Commons Sitting of 8 February 1944

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the County of West Suffolk {Bury-St.-Edmund's Division), in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel Frank Frederick Alexander Heilgers, deceased.—[Mr. James Stuart.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER, ETC.) BILL
  Second Reading deferred till the First Sitting Day after 13th February.
  BECKETT HOSPITAL AND DISPENSARY, BARNSLEY BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  CHESTERFIELD AND BOLSOVER WATER BILL
  Second Reading deferred till the First Sitting Day alter 13th February.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  CONNAH'S QUAY GAS BILL
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL
  Second Reading deferred till the First Sitting Day after 13th February.
  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION (DEVELOPMENT, ETC.) BILL
  Second Reading deferred till the First Sitting Day after 13th February.
  LONDON & NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Second Reading deferred till the First Sitting Day after 13th February.
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL
  To be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.
  YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (WEST RIDING) AMENDMENT BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

    Heavy Industries
    Colonel Greenwellasked the Minister without Portfolio if he is aware of the anxiety of those living in the development areas as to the future of the heavy industries; and if he will give an assurance that the Government is determined to proceed with measures to ensure a steady future for such industries.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): Yes, Sir. The Government will certainly do all they can to help the heavy industries to promote their efficient development.
    Colonel Greenwell: May the answer be taken to indicate that the Government will have this subject in mind, when making the necessary post-war arrangements with other countries engaged in the heavy industries?
    Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir.
    Colonel Greenwell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that there is a very strong feeling in the development areas, in favour of an early statement on how the Government propose to ensure the future of the heavy industries?
    Sir W. Jowitt: I happen to know very well the particular area which the hon. and gallant Member represents, and I can assure him that its condition is ever present in my mind.
    Mr. David Grenfell: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he

    1599
    has more than one area in mind; and will he indicate the nature of the measures which the Government are going to take?
    Sir W. Jowitt: I certainly have other areas in mind.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the future of the heavy industries can be secured only by their nationalisation?

    Industrial Man-power
    Major Petoasked the Minister without Portfolio whether in any schemes for the civil absorption of post-war demobilised labour any estimates have been framed of the man-power requirements of the chief basic industries of the country; and whether, in that case, he can give illustrative figures.
    Sir W. Jowitt: Estimates are being made of the man-power likely to be required by the principal industries in this country during the years immediately following the end of hostilities in Europe; but at this stage these are necessarily provisional, and I do not think it would be expedient to publish them.
    Major Peto: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that our American Allies have plans well cut and dried for the absorption of labour?
    Sir W. Jowitt: I do not think we can do more than we are doing in making provision. It must be very uncertain at present.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be able to make a statement to the House?
    Sir W. Jowitt: I cannot give any promise of a date; the matter is receiving attention.

    Regulated Areas
    Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Minister without Portfolio whether the plans of the Ministry of Reconstruction yet comprise any priority and special facilities for rebuilding the economic life of the regulated areas.
    Sir W. Jowitt: I can, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we are giving due weight to the needs of these and other areas which have been specially affected by war conditions in planning the use of our resources after the end of the war.
    Captain Macdonald: In view of what the regulated areas have encountered because of the war, and the fact that the Minister of Labour has said that rehabilitation is an urgent need immediately after the war, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps immediately to see that priorities are given?
    Sir W. Jowitt: Those areas that have been specially affected by the war obviously need special consideration.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is there not a mistake in the Question? It refers to the "Ministry of Reconstruction." Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, in fact, there is a Ministry of Reconstruction?
    Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir, there is not. There is a Minister, but not a Ministry.

    Welsh Advisory Council (Report)
    Mr. Astorasked the Minister without Portfolio whether his Department has under consideration the proposals for the industrial redevelopment of South Wales drawn up by Colonel E. C. Devereux, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what action is being taken to carry the necessary investigation further.
    Sir W. Jowitt: These recommendations are being considered together with other proposals for the establishment of our industries on a firm foundation after the war. I may add that these particular proposals were made available to the Welsh Reconstruction Advisory Council and Colonel Devereux has given evidence before that body. I hope shortly to receive from the council their first interim report.
    Mr. Astor: When that report is received, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a limited number of copies available for persons interested in this most important matter?
    Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir, certainly.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the report of this Council is widely expected in Wales and if only a limited number of copies is available, it might not be possible to give the publicity required? Will he consider the advisability of publishing it in the ordinary way?
    Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly. I have not yet seen the report, but, subject to the exigencies of paper and so on, I would like to give it the widest possible publicity.
    Mr. Mainwaring: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to amplify his statement that these representations and advice are being considered? By whom are they being considered, and how, precisely, is the responsibility for postwar planning distributed over the various Government Departments?
    Sir W. Jowitt: It is being considered by a Committee of the Cabinet over which my noble Friend the Minister of Reconstruction presides.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Is there any likelihood of a decision being arrived at?
    Mr. Astor: If the recommendations are generally favourable, will the Government consider making available the necessary money and technical information for the further exploration of this matter?
    Sir W. Jowitt: At the present moment that is a rather hypothetical question.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Boer War Pensioners
    Sir Geoffrey Shakespeareasked the Secretary of State for War (1) what are the number of pensions granted and administered by the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, in respect of disabilities attributable to the Boer War; and what is the annual sum involved;
    (2) whether he will secure for the Boer War pensioners, whose pensions are administered by the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, the benefits secured by Parliament and operated through the Ministry of Pensions for pensioners of the Great War, 1914–18, and of this war?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The bulk of Boer War disability pensions are administered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. The few administered by the Royal Hospital, Chelsea—I regret I cannot state without undue labour the exact number or present cost—are in respect of belated claims with which I understand my right hon. Friend is unable to deal. The awards by the Royal Hospital are made under the Boer War regulations with, in most cases, an increase of 70 per
    1602
    cent. over Boer War rates. I am considering whether the basis of award can be revised.
    Sir G. Shakespeare: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the Boer War pensioner has his disability pension reduced when he gets light work?
    Sir J. Grigg: As I have promised to consider the basis of awards generally, I am naturally, quite willing to take into account any factor brought to my notice bearing on the question.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that it would afford considerable satisfaction to hon. Members, and many people outside, if he considered the propriety of reviewing these pensions in order to bring them up to a higher level?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is precisely what I have undertaken to do here.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give a figure of the total amount spent in a year on these pensions, and, in view of that amount, is it not possible to increase the pensions further?
    Sir J. Grigg: Having promised to consider the whole basis of these awards, I do not see what more I can do at the moment.

    Enlistment (Birth Certificates)
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in enrolling men and women for the Forces, only the date of birth and no more will be asked so that there shall be no chance of publicity of illegitimacy.
    Sir J. Grigg: A man enlisting voluntarily in the Army may be asked to produce his birth certificate and women and youths must always produce them. This provisions is necessary as a check on false statements, particularly where the age limits for enlistment are narrow as in the case of young women and youths. Once recruiting officers have verified the date of birth the certificate is immediately returned, either to the parents of the boy, or to the recruit, and the possibility of publicity such as my hon. and gallant Friend fears is in practice very slight.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an

    1603
    opportunity of branding people whose illegitimacy would never become known but for this arrangement? Does it not mean that——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now putting forward an argument.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the Minister consider, in these circumstances, accepting a certificate from the registrar as to the date of birth, without other arrangements being made?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider that but it does not seem to me that there should be, unless these regulations are broken, any opportunity for the kind of undesirable publicity which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) fears.
    Miss Rathbone: Is not the real remedy a definite change in the form of the birth certificate, as the difficulty applies to civilians as well as to people in the Services?
    Sir J. Grigg: Luckily, that is one of the matters which is no concern of mine.
    Mr. Thorne: Would not the doctor's receipt be quite sufficient?

    Home Guard
    Mr. Ross Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War if the Regulation prohibiting serving Members of this House from addressing political meetings in constituencies other than their own applies to members of the Home Guard.
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. The King's Regulation in question has not been applied to the Home Guard.
    Mr. Ross Taylor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him how it squares with the statement made by the Prime Minister that the Home Guard is as much a part of the Army as the Guards?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is quite simple. The Home Guard is part of the Armed Forces of the Crown, but the whole of the King's Regulations obviously do not apply to members of that Force.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the unsatisfactory situation in a company of
    1604
    the Home Guard, of which he has been informed, and in view of the need for maintaining the highest standard of efficiency, will he institute inquiries into recent promotions and dismissals in the battalion of which this company forms part.
    Sir J. Grigg: Some complaints about this unit forwarded to me by the hon. Member were fully investigated and a reply dealing with them was sent to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that so far as this Home Guard unit is concerned that answer is anything but satisfactory? Is he aware that there is an allegation that the commander of the battalion said to the lad who was entitled to promotion to second in command, that it was impossible to promote him because of the relations in the factory where the commander was manager and the lad was his subordinate, and that, on that ground, promotion was refused?
    Sir J. Grigg: I sent a full answer to the hon. Member and I understand that the unit is now running perfectly smoothly.

    Wounded Personnel (Next-of-Kin, Notification)
    Mr. Bartle Bullasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider changing the official notification to the next-of-kin of wounded serving men so that it will show whether the wound was sustained in action and where further information can be obtained.
    Sir J. Grigg: In practice the terms, "wounded," and, "wounded in action," in notifications to the next-of-kin, mean the same thing, as the expression, "in action," has been interpreted widely as covering certain casualties in the field, such as accidents with land-mines, not sustained in the course of actual engagement with the enemy. The telegram from the theatre of operations notifying that an officer or man has been wounded does not as a rule give any further particulars and until these arrive there is, I fear, no source in this country from which further information can be immediately obtained. When further information is received, it is automatically transmitted to the next of-kin as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bull: Surely there should be some source in the Mediterranean from which

    1605
    information can be more readily obtained as to whether the wound is serious or slight?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have not the slightest doubt that that would be possible in certain cases, but I do not think it is possible where operations are going on continuously.
    Sir A. Knox: Surely it ought to be possible to send a second notification. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had sent to me a case of a constituent whose husband was wounded last September and who has had no information as to where he is?
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not, at the moment, recollect that particular case, but I have no doubt that in the conditions prevailing in the Mediterranean, as I have explained before, the arrangements for notifying casualties are not always up to date. I think there is a good deal of difficulty, owing to the rapidly changing scene of operations, in which the arrangements suitable at one time are not entirely suitable for another, until they have been brought up to date.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickhamasked the Secretary of State for War whether the terms wounded and wounded in action, used in communications to next-of-kin, indicate slight wounds; and whether, in the absence of further particulars, no news is good news.
    Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the first part of the Question is No, Sir. If the degree of severity of a wound is not stated, it cannot be inferred that it is necessarily slight. But if, as a result of his wound, an individual becomes seriously or dangerously ill, a further telegraphic communication is despatched from the theatre of operations, and the fact is notified to the next-of-kin.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a mistaken impression abroad that the term "wounded in action" means something graver than merely "wounded"?
    Sir J. Grigg: I was under the impression that the fact that it did not contain any indication of severity had led to the opposite impression. I hope this Question and answer will put the position right.

    Hospital Patients (Loss of Rank)
    Sir L. Lyleasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, and in what way, hospital treatment still affects the ranking of either officers or non-commissioned officers.
    Sir J. Grigg: Officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers wounded in action retain their temporary or acting rank as the case may be for 3 months while they are absent from duty. Sick officers retaining their temporary rank for 61 days and their acting rank for 28 days. Warrant officers or non-commissioned officers absent from duty owing to sickness for less than 21 days retain their acting rank.
    Sir L. Lyle: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is very hard indeed when a man who has served his country very well and has been wounded as a sergeant finds himself de-graded to corporal when he has to go into hospital?
    Sir J. Grigg: There have been recent alleviations of the rules, as my hon. Friend knows. It is a very large question, which I would be quite prepared to deal with on a more suitable occasion.
    Sir Herbert Williams: If a Minister gets influenza, does he become a Parliamentary Private Secretary while he is in bed?
    Mr. Graham White: Will the Minister give serious consideration to this matter because the cumulative effect of this grievance has great significance and is one of the matters which had a considerable influence in a recent by-election?
    Sir J. Grigg: The Government, as a whole, gave every consideration to this matter in connection with the general debate and inquiry into these questions some time ago.

    Mediterranean Allowance
    Major Kimballasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers and warrant officers serving in the M.E.F. who were receiving full rates of colonial and field allowances are now only receiving Mediterranean allowance since 1st December 1943, which means a reduction of from 2S. 6d. to 3d. per day according to their rank; and will he take the necessary action to increase the Mediterranean allowance scale as from 1st December, 1943, so that this reduction is restored.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for War what are the reasons why Mediterranean allowance has been substituted for field allowance and colonial allowance.
    Sir J. Grigg: Mediterranean allowance was introduced in order to remove anomalies of treatment and complications of administration arising from the application in the Mediterranean area of the normal rules for the issues of colonial and field allowances. The changes made benefit junior officers serving in operational areas and sick and wounded in hospital. On the other hand some disadvantage as compared with previous treatment accrues to senior officers in operational areas and to all officers and warrant officers serving outside operational areas who are living under canvas or in unfurnished accommodation. The latter is the class to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. This consolidation of colonial and field allowances was introduced in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and with the General and Air Officers Commanding-in-Chief in the Mediterranean area. It is not proposed to cancel the consolidation or to alter the amounts payable.
    Major Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it is either fair or necessary at this stage of the war to make this reduction, which affords a negligible saving of money and arouses a good deal of bad feeling on the part of the people affected?
    Sir J. Grigg: My hon. and gallant friend is quite mistaken. There is no saving. On the whole, the average cost is increased.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a captain gets a reduction of 17s. 6d. a week, though his expenses remain precisely the same?
    Sir J. Grigg: I very much doubt whether the hon. Member's figures are accurate.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: In the course of the consultations in which my right hon. Friend indulged in arriving at this decision, has he considered the high range of prices ruling in the Middle East and the great financial strain on people who have to live there?
    Sir J. Grigg: On the whole, junior officers get an increase.
    Mr. Hogg: What about warrant officers?
    Sir J. Grigg: They get an increase, too.

    Overseas Service
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in considering the transfer home of British officers and men who were mobilised from the reserves in India at the outbreak of war, consideration will be given, wherever possible, to the length of time they have been continuously out of England before the war.
    Sir J. Grigg: In reckoning the period an officer or soldier of the British Army has served overseas the Army can, I regret, only take account of such time as they have spent on the active list.
    Mr. Astor: Cannot my right hon. Friend consider, at least on compassionate grounds, allowing commanding officers to exercise their discretion?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think when there is a shortage of ships, people who have actually served in the Army abroad must get first preference.

    King's Regulations, Paragraph 541
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has made known, to all officers commanding units in the British Army, his wish that paragraph 541 of King's Regulations should not be interpreted too literally, or what steps he proposes to take to secure that all concerned may be so informed.
    Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend is presumably referring to a remark I made with reference to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton on 12th October last about a case in which a soldier had been convicted by court-martial and punished on a charge arising out of a breach of paragraph 541 (a) King's Regulations. By a "too literal" interpretation of that Regulation I meant to the extent of making every minor infringement of it into a major disciplinary offence. The fact that the case then in question was the only one in which a soldier had been prosecuted in the last 12 months shows, I think, that the interpretation of the Regulation is not being

    1609
    overstrained. I therefore see no need to issue any fresh instructions in the matter.
    Mr. Lawson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's statement a repudiation of his previous statement?
    Sir J. Grigg: Not in the slightest. It is a complete re-affirmation of it.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Ammunition Store, Battersea (Theft)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a case in which some children of Nine Elms, Battersea, were convicted of stealing bombs from an Army dump; and what steps are being taken to make such dangerous articles inaccessible to children.
    Sir J. Grigg: Extensive measures are taken to guard Army ammunition, partly by keeping it locked up in barbed wire enclosures and partly by organising mobile guards to watch the stores. But I regret that it cannot be stored in such conditions that no thief can possibly reach it. For example, I am informed that the boys involved in the theft to which my hon. Friend refers had to cross a strong barbed wire fence and break off a heavy padlock with a crowbar in order to get into the store.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these boys were only nine or 10 years of age?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should think that their future is extremely unpromising.
    Mr. Gallacher: What sort of watch is kept when boys can climb over such a fence and steal bombs?
    Sir J. Grigg: Unfortunately, with the extremely high degree of mobilisation of man-power in this country, you cannot insure against every possible contingency.

    Religious Instruction (Compulsory Attendance)
    Mr. Burkeasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in a certain unit, the name of which has been set to him, in addition to church parade, men have to attend on Mondays for religious instruction and failure to attend
    1610
    means liability for fatigues; and, as this instruction is regarded by many as an imposition, will he take steps to make attendances voluntary.
    Sir J. Grigg: I am inquiring into the facts of this particular case, and I will then communicate with my hon. Friend again.

    Marquess of Hartington (Leave)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds the Marquess of Hartington was recently granted special leave to attend an emergency meeting of the council of the West Derbyshire Unionist League, before the resignation of the former hon. and gallant Member for West Derbyshire had been announced to the council or to the public.
    Sir J. Grigg: An officer's leave is a matter between himself and his commanding officer so long as the regulations governing leave generally are observed. As no application for an exception to the regulations has been made to the War Office I can only assume that the leave was normal and not special.
    Mr. Driberg: Are we to take it, then, that any serving soldier who happens to hear privately that a by-election may be pending near his home can obtain leave to go home and try to persuade a group of people to nominate him as a candidate?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should certainly take very great care, and the military authorities will take great care, before refusing an application for an officer to appear before a selection committee.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Has a candidate for Parliament the same rights as a Member of Parliament?
    Sir J. Grigg: Not quite.

    A.B.C.A. Talks (Northern Ireland)
    Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the A.B.C.A. talks through which information is given regarding the countries engaged in the fight for the allied cause, he will arrange that Northern Ireland gets a place.
    Sir J. Grigg: Northern Ireland is treated as a part of the United Kingdom but I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

    Northern Ireland Units (Badges)
    Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements whereby the members of His Majesty's Forces from Northern Ireland shall be permitted to wear on the shoulders of their tunics the name of their country.
    Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend's suggestion would cut across the existing system of badges for units from all parts of the United Kingdom and would, I think, be undesirable.
    Dr. Little: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a grievance about this and that I have received serious complaints?

  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  Captain P. Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for War whether the 1939–43 Star will be awarded to the Indian regiments who have taken part in the operations of the Persian-Iraq force, 1941, with the Middle East Force in Syria, and who now form part of the Eighth Army in Italy.
  Sir J. Grigg: I am informed that regulations for the award of the 1939–43 Star to Indian troops are in the course of preparation. Service in operations within specified dates in Iraq, Persia and Syria will undoubtedly count towards the six months qualifying period for the 1039–43 Star.
  Captain Macdonald: Is it not time that these anomalies and delays were cleared up so that we know where we stand?
  Sir J. Grigg: I knew I would get into considerable trouble over this Question because I took it upon myself to answer for the Secretary of State for India. It is not my own responsibility and I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend wants to pursue the matter further he had better pursue it with my right hon. Friend.

  CAPTURED ALLIED NATIONALS
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for War whether any units of Allied national Armies, who surrendered in Tunisia after fighting under Rommel, have now been transferred to their respective Allied Armies in this country; and
  1612
  whether any steps have been taken to counteract the Fascist outlook with which they have been imbued during their service with the Germans.
  Sir J. Grigg: A number of Allied nationals captured in Tunisia have been released to their national Forces in this country. The last part of my hon. Friend's Question is a matter for those Forces and I have no particulars of the measures they take.
  Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that some of these captured forces have already caused some difficulty, and that it is the concern of this country, and the United Nations as a whole, to see that there should be no considerable number of Fascists in the Allied Forces? Could the right hon. Gentleman convey that view to the appropriate authorities?
  Sir J. Grigg: I think the hon. Member had better address his Question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I have answered such part of it as I am concerned with, and I have no information about anything beyond that.

  BARI CONGRESS (BROADCAST)
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War why the Allied Military Government first sanctioned and then prohibited the arrangements for broadcasting the congress of democratic parties at Bari.
  Sir J. Grigg: I understand that the Allied Commander-in-Chief issued instructions that the broadcasting station at Bari which is operated under allied control should give a full but objective account of the proceedings of this Congress at the end of each of the two days during which the Congress sat. I am not aware that he ever sanctioned arrangements for a running broadcast commentary, which is, I think, what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I am verifying this.

  SCOTLAND

    Infant Mortality
    Mr. T. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which were the worst five counties and large burghs, respectively, in Scotland in 1941 for infantile mortality between the ages of one and 12 months.
    Mr. Johnston: The five counties and large burghs respectively with the highest death rates among children between the ages of one and 12 months in 1941 were:
    Counties: Selkirk, Ayr, Kincardine, Dumbarton and Caithness.
    Large Burghs: Port Glasgow, Dumbarton, Coatbridge, Glasgow and Hamilton.
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary to the Treasury, if he will consider the publishing of the Boyd Orr Report on Child Mortality in Scotland as a Parliamentary publication.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I have been asked to reply. This Report is one of a series supplied to the Department of Health for Scotland by its scientific advisory committee on medical administration and investigation. Some of these reports, for example one on a war-time bacteriological service, it has not been considered necessary to publish at all. The others have been issued as non-Parliamentary publications. In view of the special importance of the Orr Committee Report on infant mortality, I had copies sent to all Scots Members on the day of publication, and I have now arranged for copies to be placed in the Vote Office for the convenience of other Members.

