—for a short time in order to gain preliminary knowledge. As to arrangements for pay, I think a reasonable scheme might be evolved. I do not want to bind down the Treasury or to say that these people should be treated in exactly the same way as fully fledged established staff, but I think that if that question were discussed in an amicable spirit, a satisfactory solution would probably be reached. Then, when the war ended, you would have knowledge of those who, by passing the examination and by their preliminary experience and by the ability which they have shown at the appropriate age, had proved themselves most suitable to be drafted back into the Civil Service at the end of their military service. I do not suggest that it is an easy matter to arrange, but if it were gone into carefully I believe a satisfactory solution could be found.

Then I come to the grade of executive officers, the age of entry to which is from 18 to 19 and for which there are usually some 2,000 candidates both male and female. I see no reason why a similar method should not apply in this case and the same remark would apply to the officers of Customs and Excise. I admit that we are now getting to the much more difficult problems which arise in these cases. Incidentally, with regard to the officers of Customs and Excise I would point out that the facile answer given by the Government at the beginning, about the difficulty of bringing together large numbers of examinees in war time, was peculiarly inapplicable to this case. In fact, the main examination had already been held for that year for officers of Customs and Excise, and only a small number of those who had been successful in the written examination would have had to go through the viva voce examination in small batches. But even in that case the principle of suspension was sustained. I am not saying that there are not proper objections such as I have already indicated. What I object to is that this universal bar, on the ground that the examinations could not be held for war reasons, should have been applied even in that case.

I come now to the administrative class. The age of entry in this case is from 22 to 24, so that clearly those concerned would come within the military age. I still think even in this case, there might be an opportunity for offering a limited number of places to women, but I recognise that in this case it is not possible to proceed on the lines which I have previously suggested. I have now considered the various cases right through. I shall have established my point if I have made it clear that the fundamental objection which the Government allege in the holding of these examinations, namely, that you cannot bring so large a number of examinees together at one and the same time, really cannot be sustained. If we can remove permanently that bar, and if the Government admit that the real reasons are others, then we can discuss each case on its merits. As I have pointed out in regard to the three grades solely concerned with female examinees, the Government have not a leg to stand on in rejecting the claim that the examinations should be resumed. In regard to the intermediate cases open to people of both sexes, there are, we are prepared to admit difficulties to face, and some sort of compromise will have to be reached, although I do not think the difficulties are insuperable, or that the good sense of the people of the country and Members of this House can fail to reach some sort of suitable compromise.

With regard to certain of the grades, it may be that it is quite impossible at the present time to hold the examinations, but even in these cases I do not shut out the possibility of a partial resumption. Even if it is decided that partial resumption is in any way impossible, we want to have something much more definite from the Government as to when these examinations will be resumed. In the last war, as I have pointed out, no examinations were resumed until 1926, and in the higher grades they were not resumed until 1928 and 1929.In the case of the present war that would mean probably they would not be resumed until 1953 or 1954. If anything like that happened again, it would be a real tragedy from the point of view of the public conception of what the Civil Service ought to be. I notice in the apologia in response to a deputation which came to wait upon him that the Financial Secretary seemed to be of the opinion that there would not have been any difficulty after the war if it had not been for the attitude of Members of Parliament. I cannot accept that. The point was that the arrangements of the Government were thoroughly unsatisfactory, and Members of Parliament in all parties found it necessary to protest against what was going on. Owing to that protest in different parts of the House, the Government had to make certain alterations in their original proposals. It is no good the Financial Secretary telling us that he has a beautiful plan which is going to work out all right provided tiresome Members of Parliament do not upset it. That is not the way things are done in a democratic country, and the Government will not get away with it.

I rather gather the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken exception to that. He shakes his head. I gather then that he does not take exception. All right then, he does not take exception to my representation of the facts, and I am quite satisfied. The Government must promise us that an early resumption of examinations after the war will be carried out in those cases where it is impossible to carry them on at the present time. The House will not be satisfied if the Financial Secretary stands pat on a mere general refusal to re-open the examinations, and still more I contend it will be perfectly right in refusing to accept the wholly improbable reason that these examinations cannot be started, merely because the Government cannot do what other bodies having examinations are already doing, and that is arranging for them to be held during the war.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. I have been trying for some weeks to obtain some information by way of Questions on the Order Paper, both about what is happening to the Civil Service Commissioners, and in regard to the new procedure for recruiting staff in the Civil Service. I must say that I have never met, on any topic I have raised with any Minister, so much confusion, and never have I been left with such a strong impression on my mind that there is something they want to keep hidden. Surely the Minister might have given us some information long before this, because it was a drastic and revolutionary change which was made, when in a day the whole system of filling our Civil Service was flung overboard and some—I think it would be entirely wrong to call it a system—new haphazard method of recruitment was put in its place. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whom I saw on the Front Bench has not departed, because I am hoping to put to him some points affecting him more than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Some of the Questions I put to the Minister were to try and find out what the Civil Service Commissioners were doing now that their jobs have come to an end. The Minister gave me evasive replies. I asked him whether he would think of abolishing the Civil Service Commissioners and save the £70,000 at present expended on them. He replied that the expenditure was not £70,000, but £64,000, which put me in a terrible mess, because above all things I like to be accurate in details. As a matter of fact, the amount estimated to be expended was not £70,000, but £74,000.

The Minister estimates also to make some savings; but I notice an extraordinary thing in this connection. He estimates to make considerable income from fees paid by candidates attending examinations and expects to draw £11,000 during the financial year of 1940 as a result of the fees charged to candidates attending examinations not taking place. That is good finance, and if anyone can do it, I am sure it is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I want him to tell me where that £11,000 is coming from, and what is being done with this amazing list of officials of Civil Service Commissioners—a first Commissioner with £2,000 a year, the same sum as last year, in spite of a diminution or almost vanished responsibility, an Assistant Commissioner with £1,500 a year, an Assistant Secretary, a Director of Examinations, a Senior Assistant Director of Examinations, an Assistant Director of Examinations, a Chief Superintendent of Examinations and so on. They are all down in the Estimate and are receiving salaries for this incoming year. Presumably all these people have found that their work has come to a complete standstill. The right hon. Gentleman has raised the important point that failing the examination the alternative is patronage. It may be concealed or safeguarded in many ways, but it is patronage.

I want to mention to the House a matter which passed between the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself. Parents living in Glasgow, not in my constituency, wrote to me saying that their daughter had been appointed as a shorthand-typist in one of the Ministries as a result of a competitive examination, and that she had been posted to a position in London. The parents were greatly disturbed about their little daughter being brought down about 400 miles away from their home, picturing air raids, the temptations of the great city, and all the rest of the things, and they wrote to me asking me whether it would be possible to get their daughter transferred to one of the Government offices in the West of Scotland. I passed on the letter in the ordinary way to the Minister. I did not attempt to put undue pressure on him; I just passed it on and suggested that the requests might be attended to. I received a letter back from the Minister—I am sorry I destroyed it, but I was so annoyed about it; however, I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not dispute my description of it. It accused me of using my Parliamentary position to secure advantages for my friends. That is a matter on which I have been tremendously scrupulous during the whole of my Parliamentary life. I do not think I have ever asked for any advantage for anybody in any public service. I did say a word, however, to the Prime Minister about the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on one occasion, but that could scarcely be described as trying to secure privileges for my friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Perhaps I had better wait until I have heard the answer before I decide whether I was in error or not. But because of this undue pressure which the hon. Member for Bridgeton was bringing to bear on the Treasury to secure this advantage for his shorthand-typist friends, it had been decided to send out a notice to the whole Civil Service that attempts to bring influence to bear on Members of Parliament to secure promotions—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank)

The hon. Gentleman has not been able to refresh his memory of what was in the letter, but perhaps he will take it from me that there was no question of issuing a circular. The reference was to a long existing circular which is brought to the attention of civil servants when entering the Civil Service. There is no question of re-issuing it. I can show the hon. Member a copy of the letter.

Mr. Maxton

I hope it will be produced before the end of the Debate. The impression definitely made on my mind—and I do not want to misrepresent the letter—was, first, that I am accused of using my Parliamentary position for securing advantages to my friends, namely, the transfer of one shorthand typist from London to Glasgow, and to do it for a person who, until I received the letter, was completely anonymous; second, and this action was of such an obnoxious nature that civil servants must again be reminded that that sort of thing is wrong. I never saw this particular civil servant in my life; it was her father who wrote me the letter. This interested me very much, because although the letter I received from the Treasury bore the signature of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, it was obviously prepared by the Civil Service Commissioners.

Captain Crookshank indicated dissent.