    Post-War Reconstruction Committees
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland have appointed post-war reconstruction committees within the areas of their jurisdiction.
    Mr. Johnston: Local authorities are not required to notify me of the appointment of Reconstruction Committees, and I have no information as to the number of Committees which may have been set up.
    Major Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman inject some stimulus into local authorities in this respect?

    Post-War Tourist Traffic
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is contemplating setting up a special committee to consider ways and means of developing the tourist traffic and the tourist industry in Scotland after the war.
    Mr. Johnston: I am informed that the Scottish Council on Industry are at pre-
    1614
    sent considering the appointment of a committee to review the position in consultation with other interested bodies. The composition and terms of reference of the committee will be announced as soon as the arrangements have been completed.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend draw their attention to the desirability of Scotland adopting the same regulations and laws as apply in England with regard to advertising?

    Housing
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of shops in Scotland which have in the last 12 months been reconditioned for use as dwelling-houses and the total number of other premises which have been reconditioned for use as dwelling-houses.
    Mr. Johnston: Since October, 1942, 44 shops and other business properties have been requisitioned and have been or are being reconditioned to produce 80 houses. In addition 188 other properties have been requisitioned and have been or are being reconditioned to produce 476 houses.
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of applications received by the Glasgow Corporation since that body agreed to take fresh applications for new houses; and what number of houses will be available.
    Mr. Johnston: I am informed that up to date some 23,000 forms have been issued to new applicants, and that about 33,000 persons, whose names were already on the Corporation's list, have renewed their applications. In addition to any existing houses that may be vacated the Corporation are at present providing some 750 new houses which will be available for these applicants. The labour position will, I hope, make a further small allocation possible at an early date.
    Mr. Buchanan: In view of the large balance between the number of houses which the corporation are building and the number required to satisfy the applicants, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the acute position in Glasgow and allow the corporation to proceed with the building of more houses?
    Mr. Johnston: I am sure the hon. Member will believe me when I say that the problem of securing the necessary labour for that purpose is ever present with us, and, as I have said in my answer, a further small allocation will almost immediately be announced.
    Mr. McKinlay: Will the Minister arrange for the return of designated craftsmen who are now busy knocking around mixing mortar and carrying bricks?
    Mr. McNeilasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce when Scottish local authorities will be given permission for further house building.
    Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. The labour position has made it possible for me to invite local authorities on Clydeside and elsewhere to submit proposals immediately for the erection of 1,000 additional houses.
    Mr. McNeil: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that the lag which occurs, and to which he has referred, between authorisation and the beginning of construction, is shortened on this occasion?
    Mr. Johnston: Every possible step that can be taken on that matter has been taken, as far as I am concerned.

    Timber Felling
    Mr. McNeilasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the consultative committee appointed by the Minister of Supply to minimise damage to timber is to have jurisdiction in Scotland.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): I have been asked to reply. The committee already appointed will consider timber felling in England and Wales. The question whether a similar committee is desirable in Scotland is at present under consideration with the principal Scottish organisations concerned.

    Small Traders' Register
    Major Lloydasked the President of the Board of Trade how many small traders have been registered up to date in Scotland under the Register of Small Traders closed through war conditions.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Up to the end of last week the number was 408.
    Major Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman will not suggest that there are not many more small traders who are unaware of the position. Is there any method by which these individuals can be contacted directly and shown what their responsibilities and privileges are?
    Mr. Dalton: We have applied all sorts of methods of publicity. I have referred to them in previous answers. Every Member can help by talking about this to his own constituents.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Has publicity been given in the Forces, so that men already in the Forces will not be at a disadvantage?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I answered a Question about a fortnight ago and I have taken special measures, as the hon. Member will see from my reply, to get this made known all through the Forces, including those in the Middle East.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why not get the B.B.C. to do something about it?

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Prices
    Sir L. Lyleasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the substantial rise in the price of coal, arrangements can be made to allow old age pensioners to obtain their small supplies at a reduced rate.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I fully realise the difficulties of old age pensioners, and others, in meeting the increased cost of fuel, but I fear it is impossible to make the arrangements suggested by my hon. Friend. In the first place I doubt whether it is appropriate for Minister responsible for supply of different commodities to fix prices varying according to the means of individual consumers, and in the second place I am sure that any attempt to do so would throw a burden on distributors and local government authorities which, in present conditions, they could not face.

    Miners (Release from Forces)
    Mr. Fraserasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many applications for release from the Forces for coalmining he has received since the present scheme for comb-out was announced; how many he has recommended to the War Office; and how many have since been released.
    Major Lloyd George: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not readily available but up to 1st February, 1944, 4,789 applications for the release of ex-underground workers were sent to the War Office under the present comb-out arrangements. The results are as follows:

    On release at 1st February, 1944

    2,448

    Released and subsequently recalled

    75

    Rejected by the War Office

    1,416

    Under consideration by the War Office at 1st February, 1944

    850

    Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister satisfied that he is getting the number of ex-miners to return that he anticipated when he made the announcement five or six months ago?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir; in view of the limitations then imposed I am satisfied.
    Mr. Bowles: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that since the Prime Minister and I discussed this matter across the Floor last week I have had 65 applications? Is there any truth in the statement in a good deal of the national Press yesterday that ex-miners were to have the chance of going back to the pits if they chose?
    Major Lloyd George: There is no change in the position as laid down in this reply.
    Mr. Bowles: Then the statements in the Press yesterday were not true?
    Major Lloyd George: I am not responsible for the statements in the Press.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Can the Minister give any indication why 1,400 were refused release?
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot give the details, but in some cases the reason would be age limitation, or because they
    1618
    were key men. There are many reasons which I can give the hon. Gentleman if he will give me time.

    Minimum Wage Award
    Mr. Fraserasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the £5 per week wages minimum awarded to miners, whilst causing an increase to lower paid workers in the industry, fails to increase correspondingly the earnings of higher paid and piece-rate workers; whether he is aware of the consequent feeling in the industry; and whether be is satisfied adequate steps are being taken to deal with the matter.
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the feeling in the industry to which my hon. Friend refers. I am advised that the recent award of the National Reference Tribunal was discussed at a meeting of the Joint Standing Consultative Committee of the Industry last week and that, by agreement between the two sides, anomalies arising out of the award in certain districts were referred to the districts concerned for adjustment by negotiation.
    Mr. Fraser: Is not the Minister aware that allowing this matter to be dealt with in the districts is bound to cause considerable delay in settlement? Is he further aware that before the coalowners agree to negotiate in the districts they must get some sort of sanction from the Government or some indication how they would be afforded the opportunity of meeting the increased cost? Since ultimately the Government will be responsible, does not the Minister think that his Ministry should take some responsibility in the matter?
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, I certainly do not. Both sides of the industry agreed to the machinery now in operation, and the best thing they can do is to carry out the decisions reached by the Tribunal at which both sides were represented.
    Mr. Shinwell: Surely if this award is causing dissatisfaction and is impeding the production of coal which is so necessary for the war, my right hon. and gallant Friend must accept a measure of responsibility and must try to put the thing right?
    Major Lloyd George: I am always prepared to take my full responsibility, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with

    1619
    me that it is deplorable that, after the recent award which did advance wages, there should be a greater loss of tonnage than in any week since the war started.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is considering the anomalies arising out of the recent award will he bear in mind the dissatisfaction among the pit brow lassies?
    Mr. Fraser: In view of the loss of tonnage since the award was made, and the fact that the Ministry is ultimately responsible, would it not be a good thing to relieve owners of their share of the responsibility?
    Major Lloyd George: The miners of the country have some responsibility too. This is an award which was made by machinery to which both sides agreed, and I do think that to have all this trouble within a few days of the decision, without an opportunty for anomalies to be removed in the districts, is most unfortunate, to put it mildly.

    Mineworkers (Recruitment)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Lord President of the Council if he has considered the letters sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife regarding conscription of lads for the mines; and if the demand therein that conscription for National Service be for a service which is national has been accepted.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. As I informed the hon. Member, men and women have been directed into various occupations, including those under private enterprise, during the past three years. No new principle is involved in directing youths into the mines.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister incapable of understanding the difference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—between an agreement made by employers and trade unions with the Government for the transfer of a man from one job to another job of the same kind, and a decision to conscript men for national purposes, and then to hand them over to private employers? Is it not the case that conscription for national service demands that the service should be national, and is the Minister prepared to face up to this matter? May I have an answer to my Question? In
    1620
    that case, in view of the inarticulate attitude of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at a convenient opportunity.

    Clifton Colliery, Nottinghamshire (Output)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give the present output of coal per manshift at the Clifton Colliery, Nottinghamshire, and the total output per month since his department assumed possession of the colliery.
    Major Lloyd George: It is not the practice to give figures relating to individual collieries.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Ministry of Fuel and Power (Staff)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of persons directly employed in his Department.
    Major Lloyd George: The total number of persons employed by my Department is 5,157, of whom 230 are part-time employees.

    Temporary Civil Servants (Appointment)
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a man described by the police as one of Britain's most adept pickpockets was recently employed and promoted in the Civil Service after being sent there by the employment exchange and that he was dismissed not because of any misconduct but because of police revelations as to his pre-service record; and what are the Treasury rules with regard to this matter.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The particular case mentioned has not come to my notice, but I can assure my hon. Friend that all reasonable precautions are taken in the engagement of temporary staff. Inevitably, under war conditions, mistakes occur from time to time, but there are no general Treasury rules to deal with such a situation. The dismissal of a temporary civil servant is within the discretion of the Department concerned, and the manner in which this discretion is exercised must clearly depend upon the circumstances in each individual case.
    Sir L. Lyle: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this gentleman was not employed as a tax collector by the

    1621
    Inland Revenue; or was he employed by the Board of Trade in designing the austerity suit?
    Mr. Benson: Do the Government, in fact, encourage a statement of this kind by the police, because, if so, it is a very serious matter?
    Sir J. Anderson: Surely, that is quite a separate question.

    Staffs (Numbers)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of civil servants now employed; how many of this total number or un-established; and how many of the un-established are war-time appointees.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The most recent date for which exact figures are available is 1st October, 1943. With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate these in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that no figures are available showing how many of the un-established staff are war-time appointees, but I am also circulating the total figures for 1st April, 1939 (the last date before the outbreak of war for which figures exist), from which it will be seen that the very great majority of the un-established staff have been appointed since that date.
    Following are the figures:

    Non-industrials Established

    Unestablished

    1st April, 1939

    287,290

    84,988

    1st October, 1943

    212,145

    474,722

    Industrials Established

    Unestablished

    1st April, 1939

    31,346

    208,835

    1st October, 1943

    35,866

    691,138

    Note: The figures relate to whole-time staff only

    Married Women (Employment)
    Mr. Thorneasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why women working in the Civil Service are prevented from getting married; and how many women are affected by the marriage ban.
    Mr. Assheton: Women working in the Civil Service are not prevented from getting married but they are not retained in established capacities after marriage except with the consent of the head of their Department and of the Treasury. There is no rule against the employment of a
    1622
    married woman in a temporary capacity in the Service, and during the war established women who get married are kept on in temporary capacities, if they are willing to stay. There are about 65,000 established women in the Civil Service at present. It is impossible for me to say how many of these women would be given permission, if they asked for it, to remain in an established capacity on marriage.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why marriage has not undermined the efficiency of women civil servants during war-time, but apparently has done so in peace-time?
    Mr. Assheton: I think it is clear that different circumstances apply during wartime, when there is a great shortage of labour.
    Mr. Stephen: What is the position of the head of a Department? From whom does she get permission?
    Mr. Assheton: At present there is no woman head of a Department.
    Hon. Members: Why not?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Cotton Industry
    Mr. Hammersleyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now had time to consider the report of the Cotton Board on the post-war organisation of the cotton trade; and can he make a statement.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have been considering this report with close attention, and have asked representatives of the Cotton Board Committee to come and discuss it with me next week.
    Mr. Hammersley: In view of the broad issues which are raised by this report, would it not be desirable to have a Debate in the House before the Government come to any formal decision?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but not before I talk to the Cotton Board Committee.
    Mr. Hammersleyasked the President of the Board of Trade why, in the case of a cotton-spinning company, of which he has been informed, permission to fit aspirator motions on two machines with a view to the improvement of working conditions, the installation of which

    1623
    has been recommended by the factory inspector, and the cost of which is less than £100, has been refused by his Department.
    Mr. Dalton: In the case of the firm, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, it was found that several combing machines already fitted with aspirator motions were standing idle from lack of operatives. In view of this, and of the many demands by others firms for this type of equipment for running machines, it would clearly have been wrong to issue further licences to this firm at present, and it was unnecessary to consult the factory inspector.
    Mr. Hammersley: Does not that really indicate that one of the main reasons why this much desired improvement of working conditions could not be introduced is because of my right hon. Friend's Department?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. This firm is one of which my hon. Friend is chairman. I believe he made application for these devices. I sent one of my officers to his mill and I found that a number of machines already fitted with the device were standing idle. In those circumstances, I judged it more necessary to supply some other firms than to supply his firm.
    Mr. Hammersley: Are not the facts that the reason why these machines were standing idle was because the workpeople could not work them because of the conditions; and is the right hon. Gentleman not badly informed on the matter because of his bureaucratic service?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I am extremely well informed.

    Watch-glasses
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether is is aware that it is almost impossible to buy wristwatch glasses; and whether, in the interests of punctuality in the fighting forces and in civilian war-work, he will increase the supply.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I am informed that round watch glasses can usually be obtained, but other shapes are more scarce.
    Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the owner of a square watch should try to fit a round glass into it? If not, will he consult the Minister of Labour about the serious shortage of labour for making wrist-watch glasses?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I was answering my hon. Friend's Question, which did not distinguish between round and other shapes, but I was distinguishing between them in the light of information which I had received. I understand that celluloid and other plastic watch covers can also be obtained without difficulty, in either round or fancy shapes.

    War Damage Insurance Scheme
    Major C.S. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the extension of the War Damage Insurance Scheme to include losses by theft from premises damaged by enemy action.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The general principle of war damage insurance deliberately excludes such losses. I regret, therefore, that I could not adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Major Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the Defence areas, there are people who were evacuated at the Government's suggestion, and that their houses have been bombed and their personal possessions have been stolen from them? Cannot he do something about it? It is not their fault.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Many misfortunes come in war-time which are not the fault of those upon whom they fall. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by the Prime Minister, on 5th September, 1940, when this legislation was referred to, from which my hon. and gallant Friend will see that it is impossible to advance beyond the particular limits that have been laid down in regard to war damage insurance.

    Children's Footwear
    Mr. Daggarasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the communication from the Abertillery Education Committee regarding the lack of adequate footwear and leather to effect repairs in the case of schoolchildren; and if he will state the nature of his reply.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have informed the Abertillery Education Committee of the steps which I have taken to improve the production of children's footwear and the supply of materials for repairs, and have also instructed one of my officers to investigate on the spot whether Abertillery is receiving its fair share of total supplies.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: As my right hon. Friend has been good enough to look into each case as it arises—he has done so in the cases I have raised with him—is it not possible for him to take a national view, in seeing that the children get proper footwear?
    Mr. Dalton: I have answered a number of Questions on this subject. If my hon. Friend cares to put down another on a national basis, I will answer it. We have, as I have already stated, greatly increased the supply of footwear for children deliberately at the expense of adult footwear and I ask for the support of the House on that.
    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to improve the quality of this footwear?
    Mr. Dalton: I have already told the House that, since 1st November, every pair of shoes has to be stamped with the name of the maker. If I find anyone making shoddy footwear, I will stop his leather supplies.

    Women's Hats
    Mr. R.J. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to take any action regarding the high prices of women's hats.
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the exorbitant charges for ladies millinery; and if he will exercise control over this exploitation.
    Mr. Dalton: I have given anxious thought to this difficult problem. But there is infinite variety in women's hats and I am very doubtful whether a utility model, even at a fixed price, would be welcomed.
    Mr. Taylor: While appreciating the labour difficulties, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has taken any steps to check what is believed to be flagrant profiteering in this regard?
    Mrs. Adamson: Will my right hon. Friend approach the manufacturers with a request to put on the market a miscellaneous assortment of ladies' hats which would depend for their shape and style on simplicity; and would he control the prices of these?
    Mr. Dalton: It is impossible, administratively, to control the price of anything which cannot be clearly defined.
    Sir William Davison: Will my right hon. Friend also consider taking action to modify the amazing and unbecoming shapes of many hats now being worn by women involving an unnecessary waste of material?
    Mr. Dalton: I am very much surprised at the hon. Member proposing additional bureaucratic interference.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there exists any power on earth which could prevent women paying money for hats?
    Mr. Taylor: May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter? It is a serious position for soldiers' wives because the prices of children's hats are far in excess of anything they can pay.

    Civilian Clothing Order
    Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give an assurance that the conditions attached to any licence issued by him under the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Civilian Clothing Order (S.R. & O., No. 6, of 1944) will not involve any discrimination between one trader and another.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. Any licence under this Order would be issued only to meet some special demand of the consumer.

    Rationed Goods (Allied Soldiers' Purchases)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Allied soldiers are able to purchase rationed goods, without coupons and without Purchase Tax, if the goods are to be sent by the seller to persons overseas; and will he take steps to terminate a practice which limits supplies to the civilian population.
    Mr. Dalton: I am looking into this matter.

  TANK PRODUCTION
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the waste of many millions of pounds on the production of ineffective tanks, he will cause a special inquiry to be made into the reasons for such waste.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers it as the duty of this House to inquire into waste of public funds; and is it not about time, in view of the scores of millions wasted in this manner, that the Select Committee made a report to the House?
  The Prime Minister: I think that my answer covers that aspect.
  Mr. Stokes: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter again at the earliest possible moment.

  FRENCH COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL LIBERATION (FINANCIAL AND MUTUAL-AID AGREEMENTS)
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about our financial relations with the French Committee of National Liberation.
  Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Two agreements have to-day been signed between the French Committee of National Liberation and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom i.e. a Financial Agreement and a Mutual Aid Agreement. I am circulating full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the information of hon. Members. I should, however, like to take this opportunity to say with what satisfaction His Majesty's Government have concluded these agreements with the French Committee of National Liberation. The negotiation has been smooth and harmonious and has been conducted in a spirit of mutual understanding throughout. In my opinion, this is a happy augury for our future financial and economic relationship with France.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Does this agreement in any way cover post-war financial arrangements with France?
  Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. It will be seen, in the statement which I am circulating, that this is an agreement for war-time purposes. We shall, of course, hope to build further on this war-time foundation, but it is much too soon to particularise. As the statement shows, the form of the agreement will necessarily be subject to such modifications as are dictated by circumstances at present unpredictable.
  Following is the statement:
  A Financial Agreement has to-day been signed between the French Committee of National Liberation and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. This Agreement is on the lines of the Agreement which was concluded between France and Great Britain in 1939. It lays emphasis on the need for continuous consultation to ensure smooth working and to maintain, so far as the exigencies of the war permit, an equilibrium between the amount of sterling and francs held under the Agreement. The Agreement fixes the rate of exchange at fcs. 200=£1 and provides that no change shall be made therein without prior consultation between the two parties. It also enables either party to acquire without limit (and without any gold or foreign exchange counterpart) such quantity of the other's currency as may prove necessessary during the lifetime of the Agreement.
  The Agreement will be applied to all territories now under the administration of the French Committee of National Liberation, in which a common rate of 200 fcs.=£1 will henceforth apply. Special arrangements have been made with the Syrian and Lebanese Governments so far as the Agreement applies to their territories. In their case, there will be no alteration in the rate of exchange, which remains at 8.83 Syrian or Lebanese pounds to the £ sterling. Although some variations will be needed to adjust it to peace-time conditions, it is hoped that the Agreement, which comes into force on signature, will form the foundations of a lasting Monetary Agreement between the United Kingdom and France.
  At the same time, a Mutual Aid Agreement with the French Committee of National Liberation has been signed. It provides that each party shall furnish the other free of cost with all military assistance which it is best able to supply for the joint prosecution

  1629
  of the war. Furthermore, the French Committee of National Liberation has confirmed its readiness to assume responsibility for the advances made by His Majesty's Government to the former French National Committee under the terms of the Agreement between the Prime Minister and General de Gaulle on 7th August, 1940. His Majesty's Government have, however, agreed to cancel that part of the advances relating to military supplies and services which would have been furnished to the former French National Committee on the basis of mutual aid, if the Mutual Aid Agreement, now concluded, had been in force on 7th August, 1940.
  For its part the French Committee of National Liberation agrees to withdraw any claims for compensation which it could formulate under the terms of the Agreement of 7th August, 1940, against His Majesty's Government for military supplies and services furnished by the former French National Committee, and which would have fallen within the scope of the Mutual Aid Agreement if it had been in force on that date.
  The net amount of the indebtedness due to His Majesty's Government, for which the French Committee of National Liberation have in accordance with the above arrangements assumed responsibility, will be published as soon as the figure has been agreed. The value of military supplies and services furnished by each party to the other, for which no claim for payment will now be made, will also be published when final calculations have been agreed.

  BANK OF ENGLAND NOTE ISSUE (PROFIT)
  Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of profits per annum accruing to the Treasury from the issue department of the Bank of England in accordance with the Currency and Bank Note Act of 1928, during the period for the past seven years.
  Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my predecessor gave on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) on 21st July, 1943, and of which I am sending him a copy.
  Sir F. Sanderson: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the time has now arrived when all the returns should be published annually, accompanied by an auditor's certificate?
  Sir J. Anderson: I should like to see that Question on the Paper. The figures were published by my predecessor on the date I have mentioned.

  TITHE REDEMPTION COMMISSION (REPORT)
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary to the Treasury when he intends to present to Parliament a Report of the first seven years working of the Tithe Redemption Commission.
  Mr. Assheton: The Report, dated 19th October, 1943, was presented on 28th October, and is published as a Parliamentary Paper (House of Commons Paper 121 of 1943).

  NEW MEMBER SWORN
  Flight-Lieutenant William Teeling, for the Borough of Brighton.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reform the law relating to education in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred—

  (a) in paying to any secretaries, officers or servants appointed by any Minister appointed under the said Act such remuneration as the Minister may with the consent of the Treasury determine;

  (b) in paying grants to local education authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by such authorities in the exercise of their functions relating to education;

  (c) in paying grants to persons other than local education authorities in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of educational services provided by them or on their behalf or under their management or for the purposes of educational research;

  (d) in providing financial assistance in respect of the carrying out of repairs and alterations to the premises of aided schools and special agreement schools, and in respect of the provision of new premises for any school which is, or is to be, an aided school or a special agreement school;

  (e) in paying, for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them, the whole or any part of the fees and expenses payable in respect of children attending schools at which fees are payable, and sums by way of scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries and other allowances in respect of pupils over compulsory school age, including pupils undergoing training as teachers;

  (f) in paying to the local education authority for every area in Wales and Monmouth-shire, after the date upon which Section nine of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, ceases to have effect, in respect of any school maintained or assisted by the authority, being a school in respect of which grants were payable under the said Section nine before that date, a special annual grant of such amount as will secure that the total sum payable on account of such grants for any financial year in respect of the schools situated within the area of any county or county borough shall not exceed the maximum sum which was payable in respect of those schools under the provisions of the said Section nine for the year ending with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine; and

  (g) in paying, to any persons appointed to be members of Independent Schools Tribunals, such remuneration and allowances as may, with the consent of the Treasury, be provided for by rules made under the said Act."

  Resolution agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Could you give any indication to the Committee of the Amendments you contemplate calling? It would help many Members if they knew precisely what Amendments you propose to put to the Committee.
The Chairman: I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it would be quite impossible for me to give an indication of that kind at this stage. If hon. Members come to me, or to the Clerk at the Table, I will do what I can to facilitate measures as we go on with the Bill, but I cannot possibly, at this point, indicate Amendments very far ahead.

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Minister in charge of education and reconstitution of Board of Education.)
Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out, "under his control and direction."
I have nothing personal against the Minister or the Department. We all, I think, appreciate very much the manner in which my right hon. Friend has carried this Bill forward up to now, and the ability he has shown; but there is a principle involved here which I want to discuss. Most people will be aware that there is a widespread feeling of apprehension among the public that those powers which have been granted to various Departments during the war, for war purposes, may be retained after the war. That would be very undemocratic. We wish to be assured that behind this Bill there is no intention to start a new procedure which many of us would have to resist very strongly. The words which I propose to leave out specify that the local education authorities shall be under the control and direction of the Minister. Those words are so direct that we fear they may be misunderstood. The right of the Minister to effective action is not denied, but it is fully safeguarded later in the Bill, and we think that that is sufficient. In fact, in some quarters it is feared that the rights of this House are endangered by some of the extra powers
1648
which have been given to the various Departments and Ministers during the war.
I have looked up the Ministry of Health Act of 1919, to see whether it provides a precedent, but I cannot find such words in that Act. It is important that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education should have equal powers, and it is unnecessary for one to have more autocratic powers than the other. The words used in that Act are:
"It shall be the duty of the Minister, in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred or to be conferred upon him by and in pursuance of this Act …."
Those are not specific, in the sense in which the words which I now propose to exclude, are specific. Why is it thought desirable, in this Bill, to depart from the wording used in other Acts over a long time? I ask my right hon. Friend to allay our fears lest this should be an attempt to create powers which are not necessary, which may be misunderstood, and which may lessen the power even of this House. I may be told that any power can be challenged by this House. That is true, but the procedure for doing so is unnecessarily long and cumbrous.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: This matter is, I think, more important than one might at first realise. I am not sure that it does not touch the basic philosophy of the Bill. It is difficult to separate the words which it is proposed to leave out, from the whole of the Clause, because we are dealing with the constitution of the central Ministry. There are to be some 200 local education authorities, and they are to have laid upon them the duty of providing a varied and comprehensive education service. But the local education authorities are to provide 45 per cent. of the money. I notice that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has an Amendment down providing that the Minister, and not the local education authorities, shall be responsible for producing schemes.
Mr. Clement Davies: For paying for the buildings and costs of administering.
Mr. Lindsay: Yes, the whole thing. That is basic. The Parliamentary Secretary in the Debate the other day said that there were great dangers in

1649
adding to the amount of money which came from the centre.
What does my right hon. Friend mean by "control"? "Direction," I understand. I think I am the only person at the present moment in this Committee who has tried to enforce—in the case of Liverpool—the building of schools. That was under an Act called the Building and Lease Act which was a very peculiar Measure. What happened? For a whole year there were discussions in the Board, in Liverpool, and in the Cabinet. What sanction is my right hon. Friend to apply when he exercises control over a local education authority? Incidentally, is control a good thing? Direction is absolutely vital as must be the experience of many of those who have been at the Ministry of Health, and possibly the Ministry of Agriculture. I see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is present and according to the Luxmoore Report, powers are proposed for controlling the whole of agricultural education from the centre.
I think my right hon. Friend might explain the basis and philosophy of this Bill at the outset. As I understand, it is partnership between the centre and the local authorities. One is the senior partner. Partnership must be based on good will. No sanction is going to be of any avail without good will. If we are to have as I hope, frankly, we shall have, fewer and larger education authorities, who have the money to provide varied and comprehensive services, I am not sure that I want control. How do we know who will be at the Board of Education? How do we know that there may not be economy from the centre which will ruff right through the education authorities? It is a fact that certain education authorities have been pioneers, in spite of the centre, in progressive developments, in past times. I merely ask my right hon. Friend to explain in a little more detail the reasons for the word "control."
Sir Percy Harris: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) that this is the essence, the foundation, of the whole Bill. The nation is demanding a real national system of education. Conditions vary from county to county, from area to area. That, as my hon. and
1650
learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) well knows, causes sometimes, though not always, stringency in money in areas of a low rateable value, and a great number of authorities which are not enthusiastic about education try to keep expenditure down to the minimum, to please the ratepayers. As I understand, the object of inserting this word is really to give the Board power to stimulate the authorities up to one common standard. I have a very vivid memory of a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Pease, who cut down the percentage of grant to no less an authority than the London County Council, because they refused to reduce the size of classes. The result was that the education committee of that great local authority, the London County Council, had to put their house in order and reduce the size of classes.
This is a very important Bill, which in my opinion will revolutionise the whole system of education. If it is to work in all parts of the country, especially in certain rural areas which I have in mind, it is vital that the President of the Board of Education should be armed with full power and authority to force education authorities up to one common level. As I understand it, what is in the mind of the hon. Member is a fear that the Board of Education might in future be found working in the opposite direction, that it might stop local authorities who were too progressive, If we had a Board of Education taking that line Parliament could deal with it; but if Parliament is to see that the Board give a lead to the nation and really make this a living Bill and not merely a few written words it is important that the President should be armed with these powers, and I am glad to see that he has taken them. For the first time for many years we have a Board that really means business. I hope my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.
Mr. Cove: It is true, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) said, that this Amendment raises what he called the whole philosophy of the Bill. He seemed to have some doubts and fears about it. In this country we have had a sort of amorphous education system; indeed, it has not been a system at all. There has been great progress in certain areas. We have seen very progressive education authorities, especially

1651
when they have been captured by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. There have also been very reactionary authorities. From the point of view of Parliament the main weakness, in my experience, is that we here at the centre have had very little grip over the machine. For instance, the appointment and dismissal of teachers is in the hands of the local education authorities. We can do nothing about it from this end. In the past the Board have not been able to give positive directions to the nation as a whole. No local authority, however progressive, can view the requirements of the nation's education system. The centre must have a bird's eye view of the education requirements of the nation, and I believe that the powers the Minister proposes to take will ensure that, An hon. Member has some fears as to what a reactionary Board of Education may do. That is not a matter of machinery. That is a matter of what forces are in control in Parliament and I am prepared to let it rest there. Parliament itself will have a chance to focus its attention more definitely and more influentially upon the development of our education system. A balanced view, a national view, is needed in order to get a real national system of education, and I support the Minister on this point.
Mr. Craik Henderson: This Amendment raises a very important question indeed. Everyone will feel it is right that the Minister should have the power of direction, but the word "control" is a very wide one indeed, and we ought to know exactly what it means. Nothing could be worse for education than that there should be uniformity and standardisation. Education advances by the progressive ideas of individuals, and are we to have the dead hand of Whitehall bringing everything down to a standard form? The present Minister is very progressive, but we have known Departments in which the civil servants have been more powerful than the Minister. This is an Amendment which deserves very great consideraticn. The tendency is not to standardise education but, where necessary, to give directions, and there ought not to be interference with new and progressive ideas among education authorities. I think the Committee are right to ask the Minister why it is necessary to demand control.
Sir P. Hannon: I should like the Minister to explain what is meant by "control". There are in this country a great many well administered education authorities, and I know that the Minister acknowledges the assistance which he has received from them, but in the preparation of schemes a substantial difference may arise between a local education authority and what an hon. Member has called the bureaucracy of the Civil Service in Whitehall. If we could ensure the continuance in office of my right hon. Friend the present Minister for an indefinite period of time I should not suggest interfering with this part of the Bill, but he, like all of us, is subject to the possibility of changes. A day may come when someone will arise who knew not Joseph; a great change may take place in the Board of Education. On the Second Reading of the Bill I ventured to say that we have an efficient education committee in Birmingham, and I should like the President to tell us in what instances he would exercise control when problems are submitted by that authority. I hope the time will not arise when any differences of opinion will exist between a well-administered local education authority and the President of the Board of Education, but we ought not to let this part of the Bill go through Committee without knowing precisely the limits within which control will be exercised and what is the official interpretation of this part of the Bill.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) has said, this Clause is the heart and philosophy of the Bill and we ought to be clear as to what that philosophy is. In my view education is not primarily the business of local authorities nor of the State, but the business of parents, and the schools stand in loco parentis. The question is whether the wishes of parents would be best carried out by the President of the Board of Education or by the local authorities. It may be paradoxical, but it is a fact, that the electors have more influence upon the central Government, through Parliament, than they have upon local authorities. I have great confidence in the staff of the Board of Education, but I do not feel a like confidence in many local education authorities, especially the councils of counties, and therefore the President will certainly have my support for this Clause.
Mr. Colegate: I hope the Government will resist this Amendment. In my opinion the words we are discussing are of vital importance if the objects A this Bill are to be carried out within a reasonable time. All interested in this great education reform know that the difficulties during the next few years will be almost overwhelming, and in my view it is essential that the Board of Education should have the fullest powers not merely of direction but of control in order to get the scheme into operation. The problem is not that of dealing with progressive education authorities but with reactionary authorities. No one who has had any practical experience of administration will suppose that a great Department of State will bother its head about a first-class education authority like, say, the Birmingham education authority when it is getting on with its job. The powers are wanted to deal with reactionary local education authorities, and we know there are a great many such authorities who will take advantage of the very difficult circumstances which will affect building and the supply of teachers during the next few years in order to put obstacles in the way of bringing the scheme into operation. In my opinion this is one of the greatest reforms which has ever been submitted to the country, and it is for Parliament, through the Minister, to see that it goes through.
I would remind the Committee that if the word "control" is included that will enable Parliament to exercise greater authority over the President in seeing that we do get on with the scheme. Parliament can say "The Act gives you control and direction and if the scheme is not going through as smoothly and quickly as we desire it is the responsiblty of the President of the Board of Education." It will be up to us, as Members of Parliament, to see that the President does exercise control, does exercise the powers which I hope we shall give him in this Clause. I hope the Amendment will be resisted.
Mr. Clement Davies: I think this Amendment has been misconceived. The first purpose of the Clause is to place upon the Minister the duty of promoting the education of the people. The second purpose is to promote
"the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose.
1654
How can he do that unless he has powers of direction and control? Further, the purpose of the Bill is
"to secure the effective execution … of the national policy."
not the local policy
"for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
That does not mean that there will be one form of service, it is to be varied and comprehensive; but, of course, we are all anxious that there should be maintained throughout a standard of quality such as has been sadly lacking in the past. It has been lacking for the reason that there was no power in the Minister to see that the quality was maintained.
Let me give one instance which I have mentioned before. A survey was made by the Ministry to ascertain the conditions in schools in Wales. That survey was made in 1927, and more than 180 schools were condemned as being dangerous to health. All they could do was to write to the local authorities asking them to remedy the position, and I came along to years later, in 1937, and found the conditions unremedied. That state of things has got to come to an end, and the purpose of this Clause is to give the Minister that control and direction which will secure the standard which we all desire. The scheme set out in this Clause provides that the Minister shall promote the education of the people and secure the progressive development of institutions and a national policy, but that he shall work through local education authorities. That is quite right, and I do not object to that in the slightest degree, but what I shall be asking in a later Amendment is that the expense shall fall completely upon the Government and will not be apportioned between the Treasury and local authorities. Local authorities cannot possibly carry on or follow the direction which a Minister gives them if they have not the money. The Minister might well control, but if the local authorities have not got the wherewithal to meet his directions then the whole thing fails.
Mr. Eccles: The Bill is a challenge to the quality of our local government. Local authorities are being asked to plan and administer services of a greater range and complexity than ever before. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) that a

1655
sense of partnership is absolutely essential to the effective working of the Bill. I entirely agree that the senior partner should be the President and the junior partner the local authorities, but I do not like the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out because they give the impression of master and servant and not of senior and junior partners. I find that some county councils are saying: "Well, what is the President paying in hard cash for this flat-footed phrase? He pays only 5 per cent. more towards the cost of education with the result that the rates have got to bear many millions more than before." This is rather like "Alice Through the Looking Glass." The more you pay the less you get. I therefore ask the Minister whether "control" in any way alters his desire to work in partnership with the local authorities many of whom, including my own in Wiltshire, have done so much good work in the past.
Professor Gruffydd: Surely it is the constitutional practice of this country that Parliament should have control over expenditure, and the word used in the Bill is "control," so that if you left out these words "control and direction" it would make no difference whatever to the actual practice. Democracy has been mentioned two or three times in this discussion, and I have noticed lately a tendency to speak of democracy as being something involved in local affairs and in local government as contrasted with the affairs of Parliament and Government Departments. Bureaucracy can flourish in local council offices as effectively as in Whitehall. Why should democracy express itself better in local government than in national government?
Sir George Schuster: I want to make only one point. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) has done a good service in suggesting to the Committee that this is a question of a possible fight between two partners, one of whom has to be in control. There is only one authority which should be in control, and that is Parliament. The Minister is the servant of Parliament. I think we must keep that in mind, and I hope that, as the discussion of this Bill goes on, that point will not be forgotten. There will be
1656
occasions when we shall have to ask ourselves whether we, as Parliament, are not being asked by this Bill to put too much of our power into the hands of the Minister.
Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I see that the principal difficulty in carrying out this Bill will be securing teachers who will have to work it. May I say that I have cumulative evidence that teachers greatly fear increased control by the local authority?
The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I once had a preceptor when I was young who kept me in very good order, and he used to start the day by saying, "Let us begin as we mean to go on." If I may begin as we mean to go on, I would like to indicate early in my remarks the Government's attitude to the Amendment which is that we cannot accept it, and I will then continue with the reasons why we have adopted that course. I should like to make it clear from the start that it is intended that this Bill shall contain bath powers and duties which will enable the Minister and the Government, with the aid of Parliament, to carry through the development of a really national policy in education.
I have welcomed the attitude shown by many Members that it is desirable, now that we have the great opportunity, that there should be the necessary powers to see that a national policy for education is carried out. I, for one, am not at all ashamed of these words, to which the Government attach particular store. When I turn my attention to the speeches that have been made, I have no cause for objecting to any of the remarks put forward. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) intimated that he was putting forward this Amendment in order to obtain the reactions of the Government and to receive an explanation, and I believe that to be the view of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). We can, therefore, take it that the whole sense of the Committee is in favour of these words remaining, and what I have to do now is to explain what they mean.
First, I can reassure the hon. Members who have taken this point of view, that we do believe, to use the words of Gladstone, that "Here indeed exists the true excellence of English government, with

1657
all the parts of it affirming a mutual check upon each other." While I should, naturally, wish to keep in the hands of the Minister as much power as possible, I must, myself, defer to Parliament. In the same way, while I should expect the administration of an area to be under the administration of the local authorities, I would expect them to have control in their area, just as I should expect them to work with me. The position is that there are controls in this Bill, which we shall come to in the course of our prolonged discussions upon it, and we can examine them all in detail. I have been able to examine in the course of the drawing-up of this Bill the many different occasions on which the Minister is empowered to make orders and to give directions and I am perfectly sure that they are necessary. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) indicated one example of dilatoriness in dealing with bad conditions in schooling. Let me give the Committee another example—of which I have found many—and that is the comparative dilatoriness in proceeding with the reorganisation of schools into senior and junior departments. That has been going on since 1926 and 1927, While it is true that some 62 per cent. of the children of 11 and over in council schools have benefited in this way, it is also true that in the voluntary schools, only 16 per cent. enjoy the same facilities.
The whole success of this Measure depends upon the completion of the scheme of reorganisation. Without reorganisation, you cannot have a proper form of free secondary education for all. I should like to make it clear that it is desired that the partnership between the local authorities and the central government shall result in a real development. In giving an explanation of how the Bill will work, I think it would be wise if I confined myself to this one point and drew attention to the fact that reorganisation is, first, laid as a duty upon local education authorities under Clause 8 (2) (a). The local education authorities, under the Bill as drawn, have then to prepare the development plan, in which all aspects of education in their areas are put forward. It is then up to the Minister to make an order under Clause 11 which imposes upon the authorities the duty of carrying out that development plan.
1658
Here we see the new machinery of the administration of education and this new machinery means that the initiative or enterprise, the variety and the diversity to which we attach so much importance in English education, shall be provided at the instance of the local authority and shall differ in various areas, but that once the Minister has had the opportunity of approving the development plan and has made his orders, it shall be mandatory upon the authority to carry out that plan. I trust we shall not see the delays that have occurred in the past because, if we do, I think the House may well find that in passing a Bill of this character, it is not achieving anything at all.
I must look back upon the history of this question because I should like to treat the hon. Gentleman's Amendment with the dignity it deserves. It is an important point and a good one with which to open our discussions. I turn to the Debate on the Act of 1870 and I find that Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that date, said:
"At present we have really no public education at all. … What is called public education is merely the humble and ancillary task of following private benevolence and societies which interest themselves to educate the people. Instead of leading boldly we follow timidly."
If that was the conception in 1870, it is certainly not the spirit in which I am approaching this great Bill now. I say, frankly, that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do propose that the central authority shall lead boldly, and not follow timidly, and that in no sense shall we take away the spirit of partnership which we desire from the local authorities.
Sir J. Lamb: I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he has treated this Amendment. I may say that I am satisfied on one point although, perhaps, only on one point, and that is that this matter has been ventilated in this Committee. I am satisfied to have done that, if I have done nothing more. But I must admit that my fears are not altogether allayed. As I have said, I can trust this Minister, but Ministers come and Ministers go and even the first supporter of this Amendment did state that he had very grave fears on one particular point, and that is the number and size of the authorities.