Mr. Maxton

I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the letter before the conclusion of the Debate. It was obvious to me that it was written by the Civil Service Commissioners; or, at any rate, from the internal evidence, it could not have been written without consultation with them. It was on the same day that I had on the Paper a Question suggesting the abolition of the Civil Service Commission that this letter was sent. That was a pure accident. I do not say that the Chief Commissioner was feeling sore, but he certainly made me feel sore when I read that letter. At the same time as this was happening, while I was being ticked off for using undue pressure and threatening the Government with what would happen if they did not send a 16½-year-old typist from London to Glasgow, questions were being asked all over the House about the hoisting of people into really important positions in the Civil Service. I have lists in my pocket from one Civil Service union giving me a full collection of obvious jobs—not 20s. a week typist jobs, but important administrative posts. Some of them have been the subject of question and answer, some of them have been the subject of investigations, and some, I am glad to say, have been the subject of dismissals.

There has been during the last six or seven months a hysterical running of the Treasury by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and a rushing in, without serious investigations into ability, qualification or character, of people whose only claim to be admitted into the Civil Service was that they had some relation who was there before or that they had some relation who was even in the Government and very high up. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will refrain from talking to me about patronage when he is sitting there to-day defending the institution of a system which was departed from by the good sense of the Parliamentary government of this country, but which is more and more being instituted again in various branches of the public service and even in private enterprise. Glasgow Corporation, the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, and bodies that knew what could happen when jobs were handed out by influence and pressure have deliberately established a method of competitive examination as the one way by which they can get free of the unfairness and jobbery that arise from the placing of friends.

I want to turn to the other aspect of the question as to how the present recruitment is taking place. I understand that for the junior positions the local Employment Exchange is used in the recruitment of typists, shorthand typists and junior clerks. I want the House to know what I am certain must happen under this system. Government officers requiring assistance of that description will go to the Employment Exchange nearest the office. That means that the recruitment of civil servants now will be mainly among the young people of London, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the big centres where there is a large number of Government offices. An examination of the facts would show that in the recruitment by competitive examination a large proportion of those who came successfully through the examinations and secured appointments were from rural and provincial places in which there are practically no Government offices.

The clever boys and girls in the country schools who could not go to universities because of family circumstances, who could not get advanced higher education, but who could get coaching by their teachers and correspondence courses, entered these examinations and passed, and came into the Civil Service from the country and from obscure little places. Many of them are now holding responsible positions in the Service. They will be barred now, if I understand the working of the machine correctly. If the Air Ministry or the War Office or the Foreign Office want shorthand typists or boy clerks, they will not send to East Fife or to the wilds of Wiltshire or to Wales or to Northern Ireland; they will send to the Employment Exchange nearest to Whitehall. I shall be glad to hear from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is some method by which this is not happening, but, as I read the situation, that is what is happening to-day. The result is that the rural and provincial boys and girls, the clever lads and lasses who came into the Civil Service from these remote parts, are now barred entirely by the method of recruitment from the Employment Exchange.

I want to have a clear description from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour of the filling of the higher appointments from the Central Register, how the Central Register functions, and how it is controlled and directed. Is it a Central Register in the sense that only people in the centre get on to it? Do really important appointments pass through the Central Register in reality? Or does a Minister choose a person for a job and say, "Now run away and put your name on the Central Register," and then telephone to the Central Register and say, "Send me the man whose name you have just put on the Central Register; I have a job for him"? That has been done. I understand that some of the names were put on after some Members below the Gangway started to ask questions about the appointments. They were regularised after the event, as we do with marriages in Scotland.

Mr. Robert Gibson (Greenock)

Per subsequens matrimonium.

Mr. Maxton

I am not casting any reflection on the moral character of the Minister or the persons occupying these jobs, nor am I using strong language which the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was betrayed into doing. I really believe that there is in the whole business, I do not say any large-scale development of it, but the making of a first-class racket. It would be as well to stop it now rather than later on.

I am supporting fully the claim of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) for the starting of competitive examinations again. I do not share the doubt that he has about the difficulty of appointing the young men, because I think it is the Government's duty to take on young fellows of 17 and 18 and give them three years' work before they go for military training if they have the necessary qualifications and pass the necessary examinations and the Government have the necessary appointments. All over the country young fellows cannot enter jobs where they could gain real skill at 16, 17 or 18, because employers are saying, "We will not start you because you have to go away at 20." That is all wrong. If a fellow can get two years' experience in a skilled craft or in an office before he goes to the Army, let him at any rate have those two years and let the Government give a lead in the matter. Do not let the Government start saying when the boys are leaving school, "You are condemned to be a soldier at 20, and what happens in between does not seriously matter." I am supporting fully the claim of the right hon. Gentleman for the re-establishment of the competitive examination method of entry. If we are not to get that, I want to be assured that there is real systematic recruitment going on just now. I cannot say that I would fight to the last ditch for the competitive examination as the final heaven-sent way of distinguishing between man and man, but it is the best device we have found so far that makes for fairness, and it has not been proved to be an indifferent way of recruiting people in the past. If we are not having that, however, I want to know that there is some real assessment of ability, character and qualification by the Central Register in the higher ranks and by the Employment Exchanges which are responsible for recruiting to the lower ranks. I want to know in detail how the Central Register is operating, and how a competent person proceeds in order to get on to the Ceneral Register and to be considered for appointments. I want to know that it is done by some assessment of merit and ability and not by the use of political influence.

I also want to know whether the ordinary work of the Civil Service Commissioners has come to an end. They are the people upon whom we have relied, the people who have the experience, the people who have the accumulated knowledge of how this work has been done over the years. When I suggested their abolition I did not really want to abolish them, but only wanted them to do something to justify their existence, and I cannot see why, in connection with this Central Register recruitment, the skill, experience and knowledge of examination routine— both written and oral examinations—which has been accumulated by the Civil Service Commissioners should not be utilised, even supposing that many of the positions which have to be filled in these urgent times are not of the kind for which one tests by a written examination. Suppose it is done by the method of an interview. Always the Civil Service Commissioners have been accustomed, with a certain proportion of their technical appointments, to make them upon a record of knowledge and experience added to the results of a personal interview. At such interviews there are present one lot of persons who are accustomed to assess men in general, with an added person or persons with expert knowledge of the particular job that is to be filled.

That seems to be an intelligent and an appropriate way of working this business, and the only people who have actual knowledge of it in the past are the Civil Service Commissioners. Now it has been turned over to the Ministry of Labour who up to the war knew how to send 1,000 navvies to a road-digging job, or on occasion to place an engineer, though, generally speaking, engineers do not get themselves placed through Employment Exchanges. In general, the Employment Exchanges have dealt with the mass employment of skilled and semi-skilled workers rather than with the selection of men with special ability for special jobs. In five or ten minutes, in that extraordinary, panicky, hysterical state which hung around the first weeks of the war, when they were even going to abolish Parliament, or to transport it elsewhere, and do all sorts of silly things—in that hour or two, I will not say of panic, but of uncertainty, of the imagining of all sorts of impossible things, this Department of State, which did this job to the satisfaction of all of us up to the outbreak of the war, was shoved to one side, and the Ministry of Labour, who had never done the job at all, had it imposed upon them.

I think that is all wrong, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that a case has been fully made out this afternoon for the resumption of the examination method for the recruitment of the general body of the Civil Service. None of us will claim that it must be a hard-and-fast system, iron-bound. There must be exceptions and flexibility, having regard to the times in which we are living, but for the big general body of recruits the competitive examination system should be reintroduced. As has already been suggested, the examinations might be localised, with 10 centres of examination instead of one or two. I can see no difficulty in carrying on this aspect of the nation's life any more than we believe there will be any difficulty in carrying on all the other material aspects of the nation's life.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little (University of London)

I should like to express my personal appreciation of the Financial Secretary's treatment of the case presented by the deputation which visited him about a fortnight ago. He has obviously taken great pains over and given a vast amount of thought to this question. He has in a way done what a celebrated proverb deprecates, "Oh that mine adversary had written a book." He has quoted arguments which have weighed with him in making his decision, and that is fortunate for those who are interested in this question, because they can really see what is in his mind in refusing this concession. Other speakers have dwelt upon the state of mind which prevailed at the beginning of the war when a number of decisions were taken which have since been regarded as being unhappy ones.

It is an interesting fact that not long ago an essay was published by a writer on sociology who has made a special study of what he has called ''the instinct of the herd in peace and in war." It was a really great contribution to the knowledge of what does happen to persons in certain states of psychological emotion. The writer, who is probably the greatest authority on the subject, then definitely expressed the opinion that a large number of the decisions taken at the outbreak of the war bore, as he described it, all the diagnostic marks of panic. The diagnostic marks of panic are, principally, that there is no relation whatever to reason in the reaction which takes place, that it is a herd reaction.

I want to dwell upon that point, because it is obvious that decisions are being taken now which reverse what was done in the early part of the war. One instance is supplied by the medical profession, with which I am most familiar. In the early stages of the war the whole of the consulting personnel of the volun- tary hospitals in London was enrolled in full-time service. The immediate result was to deprive the civil population of London of any expert attention, to empty the hospitals and completely to disorganise medical education. The effect of that became obvious very quickly, and within a fortnight the Minister of Health was using every effort to persuade the staffs to come back, but he did not succeed in doing so for three months, because he had a totally ineffective method of achieving this purpose; but what I want to stress is that that earlier decision was reversed as soon as it became clear that it was necessary to do so.

That, I think, represents the state of the case we are now considering. The answer which the Financial Secretary gave to the deputation was that the resumption of the Civil Service examinations was impracticable and inadvisable. I hope that if one can convince him that they are not impracticable he will drop the second count of their being inadvisable. Let us see what is the practicability of this concession. The number of persons who would be affected is something like 15,000 in a year. Most of them are subjected to examination once a year, but in some exceptional cases twice a year. The number of persons who would be collected in London in any one place at any one time is, it is agreed by the Financial Secretary, about 1,000. It is also agreed by him that it would be quite possible so to arrange matters that the 1,000 would be distributed among a number of centres, so that not more than 100 persons would be collected in any one place.

Let me put what seems to be an analogous case. In January this year London University conducted its matriculation examination. There were 1,272 candidates examined, and we distributed them among 12 or 14 centres. Nowhere were there more than 100 at one time. Therefore, the impracticability argument does not seem to be substantiated. I am also given to understand that no professional or scientific body of importance has been obliged to cancel examinations at the present time. What was the position in which London University found itself at the beginning of the war? It affords a good example of what we are contending for at the present time. In the first weeks of the war, on the advice of the then Lord Privy Seal, the schools of London University left London. That meant dealing with something like 13,000 day students, and about half of them were evacuated to centres in the country. That evacuation has meant so much loss to the schools that there is a very strong movement in favour of returning to London in the near future; and that will probably be the case with the larger colleges as far as they can relinquish engagements which have been made with provincial centres. That will probably happen in the great majority of cases in the term beginning in October.

That will mean the return to London of something like 13,000 young people of the same ages as we are concerned with here. The Financial Secretary very properly insisted upon the value of youth and the necessity of protecting young people from disasters which may befall them. If these colleges return, something like 13,000 students will be collected in London for several hours a day on five or six days a week and not, as in the case of these examinations, for two or three days once or twice a year. On that showing, the case seems to me to be overwhelmingly proved against the danger of assembling some 1,000 young people in one place in London once or twice a year. The persons who are very largely affected are the clerical class and we are told that in the last year there were some 11,000 candidates for those examinations. That is exactly the class mainly concerned and the age is largely under 17. It seems most unfair to deprive young people at that age of the opportunity of taking these examinations now. If they were now allowed to sit they could obtain these qualifications and put them into sold storage, as it were, until they return after the war—if they do return. This was one of the strongest reasons for giving this concession to that class. It is the largest class which the Minister has in mind, and it is that which is most affected. It ought to have this concession.

Let us take the other question, raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He put before us the very valuable point that this destruction of opportunity will very largely affect the poorer classes of students, and particularly those in rural districts who have been unable to attend colleges but have had advantage of part-time study, pos- sibly through certain recognised agencies. We should not hamper these students in any way which is not necessary. It is most unfortunate that this class should be hit. It is not a matter of unreasonable obstinacy in the Minister but of his having the wrong end of the stick. If he were aware of the realities of the case he would not have spoken as he has done, both in Parliament and to the deputations. I hope that the position will not be taken up that this is not the time to make the concession. It surely is exactly the time. I assure the House that the hardship of this disappointment causes actual agony to a very large number of young people, who see themselves suddenly deprived of any future in life, and with the prospect of being turned into occupations which are mostly blind alleys. From the same cause a large number of teachers are also adversely affected. From every point of view, therefore, educational, sociological and otherwise, this opportunity ought to be conceded now.

The last point I wish to make was also taken by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and I would ask the House to agree that it is a most important one. It is in relation to the inexperience of the body, the Ministry of Labour, which is now charged with the selection of candidates, and is a very strong argument indeed. The selection of young people for posts by way of examinations requires a very special gift which is acquired only after long experience. The Civil Service Commissioners have had a very great deal of experience in the matter, and they owe their high reputation to the fact that every one knows that candidates chosen for the Civil Service have really earned their position. Nothing can take the place of this system and the argument is very strong for retaining it. The Ministry of Labour, which is entrusted now with the task of selecting candidates, has not sufficient experience for making the selection with any satisfaction to the public or to those who are selected. In practice, this system is a most undesirable way of filling vacancies. I hope that the Minister will not maintain his attitude, but will regard the resumption of these examinations as both practicable and advisable.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans (University of Wales)

I would support the arguments which have been addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the resumption of examinations in the Civil Service. A short time ago I read a letter in the ''Manchester Guardian" in which the writer said that the position and attitude of the Government were like a Maginot line of official myopia and obtuseness. I do not think things can be so bad as that or so incredible as that analogy suggests. My approach to the matter at the moment is not by way of attack but by way of appeal, and my appeal is based upon two main considerations. One is in regard to the injury which, I believe, is being done to the Civil Service at the present time; the second is that great hardship is undoubtedly being inflicted upon a very large number of young people, their parents, their teachers and the authorities of many educational institutions in this country.

The first point was developed by the right lion. Gentleman who opened the discussion. He spoke, as he does on so many matters, with great knowledge and experience. So have other hon. Gentlemen who followed him. I do not want to elaborate what they have said, but I venture to emphasise one point. Ever since the people of Great Britain began to realise the importance of the administrative side of government, apart from its Parliamentary side, they have become very jealous of the high name of the Civil Service, of its integrity and its efficiency. Very properly, they believe that the integrity and the efficiency of the Civil Service have, in the past, been based largely upon the fact that admission to it has been open to all classes and has been based upon proved merit. Although people are at all times jealous of that reputation, they are, I think, particularly anxious about it at the present time, and anything which suggests, or savours of, or even gives rise to, an accusation of the creation, or the manipulation, or the making of jobs, will properly arouse intense resentment in the country. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was right in emphasising that there is the danger—although I do not believe it has actually happened—of the examination system being replaced by what he called the patronage system. That would be a very serious alteration, from the point of view of the integrity and the efficiency of the Civil Service.

Now let me say a word about the second point, which relates to the hardship created. No doubt most hon. Members will know that entry into the Civil Service is one of the chief aims and ambitions of a very large number of boys and girls who reach the higher classes in secondary schools and colleges. They have always that in mind and, indeed, in the later stages of their scholastic career it is the main object of their training. Now they find this opening practically denied to them, and alternative employments very difficult to find. The result is that hardship is being done to these young people and their parents. I am afraid that this position may have another repercussion of a wider character, which is that in the future parents will be less ready to encourage or enable their boys and girls to proceed to higher standards in secondary schools and colleges if they cannot find vocational openings for those boys and girls afterwards. This is a serious matter, and I find difficulty in reconciling it with that policy of getting the greatest educational advantages for our young people which many spokesmen of the Government have declared to be their own. I am sure that the great majority of the parents of this country are only too anxious to maintain such a policy at the present time, although there are great difficulties and dangers.

I would like to give two examples of the present position, one from a boys' school and one from a girls' school. The letter from the boys' school is culled from a letter in the "Manchester Guardian," and was written by a headmaster in Middlesbrough. He said: My own school is a typical example. Some 22 boys having gained their school certificates last July, were preparing to take the examination for the clerical class in the following September. War intervened, the examination was cancelled, and those boys took some other form of work, suffering, not unreasonably, from a sense of injustice. Worse still, in the sixth form there were eight boys, generally with first-class brains, studying for the executive class examination. Their future is obscure, as few employers are prepared to start boys of 17–18, even of their intellectual calibre. The waste is appalling, especially when this one school example can be multiplied a hundredfold and more. Now let me give the other example from a very important county school for girls in Wales. This has been given to me in a letter from the headmistress, who is an experienced educationist in that Principality. The position is really serious in that school, because the pupils have sat for four of these examinations: the clerical class, grade I; the clerical class, grade II; the executive class, and the clerk-typists. She says: Since September, 1938, eight of our girls who sat the examination in April, 1938, have been called up, and this means that they are going much further down the list than they formerly did. This means that excellent pupils are unable to sit Civil Service examinations, whilst girls of less ability are being accepted by the Commissioners. We feel very strongly that the present system is most unfair to our pupils and that the Civil Service is getting a poorer type of girl than it had in normal times. I put forward these two examples with a view to showing the difficulties and dangers which attach to the present position.