1659
We do not know who will be in authority in future, and if a matter of that size and gravity is to be decided by the Minister and not by this House, I think it would be a very grave situation. The Minister said he and the Department would carry out their task with the aid of the Government and this House. I would prefer it to be the other way round and to say that the House of Commons, with the aid of the Minister and the Department, should carry it out. What I really wanted to discuss was the power of the Minister, but I am satisfied now that this matter has been raised and I am confident that in the future the House of Commons will find it necessary to keep before it the principle which I have enunciated. Otherwise we might find ourselves losing a great deal of the power which has been given to us—and which is not so much a power as a duty—and seeing it transferred, first for minor and ultimately for greater points, to the Department. In view, however, of what the Minister said, I do not propose to press the Amendment to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "President of the Board" and to insert "Minister."
If there is one proposal in this Bill that would appear to have obtained universal approval, it is that, at last, we should have what will be, in effect, a Ministry of Education. Arguments which have been submitted already on the Amendment which has just been withdrawn have tended to show the necessity for such a control. It is not necessary for me to use many illustrations to show that we have nothing like a standard of education in this country. It varies from place to place, and there are illustrations of that in the right hon. Gentleman's own county, which has made no improvement for the last 30 years. If we are to have a Ministry, why cannot we give it the dignity it deserves by calling the Minister by the name he should have? What tradition is there that would add to the power or efficiency of the Department if we carry on this empty title—which is, in fact, a fiction—of "President of the Board"? The truth is that there will be no Board and that the Minister will be President
1660
of nothing. I suggest, therefore, that we should do the thing honestly. It is a mere pretence to call the right hon. Gentleman "President" when he is to be nothing of the sort. When the Local Government Board went out of existence there was no question of preserving the title of "President." We instituted the Ministry of Health, and it seems to me that every argument used for the change to "Ministry of Health" could, with equal force, be used for the change in this instance to "Ministry of Education."
I have been looking, not for arguments in favour of this Amendment, but to find what arguments could be used against it. I have endeavoured to see whether there would be any benefit in the administration of education by the preservation of something which is out of date. My conclusions are that there is no practical reason for the retention of this name of President. I think the day of the Board has gone and I am very glad it has. With it, a type of administration has gone, and I am very glad it has gone. I am not ashamed of the fact that I got some teaching—I am not going to call it education—in a board school. If there was any special reason why I should welcome the change, it would be because of my experiences. I was a favourite with my teacher and she would often take me on her knee—face downwards.
Hon. Members: Order.
The Chairman: For more reasons than one, I do not think we ought to continue a discussion on those lines.
Mr. Messer: I was merely trying to indicate that sometimes there is an association of ideas, and, instead of preserving a name which has unhappy memories, it would be better for all concerned if we could bring ourselves to change that name to one more befitting the duty which faces the Minister. I hope the Minister will realise what a very heavy task he has undertaken and that consideration will be given to what I believe to be the most reasonable Amendment on the Order Paper.
Sir P. Harris: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with the mover of the Amendment. If he will forgive me for saying so, I think he has mixed up two things—the old school board and the Board of Education, two very different

1661
things. The school board disappeared many years ago, and the Board of Education has survived.
Mr. Messer: I want it to die.
Sir P. Harris: If we were going to gain anything by substituting a more vigorous authority, I would be in its favour, but I approach this problem from a different angle. I want to retain the idea of the Board of Education. I do not want the Board to revolve entirely round whoever is the individual Minister for the time being. I want to see a continuous policy at the Board of Education. I want the Minister to benefit by constant and efficient advisers. I do not want to see the whole policy, and the great expansion of education centred on one Minister. We have constant changes, and when education was associated merely with "the three R's" the importance of the organisation at the centre was not great. Now it is to cover the whole field of education, and I want to see such a staff and such a machinery, at Whitehall, as will be able to view education as a whole and devise a comprehensive policy. We have a provision for making these Advisory Councils permanent, and putting them on a sound basis. If it had not been for that, I should have liked to have seen the Board of Education becoming a real Board, like the Board of Admiralty or the Army Council. But the various aspects of education are represented by members of the Board who are to be the councillors and are to view policy as a whole. For that reason, and not merely on sentimental grounds, because I want the Board to have something more than the policy of one individual, I would like to retain the term "Board." There should be continuity of thinking at the head on the whole problem of education, so that primary, secondary, technical and adult education, and also university education, should be considered in all their aspects by an authority responsible for national policy. I want to keep the term "Board" so that it should not be merely the work or policy of one individual, who happens to be the Minister at any particular period.
Mr. R. Morgan: I rise to support the Amendment. I think the hon. Baronet has given all the reasons why the Board should become a more dignified Ministry. It has always been said in the
1662
past that the Board of Education is the Cinderella of the Ministries and I think the change would be helpful. We have a Minister of Agriculture and a Minister of Health. Why not a Minister of Education? The Board has never met, and, if we are to make some change now, let us give it a proper title and let us have a Department known as the Ministry of Education, with a Minister in charge.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: This is only a question of nomenclature, but I beg the Minister to accept the Amendment. I find it extremely difficult to speak on this question without touching the question of the Advisory Councils which, as the Committee knows, will arise on later Amendments. To get the Bill in proper proportions, we ought to have a discussion on Part I and on what we mean by it. In the previous Amendment, the only point was to get a definition of "control." I want the Minister actually to have more power, but I also want to know, by what sanction he is going to enforce it. This question of a Ministry, is far more important than the question of how he is to deal with local education authorities. I wish the Minister would remember a phrase he used himself shortly after he came to the Board, when he said something about satisfying other Departments. What is it that he has to do to-day which is utterly different from the days of 1889? The Duke of Devonshire, asked what he meant by a Board, said:
"I admit I have never been able to find anyone who could recollect the reasons which we had in favour of a Board instead of a Secretary of State."
The right hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) says that he wants to preserve the Board because he wants this central Ministry to deal with all the questions that come up. Surely, the Minister has appointed his Advisory Council for that very reason, so that commercial, adult and technical education would be covered by that council? My right hon. Friend has been meeting Allied Ministers of Education and nobody is more appreciative than I am of what has been done at these conferences, and I hope that that work is going to continue. He is going to introduce an entirely new scheme of adolescent education and that is going to take up a very great deal of time somewhere within the Board of Education. With things like C.E.M.A, and probably some control of libraries, museums and

1663
galleries, the Board of Education will become a much more comprehensive thing. It is going to deal with a new branch of agriculture; agricultural education is to be brought back again after having been taken to the Ministry of Agriculture by the Liberal Government preceding the last war.
The case is very strong. My right hon. Friend, in his opening speech to-day, said that he is going to use these powers to drive through these policies and will not be timid and wait for local education authorities, and I want to hold him up to it. There is a very good case for changing the name. It is not old as the recent report of the Conservative Party says. It is only between 40 and 43 years old, and it was borrowed from other Boards in the 18th and 19th centuries. The only reason for it was that if the Minister was ill, somebody could act in his place. The junior Minister could act in the Minister's place. A good case has been made out for the Amendment and I hope my right hon. Friend will accept it.
Mr. Burden: I support the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) pointed out, the title "President of the Board" is neither old-fashioned nor venerable. The question of a Minister arose when the Bill of 1899 was under discussion. The Minister explained then that he could not recollect the reasons which weighed in favour of a Board rather than a Ministry, but he went on to add that, in any case, everyone knew that there would be no Board at all. I suppose that in 1899 there were more precedents for a Board than there are to-day. At that time there were the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board. The Board of Agriculture is now the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the old Local Government Board is now, somewhat quaintly, called the Ministry of Health. It is pedantic to retain the title "President of the Board" when everyone knows there is no board and it is silly to pretend that there is one.
If the retention of the title, "President of the Board," were simply another instance of fossilised routine, one could afford to smile at it and pass on, but I am afraid that there is a far more subtle and sinister reason than fossilised routine. Mr. H. C. Dent, in his admirable and fas-
1664
cinating study, "Education in Transition," published recently, pointed out that the status of the Board of Education among ministerial departments was very low and that its bargaining power practically negligible. And, as the "Sheffield Telegraph" indicated a day or two ago, the position of President of the Board of Education has usually been a stepping stone to higher ministerial rank. Since 1900 there have been 19 changes in the office of President of the Board of Education. Not only have we had a phantom Board, but we have had transitory phantoms as President. That may have been a good thing for Presidents but whether it has been a good thing for education is perhaps an open question.
I want to put this point bluntly. Is it Departmental jealousy? Is it a determination to maintain an inferior status for education that insists upon the present setup instead of a Ministry? Now that we have a new orientation for education and are making a new start, full of promise, nothing would strike the public imagination more than to wipe away silly, old, obsolete names and to have a real Ministry of Education to guide our educational development. I yield to no one in my admiration for both the President of the Board of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary for the work they have done in connection with this Bill. Whatever its omissions and defects, it holds the promise of a great educational advance, and it is because I wish to help in that advance that I most earnestly commend the Amendment to the Committee.
Sir E. Graham-Little: Would it be in Order to move that there should be a Board of Education in the proper sense of the word?
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: It is not because of any sort of sentiment or opposition or even criticism that I have put my name to the Amendment, but merely because I cannot understand why the title of "President of the Board of Education" has been retained. We have not a President of the Board of Health, a President of Information or a President of Reconstruction, and there is no tradition attached to this title. We in Britain do not treat the habit of a few years as a tradition. We have not been reduced to that yet. And then let us consider the cost. By retaining the present title, we are going to use six

1665
words instead of three—"Minister of Education" and "President of the Board of Education"—and think of the labour, ink-printing and time entailed in using the present title. My next point is that the title of "President of the Board of Education" misleads the public. When the public read about the President of the Board of Education they visualise a benign chairman, presiding over a huddle or gaggle of wise old owls, who are fully acquainted with all precedents in regard to education and are delving into the biological, racial and mental qualities of the future of our race. And Heaven knows they would have their work cut out to find them after this war. I therefore want to show that there is nothing whatever to recommend the present title. We are starting a new and live system of education and surely, this is the opportunity to sweep aside these old out-of-date, meaningless titles and start afresh with a real Ministry and a Minister.
In order to reinforce my arguments I looked up in the dictionary the precise meaning of the word "President" and the word "Minister," and I found that "President" was "a presiding deity." I do not suppose for a moment that my right hon. Friend, even in his august position at the Board of Education, would regard himself as that. It also said that "President" was "one who presided over a permanent body"; that is precisely what my right hon. Friend is not doing and, therefore, the word becomes unsuitable as applied to him. But what according to the dictionary is a "Minister"? A Minister is "a servant." Surely there can be no more powerful or more noble title than a servant of education. That is the job that my right hon. Friend has taken on—to be servant of the future education of this country, and the servant of this House with regard to education. I cannot conceive of any more suitable Minister to be in that job and there is no name that is more suitable for him. Therefore, I press my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to what is obviously the general will of the Committee.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I only intervene to say that I am frankly astonished at the arguments which have come from hon. Members opposite, both from Members of the Socialist Party and more especially from
1666
my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). Why must we take an entirely logical view of the name of the President of the Board of Education? I should have thought that this House was the guardian of tradition in these matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is no tradition."] Are we to go on from this to reason that, because the Board of Trade, after the war, is going to be responsible very largely for the industries of this country, therefore we must change the name of the President of the Board of Trade to that of Minister of Commerce? Are we going to argue that the Lord President of the Council, because he is likely to be concerned increasingly with science, should be called the Minister of Science or the Minister of Scientific Research? Do we want to change all our old titles? It is fantastic. The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) said that this was not an old title. It is certainly the oldest title in education. We have not had public education in this country for longer than 60 years. The title was invented at the time that public education came ino being and I cannot see why we should now rush to change it. I hope that the Committee will not take to the over-logical view already expressed but will decide to retain the old title, in the full knowledge that the President of the Board is now going to preside over a greatly elaborated system of public education.
Mr. R. C. Morrison: Until the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) spoke the discussion had been one-sided. He is the only Member up to now who has spoken against the Amendment. He seems to have done it because this is an original idea. Apart from it being an original idea, a famous educationist, Matthew Arnold, away back in 1868—that is quite far enough back for the hon. Gentleman—said that
"At the apex of the pyramid of public education there should be a Minister of Education, a centre in which to fix responsibility A man is not a Minister of Education by taking the name but by doing the functions."
The real reason why some of us are rather keen that the President of the Board of Education should become the Minister for Education is because it would improve the status of education, not only in this House but in the country. May I

1667
remind the hon. Gentleman that even in my short term in this House, during a period of only 10 years, there have been nine separate Presidents of the Board of Education? I suggest that that is not good for education. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not changed his job because he is called by another name."] I was going to say that the reason why there were nine separate Presidents of the Board of Education was because successive Governments regarded it as one of the junior positions of the country. If a Member of the House remained President of the Board of Education for more than a year or so people began to think that his political career was almost stagnant. Some of us have too much regard for education to believe in that sort of thing. I listen frequently to the Brains Trust, and once or twice recently I have wanted to propound a question to them. It is a simple question, but I think none of them could answer it. It is this: Who were the three predecessors of the present President of the Board of Education? It is because we wish to raise the status of education that we press this Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat it sympathetically.
Sir P. Hannon: I hope the President of the Board of Education will resist this Amendment. In 40 odd years we have maintained a distinct tradition in respect of the Board of Education and a great many predecessors of my right hon. Friend would turn in their graves if they felt that the title of the Board of Education were to be altered. That is a process which I do not propose to examine meticulously to-day.
Mr. Burden: On a point of Order. Would the hon. Gentleman explain how anyone can understand something which does not exist?
Sir P. Hannon: I said I would not examine that proposition meticulously.
The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Nor can the hon. Gentleman who is speaking.
Sir P. Hannon: I accept that Ruling at once, Mr. Williams. It is the privilege of Parliament to maintain association with existing Government Departments and no change can be made in the education of this country by transmuting a Board
1668
into a Ministry. In the great teaching profession the Board of Education is a familiar title to everyone, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to resist the Amendment.
Mr. Maxton: I support the Amendment and, if it is carried to the Division Lobby, I will vote with my hon. Friend, but I am not satisfied with it. I think the title of President of the Board of Education is misleading. It has no high historical sound about it. "Minister" is a right title, but I would infinitely have preferred it if the Amendment had suggested "Secretary of State." The use of the term "President" is quite misleading unless there is some intention to make the Board of Education a reality and not merely a figment of imagination. In Scotland we have someone we call "My Lord" in the Scottish Education Department. I do not know whether the title has been abolished or not, but when I passed the third standard my certificate came from "My Lord." I felt a pretty big man, but I do not think even a six-year-old would appreciate a certificate from the President of the Board of Education.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has added further amusement to this discussion without throwing great light on it. We cannot debate the structure and titles of Government Departments on this occasion. It may well be that the President might be called "The Secretary of State for Education" and there is something to be said for that, when we are going through a transformation. The hon. Baronet said there was no tradition about this. There is an old tradition about it which I would like to destroy. Before we got our present system of government, it was the custom for His Majesty to establish a Board, but we are gradually getting rid of that. We abolished the Local Government Board and made it the Ministry of Health, and they were doing important work. I would remind my hon. Friend who said it would be too great a change that everybody knows the title "The Ministry of Health." I think it is wrong myself, because it goes far wider than health questions. The argument that, when we are on the eve of a great educational development, if we change the title it will upset the apple cart, does not seem

1669
to me to be an argument of any substance. In the Act which established the Ministry of Health certain statutory consultative councils were established. I was—and so far as I know still am—either chairman or vice-chairman of one which, notwithstanding the fact that under statute it should meet once a quarter, has not met for the best part of 20 years. Most Boards are even worse than that. I want to quote from a book called "The Board of Education" written by Sir Lewis Amherst Selby-Bigge who, for a long time, was Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education:
"The Board consisted, and still consists, of the President, the Lord President of the Council, the principal Secretaries of State, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
This Board has not met. I told my friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is a member of the Board of Trade, that it is fantastic in 1944 to continue with anomalies like this. The first Clause deals with the establishment of a Minister. It says:
"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister (hereinafter referred to as "The Minister"),"
and then goes on to say, in line 16, that the Department of which he is in charge shall be known as the Board of Education. Really, this is carrying tradition to terrible extremes. The way back was pointed out in the discussions in 1899. There was strong feeling in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords against the appointment of a Board and a good deal of feeling in favour of the appointment of a Minister. I would like to quote again from the same volume:
"In Debate on the Bill it was suggested that it would be much simpler to have a Ministry than a Board, and the Duke of Devonshire, with characteristic candour, said that the point was mooted when the Bill was first prepared, but he was quite unable to recollect the reasons which weighed in favour of a Board rather than a Ministry. 'It has the advantages at all events of numerous precedents, and it is perfectly well understood that there will be no Board at all.'"
The Board, in fact, never meets and might as well be abolished.
"The criticism that the Board would be a 'sham' and a 'phantom' was repeated in the House of Commons. Sir John Gorst excused himself from further explaining the reasons given by the Duke of Devonshire, referred to the precedents of the Board of Trade, Local Government Board, and Board
1670
of Agriculture, and suggested that Boards were 'potential,' because they might meet."
Really it is reducing Parliamentary nomenclature to a farce, and it surprises me that my right hon. Friend—whom I and many others commended on the Second Reading of the Bill for his progressive outlook and his determination to deal with these problems in a modern spirit and in the light of modern needs—should hark back to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. The Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board have ceased to exist, and it seems to me that the sooner all the remaining Boards go and we know where we are the better. I feel so strongly about this absurd provision of the Bill that if my right hon. Friend is not inclined to withdraw it I will take my hon. Friends into the Division Lobby in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Lipson: This Amendment raises the question, "What is in a name?" I think most of us are more concerned with what the Minister does than with what he is called. At the same time I agree with those who have argued that to change the name to Minister would be a symbol of a change of attitude towards education, a change we would like to see reflected not only in the country but in the Government itself. If the change was effected we should not see, perhaps, frequent departures to other Offices of competent Ministers of Education. I am wondering what possible objections there can be to the proposal of the Amendment? The only argument hitherto advanced has been that there has been a President of the Board of Education for just over 40 years. Surely an argument of that kind to-day has a very limited appeal. I believe that the change suggested in the Amendment is in accordance with the spirit of the Bill itself, which wants to put the educational services in this country in an entirely new position. I, personally, hope the Minister will see his way to accept it and that it will not be necessary to force a Division upon this matter. Unless my right hon. Friend can adduce a more convincing argument that has hitherto been brought forward I shall support the Amendment in the Division Lobby, if need be.
Mr. A. Bevan: I do not wish to repeat many of the arguments which have been used; indeed, with a good many of them I am not in sympathy.