Now, what of the difficulties? There is a great danger, we have been told on behalf of, or by, the Government, of massing so many people at one time in one particular place and in one building for a particular examination. I have spoken to many people about this objection and when I have told them that it is one of the reasons put forward by the Treasury for not holding the examinations they have thought that I was joking. Only when I have convinced them that it is fact and not fiction, have their mild glances of amusement turned into a stony stare of incredulity. The whole thing is ridiculous. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir E. Graham-Little) has explained what his University has done, and many organisations which conduct examinations have been doing the same thing. I would like to tell the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that any of the boys and girls sitting for examinations, had they still been held, could have shown him a perfectly easy way out of the difficulty because they would have suggested creating a large number of centres in which examinations might be held. That would not only be a way of solving the difficulty, but it would also be a very good policy because there would not be the inconvenience and expense which attached in the past.

What is the other defence? The only other defence of which I have heard—and I must say in fairness to the Government that this defence has not been put forward by the Government or on their behalf—is the suggestion that certain people in the Forces would be prejudiced if examinations were resumed. How or why they would be prejudiced I do not know, because I have never been told, but I think that any difficulties in that direction might easily be overcome. In any case, I think I am entitled to take it for granted that snot a single Member of this House would wish to do anything which would prejudice in any form whatsoever the position of anybody in the Forces. I think I may assume that the Government will do, in regard to these people, what they would call upon private employers to do, and ensure that the positions of those who are fighting for us will be safeguarded in those happy days which their sacrifices will have won for us.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Cove (Aberavon)

The case for the restitution of the examination for entrance into the Civil Service has been comprehensively put to-night. Hardly a new point can be made; so I do not intend to detain the House very long. I would observe that the Government stand alone in this matter if they remain obstinate so far as the restitution of the examination is concerned. More than once I have been in deputations to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Incidentally, I would like to thank him for listening to us for so long on the last occasion. Those deputations have consisted of representatives of all parties in this House and I should have thought that on the last occasion it was very evident to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that not only was an academic case put up for restoring the examinations, but that on all sides of the House there was very deep, and indeed bitter, feeling about the whole matter. Hon. Members opposite as well as hon. Members of the Liberal and Labour parties were deeply concerned because the door was being opened for patronage and action was being taken that would undermine the prestige, dignity, effectiveness and efficiency of the great Civil Service which we have established in this country, the pride not only of this country but of other countries throughout the world. Why is it done? No Member of this House can understand it.

I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have realised, on the occasion of the last deputation, that all the arguments which have been put up without exception are absolutely flimsy and that if the Government really desired to restore the examinations all the difficulties which have been put up could easily be swept away. The first thing that is wanted is the will to restore the examinations. Then I am sure all the difficulties would disappear. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) probably did not go far enough when he referred to one of the reasons that have been given, as I have understood, by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Not only is the difficulty one of having a large number of students massed together for this examination, but they have made the finicky distinction between massing students in a qualifying examination and massing them together in a competitive examination. These students can be massed together if it is merely a qualifying examination like the matriculation or the school certificate, but when it comes to a competitive examination there seems to be some great distinction in the mind of the Treasury. Why cannot the examination be held? It is not so much because of the masses but because it is a competitive examination.

I should have thought that it amounts to this: A date is fixed for the examination. This is a competitive examination and the brightest and ablest children in the schools, particularly the municipal secondary schools, come together. On that particular day, forsooth, the Fuhrer determines that we are to be bombed. In other words the whole of these examinations are to be swept away because of the contingency that on that particular day we shall be bombed. Was there anything more flimsy than that? It is ridiculous to say that all the big social and public interests involved are to go by the board on the assumption that on that particular day when the examination is to be held the Germans will bomb us. That reason will not bear looking at. There must be others.

One thing of which I am certain is this: Supposing we are bombed on the day on which the examination is being held; in Heaven's name, it would be easy enough to hold the examination again. I am sure people would be reasonable about it; the students involved would be reasonable. I plead with the Minister for a return to normality. Why base a large and important public policy on an assumed abnormal situation? It is true we might be bombed but that should not prevent the right hon. and gallant Gentleman from saying "We defy Hitler," in the sense that we will carry on our normal life in a normal way so far as it is practicable. It is easy to regard it as a practical matter. As was said by my right hon. Friend who led off this Debate in a very able and comprehensive statement, we have not yet had the real reasons for the policy which the Government are pursuing. I do not know how much the Board of Education have told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; I hope they have been consulted in the matter, because I think the Board have a right to be consulted about it, although they seem to be frozen out by every other Ministry. They should be consulted not only about the effect on the life of the individual child but on the corporate life of the school. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew anything about this matter he would realise that he is removing the collective aspiration of the school when he denies the right of these children to sit for these examinations. It is a grand day in a school's career, particularly in the municipal secondary schools, when it is announced to the whole school that a bright lad or girl has been successful in these examinations.

Not only on behalf of the interests of the individual child but of the whole corporate school life, the well-being of the school as a unity, I beg him to reconsider this matter and to reinstitute the examination. I cannot understand a Conservative Minister denying the right of these lads to have this qualification behind them because they may go into the Army. I should have thought that a Conservative Minister, probably more than anybody, would have safeguarded the rights of these lads who are going into the Army. They are being penalised by the fact that they have to go into the Army, and they are also being penalised for the rest of their lives. That state of affairs must go. I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to meet the wishes of all parties in this House and not to stand fast and stick his toes in as if he had done something that is right and good; he has done wrong and the whole House feels that he has. I ask the Minister to meet the whole wishes of the House and to say that he is pre- pared to reconsider the matter and reinstitute the examination.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton (Stretford)

I hope the Financial Secretary will reconsider his decision in this matter. It has been rather noticeable that during this Debate each hon. Member who has spoken has urged him to reconsider his decision. The Civil Service has been built up on competitive examinations. Surely it must be that we have not yet heard the real or the best reasons why the suspension should be continued. The reason which was given in a Parliamentary answer on 25th January was: The resumption of open competitive examinations for entry into the Civil Service is not practicable or advisable in present conditions." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th Jan., 1940; col. 792, Vol. 356.] But has my right hon. and gallant Friend realised the danger of the alternative which is the growing up of a patronage system? Another reason which has been given, I suppose to support the impracticability of the resumption of these examinations, is that it is said to be unsafe to assemble in any one place at any one time the number who would be concerned. If I correctly understood my right hon. and gallant Friend, it is agreed that the total number would not at any time exceed 1,000. My hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) pointed out that London University has already held examinations for numbers exceeding 1,000, and I believe he mentioned the number of 1,200. Surely, therefore, there can be no more impracticability in this matter; and, surely, it is advisable that those children who have been studying for this examination, who have had money spent on their education, with a view to their entering this Service, should not be driven, as a result of the suspension of these examinations, into blind-alley occupations. I would urge my right hon. and gallant Friend to reconsider this matter, and to see that, if the examinations cannot be resumed as a whole, at all events, they shall be resumed as to some part.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Robert Gibson (Greenock)

The House and, I think, the country are greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend for bringing up this topic at this time. The survey that he made of the whole situation was accurate and sweeping, and the attack that he made on the Government's sole excuse for holding up Civil Service examinations was, I think, unanswerable. I shall be very interested to hear what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has to say in reply to him.

I was not present when the deputation waited on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, as I understand it, the sole defence seems to be that the aggregation of a certain number of young people for an examination constitutes a very great danger, and must, therefore, be avoided. We have many aggregations of people at the present time. My right hon. Friend enumerated some of them. We find aggregations of people at football matches every Saturday. In Scotland, at any rate, it was the rule soon after the war broke out that spectators and players entering football grounds should carry gas masks. In Scotland that rule dropped off bit by bit, but such was the official policy at the beginning of the war. I would draw the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the way in which that initial rule was departed from in regard to attendance at football matches. One by one, football grounds in Scotland had the rule lifted. The very last ground at which it was in existence was that of Cappielow in my own constituency. I had a very hard job to get it lifted there, but in the end it was lifted. Now there is no football ground in Scotland at which it is necessary to have a gas mask. Then there was a large gathering last week at the funeral service of a Parliamentary colleague of ours. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself was there—every Minister on the Treasury Bench was there. It was a large gathering; but did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman count the number of gas masks? He did not have one, I observed; and the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Lieut.-Colonel Kerr), who is sitting beside him, did not have one either. So far as I could gather, I was the only person attending that funeral service who had a gas mask. That shows how the Government's original policy in connection with aggregations of people has been dissipated. Why not take away the rule arising from that fear in connection with Civil Service examinations?

The course of study for Civil Service examinations is a highly specialised one.