1671
I do not sympathise with the argument that a change in name will confer any inferior or superior status upon the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman will be what he does, and I do not intend to allow myself to be deceived into thinking that by calling him a big man he will necessarily do a big job. In saying that I am not, of course, speaking about the Minister as such. I am suspending my judgment about this Bill, because none of us yet know whether it will be a big Bill or not. It is not only not true to say that a big name indicates a big job. The most important job in the Government was not known to the British Constitution until quite recently, namely, the job of Prime Minister. He was an obscure Lord of the Treasury, I believe, and it was by allotting to him, by slow accretions, an enormous amount of power that the office became what it is to-day. The substance of a Prime Minister's job now is not what he does but what he is called. However, I hope to adduce a reason why the Government should make a decision in favour of the Amendment. I do not mind whether we call the Minister "the President of the Board of Education" or "the Minister," but let us call him one thing or the other. At present we are calling him both. We have not made up our minds. The Bill says:
"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister (hereinafter referred to as "The Minister")…."
That is in the Bill and not anywhere else. If we are to put Questions in the future are we to put them to the President of the Board of Education or to the Minister? Sub-section (2) of Clause I goes on to say:
"The Minister shall for all purposes be a corporation sole under the name of the President of the Board of Education, and the department of which he is in charge shall be known as the Board of Education."
If the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman is in charge is known as the Board of Education it is logical that he should be called the President of the Board of Education. But, as I have said, are we in the future to put Questions to the President of the Board of Education or to the Minister? Unless we come to a clear decision about this matter the Chair, Members and people in the country will be in a muddle, because the title of the Minister will be established by usage and
1672
not by legislation. The most simple and logical way out of the difficulty is to accept the Amendment, and I use the word, "logical," with some timidity because I know that if there is any illogicality to be found anywhere the Conservative Party will rush to its defence immediately, as the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) did just now. The only justification that can be found for him sitting in his present position is because there is no sense in it. I therefore suggest that it would be much better for us to make up our minds. As it is a Ministry we are establishing we should refer to the right hon. Gentleman as a Minister.
Mr. Pritt: I want to appeal to the Minister to accept this Amendment. I agree that it is far more important what the right hon. Gentleman does and what powers he has than what name he carries, but it is natural and reasonable that when people carry greater responsibility they should take what is recognised as the fuller title. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) quoted the case of the office of Prime Minister. It is a very good precedent indeed, because by the time it became clear to the country that the First Lord of the Treasury was the Prime Minister of this country we did then positively, by Statute, if I remember correctly, give him the title "Prime Minister," which corresponded to his office. We all hope that the President of the Board of Education will be a big Minister, that the Board will be a big Ministry and that the country will have better education. That being so, let us give him the title. If we do the country will say that Parliament has put a stamp on the letter and means business by giving the right hon. Gentleman the title appropriate to his job. If hon. Members opposite resist the Amendment on grounds of tradition and change of name what will they do about the constant agitation to change the name of their party in order to try to make the Conservative rose smell a little sweeter?
Mr. I. Thomas: I think this matter is covered by Lord Falkland's dictum:
"If it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change."
Most of us want so many things changed that I, personally, cannot be bothered to waste my energy on such a matter as this. There are far more important matters in

1673
our educational system which need changing. If there is objection simply on the grounds of illogicality there is no end to where we may go. Why not change Mr. Speaker's title, because most of us do far more speaking in the House of Commons than Mr. Speaker? So far as the objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is concerned, I do not see the force of it, because it applies to all Ministers who are so described in their official title. Most of us preface our supplementary questions to the Secretary of State for War by saying, "Is the Minister aware …?" It is a difficulty that does not arise in practice. I have not the slightest objection to illogicality where it does not involve serious consequences and I hope, with all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), that the Government will not accept this Amendment.
Mr. Butler: I am placed in a position in which a great many right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), take the view that the Government should pay attention to the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). I would like first of all to make clear to the Committee what exactly has happened before going on to consider the arguments which have been put forward. The Board of Education, which has never met, and which has been fully described, or rather not described, by the Duke of Devonshire, whose statements on the subject I have before me, is no longer to go on or to exist. In connection with the central machinery of the Bill, as set out in Part I, we shall be considering shortly the question of the Advisory Councils, their constitution and the whole new set up of the educational system at the centre with a Minister—I am not frightened at the name—a Ministry and the Advisory Councils, in respect of which there are Amendments on the Order Paper. Therefore, I think that the set up of the new attitude to education is direct and satisfactory and will be found to have bigger variety and discretion.
We are here solely concerned with a name, and what has been achieved in drafting the Bill, as it stands now, is that the name of the Minister is to continue as before. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 states:
"The Minister shall for all purposes be a corporation sole under the name of the President of the Board of Education, and the de-
1674
partment of which he is in charge shall be known as the Board of Education."
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is correct in pointing out that this is a question of name and that there may be confusion over the name. If that is the view of the Committee I must address myself to that matter, but before I do so perhaps I may relieve the anxieties of those who are not quite certain as to what is "a corporation sole." It is defined as:
"A body politic, having perpetual succession, and being constituted in a single person who, in right of some office, or function, has a capacity to take, purchase, hold and demise … lands, tenements, and hereditaments, to him and his successors in such office for ever, the succession being perpetual, but not always uninterruptedly continuous. …"
This is perhaps comforting to those who are in some anxiety lest a change in the whole set-up of education might lead to a too permanent Member of the House as President of the Board of Education. It shows, that in law, under the definition of a "corporation sole," there will be no Board, and that is really the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who asked that a real Board should be established. The Government would not be in favour of blurring in any way the direct responsibility of the Minister to Parliament. I am not in favour of accepting Amendments which would have that result. My duty is to answer to Parliament, and not to have my responsibility blurred.
As to the question of name, the decision I have to take on behalf of the Government is whether to accept the challenge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and start our discussions in the spirit of having a vote. Not that he has shown any animosity but he has argued from a definite point of view. I would prefer to examine this question in the light of what we have done so far in connection with this Bill. The Government desire to work with the House of Commons. That does not mean, however, that I am prepared to accept the Amendment which has been moved to-day. I would like to discuss the matter with my colleagues in the Government and bring it before the House on the next stage of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), like myself, has a great disinclination to see everybody described as a Minister. That is really why this name was retained. While it

1675
does not date from a long while back it has, at least, a certain ring of its own. I gathered that it would not have excited the juvenile aspirations of my hon. Friend, who would have been preferred to have been addressed by a lord. Well, if I can satisfy my hon. Friend in his lordly aspirations, and the children of the country, I shall do so, but I would like time to consider something which has a ring of its own and which gives distinction and status to the office of the Minister of Education.
To that I attach great importance. It was for that very reason, that we thought we were maintaining a certain tradition and attaching a certain status, that the Government decided to keep this name. I do not propose to give it up without further consideration, but I am prepared to say that, in view of the Amendments that have been moved and the attitude that has been expressed, I will consider the matter again and put down some positive suggestion after having some conversation with those interested.
Mr. Greenwood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and I am sure in the circumstances my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment, but I hope that in future I shall not have to address the right hon. Gentleman as President of No Board of Education.
Mr. Messer: I understand there is a definite undertaking that we shall be presented with a suggested change of name and, in the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "a," and to insert "such."
This is an Amendment in the same spirit as the last. The point of view that I hold is exactly the same as that of my right hon. Friend, but I want to see the status of the Ministry, or Board, or whatever it is to be called, raised in the eyes of the country. The dice are loaded very heavily when there are three Cabinet Ministers and seven Under-Secretaries thought necessary for the arts of war, and yet for the arts of peace one lesser Cabinet Minister and one assistant are regarded as sufficient to nourish the growing genera-
1676
tion. I do not think that is good enough, because the work that is going to be entailed by this new Ministry is, I believe, far larger than even the House at present understands. May I give one example based on a certain amount of experience? When certain new youth developments were starting at the Board—as it then was—in my time, I found that it was essential to concentrate on one specific aspect of the work. It was impossible to know what was going on with regard to certain other very important aspects, such as evacuation and so on, and I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman is going to do the work that will be necessary unless he has further assistance. If the answer is that it is not necessary to insert this in the Bill, because it can be done already, I am prepared to sit down straight away but, if not, I would press him to accept the Amendment.
To give a further example, some of us would like to see a different arrangement of affairs within the Ministry itself with regard to the whole of the children—I should estimate the number at about 100,000—who do not come within the ambit of the Board of Education at all. Some are destitute, some are handicapped and some are in homes and so forth. But that is not for us here. It is for him to decide how he is going to arrange the departments within his own Ministry. He has already established something near the mark, a sort of division for very young children. If this Ministry is going to be the basic thing which everyone talks so much about, it should have at least as many Under-Secretaries as the Board of Admiralty and one should have one for the young children.
When I was at the Admiralty as Civil Lord it was perfectly possible to have a little Department, over which you had complete or very nearly complete control. My Minister at the time was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). He would consult and bring you into general discussions but within the Civil Lord's Department you had complete control and got on with your job. I want to see the same thing happening within the general field of education. I think there is a special case for someone dealing with the vast increase in work amongst youth and I think that work should not be divided up as it is between the Ministry of Labour and several other Departments. I want to see the Board

1677
not servicing 12 other Departments. I want to see it an initiating body, calling in agriculture when agriculture is necessary and calling in the services when they are necessary so that it can have a major supervisory control. Some of my hon. Friends have put down Amendments dealing with national service. I do not want this to come under the Ministry of Labour. It is this great Department of State, which we hope to rebuild, which should be doing this work.
What about this great growth of Army education? Some of my friends are trying to initiate something which will be a carryover of education in the Forces back into civil life. I should like to see such discussion groups linked up in a great scheme with adult education and C.E.M.A., which I hope will be retained by the Board. Who is going to be responsible? A greater increase of staff will be necessary, legal and otherwise. All I am asking is that it shall be possible to have more than one Parliamentary Secretary if necessary.
Captain Sir William Brass: Sub-section (3) says that the Minister may appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. I have always understood that the Prime Minister appointed his own Under-Secretaries. I should like to ask whether it is not a fact that an Under-Secretary is appointed by the Prime Minister and not by the Minister of a Department concerned. In fact, the Under-Secretary might even be there before the Minister himself was appointed.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: Adult education is so different from both elementary and secondary education that I hope very much the right hon. Gentleman will accede to this request, for which the hon. Member made so convincing a case. Legal English is so vague that a Parliamentary Secretary may mean several Parliamentary Secretaries and, if that is so, it may not be necessary, but if it is necessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary who will be able to take charge of adult education I hope the President will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Butler: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) has raised an interesting point, and I am obliged to tell the Committee what the position is about the appointment of Under-Secretaries and the number of them that exist and the
1678
way in which this question is governed. The matter has been put on a proper statutory footing by the Act of 1937, which specifies the number of Under-Secretaries for each Government Department and the salaries to which they are entitled. That Act was amended by the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, when, on the constitution of the Ministry of Supply, provision was made for an extra Under-Secretary, and the number of persons entitled to sit in the House as Parliamentary Under-Secretaries is limited by existing legislation to 21. That structure has again been built upon by the Defence Regulations, 1940, which included provision to increase the number of Parliamentary Secretaries for the Treasury and the War Office, and to extend those for the Ministry of Agriculture from one to not more than two. That, therefore, is the position as we find it.
I now address myself to the hon. Member's suggestion. The Government do not under-estimate in any way the great range of duties which will fall on the future Minister of Education and his Under-Secretary. They do not underestimate the reference that the hon. Gentleman made to the field of youth nor to the field of adult education, nor to the development, perhaps, of some sort of English counterpart of the foreign Ministry of Beaux Arts and the development of the work of what is known as the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts. None of these matters are under-rated by the Government, and nothing that I say should be taken as derogating in any way from the great value of these many activities which have been referred to.
We do, however, feel that it will not be necessary to appoint an extra Under-Secretary to assist the Minister and his deputy in carrying out the vast range of duties under the Bill. After mature consideration the conclusion that we have come to is that the House has enough Ministers as a whole, and we do not want to enlarge their number, and, although I personally, as the one charged with these heavy duties, would value the addition of further assistants, particularly if they are of the quality of my hon. Friend who assists me here, and if they have the educational knowledge and vision of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who has filled the office with such distinction. At

1679
the same time, in the light of the numbers that already exist and of the undoubted ability with which I hope the future Minister and his Under-Secretary will be endowed, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment but will realise that we greatly appreciate the spirit in which it has been moved.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) need not get too excited about the wording of the Bill as to the Minister appointing his own Under-Secretary. It follows very clearly established precedent. The Ministry of Health Act, 1919, Section 6 (1) has similar wording:
"The Minister may appoint a Parliamentary Secretary and such secretaries, officers and servants."
Similarly, in the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, the same language is used in Clause 25 (1). There is, therefore, nothing very revolutionary in the language employed in the Bill. Although this is the legal position, discretion in the matter would not be removed from the Prime Minister himself. I think my hon. and gallant Friend may feel satisfied that, whatever views the Minister might have, the views of the head of the Government would prevail.
Mr. Lindsay: Not entirely convinced, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Central Advisory Councils.)
The Deputy-Chairman: The following four Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) may be discussed together:
In page 3, line 12, leave out, "two," and insert "three."
In line 13, leave out "the other," and insert "one."
In line 14, leave out from "Monmouth-shire," to end of line.
In line 17, at end insert "and one to advise the Ministers specifically upon matters relating to technical education."
Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out "two," and to insert "three."
1680
This Clause is concerned with an important part of the machinery which will be available to assist the Minister in carrying out his duties under the Bill. It provides for the establishment of two Central Advisory Councils to advise him on general questions of educational theory and practice. The effect of the Amendments which stand in my name would be to establish a third Advisory Council specifically charged to advise the Minister upon all matters relating to technical education. I use the word "technical" in its broadest possible sense, and although I want to speak more particularly of the kind of technical education which relates to industry, I have very much in mind that this Council should also concern itself iintimately with the special forms of technical instruction and education which the technique of modern agriculture demands. Therefore, in much of what I say I hope the Committee will understand that when I use the word "technical" I also have agriculture in mind. We have already heard a good deal about the large additional powers which are conferred upon the Minister and his Department under this Bill. It is clear that in the future they are to be the dominant partner in our educational system. It is particularly because of the great influence and power which the Board must have in future over the work of local authorities and over our education in general, that a great many people, of whom I am one, are gravely concerned that the detailed provisions of the Bill give no indication that the vital importance of technical education in all its forms and at all stages is even yet realised by the Board of Education.
It ought not to be necessary to argue the importance of technical education. We are a great industrial nation which, because of our geographical position, has to grow all the food it can and to import what it cannot grow and pay for it by the products of its industries. It is obvious that the standard of living of our people, indeed, our continued existence as a great Power, depends fundamentally on the maintenance of our agriculture and industry at the highest possible level of productivity and efficiency. That is a mere platitude, but unfortunately it is a platitude which so far does not seem to have penetrated to the cloistered seclusion of the Board of Education. I would like

1681
to read a short extract from a volume of Hansard which hon. Members will realise from its binding is not of very recent date:
"We have a great Empire, a great Navy and a great position among the nations. That position depends upon the enormous volume of our trade and commerce. That volume of trade and commerce came to us in a time when we had practically no competitors, when the courage and energy of our people were able to make themselves manifest, with splendid results in the way of success, without the competition and hindrance which we now experience. But all that is changed. Nations have come up, furnished in a way that we are not, with education and technical training which we do not possess; and it is vital to our interests, essential to our position as a nation, and necessary for the preservation of our commerce, our Navy, and our Empire, that we should put ourselves on the same footing as these nations are on."
These are the words of Mr. Haldane in the Second Reading Debate on the Education Act of 1902. They are as true to-day as they were when they were spoken. Here is the modern version of the same idea from the report of the Nuffield Committee on Education and Industry:
"On the economic side Great Britain can emerge from the present war with the hope of a steady addition in wealth and welfare to the extent, and only to the extent, that British industry is able to produce efficiently and cheaply a wide range of goods for consumption overseas as well as at home. … All plans for advancing these standards of living of the British people must depend in the last resort on the efficiency of British production and on the ability of British industry to sell goods in the world markets at prices which overseas purchasers are prepared and able to pay. … The vital factors in such a country as ours are the quality of the labour and the attitude towards production of the individuals who comprise the labour force at all levels and in all grades."
I said a moment ago that the words of Mr. Haldane were as true to-day as they were when they were spoken 42 years ago, but that was an under-statement. To-day the position is even more serious than it was in 1902. Our competitors have multiplied, have become more efficient, have profited by our mistakes and have improved on our methods. Science applied to industry has made unbelievable strides. The great developments in the science of electricity, the internal combustion engine, modern machine tools, the discovery of the almost endless possibilities of oil, the whole range of synthetic materials and new metals—all these things have fundamentally altered the character of industry itself. Business management has become
1682
almost an exact science. The introduction of planned production, of mass production methods, of machine accounting and of statistical control—all these things demand in business management qualities quite different from those which were adequate to build the great industrial position which we had half a century ago.
What has been the response of our education system to these new circumstances and these changed demands? The response has been almost non-existent. As a result, the technical education of this country is by common consent to-day far below that of any other industrial nation, and so far below that our great competitors, Germany and America, as to present our industrialists with an impossible problem. The quality of our industrial workers at all levels I believe still to be superb. I believe that they still possess, in full measure, the great personal qualities which enabled them to build British industry. In management we still have courage, initiative and imagination. In the workers we still have resource, painstaking perserverance and a skill and pride in good craftsmanship which is unique in the world. These personal qualities, however, unless they are backed by scientific knowledge and modern technique, are doomed to failure. We watched, in the years immediately before the war, British industry fighting very often a losing battle with an educational equipment which is completely out of date and vastly inferior to that which its competitors possess.
There is another reason for stressing the importance of technical education. Not only is technical education, which comes close to being vocational, neglected, but I believe that there is a growing feeling of doubt whether we are getting value for money out of our educational system as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), in the Debate on Second Reading, mentioned a rather alarming case of what was virtual illiteracy among a number of boys admitted to an institution in which he is interested. I know my hon. Friend very well and I am certain he would be the last to wish to draw too strong a deduction from individual cases, and I am sure that cases of illiteracy of that kind among children who are supposed to have passed through our educational system are rare. I am certain, however, that there are all over the country a large number of boys and girls, who have passed through two or

1683
more stages of our educational system, who come out at the other end with much less commonsense, adaptability and ordinary knowledge than we think they should have and than the great effort expended on them should have given them. I do not attribute the blame for this to lack of ability on the part of the teachers. I am convinced that it arises from the lack of realism of much that is taught and from the failure of our education in schools to link up with the real world outside. It is difficult for the pupils as well as for others to see the connection between a great deal of what they are taught in the schools and the real world outside—the world of radio and television, of the motor car and the aeroplane, of bakelite and artificial silk.
This lack of realism is having the most serious results. We must attribute it largely to the overwhelmingly academic character of the work of our secondary schools, which set the pace of and influence very greatly the work of the primary schools. This devotion to the methods and the curricula of the Middle Ages, so beloved and so sedulously fostered by Whitehall, has not only had a baneful effect upon other branches of education, but it has, among other things, I believe, done more than anything else to prolong, and indeed to promote, that worst of all forms of snobbery which gives to the man who works in a black coat a higher social status than to his brother who works in dungarees.
On that point I would like to read another extract from the Nuffield Committee's Report:
"The bias of the educational system has been recently, to a growing extent, against entry to manual occupations, and in favour of directing the boys who are above average intelligence into non-manual work. We protest against this, except where the non-manual occupations are such as to call for a high degree of intelligence; but to the extent to which it is the result of a supposed prestige of non-manual work, even of a relatively unskilled kind, we believe the results to be most unfortunate."
The only comment I would make on that subject is that I am not at all sure whether the enhanced prestige of non-manual work is a consequence of this direction of children into the academic sphere, or, as is rather suggested there, the cause of it. One thing is quite certain, that the practical result of this mediaeval policy has been to divert the best brains
1684
from the secondary schools into the professions—law, banking, and accountancy, and that it has had a calamitous effect on British industry. I should be the last, particularly in this assembly, to depreciate the value of lawyers, bankers and accountants, because they are an essential part of modern industrial development, but we have to recognise that they are the safety-first brigade. The purpose and function of professional men in industry is to keep their hands on the brakes. We have been producing too many brakesmen. We want some more engine drivers.
What does the Bill do about it? In precise terms, I believe, virtually nothing at all. I am sure that my right hon. Friend ort the Parliamentary Secretary would tell me that he finds himself in the same difficulty as confronted the framers of the 1902 Bill and the Members of the Royal Commission, the difficulty of defining technical education.
The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think he is getting a little wide of the subject of the Amendment. I do not think it entitles us to discuss all kinds of education and Education Bills of the past as well.
Sir H. Webbe: I am sorry to have got out of Order. I am coming at the moment to the question of machinery.
Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. Is it your Ruling, Mr. Williams, that in the discussion that follows we should be restricted to the point that we should have the proposed committee, leaving us without any opportunity of discussing why we should have a committee dealing with technical education alone? Does not the present argument of the hon. Member raise the question as to the kind of education that we should have?
The Deputy-Chairman: It will be remembered by the Committee that when we were deciding which Amendment we should take I suggested taking the one on line 17, which deals with a far wider type of technical education, and that is why I thought that we might have one discussion, and is why I have allowed a certain amount of latitude; but there must be a limit.
Sir H. Webbe: I will certainly do my best not to wander again into subjects

1685
which I think may not be justified in the Debate later on. I have said all I wish to say as to the importance of technical education and I want now to address myself to the position under the Bill and to the provision which is made for securing that technical education shall have proper consideration in the administration of the great reforms for which the Bill provides.
As I said, I find nothing specific in the Bill, and I am satisfied as to the reasons which the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would give, about the difficulty of defining technical education so as to make specific provision for it in a Bill, and that if one could, it might be undesirable to do so. What that means is that in this matter, as in other matters, the fate of technical education under the Bill depends not on the provisions of the Bill but entirely upon the way in which it is administered by the Board. If I had confidence in the Board's administration in this matter I should not be moving this Amendment, and I should certainly not be asking the Committee to listen to so long a speech; but, quite bluntly, I say that I have no confidence in the administration of the Board in regard to technical education. That is a strong statement to make, and I hope that I shall be successful to some extent in justifying it.
The history of the Board of Education in the last 50 years is lamentable. In the Bill of 1902 there was implied the fundamental ideal which pervades the present Bill, which is that it would be so administered as to provide education for every child, according to its needs and aptitudes. There is no doubt, from the Debate which took place on the 1902 Bill, that everyone expected there would be a substantial measure of technical education taking its proper place as part of the general scheme. What happened? The Board immediately defined secondary education in such a way as virtually to exclude any technical education whatever. When junior technical schools at last forced recognition from the Board, they were hedged around by Regulations that deliberately made them a dead-end. They were forbidden to plan courses which would lead to the university, to the professions, or indeed to full-time technical education itself. They were to be a complete dead-end. For at least 30 years,
1686
no technician or technologist—I speak under correction, but I have known the Board fairly well for that time—has occupied a position of responsibility in the Board's hierarchy. A technical department was formed in the Board, and immediately starved. For 16 years, not a penny of grant in aid of any new technical institution was ever given by the Board of Education—not one penny. It took a world war to get the first penny, but the history of the years since the last war carry on the same terrible story.
If the Committee had time and would bear with me, I could tell a fearful story of those years. I will give only one instance. At the beginning of this war, a large new technical institute was opened in a town in an industrial part of England. I must not mention its name. The institute was opened in 1940, but the plan and scheme for it were prepared in 1898 and it was not till 1935 that the Board gave consent to the scheme going ahead. That scheme took 37 years, between the time when it was prepared and the time when it was finally approved. That is typical of the attitude of the Board of Education towards technical education in those days.
I may be told that all that has changed and that there is a new outlook in the administration. When I read the White Paper I had some hope, but upon reading it more carefully I can see no sign of repentance. It says:
"The country cannot afford to rest content with a system under which the technical education of its potential skilled workers, industrial leaders, or commercial executives is left so largely to the initiative of the young employees themselves. The vocational training that has come into being within the system of public education has, in the main, not come in response to any demand from industry or commerce"—
nor, may I add, from any initiative from the Board of Education—
"but has depended on the enterprise and tenacity of individual students … No doubt this system—if it can be called a system—has brought forward many young men and women of high intelligence and sturdy character."
That is splendid, but what did the Board offer to do about it? Here is what they say:
"What is wanted, if the full value is to be obtained from the developments envisaged, is their arrangements for training, and should that industry and commerce should review