I was much interested in the speeches of hon. Members who come from Wales. I gather that in Wales the ordinary school course covers the subjects necessary for the Civil Service examination. So far as I know, in Scotland that is not always or even generally the case. So specialised is the course required for the Civil Service examinations that special colleges, or seminaries, run courses of study particularly for these examinations. Why the course should be so specialised, in contradistinction to the ordinary educational course in our schools in Scotland, I do not quite understand, but that seems to be the position. The course being specialised, it is rather like the course of study for the legal profession or the medical profession: it requires a number of years' study in order that the candidate may be equipped. That involves certain consequences. I can well understand a specialised course for pupils, for instance, who have got out of step at school. We must always have an avenue for elderly aspirants, and that is a function which these colleges would normally seem to fufil. But, given that special course of study, very grave hardship is imposed on those who have gone through the course, and then are not allowed to sit for the examination.

This matter first arose, as my right hon. Friend indicated, in connection with the Customs and Excise examination in connection with which I received many letters. The first part, the written part, of the examination was sat, if I remember aright, in July last year. I received many letters from people who sat that written examination and from parents or relatives who had a very strong interest in such students. These students had sat the written examination, but were not allowed to sit the supplementary examination, which was to take place, I think, in November. That was a hardship arising at once from the rule which was laid down either by the Treasury or by the Civil Service Commissioners. That rule can very well be allowed to fall into desuetude, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have the courage to intimate, on behalf of the Government and of the Civil Service examiners, that these examinations will be resumed. The course itself, certainly in Scotland, is not the ordinary course.

Last week I received yet another letter. It was from a constituent of mine whose daughter had attended one of the high schools in my constituency, but, in order to prepare herself for the Civil Service examination, had attended what the writer of the letter called a well-known institute that specialises in preparing students for Civil Service posts. He narrated the curriculum. It included English, history, Latin, French and arithmetic. As I understand, there are other specialised subjects which are very properly included, such as précis-writing, that are not the ordinary subjects of a school course. Here was a father writing to me, complaining that not only had his daughter spent the time in going through this course, which he said was of a lengthy nature, but, as he pointed out, the course cost money, and, in his case, a good deal of sacrifice. That instance cou1d be multiplied again and again, from all over the country. We have heard from my right hon. Friend that the number of candidates in the lower age groups is something like 13,000. A great many of these young people have gone through long courses, involving expense and sacrifice on the part of those who have to maintain them.

Something has been said about the new method of recruitment. The Ministry of Labour has been mentioned as the channel through which recruits now pass. But this letter indicates another method of recruitment, which I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who, I hope, will make changes with regard to this cessation of Civil Service examinations. The writer of this letter says: I ask you, is it fair that the Government should have cancelled Civil Service examinations while, at the same time, filling clerical posts with W.R.N.S., posts which should only be given to those who have, by some measure of training, been trying to equip themselves for this service? This opens up another point of view on the matter of recruitment. Why is it that during the war there should be such a uniform complex—a complex dominated by uniforms? Apparently the idea is that nobody is able to write a letter dealing with the Army properly, unless he or she wears a military uniform. In this case, it is the Admiralty. Apparently no young woman is able to write a letter dealing with Admiralty administration unless she is dressed up in a uniform appropriate to the Admiralty. This matter has become somewhat notorious in my constituency. As several hon. Members know, I brought up, by way of Question, the matter of the requisitioning of a very large dwelling house in Greenock called "Bagatelle." That is the largest residence in my constituency. It was requisitioned for Admiralty purposes; and I gather that in "Bagatelle" there is quite a large number of young women dressed in the uniform of the W.R.N.S., and doing clerical work—and, it is complained, doing it at salaries that are far beyond those for comparable duties in the Civil Service or in civil life. They have become known locally as the "belles of 'Bagatelle'."

That leads to the position that was suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Here we are getting somewhat near to camouflaged patronage. Why should these young women, who are doing essentially the same sort of work as young women in the Civil Service are doing, be paid at a rate far in excess of that which would be paid in the Civil Service? Might I suggest that the appropriate way of recruiting young women for clerical work of that sort would be by reviving the Civil Service examinations, and, by means of competitive examinations, making the appropriate democratic selection, a method that we are so well accustomed to, and proud of, and that in the end of the day, works out to the best advantage of these young people themselves and of the public service? There is no reason whatsoever why the young women should not continue to be recruited by means of the Civil Service examinations. The sooner the Civil Service examinations are revised for that purpose, the better. Equally there is, with regard to most of the youths who would normally go into the Civil Service in these grades, no reason whatever why the Civil Service examination should not be revived in their case. I am certain, however, that there is no one in any part of the House who would seek to do anything in connection with the revival of the Civil Service examinations that would prejudice in any way the young men who have gone into the Army, Navy or Air Force to serve their country at this time.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. R. Morgan (Stourbridge)

I rise only for a very short time because most of the points which have been submitted to the House are those with which I am familiar and with which I thoroughly agree. I think it is only right for me to get up on this side of the House to show how complete is the demand that we are making to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-night. There has been no divergence of opinion among the speakers. We are all speaking with the same voice in saying that it is high time that these examinations were resumed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson) has referred to one letter he had received, but I can assure the House that I have received, not one letter, but dozens and dozens of letters from parents and teachers, pointing out the injustice of the suspension of these examinations. So many grounds have been put forward which seem to be indisputable that I do not want to cover them again, but, speaking as one who has had some little knowledge of education, I wish to stress the point of how badly it affects the education of our young people.

When I saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education come into the Chamber a moment ago I thought he had come to breathe a word into the ear of the Financial Secretary, and to say, speaking from his own practical experience of these examinations and of the sixth form in our secondary schools, that the Financial Secretary was going in an anti-clockwise direction in stopping these examinations. I hope that the Financial Secretary will forgive me—although it was my privilege to talk this matter over with a deputation, and he did me the honour of sending me a statement putting forward his case, and it looked as though there was something to be said for his view—when I ask him this afternoon not to take up a stiff-necked attitude on this question. There are so many centres at which these examinations might be held. It is not a question of holding them in one place; they could be held in different centres.

I was very greatly impressed with the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) as to how these vacancies in the Civil Service are to be filled if there are not these examinations. If the examinations are discarded, how are vacancies to be filled? The whole history of the Civil Service examinations points to the great lesson that, in the past, there were certain things that were wrong in the way of making appointments in the Civil Service. The Civil Service examination system was adopted in order to do away with this nepotism, as someone called it, and the practice of appointment by nomination. I can assure the Financial Secretary that in putting this question on one side at the very moment when it ought to be safeguarded, we shall want a much better excuse than the one which I know is to be forthcoming about the difficulty of holding examinations of this type in time of war. As an hon. Member sitting on this side of the House I appeal to the Financial Secretary to give us some form of re-starting these examinations, even if he cannot give us the whole lot.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson (Farnworth)

I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has again come into the House. I was pleased to note his fleeting visit before. I am sure that if the Government realised the attitude of the education committees throughout the country on this question, they would not take it quite so philosophically as they are doing. This is a far more important thing than it appears on the surface. It has been suggested that there are only 13,000 children involved in any one year. That may be true, but the 13,000 children are never again at the age at which they can sit, and, if they fail, it means that there are 13,000 children, and all the people who are interested in these examinations, and they are not confined to parents.

In reading the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday morning, I saw a note suggesting that probably the new Minister for Education would make his first speech regarding education on this question of the Civil Service examinations, and I had hoped that he would. I would have been interested to hear how it would be possible to justify the suspension of these examinations, in view of the attitude of the Board towards other examinations which have been taking place all the time. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who opened this Debate, used what was described as a strong word, namely, "bunkum." I do not know that it is too strong. It is adequate, because if no further defence is to be put up for the refusal to hold the examinations than that which has been presented up till now, then "bunkum," either with or without an additional adjective, would adequately describe it.

The principal argument was that you could not gather these young people together in such large numbers because of the danger involved, and yet the Board of Education has allowed scholarship examinations to take place in every county and county borough of this country within the last few weeks, in which the children who were examined were of the age of 11, in far larger numbers than would assemble for this purpose. These young people ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of sitting for the Civil Service examinations at this particular time. In the County of Lancashire alone no fewer than 8,000 children were examined on one Saturday. If it is within the ambit of the Lancashire Education Committee to make provision for the gathering together of 8,000 children in different centres in order that they could be tested in three subjects, surely the reason why the Civil Service examinations are not being held is not that it would be dangerous to bring the children together, but some other reason. I believe that it is a question of the Government giving a lead in the wrong direction.