1687
co-operate in associating the technical colleges more fully with the industrial and commercial life of the country."
Well, industry is still waiting. Learned professions, such as the mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and others have had their committees, have prepared and published their plans, and have approached the Board of Education. They are now waiting for the other half of the picture, the technical colleges with which they can associate, but there has been nothing, no promise at all. If we want to see the mental attitude of the Board of Education at the present time, we shall find it in one very short sentence which I should like to read——
The Deputy-Chairman: I do not want to see the Bill take 35 years and I must point out to the hon. Member that on these particular Amendments we must not discuss the points of other Amendments.
Sir H. Webbe: It is very difficult for me to justify the machinery of the Committee which it is proposed to set up without criticising the machinery that already exists.
The Deputy-Chairman: It is in Order for the hon. Member to bring in a certain number of points about what has happened in the past, but we cannot have a discussion upon such wide issues without hon. Members making almost Second Reading speeches. We must keep to the technical points.
Earl Winterton: Do I understand your point to be, Mr. Williams, as to the time that it takes to introduce the particular Amendment? It so, is that not a question for the Committee and not for the Chair?
The Deputy-Chairman: Obviously it is. I was making the point that the scope of the discussion was being widened to such an extent as to become out of Order.
Sir H. Webbe: I will again endeavour to keep in Order. I feel very strongly on this matter and I am sure that the Committee will forgive me. I can have no confidence in the Board's administration because of the evidence which they have offered of unreadiness to do anything to cure what I regard as a very serious situation. There is only one further thing which I would like to mention in this connection. The Parliamentary Secretary
1688
made a speech a few weeks ago, I think at South Shields. I have had the advantage of reading the speech only in the Press, but I thought it was admirable. I wish I had been there to cheer him. My hon. Friend stated one fact, however, which to my mind reveals and completely condemns the attitude of the Board of Education on this matter.
He reminded his hearers that it was originally estimated by the Board that a sum of £2,500,000 would be sufficient for the developmen of technical and adult education for the seven years after the war. He went on to tell his hearers that after consideration, after discussion with industrialists and others who were interested in and expert in this matter, it had been decided that that estimate had to be multiplied by 14 and brought up to the figure at which it stands in the Financial Memorandum of the Bill. I submit that if an estimate is 1,300 per cent. out that is not a sign merely that the people who make it are not very good at estimates, it is clear and conclusive evidence they have not the first idea of the nature of the problem they are trying to solve. In these circumstances, as I say, I can have no confidence in the administration of the Board. That is why I ask that there should be an authoritative body whose job it would be to see that the attention of the Board is devoted to these matters.
I have only two or three more words to say. It may be said that the proposed Advisory Council itself as it stands could do this work. I can only say, speaking as one who had the honour of serving on the Consultative Committee for a number of years, that I am convinced that the new Advisory Council will have their hands very full with general educational questions without giving attention to this subject. It may also be argued that the proposed additional council I suggested would not have enough to do. I would suggest that they could be very active for 12 months merely asking questions—asking the Board, where are the great technological institutions in this country, of which Germany has dozens and America scores; what are we doing to stimulate research at the universities; what is being done to train the stream of research workers who are needed in industry? There are a hundred and one questions to which this proposed council could devote themselves. I am convinced

1689
that my right hon. Friend will need all the help he can get in this matter. He will find this is a particularly difficult job, because tradition and prejudice die hard. If he were here I, as one good Tory to another, would commend to him a remark attributed to Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder, a remark which I am sure he would agree is in the best Disraelian tradition. The Air Marshal is reported to have closed a discussion by saying, "To hell with history, what is the problem?" I have tried to indicate what I conceive to be the nature of the problem. My right hon. Friend will earn the gratitude of the country if he can find the solution.
Mr. Cove: The hon. Member has indeed opened up a very wide field for economic discussion as well as for the discussion of the meaning and purpose of education. I am sure that if I followed him, I should not have the advantage which the hon. Member has had, but I would like to make one brief comment. He seemed to suggest that the economic depression through which we passed in the inter-war period, was due to the character of our education—that a large responsibility rested upon it anyhow. I will not enter into a prolonged discussion on that except to say that I am quite sure that Britain had enough skill even in that period to provide the goods that could be purchased. I need only make this comment, that the skill that seemed to be lacking during the inter-war period so far as employment and the production of goods are concerned seemed to be released during the war period.
The fact of the matter is that the hon. Member has at the back of his mind the attitude, that we must in our educational system fit boys and girls, and men and women simply for the job of industry. That undoubtedly was the emphasis. I entirely repudiate that attitude towards the whole purpose and meaning of education. It is perfectly true that there needs to be, of course, an extension of technical education, but I submit, and it is the main point I shall make, that to segregate a national committee in this way to deal solely and wholly with technical education apart from all the other phases of the education service would be a disservice to technical education itself. Technical education—one could argue this for a very long time—in my opinion, is all the
1690
better, as it were, for being part and parcel of the whole educative process. Therefore, to my mind it would be in relation to the interests of technical education a retrogressive rather than a progressive step to have a separate committee set up simply for the narrow purpose of considering technical education. I hope I may be allowed to quote, to emphasise that point, a few very pertinent words from a book which, as many Members know, had a good deal of publicity, "The Future of Education," by Sir Richard Livingstone. The few sentences I wish to quote are, I think, germane to the principle embodied in the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved. Sir Richard says:
"So we get that clear and important distinction between technical education which aims at earning a living or making money or some narrowly practical skill and the free man's education which aims at producing as perfect and compete a human being as may be. This is not to despise technical education, which is essential. Everyone has to learn to make a living and do his job and cannot do it without training."
He goes on:
"But they are not to be confused. They are both important, both necessary, but they are both different and yet to some extent they overlap."
Then he goes on to give instances like French and other subjects, and shows quite clearly that there is an integration, as it were, in the educative process. I cannot argue this at length, for I should be out of Order in going into that deeply. But briefly, I say quite definitely that the whole trend, as I see it, in modern education is to see all the educative process as a whole, to get the subjects working, as it were, into a more complete pattern. Therefore I think it would be going back on the modern tendency, which indeed is progressive and which I think has shown itself in this war to be effective.
I am not afraid of the Board of Education so far as technical education is concerned. I tremble much more about the Board in the future so far as broad liberal secondary education is concerned. Pressure of events and the industrial necessities of this country will impel us to have some regard to technical education, but I say, finally, in the best interests of technical education itself: Do not let it be driven apart, do not let us have it separated. As I envisage the consultative committee, they will not be biased one

1691
way or the other, and that the idea is to have a balanced committee, people with experience of all the various phases and requirements of the educational system, and not only as a watertight system but in relation to the needs of the nation and the people as a whole. Therefore I say quite frankly that I am definitely opposed to the Amendment, and if it is pressed to a Division I hope my hon. Friends on this side will resist it.
Captain Cobb: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has informed the Committee he is not at all afraid of what the Board's intentions are with regard to technical education, presumably judging them on their past records. If that is his belief, he cannot be as interested in the future of technical education as a great many of us are on this side. I agree with the view he expressed that it would be an evil thing for the boys and girls of this country if technical education were made a hard and fast thing and no other education was envisaged. But that is not technical education in its modern sense. If he had visited a number of the junior technical schools which exist in London and many other parts of the country he would realise that up to about 15 or 16 years of age these children are receiving a first class general education with a slightly technical bias.
In every kind of school in the country after the age of about 16 a child is bound to undertake a measure of specialisation. I feel, and I think many of my hon. Friends feel too, that real central drive from the Board of Education is vitally necessary in order that the best kind of technical education can be available, not only for these youngsters but for the country as a whole and for the sake of our export trade. I would like to remind my hon. Friends who are not particularly interested in this form of education, that it will be our technical skill in the years to come which will keep this country going and help to pay for this improved system of education among many other things. I am definitely of the opinion that technical education generally speaking has been the cinderella of our educational system. Speaking generally such technical education that does exist is very good in many parts of the country, but it owes its existence almost entirely either to pri-
1692
vate enterprise or to a particularly enterprising local authority. There has been no initiative from Whitehall which has been responsible for that kind of development.
In view of the fact that in the post-war years the President of the Board of Education will be taking upon himself far wider powers I want him to have the knowledge to use those powers effectively so far as technical education is concerned by having a really qualified council to advise him on these matters. There is the question of status involved. I have a very strong feeling that the officials of the Board of Education are inclined to adopt a slightly patronising attitude to technical education. They look on it as something which is quite good for somebody else, whereas in fact it ought to be something available for everyone in the country.
If it would not be out of Order now to criticise the public schools system I should say that it is a great misfortune that the public schools do not give a great deal more attention to technical education. I am convinced that if anybody is interested in the future of technical education and is seized with its immense importance, he will support this Amendment, so that the Minister may have available a first-class, fully-qualified council to advise him upon this important matter.
Mr. Rhys Davies: It is almost in fear and trembling that I enter into a Debate with experts on education. They may, however, forgive a few words from a mere layman. My reason for taking part in the Debate is that I spent some very happy years on the governing body of what is, I think, one of, if not the largest technical institute in the land. There is one failing about the Amendment now before us: it assumes that the Advisory Councils already provided for in the Bill will not be able to advise on technical education at all.
Captain Cobb: I am afraid that technical education will not be adequately represented, and that the representation of other aspects will be overweighted.
Mr. Lindsay: The question, Major Milner, seems to be getting very much wider. Some Members who have put down Amendments wish to include rural education, some adult education, and some technical education. Is it possible for the discussion to be on the wider issue?
The Chairman: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee desire, I see no reason why the Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) and the right hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) should not be discussed with the Amendment before the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there is strong objection we cannot follow that course.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): May I point out that this Amendment differs from the others, in that it asks for a third advisory council, whereas the others desire that there shall be special consideration for the subjects in which those who have put down the Amendments are specially interested, on the Advisory Council for England and the Advisory Council for Wales. There is, to that extent, a considerable difference of principle between this Amendment and the others. Not that I want to delay the progress of the Bill.
The Chairman: In the circumstances, it would clearly be better to continue the Debate on this Amendment.
Mr. Rhys Davies: I am sorry I have raised a minor storm; it is not, however, the first storm I have created in my time. The hon. Gentleman, in his Amendment, has advocated the establishment of an advisory council for technical education purposes only. I would like, for instance, to see an advisory council on music and elocution, which are quite as important as same of the other subjects, but that would be begging the question. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) will forgive me if I say that one of the problems of technical education is that junior technical schools exist in many towns where there is a higher technical institution as well, but no boy can enter that higher technical institution until he has matriculated. Has the Board of Education got that important factor in mind? I could never understand why a boy in a junior technical school in our own city was not given educational facilities to pass the matriculation standard and so enter the technical college controlled by the same authority.
Sir H. Webbe: I mentioned in my speech the answer to that very question. The junior technical schoolboy cannot prepare for the examination to admit him to a place of higher education because of the regulations of the Board of Education.
Mr. Davies: Can we be assured, therefore, that the personnel of the Advisory Councils to be established will include individuals who know about such problems as that? Once again I speak as a layman, but I developed a keen sense of revolt over the problem that boys attending junior technical schools were prevented because of the matriculation certificate, from entering our own municipal college. Then, technical education, so far as I know, starts when the child has left the elementary school. For some reason unknown to me, who sat for years on an important education authority, a child studying the arts on the academic side could remain during the whole day in an educational institution, and go right forward to his B.A. and M.A., but if he wanted to train in any technical subject he must follow his employment during the day and study technical subjects at nights. I know very little about education apart from what I learned by sitting on an education authority, but that is how the position appears to me. I trust my hon. Friend will be able to give us some satisfaction on the very interesting points which have been brought to his notice in this Debate.
Mr. Linstead: I am very glad that this Amendment has been moved, although I would not suggest that it is the best way of dealing with the problem. I think that these Councils must have a very wide view of every section of education, and not concentrate on one particular section, such as technical education; but the moving of the Amendment provides a peg for discussing what tends to get lost in the Debates on this Bill, namely, the immense importance of technical education in this country after the war. The danger is that so much money, energy and thought will have to go into primary, secondary and further education that technical education will not get the attention it should have of we are to maintain our technical progress. I know many of the large technical colleges of this country fairly well, and they are very

1695
uneven. Some are admirable and compare with any institution in Europe and America, but others are appalling, and almost mediaeval in their buildings and outlook. There are at least two problems which technical education has not yet solved. One is research; they have not yet developed an adequate research organisation in many of the technical colleges. The other is their relationship with the universities. In many towns the universities are doing technical education, and there is no real liaison between the two bodies. By some means or other, the Board of Education must set up some type of advisory committee which will be directly responsible to the President of the Board for the progress and co-ordination of technical education. I would not, however, say that the proposal in this Amendment is the one which ought to be adopted.
Mr. Richards: The mover of the Amendment covered a very wide field, and I do not regret the emphasis that he laid upon the fact that very little attention has been paid hitherto to technical education in this country, and upon the importance that some kind of technical education at any rate is going to assume in the future if we are to continue as a great Power. I do not think anyone can object to what he said about the industrial possibilities of the future in this country. It will largely depend on the development of technical education. I do not altogether share his views about the little that the Board of Education have done. I do not know that it is entirely the fault of the Board. I do not think that in this country we have been conscious, being so favourably placed industrially as we were during the last century, of the fundamental change in our economic position vis-à-vis the other countries competing with us. It may be that very little pressure has been exercised upon the Board of Education to get them to sense the change.
I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) that this is not the place for this Amendment. The two Advisory Councils, for England and for Wales, will, I am certain, take a very wide view of their responsibilities—at any rate, we all hope so. We certainly hope that they will not overlook the importance of technical education. The same argu-
1696
ment might have been used for setting up special councils to deal with other serious problems. Some hon. Members are particularly keen on nursery schools. We have not had much experience of that kind of education so far, and I can imagine pressure being brought upon the Board to set up a council to deal merely with nursery education. I think that the most difficult question of all that will face the Board is adolescence. What are we to make of these young people's colleges. I can imagine enthusiastic Members pressing for a council to deal merely with that question. I think it would be fatal. It is most important that these councils should take the whole of education within their powers. I hope that the Board of Education will take particular care that no aspect of education is left outside the purview of these new councils. On that ground, I would oppose this Amendment if it were put to the vote.
Mr. Ede: We have had a very interesting discussion on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe), and I think he must feel satisfied that on the major issue he has the sympathy of the Committee—that is, that there should be greater concern displayed by the Board of Education and the education service generally with what is somewhat narrowly known as technical education. I can assure him that he certainly has my personal sympathy. If he recollects, I devoted the greater part of my reply to the Debate on the White Paper in the summer to advocating an improved status for technical education, and greater consideration for it. Let us admit that in this matter we have had a very unfortunate history in this country. Technical education, as far as the public were concerned, started one night when this House found itself in possession of some surplus money on the whisky tax. The House did not know what to do with it, and it decided on the spur of the moment, assisted, I believe, in its deliberations by that sound educationist, the late Mr. Tim Healy, that as it had just established county councils and as these county councils had nothing much to do, this money might be given to them, and as somebody had just made a speech deploring our lack of technical education compared with that of Germany, it was proposed that one of the things they might

1697
spend it on was technical education. So the money was voted partly for policemen's pensions, partly for the reduction of rates, and partly for technical education.
For many years, until the Act of 1902, that money, plus the right of certain urban district councils and borough councils to raise a penny rate for the purpose, was all the attention that was paid to it. Then we had the misfortune, to which the hon. Member alluded, that when the Act of 1902 was passed its administration was left to one of the greatest autocrats who ever dwelt in the Civil Service, the late Sir Robert Morant, of whom it was said, "He was not unprincipled, but he was unscrupulous." He believed that the best form of education was that which had been given to him at Winchester, and he developed Part II of the Education Act of 1902 to duplicate as far as he could a system of grammar schools that would as nearly as possible reproduce the system he had known at Winchester. That system has to-day developed into a highly specialised form of narrow technical education.
Mr. Palmer: I hope that the hon. Member in his last sentence is not referring to Winchester College at the present day.
Mr. Ede: I was referring to the way in which we have somewhat inadequately kept the motto "Manners maketh man," by making it appear that correct manners means the wearing of a black coat and pinstripe trousers. Why do parents desire that their children shall get into secondary schools of the present type? It is because they are the avenue to what my hon. Friend rightly called the "safety-first" jobs. Get into the secondary school and you will get into one of those jobs which carry reasonable security of tenure, at least one month's notice, and a good superannuation scheme at the end. You may enter the Civil Service, the local government service, the banking or the insurance world. If you are very unlucky you may become a teacher.
One cannot blame the parents in our industrial populations, when one thinks of the fate that has overtaken skilled men in the past 20 years, for saying, "Welt, if my boy or girl has any choice, it shall not be industry, but the office for them." Therefore, I suggest to my hon. Friend
1698
that quite apart from what we may do under this Bill the question of getting the right type of person into the right type of job involves a great many other social questions than education, and we cannot afford to shirk them. The existing secondary school is for these professions a technical school, and the technical school which equips a boy or a girl to take his or her part in industry is regarded as being so much lower in social status than the others. We intend that the technical training for all callings shall be equal in status under this Bill, and one reason why we do not mention technical education by name in the Bill is our desire that it shall not be segregated in the way it has been in the past. We are asked here to deal with this matter by way of establishing a special advisory council for technical education. May I say that I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) on that point. I believe if we did that we should do a disservice to technical education by continuing this segregation which has done so much harm in the past.
We are in full sympathy with the belief that it is desirable that industry should be more effectively associated with technical instruction than it has been. I can say that since I have been at the Board of Education I have seen several deputations from various industries who have come to discuss their problems with us, and I think we can say that at the moment there is probably a better understanding between the representatives of industry in this country, both employers and employed, and the Board of Education than there has ever been before. But industry in this country covers so wide a range, that any really representative advisory council that is to represent industry would probably be so large, that it might well be unworkable, and would probably have to work through sub-committees. Where the affairs of trades are involved my right hon. Friend will be seeking the advice of persons representative of employers and employed to advise him on those problems.
We also feel very considerable sympathy with the points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). My right hon. Friend and I paid a visit last September to Tyneside during which we had an opportunity of seeing the facilities for technical education available for the two great industrial

1699
counties of Northumberland and Durham, and the words that were used by my right hon. Friend in describing the buildings we saw as archaic bore every resemblance to those buildings. Of course, we were not so disrespectful as to say that at Tyneside. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey -Division (Sir H. Webbe) that this particular way of bringing technical education more thoroughly into the education picture might have the very opposite result to that for which he hopes. We shall do everything we can in the working out of this Bill to ensure that the great industries of the country reap all the benefits for which he asks from a revised and extended education system. We feel that it will be in their interests, as it is in the interests of the local people themselves, that technical education for industry should be regarded as only one form of technical education to be studied in relation to all other forms.
I think there must be technical education for agriculture, and I hope that the arrangements that were announced by my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture a few days ago, indicating the way the two Departments will work together for agriculture, may be taken as an indication of the way we desire to work for all the industries of the country. We shall see to it that, on the Advisory Council for England and on that for Wales, there will be some people who are capable of speaking with authority on technical education. Where more detailed knowledge of particular industries is required, we shall see that we get an Advisory Committee—to advise the Minister direct or in consultation—which will command the confidence of the industry and will enable us to deal with the specific problems that may be involved. I hope that, after giving this assurance, my hon. Friend will feel that he is not obliged to press the Amendment.
Sir H. Webbe: I have had the very pleasant and unusual experience of hearing the Minister making the case which I sought to make very much more capably than I could do it myself. I entirely sympathise with what the Minister has said. I do not want to press one particular piece of machinery; I am only considering how to achieve the end I have in view, and I am satisfied to leave the
1700
question of the machinery to be dealt with by such an enthusiast as the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman: It may be convenient if the Amendments of the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay), the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) and South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) are considered together.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I beg to move in page 3, line 15, to leave out:
"connected with educational theory and practice."
I do not think this Amendment need take very long. It does not raise the question whether there should be two Councils or one. We are all agreed that there is to be one Council. It does raise the question of what is the function of the Council. The hon. Member for the Welsh Universities (Professor Gruffydd) says he wants to leave out "educational theory and practice" and insert "education." The purpose of my Amendment is to make the Clause read:
"It shall be the duty of those Councils to advise the Minister upon such matters as they think fit."
In other words, we both wish to leave out "educational theory and practice," and, therefore, this is, in a sense, a negative Amendment, but it has the effect of making the scope of the Council as wide as it is possible to be. On all matters connected with education, it leaves the question entirely open. I should like to ask the Minister if, at this stage or perhaps later in this Debate, he is going to tell us what are the functions of this Council.
I have taken the pains to see how many technical representatives there used to be on the Consultative Committee. I notice that there were two representing technical education, four representing secondary schools—that is, generally speaking—two representing adults, three representing training colleges, two representing local education authorities and four various. It was a body composed of a number of persons connected with "educational theory and practice," but there was nobody unconnected with "educational theory and practice." It may be said that this is out of Order because it is touching on the actual persons who compose the Councils, but how can we discuss rural and adult

1701
education if we do not know early in this Debate what is the purpose of the Council? In the old days, the Consultative Committee was given long-term jobs to do. It was the only example of a long-term thinking body, and it did seven big jobs, including Hadow and Spens.
What is the function of this Council under the new regime? Is it to be the same as under the old Consultative Committee with initiating powers, for that is what it appears to be? If it is so, I do not think it is what we should like to see, or what the hon. Member for the Abbey division (Sir H. Webbe) would like to see. There are already Advisory Committees in all technical colleges in this country, bringing in the employers and the employed and people with great knowledge. That obtains in London and Middlesex and everywhere else, and there are persons connected locally who have outside experience. But what do we want at the centre? Surely, it is this. Hon. Members have repeatedly referred to the way the Hadow Report has not been implemented. There are many reasons for this, but most of them rest in this House. It was this House which allowed the economy cuts to be made, and, therefore, I do not think the Board should be blamed for every shortcoming in education in the last 30 years. The people responsible are the people in this House of Commons, who did not resist those cuts and insist that the Council should be, not just a longterm research body, but one which brings up to the Board of Education the ideas which are forming in public opinion.
The technical experience which the hon. Member for the Abbey division described as being lacking—and I agree with every word he said—is covered by the phrase, used by the hon. Member, "more in touch with reality." It seems to me rather a general phrase. They say the Board of Education is out of touch with reality, but precisely what is meant by "reality"? Some people have industry in mind, while others think of rural life; others will mean people connected with adult education. If you are to have this specialist body, made up of persons connected with educational theory and practice, you are not going to get outside opinion. I suggest it is quite unnecessary and narrow to put in the words "educational theory and practice." This Council has to be a wide body, with broad terms
1702
of reference, and, if that is so, of what is it to be composed—three from nursery schools, two adults, three rural, four technical? Obviously, such a body as that is not going to give the Minister the careful outside advice which he requires. Are they to throw at such a body long-term questions, such as were thrown out in the past to the Consultative Committee, each one taking, I suppose, two years to report upon? Is that the conception? I agree that the terms of reference should be very wide, but I would plead early in the Debate that the Minister should give us his view of what the Council is—a positive view—because I think it is very difficult for most of us to conceive this new set-up until we have the views of the Minister.
Professor Gruffydd: I put my Amendment on the Paper—to leave out "educational theory and practice," and insert "education"—because I wanted to put an end to the very obvious restriction on the work of the councils which these words contain. The Bill in giving us the two councils—one for England and one for Wales—has really handed out to the nation a very important boon. For the first time in the history of education there is going to be some kind of integration of the best national experience with education administration. That is the boon which is handed out. These restrictive words "educational theory and practice" remove absolutely everything which is of value. It will be necessary for the Minister not only to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) as to the composition of these councils but to let us hear also very much in detail what he means, and what is meant by "educational theory and practice."
I can say what is meant in the country by these words. They form one of those unfortunate terms that have acquired a technical meaning and nothing that we do in this Committee is going to alter the popularly accepted significance of "educational theory and practice." It is precisely the phrase used to describe the functions of university Chairs of Education and the work of the master of method or mistress of method in the training colleges. I have a suspicion that the promoters of the Bill have said to themselves: "We have given away a lot and I think now we had better guard ourselves, so let us keep our hold on administration," and

1703
that is what this wording is meant to do. If we do not take out these words and add the word "education,"' we shall find that the councils will be kept carefully off all questions of administration. Questions about administration are precisely questions on which the Board of Education, with its great lack of knowledge of the country and its wide separation from the practical side of education in the countryside, is lacking, and it is on that that advice will be most valuable. I would appeal to the Minister to do one of two things, either to define carefully what is meant by these words and whether he wants to put into them meanings which they cannot possibly hold, and which we cannot accept or, better still, to accept one of the three Amendments standing in the name of the different movers.
Sir E. Graham-Little: I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions which are puzzling me at the moment. Is there any provision in the advisory councils for dealing with the work of the universities? I fear that the greater part of these provisions are directed to secondary education. Will it be possible in the future, as it has been in the past, for the Minister to act completely without any consultative committee? In an answer that he gave me recently I was told that the consultative committee which was appointed to advise him personally had not met for five years. Will the advisory councils be equally easily shelved? That is one reason why I expressed earlier in the Debate apprehension at the abolition of the Board of Education. It would be more satisfactory to have a board to cover all these spheres of education than to depend on one man alone, however instructed he might be. Is it at all possible to widen the area of consultation and to make it in some degree compulsory?
Mr. A. Bevan: I am not certain at what stage of the Bill we ought to have a substantial Debate on the educational content of the Bill. In my opinion there is no educational content in the Bill at all. The whole Bill deals almost entirely with the machinery of education and no one knows, apart from the generalities we have had from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, which were all highly useful, what they propose to teach and how they propose to teach it. We know where they are going
1704
to teach it. The Bill ought never to have been introduced at all until the various reports had been made and the Government had told us what they proposed to do.
The Chairman The Chairman rose——
Mr. Bevan: I am coming to the point at once. We must at some stage or another have a discussion about the matter. We are now discussing, as I understand it, the functions of the advisory committees, and the issue is whether they are to be restricted to pedagogic considerations, which the hon. Member for the Welsh Universities (Professor Gruffydd) has already pointed out, or whether they are to be wider and be all-embracing? If they are to be all-embracing the advisory committees will be given the opportunity of advising the Minister of Education or the President of the Board of Education or whatever title is accorded by the Bill upon considerations which, throughout the Bill, we shall be debarred from discussing at all unless we discuss them at this point. I therefore suggest that we ought to hear from the Minister at this stage rather more than we have heard of the actual content of education.
The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot here discuss the content of education. What we are discussing are the matters upon which the Advisory Councils shall advise the Minister.
Mr. Bevan: With all due respect, Major Milner, they are not going to advise the Minister on the Hammurabi code of the Babylonians but on matters of administration. I do not want to get across the Chair at all—it is not my habit to do so—but I suggest with all respect that there is no part of the Bill on which we can raise this matter unless it is this part. If, throughout the whole of the Debates on the Education Bill we are not to be allowed to discuss education, the Minister is going to run into trouble before he has gone very far.
I want to come to the mechanics of this Advisory Committee. We would like to know at this stage how it is to be composed and what the attitude of the Minister is to be towards it, because there are a number of Amendments in the names of some of my Welsh colleagues which give me some heartburning. I represent a Monmouthshire constituency, and Monmouthshire is not entirely pleased with

1705
the way in which it has been treated in the past. We are in a very anomalous position. Administratively, we are in Wales, and some of the Amendments on the Order Paper would entrust to the Welsh Advisory Committee certain administrative functions which might have a direct bearing upon the welfare of Monmouthshire. I am not judging the Amendments at the moment, but even the hon. Members who moved them do not quite know what bearing they will have upon the Advisory Committee until they know how the Advisory Committee is going to function and what it is going to do. I suggest, therefore, that this is the stage when the Minister should inform the Committee what he has in his mind about the functions of the Advisory Committees, the composition of the Advisory Committees, the latitude of the Advisory Committees, and how far the Minister is going to rest upon their advice. When we have had that, we shall be in a far better position to judge whether or not the Amendment on the Order Paper should be accepted or rejected.
Mr. Cove: I wish we had had this Bill in a Standing Committee where we might get at close groups with it. I would ask the Minister, unless he can give us a wider meaning to these words than we have already conceived, not to refuse the Amendment. I am not clear as to the exact meaning of the words "the theory and practice of education." They seem to imply a not very wide field, and unless the Minister can show us that these committees will be able to go outside those who are normally directed to the theory and practice of education, then I hope he will not say he is going to keep to these words, because we ought to have wider terms in the Bill than these words convey. I am, myself, wholeheartedly in favour of expanding the composition of these committees, making them as representative as possible, and therefore I hope the Minister will not set his face resolutely against what we all desire, the extension of the composition of these committees and an enlargement of their functions beyond what was conceived in the past.
Mr. Butler: It is quite clear from various speeches that have been made what the Committee desire. I will attempt at this stage to indicate what the Government have in mind in proposing the constitution of these two Central Ad-
1706
visory Councils. Let me say at once to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that the word "Monmouthshire" is included in the drafting, and that we intend that a Council shall be set up for Wales and Monmouthshire as well as a Council for England. I shall not be able, in the terms of this Amendment, to traverse in detail the personal composition of the Councils. If I were to cover the matter in general terms we might be able to take certain other Amendments on the point, rather more shortly at a later stage. I agree that those Amendments refer to a different Clause and so I would not wish to cover them in detail but the fact is, when one is considering the constitution of these Councils, one must refer to the membership to a certain extent and that would enable the Committee to make a little progress and take this matter in rather a broad compass. I can assure hon. Members that no question will be left out of consideration.
Before I come to the general question, may I reassure the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) that university education as such is not covered by this Clause and the position of grants to university education is covered by Subsection (5) of Clause 93 to which I would invite his attention. That will show him that we are not considering those matters here. Coming to the constitution of the Central Advisory Councils, here we have an innovation proposed by the Government as part of the central machinery. These Councils are to replace the present machinery which consists of the consultative Committee established under Section (4) of the Board of Education Act and continued by Section 2 of the Act of 1921. We are proposing wider functions for these Councils than were proposed for the Consultative Committee, and that is my first answer to the hon. Member. The function of the Consultative Committee is limited to advising the Board on any matters referred to it by the Board. The Advisory Councils will not only have that function but also that of advising the Minister upon such matters connected with educational theory and practice as they think fit. Therefore we have to that extent widened the remit to these Councils. Hon. Members have shown some anxiety about these words. I would beseech the hon. Gentleman who represents the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) not to imagine that we are using these words

1707
as a term of art. We have not in mind any particular consequence that he attaches to them in his mind. We take the simple English terms they represent, that is, the theory of what can be taught and the practice of what is taught. One of the most important features of this innovation in my view——
Professor Gruffydd: Will the right hon. Gentleman define precisely the meaning of those words? Is it confined to teaching?
Mr. Butler: I am coming to the important question of administration in a moment. We are not confined to words used in a training college or in a university, we are looking to even broader fields than could be covered by such terms. It is summed up by using the old English term "content"—content of education. My experience of education is that most of us who are involved in it spend all our time on administrative matters and in quarrelling with each other on matters which interest the grown ups much more than they do the children. When Mr. Balfour wound up the proceedings on the 1902 Bill, he besought the House of that day to remember that all these quarrels that had interested the adults were not of very much interest to the children, and that very little time is spent on the content of education in the schools themselves. Our object then is quite definite; it is for once to attach to the central authority in England a body which can pay some attention to what is taught in the schools, and also pay attention to all the most modern and up-to-date methods and, by, reviewing the position continually, consider the whole question of what may be taught to the children.
Therefore, the answer to the hon. Gentleman representing the University of Wales is that we do not intend these Councils to concern themselves with administration. We do intend that they shall concern themselves with what is taught and with the content of education generally. When I refer to modern methods I should say there is a later Amendment on the Paper which deals with the problems of broadcasting and films for educational purposes. Those are only two examples of working to which this Council might turn its mind. I am absolutely definite, however, that it is not our view
1708
that the administration of education should be blurred by the contact with it of some outside body. The administration of education under the Bill is placed as a duty upon the Minister in conjunction with local authorities. I submit that it would be impossible to run education if the responsibility of the Minister of Parliament was in any way blurred and if the responsibility of local education authorities to their own electors and concils was also blurred. Responsibility for the actual administration of education must remain clear cut.
Now we come to the possibility that the Minister might wish to refer to these Councils matters of interest in the conduct of administration generally. It might well be that these Councils would wish to interest themselves in the conduct of secondary education. For instance, it might be interesting to know whether secondary education, either in the Principality or in England, should develop upon a multilateral basis, as it does in some parts of Scotland, or whether there should be a form of secondary education in one building, which is successful if you can find the ground and space on which to build your school. Or you might find that junior technical education was behind. All these are matters which will fall within the remit of the Councils. Subsection (1) of the Clause states that matters connected with the content of education itself can be put to the Minister by the Councils and that, in order to retain direct drive and administration, administrative matters as such must be put to the Councils from the centre. The Councils are entitled to advise the Minister on the content of education of their own volition.
We shall be considering later, in Clause 5, the possibility of Amendments by which the House will be kept in touch with the inter-operation of these two bodies, Councils and Minister. The general scope of these Councils should be different from the Consultative Committee. This Committee has done great work and when Members say that it has not achieved much I would remind them that the Spens Report is at the basis of this Bill and that we should pay tribute to it in considering the Measure before us. The work of the Consultative Committee has been painstaking and effective and if I were to suggest an alteration it is

1709
largely because I do not want the Councils to be representative of the educational world which already exists. I wish to make them as broad as possible. Our idea would be to accept the views of hon. Members that we should have on these bodies people to represent technical and industrial interests and the most modern developments in the technique of education. For instance, in films, we are much behind in our schools. The sooner we bring up the standard of teaching by films the better. I also intend that the countryside shall not be forgotten and that the development of art education shall be borne in mind.
That would indicate that these Councils would have to be representative of culture in its broadest sense and not in the most academic sense. We want the representatives on the Councils to be practical people who can make the bridge between the world I have described and education. One object is to avoid education being an isolated compartment in our national life. Far too long has education been so regarded by the people of our country generally. I want the country to feel that education is being brought into touch with all that is best and vital in the country's life. If I were to be responsible for choosing members I would say that they should have a sufficiency of good working life before them—and not all of it behind them—and should have experience of the different aspects of life to which I have referred. So that the Councils should not be exclusively made up of people who spend all their lives in the world of education.
I regret that I cannot satisfy the hon. Member for the University of Wales about administration being shared with these Councils. Local authorities would not tolerate such an ambiguous position and I, as the central authority, would not like it either. I would like to reserve to myself the right of making their main duty the content of education.
Mr. David Grenfell: The Minister has conveyed the impression that he would do what we wanted and I am sorry that he is still inclined to cling to the former word rather than accept the simple word we have offered in its stead. We have asked that these Councils shall be concerned with all matters affecting education. There is a very definite limitation of purpose in the additional words which
1710
the Minister himself uses. I am disappointed because I believe that this is an occasion when we should invite our people to a new idea regarding the purposes and character of the education which is to be provided for many years to come. I speak with all the more feeling on this because I probably received less instruction at school than any other Member in the Committee at the moment. I left school at II years of age but—and I pay this compliment to my teachers and to those associated with them—I left with an avid desire to seek more tuition and more education.
I am grateful for the efforts which were made to convey to me, in a limited amount of time and under extremely limited facilities, the education which was given to me before I left school. I left school with the biggest asset of all—the desire to learn more—and that is what I believe to be the main purpose of education. Interest our boys and girls as they come along and as they take part in our lives. Give them more interest in all sides of life. It is not entirely a matter of technical education, important though that is, or of literary acquisition or of literary achievements. It is not merely the memorisation of much poetry and choice writings; it is a keenness to understand and to apply that understanding to the problems of everyday life and to recognise the connection between what is taught at school and the work which has to be done in later life.
Education has not been looked upon in that intensely practical way and, therefore, there has been much loss of interest. The meaning of tuition in many of our schools is cramming and still more cramming, without explaining the advantage of having these various pieces of information imprinted on the mind of the pupil. So I welcome these Advisory Councils as the finest piece of democratic machinery in our educational system that we have yet seen. We propose to set up a Council for England and one for Wales, whose duty it will be to advise the Minister upon such matters connected with education as they think fit. After all, education is for the people. If it does not satisfy the purpose and desire of the people, and the popular idea of the objects of education, then we cannot make any progress. The members of these Councils should be properly and wisely selected. I agree that they should

1711
not be appointed for what they have done but for what they are to do and what they are capable of doing.
I welcome very much the idea that these Advisory Councils should be set up. I welcome particularly the idea that an Advisory Council should be set up for Wales. It is a small, manageable job to organise education in one small area with a population of not less than 3,000,000. They are a people who are more or less drawn together by a special culture and a special outlook of their own, which is not antagonistic to the general purpose of education throughout the country. I am not speaking as an extreme Welsh nationalist when I say that there is an opportunity for these Advisory Councils to do a special job of work in that area. But they would require to be in contact with the Welsh people, the people whom they are to educate, and in very close contact with the Minister, with full authority to suggest to him all that they may deem to be advisable for the purpose of the better education of the people. We are facing a time when vast plans for industrial organisation are due, and overdue, but it would be folly to attempt any large plan of reorganisation of industry until you have built up a more widely disseminated and higher standard of technical knowledge. Take the mining industry.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is making a speech which would be more appropriate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" if not indeed on Second Reading. The question we are discussing is the particular matters on which the councils should advise.
Mr. Grenfell: Yes, and because an advisory council is set up with special interests it should be entitled under the terms of the Bill to recomend to the Minister that certain special phases of instruction should be given a preference. That is why I believe that technical knowledge in regard to mining and agriculture should have special opportunities in the country. In London you may not require the same kind of technical education as in the Potteries and in the Black Country, but technical education in all its branches must be far more greatly developed if we are to play our part in the future of the country. But there is something else. Education must be designed to build up
1712
character. No amount of cramming of information into the minds of boys and girls will serve unless there is a definite attempt to build up a higher standard of conduct. Machinery alone does not meet the full purpose. The object of education should always be kept in mind.
Mr. Lipson: I have to confess to finding a difference between my right hon. Friend's theory and practice. As I listened to his speech I found myself in complete agreement. These Councils should take a very wide and broad view of education in all its aspects. When I turn to the actual proposal in the Bill, I find that their advice is to be confined to matters of educational theory and practice. It seems to me that that must limit the choice of the individuals who are to be members of the Councils. I feel that, if my right hon. Friend is to realise his own object in appointing these Councils, he must alter the phraseology and substitute something on the lines suggested by the Amendment. Apparently he is afraid that, if he uses a wider phrase, like "education," the Councils might trespass on preserves which he considers his own, or those of the local authorities. But it is a purely Advisory Council. He is not bound to take their advice. I appeal to him, in view of what he has told us is the purpose he has in mind, to accept the Amendment.
Mr. W. J. Brown: There are about 400 Amendments to the Bill and we have two days to discuss it. It will not be a day too long at the present rate of progress. We have spent three-quarters of an hour discussing a point which, it seems to me, might have been settled in a couple of minutes. The sole point here is, Are the words of the Clause wide enough to enable the Council to advise the Minister on all matters on which they or we would like them to advise? In my opinion there is only one answer to that. The words are abundantly wide enough—" to advise the Minister on such matters connected with," not limited to, "educational theory and practice as they think fit." In other words, the Advisory Council can say, on any subject which it thinks is connected with educational theory or practice, anything it likes by way of advice to Ministers. Administration is connected with educational theory and practice. How can you have administration which is not connected either with theory or practice?

1713
It is plain that any impartial chairman would rule that, if the Council felt bound to unburden itself on some aspect of administration, it could do so. But its advice is not mandatory. The Minister may determine whether to adopt it or not. What is the other range of activity? "Any question referred to them by him." In other words, they may advise on what he wants them to advise on and they can themselves advise anything on which they want to give advice. That seems wide enough to cover the activities of any committee. We need not waste further time in discussing this narrow point. Let us get on with some of the major Amendments that we have to deal with.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: I feel some resentment at the attitude the hon. Member has taken up about the time we have spent on this point. This is a most important Bill and if we have to spend two months on it the time will not be wasted. I would rather have a good Bill after several months than a bad Bill after a short discussion. If the Clause is interpreted literally there is a case to be made out for the hon. Member's construction. But the Minister has given his own opinion that the Clause rules out consideration by the Advisory Councils of practical questions of administration. He can refer such questions to them but they cannot of their own volition refer to them. I think the Councils will prefer the President's construction to that of the hon. Member.
My right hon. Friend, who is usually so convincing, failed to give any satisfactory reason for resisting the Amendment. The reason he gave was that it would blur his responsibility and that of local authorities. The answer to that has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). These councils are advisory only, and he is under no obligation to accept their advice. My right hon. Friend's construction rules out all questions of administration. Can it be that the President needs advice on educational theory and practice, but does not need it on matters of administration? Under the heading of "administration" are some of the toughest problems connected with education, and it would be most appropriate that they should be considered by bodies of the standing of the consultative committee as we have known it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to think again and accept the
1714
Amendment which has been so ably moved.
Mr. Loftus: I am a little disconcerted by the sharp distinction drawn by my right hon. Friend between administration, to be kept in the Department away from the Council, and educational theory and practice, because at certain points they are so closely mixed up that it would be difficult to separate them. May I put a case to my right hon. Friend? There is a complaint among teachers that they are so snowed under with administrative details, the filling up of forms and so on, that educational work is neglected. Suppose that tendency were increased would the Council on its own volition be capable of approaching the Minister and pointing out to him that education was being prejudiced by the piling up of too much administrative work on the teachers? That is a sample of the kind of work the Council should undertake in a purely advisory capacity.
Professor Gruffydd: I have always prided myself on being a blower of the gaff, and it is clear that what I had suspected is true. The Minister has definitely stated that these words bear the meaning that I said they bore. Therefore, they do not cover administration. Administration is an essential part of the whole organisation of education. It is impossible for any council to give advice in a vacuum on the art of teaching. I must again press my right hon. Friend to reconsider these words because the opinion of the Committee is very much in agreement with what I said.
Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: There is a graver aspect to this question as it affects Wales than that which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). When I speak of Wales, I do so with the reservation for the county of Monmouth. The county of Monmouth seems to me to be in a peculiar position in that it wants to approbate and reprobate as much as it sees fit to do. I speak of Wales, the real Wales. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in my name dealing with the system of secondary education in Wales and with the desirability of getting it put into proper order. There is nothing in it remotely connected with the content of education.