A hint was given that to take a young man into the Civil Service by examination at 18, when it was known that he would be called up at 20, would be encouraging something which ought not to be encouraged. I contend that the Government are bound to restore these examinations if they are to prove their contention that we are fighting in the interests of democracy. We must realise that young men of 18 who have been training for the Civil Service examination will not have the opportunity again. If they have the opportunity to enter the Civil Service at 18 and are called up at 20, it is they, and not the Government, who will be taking the big risk. The financial reason involved is small compared with the risk of life and all that it means to a young fellow when he becomes 20. If the Government are not going to make such provision, how can they expect any local authority or any private company to make provision for the young men of 20? You are depriving a whole host of people of opportunities which they are entitled to expect. A woman wrote to me concerning the position of a boy of whom she and her husband were guardians. The boy, being an orphan, had been handed over to these people, who had wanted to do their best for him. They decided that the best they could do was to enable the boy to prepare to sit for the Civil Service examination at the age of 18. That examination should have come this year. It may be said that this is only one of the casualties of the war. It is an unnecessary casualty, and the Government have brought it about. There is no excuse, without a far more adequate answer than has been given, for these examinations not being restored.

If the Government want to reserve occupations by not taking these young people into the Civil Service, so that after the war they can provide ex-service men with jobs in the Civil Service, surely men who have had some training before they go into the Army will be better fitted as ex-service men for Civil Service appointments. That surely cannot apply to girls, who should be taken into the Civil Service at this time. The arguments that have been put forward up till now will not hold water. The suggestion was made that the reasons why these examinations were abandoned for 12 years was because of the action of the Members of the House of Commons, and the Government did what the House of Commons wanted them to do by discontinuing the operation of these examinations for a period. The Government on that occasion listened to the House of Commons. If the whole of the Members of the House could be heard this evening and the question were put to an open vote, they would vote overwhelmingly for the restoration of these examinations. Let the Minister do what the House of Commons want him to do now, and as they did 10 years ago, when they restored the examinations after 12 years.

6.59 p.m.

Sir Frank Sanderson (Ealing)

I do not wish to advance the arguments which have already been put forward by Members in all parts of the House in favour of the restoration of the Civil Service examinations. All I wish to do is to endeavour to prevail upon the Minister to reconsider his decision. I was one of those Members representing all parts of the House who attended the deputation when we advanced arguments in favour of the restoration, and I am bound to admit that there really was not one argument advanced by the Minister as to why these examinations should not be restored. I believe I am speaking for all Members when I say that we came away profoundly disturbed, because no argument was advanced by the Minister, and it definitely left a feeling in the minds of many Members who were present that there must be some ulterior motive why the restoration did not take place. I do not believe there is any ulterior motive, but that my constituents and members of the deputation feel so is unquestioned.

This is not a party matter, because Members on all sides of the House are appealing to the Government for the restoration of these examinations. I do not know of a single Member who is not in favour of the restoration. The only argument which was advanced in favour of the non-restoration was that it would result in large numbers of boys and girls assembling under one roof. As other hon. Members have already stated, there is no reason why these examinations should not be held in different parts of the country with the minimum number assembling at anyone time. Even if there be a risk—and I regard it as remote—it is one which boys and girls and their parents are prepared to take. Suggestions have been made about 1,000 or 1,200 boys and girls assembling at one time. In a factory which I control there are 5,000 workers under one roof, much of which is glass. Surely you cannot put forward with any degree of seriousness that the assembly of 1,200 people is hazardous from the point of view of safety. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and come to the decision to which the whole House is looking forward. As I said in my opening remarks, there are countless people in the country who seriously feel that there is some ulterior motive. Do let us remove the reasons for believing there is anything sinister which I am convinced is not the case. The Minister has failed completely to advance a single argument against the restoration of the Civil Service examinations. I would beg my rt. hon. and gallant Friend to meet the wish of this House and the Country in this matter.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Hicks (Woolwich, East)

I rise to support the view advanced by my right hon. Friend and to ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude. He must feel particularly lonely and miserable. Nobody loves him at the moment, although he is not a bad chap, and, ordinarily, he is quite a decent sort of fellow to meet privately. I am sure he will offer resistance to our appeal, otherwise he would have jumped up earlier and put himself, as well as us, out of misery. I have had the opportunity of consultation with representatives of the Civil Service and people in my constituency, many of whom have spent money on their bright boys and girls who have swatted for Civil Service examinations. The Minister knows that if you swat for a period, and then let things slide, it is difficult to pick them up again and familiarise oneself with the many points needed for an examination. I wonder what the result would be if the Front Bench had to go through the tests which civil servants now have to go through in their examinations.

The issue is very simple. You are not losing any money on the matter. Fees are paid in to meet the costs, and I have been told that there is actually a profit, so that is one thing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to feel happy about. If young men and women have to go to war and come back to find a place in the Civil Service, after having passed a test, I think the least the country can do is to give them some reward for the public service they may perform. Like the hon. Baronet who spoke last, I do not want to suggest improper motives, but there must be some solid reason, something not yet advanced, why the Government will not change their mind. I was thoroughly unhappy about the result of our representation to the Minister. Many things which were decided in the early stages of the war have had to be revised, and we suggest that this is a case in which the Minister should do the same thing and shake hands with us. He is by himself at the moment, and his colleagues will have to move closer to him if he is not to feel a draught. The whole House is against him; he cannot pit his attitude against the whole of this House. Everybody is asking him to agree to the restoration of competitive examinations and give clever boys and girls who have not had the advantage of university training, but who are very capable, an opportunity of testing their knowledge and skill, so that when a job becomes vacant they may be suitable candidates, after having passed a test. I appeal to the Minister to be generous and not to be so stubborn and mean.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)

The Financial Secretary is smiling so genially that I hope he will not prove to the House to be an Athanasius contra mundum. Everyone, in all quarters of the House, has been urging on him the same point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) is one who would have liked to have spoken, because I know he has been urged by all the secondary school authorities in his division to put this plea forward. I would join with him in a similar plea. Education authorities and secondary schools throughout the country are affected by this matter and deeply interested. The welfare of thousands of young people is concerned, and I would beg the Government to give way, as they have wisely done on more than one occasion during recent months, to the feeling of the House.

7.10 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank)

For some reason quite unknown to me the most unkind epithets have been used about me by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, and who himself thought they were most unsuitable.

Mr. Maxton

He ought to withdraw.

Captain Crookshank

It is a matter for regret that this very difficult topic should have made the right hon. Member think that I was using alleged excuses and that back-door intrigues were going on in what is really a purely straightforward case. I have great sympathy with the speeches which have been made, and without going into very great detail I will deal with some of the points. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said that I had indicated that almost the sole reason for closing down these examinations was the war position. I agree, because the examinations which were closed were those which were to have been held in September last. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) has said that lots of things had to be revised at the beginning of the war. That is quite true, and I dare say that lots of things are going to be revised even this week in view of what is occurring to-day. That gives point to my original argument.

It is true that in September it was quite contrary to Government policy to hold open public examinations for something like 8,000 young people, and hon. Members opposite would not have condoned it. I say that in fairness to myself. Some hon. Members who came on a deputation to see me—I was glad to see them—have said how disappointed they are that I should continue to say that there are practical difficulties in the matter. I do not say it is not possible to overcome them—that I do not know—nor do I think I have ever suggested that all the 7,000 or 8,000 candidates offering themselves for examination should meet in one place or at one time. That is not the way these examinations are run in peace-time. They are held in different parts of the country—I am now dealing with the clerical examination in which the House has interested itself to-day. The examination is decentralised. I am sorry to have to stress the administrative point because I do not think it has always been understood that the examination lasts four days, and there is a risk that on one of these days a bomb might fall on the place of assembly. But that is not the sole reason.

There is this further difficulty, and here I am speaking from the point of view of the examiners. If there was a raid warning in any one of these places while the paper was being done the candidates would all go to the air-raid shelters and this would mean that the paper was of no more use. Anybody who has had anything to do with examinations will know what might happen if candidates had to go to a shelter and came back again. That is why I press this consideration in the case of competitive examinations as opposed to qualifying examinations. Some hon. Members have suggested that there is no difference. Supposing that in one of these places there is an air raid. It may be said that that it is a remote possibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is, nevertheless, one aspect of the problem which we must consider. It may not be an overwhelming difficulty, but I must answer the point because it has been repeated ad nauseam against me to-day.

Mr. Tomlinson (Farnworth)

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the difference between a qualifying examination and a competitive examination?

Captain Crookshank

In a competitive examination there are so many vacancies and those who get the highest marks get the vacancies.

Mr. Tomlinson

Is not that exactly what happens in a qualifying examination?

Captain Crookshank

No, certainly not. I am really surprised that the hon. Member should take up that point.

Mr. Cove

If the red light came when a qualifying examination was being held it would have exactly the same effect.

Captain Crookshank

I do not think the point is of any very great importance; I was referring only to the practical difficulty. I have been attacked on the matter and I am replying to the attack. I have never said that there would be 8,000 children in one building, but I have said that there are practical difficulties and one of the difficulties is that in an examination lasting for four days you may have a bomb attack or an air-raid warning, and if that happens the paper which is being done is wasted. Fresh papers would have to be set for that particular group and, human nature being what it is, it would be very hard to persuade other candidates that somehow or other that particular paper was not much easier and enabled candidates to get more marks. In war-time one cannot say that on 4th September next or on 10th October next you can, with the same definiteness and certainty as in peace-time, announce an examination which would have a reasonable chance of taking place. That is a practical difficulty.

Sir F. Sanderson

Is not the risk more than 10,000 to one against?

Captain Crookshank

That does not matter. This is one of the considerations which, as the responsible Minister, I have to take into account. These are not qualifying examinations.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

There is no difference.

Captain Crookshank

I am not concerned about qualifying examinations; I am now dealing with competitive examinations. The point has been made that in cinemas, theatres and other places, large numbers of people congregate. I do not think that was a point worth making, but as it has been made against me, I will make it back. It is an irrelevant consideration in the sense that people go to football matches, and so on, of their own wish and at their own risk. If I am the Minister responsible for young people assembling for the purposes of an examination, then if something goes wrong it is I who am to blame, and not the people who go to the examination. In the case of football matches, if something goes wrong the people who go there are themselves to blame.

Mr. R. Gibson

Would not the blame attaching to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be the same as the blame attaching to the Minister who lifted the ban in connection with football matches?

Captain Crookshank

I do not think so, because people are not compelled to go to football matches. [Interruption.] They are not compelled to go to an examination, but the underlying argument of the Debate is that there is a great number of young persons wishing to enter the examinations. That is all I want to say on that aspect of the matter. I do not think it has been realised always that there are practical difficulties.

I want now to take up the point about alleged patronage and corruption. That is the last thing in the world which I would approve or tolerate; but I think there may be some confusion of thought in this matter. What we are dealing with are the ordinary examinations for young persons entering the Civil Service. As the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh said, there can be no question of having examinations in war time for the higher age-groups because, among other reasons, those who would be candidates are called up. It is only in the lower age groups that the question of whether or not there should be examination, arises. The recruiting for that class of work in the Civil Service is at the present time being done through the Employment Exchanges. If the suggestion is that we are not having examinations at present because it is profitable to the Treasury, I must plead guilty to being a bad steward in that matter, because the present method of recruiting the personnel through the Employment Exchanges is more expensive than it would have been to have taken young entrants as a result of an examination.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

May I point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I was not discussing the wages that are paid? I thought that the Treasury might take the view that if young people of 17 or 18 started work and were afterwards called up, the Treasury would be in some way liable to make up their pay. I was not addressing myself to the question whether, for the period of their employment, they get more or less money as temporary or established Civil servants.

Captain Crookshank

I am sorry if I misrepresented what the right hon. Gentleman said. I thought his point was that we are trying to do this on the cheap.

Mr. Maxton (Bridgeton)

Are you not?

Captain Crookshank

Whether we are trying or not, we are not succeeding. It is more expensive to engage people for this class of work by the present method than it would be to bring them in as young entrants.

Mr. Maxton

I am informed from responsible sources that in the case of shorthand-typists the highest salary payable for temporary workers is 57s. a week as compared with 72s. a week.

Captain Crookshank

That is not the class of workers I was talking about. I was dealing with the clerical class of 16–17 years.

Mr. Maxton

In that class is not 77s. 6d.a week the maximum? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, without putting strain on himself, try to stick very closely to the facts?

Captain Crookshank

I recognise that this point is a very important one, and it is one about which I have strong feelings. The class of workers whom we are temporarily recruiting take the place of those who would have come in as a result of an examination, if it had been held, and they are recruited through Employment Exchanges on a temporary basis. I do not think there can be any suspicion that there is there an opportunity for patronage. I think that the confusion has been with regard to other temporary staff of higher grade recruited for the expanding Departments, and as has been pointed out, that staff is now recruited through the Central Register. Of course, that is not my direct responsibility, but from such knowledge as I have, I gather that this is how the Central Register works. It was set up before the war and consists of a large number of names of persons who have put themselves forward as being possibly of use. The Central Register is not an employment bureau because the men and women whose names are on the Register are not necessarily out of work, although some of them may be. A number of them are technical people, professional people, intellectuals—people who have some special qualification which they think may be of use in some civil sphere during the war. I understand that the procedure is that when a Department say that they want someone for a particular job, and especially when they can specify what are the characteristics of that job, there are panels, nominated before the war, which vet the names of the persons who are on the Central Register with a view to finding suitable candidates. For example, if an accountant is required, there is a panel to go into the qualifications of the candidates and into the question of their honesty—I think that was the word used by the hon. Gentleman opposite—into the question of their character and integrity, and their possession of all those qualities which we would most desire in ourselves and in our civil servants. All these candidates are "vetted" by these panels. That is how it is done in practice.

Mr. Maxton

Why is the Minister of Labour doing that instead of the Treasury?

Captain Crookshank

It was decided that it was a matter which should be put into the sphere of responsibility of the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Labour accepted it.

Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)

He would accept anything.

Captain Crookshank

At any rate, he is the Minister who is responsible to this House for that matter. The House will realise that the whole object of the procedure of the Central Register and the system of investigation by panels is to avoid the possibility of any kind of corruption or even the suspicion of corruption creeping in, and that is the way in which new officials, apart from those who, as I have explained, are recruited from the Employment Exchanges, are coming in to the various Departments at the present time.

Mr. Maxton

All of them?

Captain Crookshank

When one remembers the great varieties of work which the war has brought to the different Departments—and those hon. Members who are in day-to-day touch with the Departments know that some of them are doing entirely novel work at the present time—one must realise that the type of civil servant which is required for such work could not possibly be recruited in war-time, through the medium of examination.

Mr. Maxton

But it might have been done through promotion.

Captain Crookshank

In some cases there may have been promotions. But, to take an instance, the work of the Ministry of Economic Warfare is shortly to be discussed by the House, and I gather that the general feeling of hon. Members is that the work of that Department should be intensified. That is work which requires special qualities and also requires knowledge of fields of activity which are quite outside the ken of the day-to-day information of civil servants. I do not think there is any conceivable ground for the suggestion about corruption or undue influence. Reference has been made to the fact that at the beginning of the war, questions were asked in Parliament about certain appointments. Hon. Members will recall what was said at the time. It was perhaps the case that in the rush of the first few days of war, one or two appointments were made which would not have been made in a wiser moment, but hon. Members will also recall that a review of the position was undertaken, and I can say that, as a result of that review, I do not think there is anything now about which the hon. Gentleman opposite who raised the point would have any complaint to make. This matter is not entirely relevant to the original subject raised, but references to it have run through so many of the speeches in this Debate that I think it well to make that statement, which I hope will allay any anxieties felt by hon. Members and settle the question once and for all. Hon. Members can take it from me that I, personally, would not tolerate for one moment the sort of thing to which reference has been made, and I know perfectly well that that is the view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury, who, after all, have a great deal to say in regard to these appointments.

I come back to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh. He referred to the disappointment of teachers and others at the abolition of these examinations, and he quoted a document which, I think, he said came from a Civil Service college in Londonderry, in support of the statement that educationists felt that their work was being thwarted. I noticed with interest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), a former President of the Board of Education, was seated next to the right hon. Gentleman when he quoted that document, and it sounded to me as if the college referred to was in the category generally referred to as crammers. As a general rule, that is a class about which educationists never shed many tears. They have always taken the view that the subject-matter of these examinations should conform, as far as possible, to the ordinary curriculum of the secondary schools and that there should be no need for any candidate to go to a crammer.

In point of fact, in recent years there have been conversations between the Civil Service Commissioners and education authorities, and by and large, at the present time, there is little need for candidates aged 16 to 17 in the ordinary class of entrants to attend crammers. They may have to rub up a special subject a little, but if they are of sufficiently high scholastic standard, there is no need for them to go in for any educational training over and above what they receive at school. It is true that you cannot make the two things absolutely identical, but they are so nearly alike at present that what I say will, I think, be found to stand. Of course, that does not apply to the higher classes—the administrative grades and others of that kind. There, it is true that even those who have secured honours degrees at universities, sometimes find it necessary, so stiff are the examinations, to go in for some specialised tuition, but I think hon. Members will admit there could be no question about holding those examinations under present conditions whatever we may decide about the others.

Then, the right hon. Gentleman asked me, whether, supposing examinations could not be held this year because of the war, I would give an assurance that there would not be a repetition of what happened between 1914 and 1926. He said that when the examinations were suspended at the beginning of the last war, they were not resumed until 1926 and that if the same principle applied now, there would not be any examinations until 1951. He asked me to say that that would not be the case. I can only answer for myself. I doubt whether either this Parliament or this Government will last until 1951, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that I could not possibly give him the answer for which he asks. I can only say that there is no intention in my mind of that kind which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to fear. I thought I had made it clear before, that this matter is one with which we are most anxious to deal, and it is constantly under review by myself and my advisers. I have not closed my mind to the possibility of resuming the examinations in some form or other, for, possibly, some classes and possibily for a good number of candidates. But I never thought that it would be possible, and I still do not think it possible, to announce, right now, examinations for August and September. That is as far as I can go, but I think the House will agree that in the present circumstances, and above all the circumstances of this week, it would be foolish to be very definite on this matter.

There is another aspect of this question which, of course, is not the aspect dwelt on by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it does not directly concern the point of view which they are putting forward on behalf of the parents. Incidentally, from hearing all that has been said about the parents, one might think that everybody who went in for a competitive examination passed and secured a place, but in fact the great bulk of them fail.

Mr. Tomlinson

They should have the privilege of failing.

Captain Crookshank

I ask the hon. Member to keep in mind the position when there are some 10,000 candidates for an examination. In 1938, I think, there were 10,500 candidates, and 7,700 of them were unable to get places.

Mr. Tomlinson

The point I wish to make is that they are entitled to fail.

Captain Crookshank

That is another matter. Hopeful people are inclined to talk as if it is an absolute walk-over for their own prodigies and as if no one else has a chance. Of course, the higher the grade the fewer are the vacancies. In the 18 to 19 group I think 334 were appointed out of 2,244 candidates. As far as the Civil Service Commissioners and myself are concerned we have to try to estimate what number of vacancies we can reasonably offer if we hold an examination. After all none of us can exactly foresee what sort of Civil Service will emerge from the war, and how many of the Departments now expanding will contract, and how many will disappear. One cannot go on the assumption that everything will necessarily be as it is. Whereas, let us say, we were having over 11,000 clerical candidates for some 3,800 appointments, I do not think in view of what may be required after the war that one could possibly offer that number if examinations were held during the war. Because of the difficulties of forecasting the possible needs of the Civil Service if we had the examinations I do not think they could be on that scale.

The right hon. Gentleman made some suggestions and all that he has said will cause me to have one further review of this question. He suggested that in some grades it might be possible to have an examination not for the usual number of candidates, but for a modified number of women candidates. That at first sight sounds an interesting suggestion, but I am not at all sure that when it was made any Lady Members of the House were present. I am not at all sure that the suggestion does not cut very much against the case they are so frequently putting forward, that they do not want preferential treatment for women but a fair field of competition, with equal opportunity for men and women. If you have a modified examination for women only, in war-time, I am not at all sure that I should not be bringing down upon my head the wrath of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the deputation of women Members of Parliament who came to see me in regard to the Civil Service a short time ago.

Miss Rathbone

On behalf of my women colleagues I do not think this idea of a special examination for women candidates has ever been considered by us; therefore I do not think we should necessarily turn it down, although we should regard any suggestion of preferential treatment with suspicion.

Captain Crookshank

It may be worth considering, but I do not quite see on first sight how a figure of equality of field based on a proportionate sum from the past could be reached which would satisfy the ladies. It is a question which raises a very difficult problem. I repeat, however, that I am quite willing to review the question once again in the light of this Debate and the questions which have been asked. When hon. Gentlemen cheer I would assure them that this is no concession wrung from me. I willingly make it, and it is not even a new one. I have to keep in mind the interest of the Civil Service as a whole—I have been a civil servant in my time—it is a great Service and it must be recruited properly. It is important for us to see that it is recruited even in war-time if it can be done, and if not in war-time, as soon as possible afterwards, in the wisest and best possible manner. I recognise, however, that there must be thousands of parents who are anxiously wanting to know what is the outcome of this Debate and whether their sons and daughters will have, as the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) said, the chance to fail.

This question appeals, I think, to everybody in the House, but it is my duty to balance the advantage against the difficulties with which we are confronted. There is an overriding consideration when we have these Debates on such matters—important though they are they are only domestic problems—which sometimes we are apt to overlook, and that is that we are at war, and that all our plans may go astray at any moment. While I do not overstress either this or what I said about the practical difficulties in the beginning of my speech, I hope that hon. Members will do me the compliment of believing that I consider them of some importance when I have to weigh up these matters with my advisers. The difficulties cannot be swept so easily aside by a responsible Minister as it may be possible for hon. Members to do on behalf of their constituents on a matter affecting a large number of families. I certainly will have a review made again, and if the resultant decision is found unfavourable I do not think it would prevent me from doing it again at a later stage. This is a matter, I think, which must be constantly reviewed. On the other hand it must be remembered that it may not be possible to do anything. With that I would thank the House for the indulgence they have shown me and I assure them that I sympathise with the points of view which hon. Members have put forward to-day.

Miss Rathbone

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told us at the beginning that one of the difficulties was the possibility of bombing. I really do not think that is very convincing to any of us. He has not mentioned the lower grade of the Civil Service, although he made a very strong case that a competitive examination is not a good way of filling technical posts such as economic warfare. He has given no reason against the competitive examination except that one reason, which does not convince any of us.

Captain Crookshank

I do not want to repeat myself, but so long as it is the policy of the Government to make plans in case of further evacuation, I do not accept the hon. Lady's view that there is nothing in the case I have made out about the possible dangers.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I am sure the House will sympathise with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on two grounds: first, on the physical disability which prevented him sitting down even when he wanted to listen to interruptions; and, second, upon the great disadvantage of having to reply to what was practically the unanimous demand of the House. I gratefully recognise the closing sentences of his speech and I am sure that, knowing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as we do, we may rest assured that this matter will be reviewed by him in the near future, and that, if he cannot then reach a favourable decision, as we hope, it will be reviewed from time to time as circumstances change. I hope that he will not mind if I deal with one or two of the arguments that he adduced. He mentioned the difficulty about congregating people together. He ought not to forget that the candidates in the group with which we are mainly concerned are at the moment in schools, where in some cases they are compelled to attend, even in secondary schools under their school life undertaking, in numbers approximating to those that are likely to be gathered in any one place for these examinations. I hope, therefore, that he will bear in mind that they are running the risk now compulsorily, and that he only invites them to come, so that if they run the risk in response to his invitation they share the risk with him.

No matter what happens, I hope that the children who were due for examination this year will not lose their chances irretrievably. I suggest that if the examinations cannot be held now some effort should be made when they are resumed to see that these children in each year of life get an opportunity of sitting. I know that that presents another administrative difficulty, but, after all, it is an essential factor to a sound Civil Service that there shall be a proper spread of the persons serving in it over the various years of life so that we do not get the people in a particular established grade unduly recruited from certain years and not sufficiently recruited from other years. These posts are regarded as being of great value by the parents of the children, and they represent a very legitimate ambition. I suggest that we cannot have a true democracy unless the public service is filled in some way that assures that merit and nothing else is the basis. I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will believe me when I say that I am making no charge of corruption. I even go so far as to say that examination by itself is not an entirely satisfactory method of filling any post. I say that as one who spent a good deal of his earlier life in passing examinations. No satisfactory alternative has been found, but we do desire that these posts in the Civil Service should be above reproach and that the public should have confidence that in filling them the State is concerned with merit and nothing else.

I listened with some alarm to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said about the Civil Service after the war. I cannot imagine that in the difficult times that will follow the war, no matter when the war may end, it will be possible for most of the Departments that were in operation before the war to carry on with reduced staffs. I should have thought that it would have been a sound ground to assume that a substantial proportion of the ordinary number of candidates will be required in the groups that we are specially considering in any year in future that we may have to take into account. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to announce his first decision as soon as he can. That is only fair to the candidates who are now waiting. He must have been impressed by the unanimity of the speeches in the House to-night, and I want to urge him, if unfortunately his first decision is not in the affirmative, that he should review it at fairly short intervals. As he rightly said, everyone who is concerned with education desires to see the crammer eliminated from these examinations. One way of defeating him is to announce the examinations with fairly short notice because that does not give the crammer the opportunity of cramming his particular candidates. An examination announced at fairly short notice would fulfil all the requirements of those interested in education and would to some extent enable the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to feel that he was not having the results of his examinations spoilt by the crammers.

I can assure him that there are few education authorities in the country which do not have to deal in some form or another with the problem of equating papers worked in the trying circumstances that he suggested. Most local authorities have now found, where they have any large number of candidates, that infectious diseases and similar hindrances prevent certain children from taking the examination on the appointed day. They have to set a special paper, the marks of which have to be equated, and it all depends on the results whether the parents of the children who had scarlet fever or the other children who did not have it, think they have secured a benefit by that means. It is a difficulty that in the present circumstances the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to face, and I hope he will run the risk. After all, if the trouble does not arise the original examination stands. I would urge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to take too much notice of the lions he sees in the path and to remember that when the pilgrim went by the lions he found them chained and harmless. Most of the lions the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has seen to-night are on very short chains indeed.