1715
It deals entirely with administration. It is one of those problems that Wales has wanted to see solved and that we thought would be solved by the setting-up of this administrative Council. It is a problem that we were led to believe by the right hon. Gentleman himself would be solved by the Council and would be put to the Council. May I remind him of the terms of his own White Paper? On page 32, paragraph 125, which is part of the section dealing with Welsh education, contains these words:
"Attention should now be given to the possibility of collaboration within the new administrative framework set out in this Paper. The importance now attached to closer collaboration between Authorities may render it advisable to consider the establishment of some appropriate advisory body for Wales."
That is the promise of the White Paper, a definite promise to Wales that we should have a council that would be competent to advise on matters of administration. Now the Minister says that the terms of the Bill exclude the right of the Council for Wales to advise the Minister on their own volition upon the matters which he promised in the White Paper they would be able to speak about.
Mr. Butler: It would be a great pity if in the force of his own oratory the hon. Member were to exaggerate the issue. I would refer to an Amendment which is on the Order Paper in his own name relating to the set up of secondary education in Wales. One of the most interesting things for me to hear about from the new Council would he the way that secondary education is developing. I will not interfere with the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I may say a word afterwards clearing up the matter which has arisen in the Committee and indicating how I think it might be dealt with.
Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that statement. It contains an admission that the subject matter of the Amendment which I propose to move was something which it is Competent for the Advisory Council to advise the Minister upon. I would like the Minister to go further and say whether, in his view, it would be proper for the Welsh Advisory Committee on their own volition to advise the Minister upon the subject matter of that Amendment without it being specifically referred to the Council.
The Deputy-Chairman: It would possibly be as well if we were to wait until we come to the Amendment before pursuing that point.
Mr. Hughes: I am not dealing with the subject matter of the Amendment or with its merits. I am only dealing with the question whether what is contained within it is a proper matter to come within the functions of the administrative Council as outlined by the definition given by the Minister. I was taking particular care not to argue the case for the Amendment.
If the Minister, in his further explanation that he has promised the Committee, is prepared to expand the definition that he has already given, so that the term "educational theory and practice" can comprehend matters of the kind contained in the Amendment which I hope to deal with next, I shall be satisfied; but if not, I can assure the Committee that Wales will not only not be satisfied but will be disappointed with the promise contained in the White Paper.
Mr. A. Bevan: No one desires to delay the Committee on these matters, and many of us have already pointed out earlier that if we can get satisfactory assurances on this matter a large number of subsequent Amendments will fall. We are therefore not wasting time in stirring this matter up. I think the Minister in this case is making a special plea to the Committee, not for himself but for the Department. I think that he, in his interpretation of the words, gave most of the case away. The Department do not want to part with or share any of their administrative authority but want to keep that authority entirely in their own hands. When it comes to the county authorities, and when we are discussing that matter, the Minister will probably, quite wisely, say that he has called into service a number of advisory executives, to advise the county authorities on administration inside the counties. I am sure that he will argue how important it is to have as much decentralisation as possible inside the county so that the county council shall not override local feeling. When it comes to the structure of the Bill as a whole for both England and Wales, the Minister does not want to have an Advisory Committee with the same relationship to the Board of Education as the divisional executive has to the county education authority. He wants to

1717
reign supreme. How does it come about that in the case of the larger units decentralisation is not necessary but in the smaller units it is? A divisional executive is, we understand to be given considerable delegated powers of administration and advice in educational matters. It seems to me that the Minister is really doing some special pleading for Whitehall control over the whole of the administration of education. I think he has to answer on that point when he comes to reply, because we are a bit suspicious about reasoning of that sort.
I sat for many years as a member of an education body. We were trying hard to develop technical education. One of the difficulties in establishing technical education is that it is almost impossible to separate the content of technical education and the administration of the technical authority. For instance, what is to be the relationship of the school to the local works and how are you to fit one into the other? One of the difficulties is that the State makes itself responsible for the teaching and private enterprise for the work. There is an artificial division between the two which arises out of the dualism of the social system. What happened in our technical school? I remember that we wrote to a firm begging they to let us have an engine so that our boys might experiment with it. We had to try to create in the school the atmosphere of the workshop, whereas the proper thing to do would be to teach mechanical subjects in the actual workshop with actual work being done.
How on earth are we to discuss technical education unless the body concerned has the power to advise upon education in technical matters? I agree with the Minister that nothing ought to be done by the Central Advisory Committee which would in any way cause local authorities to feel that a cushion was being established between themselves and the Minister, and that it ought not to have the power to interefere with any county scheme. If there is to be that cushion there would be a sense of irresponsibility and of frustration. Why cannot the Minister accept the Amendment, because all that the Amendment does is to give the Central Advisory Committee power to advise on anything in regard to education? If the Advisory Committee were so foolish as to invade the proper frontiers of a local
1718
authority they would soon find that the Minister refused to accept their recommendations and they would be encouraged to make their recommendations on the subject of education and not merely of local administration. I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is getting himself into a little difficulty, because he has one conception of the educational structure—I am certain that he is right in having it—while his officials have another, and are fighting a rearguard action to force us to accept their authority.
Colonel Arthur Evans: I feel that I must support my Welsh friends in their plea to the President. For the first time in many years there has been a recognition by my right hon. Friend that a Welsh Council on Education, dealing with Welsh problems, is necessary in the interests of education in Wales. If that principle had not been recognised and conceded, the Clause would not have been incorporated in the Bill in the first place. By the acceptance of the Amendment and the deletion of the words the House would not confer any executive power upon the Advisory Committee. We are not asking for that, and if we were, perhaps my right hon. Friend would be quite entitled to resist the claim. We do ask that the real purpose of the Clause should be given effect, in its broadest possible aspect as far as the Welsh Clause is concerned. Incidentally, there is nothing to compel my right hon. Friend to accept the advice tendered and he is free to reject it. Therefore I find it difficult to understand why he is resisting what is undoubtedly a very reasonable proposal.
Mr. Butler: One useful result of the discussion is that the view put forward by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) almost exactly represents the intentions of the Government. If the Education Bill can achieve that on its first day in Committee, we may indeed work wonders. It may also be said to be the case that the modest remarks which I made a few minutes ago, met with a certain amount of approval. The only way in which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale can cause a little excitement is by trying to separate me from my worthy advisers. I refuse to allow that to happen and I shall stand here on my own legs and continue to profit by the excellent advice which I have received for so long. We may as well establish that also. The

1719
position is now: How do we face the little imbroglio in which we are likely to become engaged?
The position, as I see it, is that it would be wrong, if the administration of education is to proceed on the constitutional lines laid down by the Bill, to start the idea that these Advisory Committees are to come in and upset the grand system in matters of education. Provided we accept that, there is one matter which I want to discuss. On that broad question, the Committee and I are agreed. If we examine these Amendments in detail, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) would mean that these Advisory Councils could advise the Minister on any matter they liked.
Mr. Lindsay: Subject to certain control.
Mr. Butler: That is the only safeguard. I could imagine the Minister and his Department being somewhat nervous at the idea that these Councils could advise the Minister on anything they liked. It would be introducing a rather uncertain and wide element in the matter if we were to allow them to cover such a wide range as that. That is my difficulty with that particular Amendment, My difficulty with the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) is simply that I do not see that the word "education" just alone is very much an improvement on the words "educational theory and practice." I think my words are better. It is just a matter of opinion. The difficulty about my accepting the words of the right hon Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is that he simply asks me to say at the end "in all its aspects." I appreciate the spirit in which he moves that but I do not honestly think the Bill would be improved by the acceptance of any of those words.
I am ready to examine the discussion we have had but I would rather give no undertaking. If the Committee on their side accept from me quite bluntly that the administration of education as such must be run, I will accept from them that the Committee desires that matters which impinge on administration, which cannot be separated from it shall not be excluded from the purview of this Council. I would suggest that if I look at the Debate and
1720
consider all the points put forward it may be possible for me to assure the Committee that either these words or something similar will meet the desires of the Committee.
Mr. Lindsay: That is the second promise we have had to-day from my right hon. Friend. I hope he appreciates that we are trying to strengthen his hand in this Part 1. He has given us twice the promise that he will try to find a form of words for what we apparently cannot say. With that proviso I feel we must leave the matter. I would like him to give us a form of words which will give what the hon. Member for the University of Wales and myself really want. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, at the end, to insert:
"and, in particular, it shall be the duty of the Council for Wales to advise the Minister within six months upon a uniform system of secondary education in Wales."
In the course of the Debates we had in the House upon the White Paper and upon the Second Reading of the Bill, frequent reference was made to the dual system. It may be news to some Members that in Wales we as in so many things go far ahead of England; we have two dual systems. We have got the dual system known in England and we have also got a dual system in our secondary schools. The system of secondary education in Wales is far ahead of the system in England. A Bill to provide for secondary education in Wales was passed and became an Act in 1889—the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. That Act provided for the establishment of secondary schools optionally in Wales, assisted by voluntary subscriptions to which could be added the product of a very small rate. To assist in the development of the schools there was set up a Central Welsh Board which was the examining body, which assisted in the administration of grants and which also provided an inspectorate for the intermediate schools. Most of the secondary schools in Wales were established under the 1889 Act, but under the 1902 Act there came to be established further secondary schools, county schools. These came under the Board of Education. They were inspected by the Board's inspectors, they followed a curriculum of their own. It is

1721
true that they prepared pupils for the examinations of the Central Welsh Board but they were free within those schools to have their own curriculum for the purpose of doing so.
In this and other ways there has grown up a dual system of secondary education in Wales, and it is high time that they were made into one system. It is far more necessary now than in the past when we are looking forward to the development of a general system of secondary education schools of three kinds and when we want them all to be, as the President has said, schools of an equal status and standing. I submit it will be impossible to do that until the existing secondary schools in Wales are brought into one system. Indeed I imagine I am helping the Minister in this because it seems the duality of this system in Wales had been forgotten. Under the Bill the Welsh intermediate schools established under the Act of 1889, first of all under voluntary subscriptions, become auxiliary schools. The county schools, the other type of secondary school in Wales, are county schools under the Bill and from that flow a great many distinctions under the Bill itself.
Those administering the Bill will find themselves, for example, faced with the dilemma of appointing six governors, two or four of whom must be appointed as foundation governors, and as there is no such thing as a foundation for a Welsh intermediate school—the money has been subscribed, there has been no condition tied on to it, no trust deed—those responsible for administering this Bill will be faced with the hopeless task of looking for two foundation governors. The county schools will have six governors and the intermediate schools four. Other consequences will quite conceivably follow from the fact that these two systems have not been brought together. Therefore, I ask the President to accept this as the first task to be imposed either by the terms of the Bill or by his own request upon the Advisory Council for Wales.
Mr. James Griffiths: What we want from the Minister is a firm undertaking that this Advisory Council will give attention, and prior attention, to what is going to be in Wales a very serious problem. We are passing a Bill under which at the age of II every child in the country will pass on to one or other of the
1722
schools which are provided for. In Wales there is this duality of systems of schools. There is the old intermediate school system, and there is the Central Welsh Board, with its fairly complete authority for the schools established under the old Act, but also with a system of examinations for all schools. Unless this provides a uniform system for Wales, the Bill will make still worse an already untidy system. It is necessary that this Advisory Council shall consider the matter very quickly, and advise the Minister upon the possibility of getting a uniform system.
Mr. Cove: The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that he is going to give us this Amendment. I do not know whether the restriction which he laid just now will prevent him from allowing the matter to be remitted to this Committee: we want to be quite clear about that. I do not want to go into the technicalities of the matter, but it is clear that there is every sanction for the abolition of this dual system in Wales. A Committee considered this over 20 years ago. It is a long time since I read the Report, but my memory is that the Committee came down unequivocally for the abolition of this system. It has stupid social effects in some of the industrial areas. I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, but I know that in some areas the intermediate schools are the class snobs' schools, relative to the schools run by the municipal authorities. [Interruption.] I am talking only about some areas: there is no need for anybody to get hurt about it. I know that in some areas there are special arrangements for prize-givings and so on—quite a big show compared with the ordinary municipal secondary schools. From the social point of view, particularly where municipal secondary schools have sprung up in recent years, it would be a good thing to unify the systems. It would also be an excellent thing for the local authority to control all the higher education facilities in the area.
Mr. S. O. Davies: May I support the appeal which has already been made to the Minister? I have in my own constituency four secondary schools. One is of the old intermediate type. I cannot subscribe to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has just said about the snobbishness of one as compared with the other three—that sort of thing does not exist with us—but the

1723
anomaly is there. I could take up a great deal of time in dealing with this anomaly, but all I want is to assure the right hon. Gentleman that not only that education would not suffer if this anomaly were removed, but that it would make a very substantial contribution to what he has laid down in the Bill. I hope that he will give most careful consideration to this anomaly. It had historical justification once, but that historical justification cannot now be argued by anyone who is moved by such passion as the right hon. Gentleman has revealed in this field.
Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that an English Member will be forgiven for saying a few words on this subject. My only excuse is that I married a Welsh woman. I would ask you, Mr. Williams, whether you think this an appropriate occasion for a discussion of the meaning of the word "snobbishness." It appears quite clear that that is one of the "boss words" of this controversy, one of the words to which most attention is paid and most importance attributed. I think on same occasion we ought really to discuss it at length, to decide in what sense we are going to use it, because as it is at present being bandied about it appears to me to have no sense in itself and to remove all sense from arguments about education. There is one assumption that has been made in two or three speeches opposite, to which, I think, a caveat ought to be put in at the earliest possible moment—and I think this is the earliest possible moment. That assumption is that one system is necessarily better than two; and in half the speeches opposite the assumption has been made that a fortiori, all the more that is so if the one system is to be wholly under public and central control. I believe both these assumptions are wrong—in fact, I believe just the opposite. I think that any two systems of education are better than one. The poet warned us against the danger
"Lest one good custom should corrupt the world."
Even if local and central education authorities had none but good customs, I think a world in which all educational sovereignty was in their hands would soon be corrupted. I know nothing about Welsh educational administration, but I hope we shall hear some argument from
1724
the other side of this question before the Minister makes any concession on it.
Professor Gruffydd: May I say a few words, in order to assure the Committee that there is in Wales strong support for this proposal? I think that we are all agreed that the time has come for us to ask, in the terms of this Amendment, that the new Council should consider this very pressing matter. The House is not quite aware of the serious anomalies from which we suffer. Some of them have been described already by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), but there is a worse side of it than that. When the 1922 Bill was passed a very serious mistake was made on the Welsh side. Instead of ending the Welsh Board, and putting all the schools under the county councils, or, conversely, putting all the new schools under the Central Welsh Board, they kept the two schemes running side by side. I believe that it was simply forgotten that we were under a different system. But there is a further difficulty that we are going to meet in the near future. The Norwood Report recognises that practically all the school examinations shall come to an end. Now the Central Welsh Board is just an inspecting and examining authority, but it cannot inspect, because it has not got enough inspectors, and the Board of Education has got to supply the inspectors to help the Welsh Board to examine and inspect their own schools. That is one side of it. The other side is that the Central Welsh Board will have no work to do in these examinations, if the recommendations of the Norwood Report are accepted. The Central Welsh Board has now become an extraordinary piece of antique furniture and I hope the Minister will do something about it, either by placing it in the appropriate Museum or by bringing it up to date and finding real work for it.
Mr. Butler: I think there is no difficulty in accepting the spirit of this Amendment, but I would ask hon. Members not to ask me to put simply one matter into the Bill underneath one of these Councils, because I think it would upset the whole of the Bill. If they will not press their demand on this Amendment, I can tell hon. Members that this is just the sort of matter on which the Minister would value the advice of the Advisory Councils. It is essential, if

1725
we are to get any general correspondence, that we should not prevent these Councils from animadverting upon such problems, and, having established that clarity of judgment on the matter, let me say a word about Welsh secondary education. There is no doubt that, under the Welsh Intermediate Act, the Principality made great strides in secondary education, and if we want to look at some of the most interesting experiments in secondary education we have to look at Wales, and I think a tribute should be paid to this work of the Central Welsh Board under the Intermediate Act.
There are, approximately, 100 secondary schools in Wales under the Intermediate Act and about 50 established under authorities since 1902. In this Bill, secondary education of all types is to be provided for children, and therefore a process will be necessary, not only of much closer merging of schools, but of different sorts of schools, such as the senior modern and the new forms of technical schools. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) need not feel worried that we shall have some snobbishness troubles.
Mr. J. Griffiths: There is no word for snobbish in Welsh.
Mr. Butler: I would say that the result of all this will be that the work of the Central Welsh Board in the past will be linked nip through the intermediate schools and fitted into the grid of this Bill, together with the 50 new secondary schools established since 1902, and I see no difficulty in all these schools taking their part in the general provision.
The Welsh Intermediate Act, that is, Section 9 of it, is repealed by this Statute. This is referred to in the Schedule on page 94. We saved the rest of this historic Statute for a reason which might be more acceptable to Scotsmen but is equally applicable to Wales. It is that, if we were not to save it, we could not save some £30,000 of money which goes to Wales under the Act Therefore, my object in saving this piece of historic furniture is not for purposes of artistry but for the purpose of saving £30,000. I would not like the members of the Welsh Board or their inspectors to feel that there is to be no work for them in future. There will be a system of tests, and I have no doubt that the Central Welsh Board
1726
will continue to find work suitable for it to do and for its inspectors, and they will look forward to entering into the new system, which I am sure they will do in the right spirit.
Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: The discussion has succeeded in securing the assurance of the Minister which hon. Members have found most satisfactory, and accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from "and," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
"each Council shall appoint its own secretary."
This is a very small Amendment. It is in line with other Amendments moved to-day in an attempt to obtain a Council of greater freedom, which shall not be entirely the creature of the Board itself. Several times in the discussion it has been suggested that the content should be broadened. Several other hon. Members have Amendments on the Paper to widen the number of people who can be consulted. This Amendment is to ask that the Secretary of the Council himself, or herself, need not necessarily be an officer of the Board, and that he, or she, should be appointed by the Council itself. What I think we really want in this Amendment is to be quite certain that the Council is a free body to pursue its researches in its own way, and to have, if you like, an assessor from the Board, as has happened frequently before, but who is not necessarily an officer of the Board.
Mr. Ede: This Sub-section, as worded, follows the existing law and practice, and I think it would be difficult to imagine the Consultative Committees being able to go outside the Board's officers in their selection. The Spens Committee was undoubtedly very greatly helped by the officer of the Board appointed to act as secretary—Dr. R. F. Young. I venture to say that nobody but an officer of the Board could have given the Spens Report the amazing send-off it had by that initial chapter dealing with the history of secondary education in this country. If these bodies are to function properly, it is clear that they must have the closest possible link with the Board, to get the proper information they require, and to be able to call upon the necessary assistance to

1727
enable them to get the materials in proper shape for the Committee. I hope that what the Minister said will be an indication that it is his desire that these Councils shall have an independent life of their own. I do not think that that life would be assisted by having someone appointed as secretary who was not an officer of the Board. In fact, I think it is very likely that they would find themselves in difficulties on a great many occasions. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) will feel that there is no desire on our part to keep these people in leading strings, and that he will feel that he can withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:
"(3) not more than half of the members of each Council shall be persons who are directly engaged in the statutory system of public education or in educational institutions not forming part of that system."
In moving this Amendment I recognise that a great deal has been said about the composition of the Council, but I feel that something still remains to be said.
The Deputy-Chairman: If I may say so, we may, in considering this Amendment, consider also that of the hon. baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare), to insert "including persons with special knowledge of rural education," together with four Amendments on the next page, down to that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall).
Mr. A. Bevan: It is necessary to avoid repetition, and in view of the Debate we have already had on the constitution of the councils and the assurance given by the Minister, is it necessary to proceed in this way again? I understand that all that the Minister can do is to repeat the assurance he has already given on the composition of the councils. I do not know whether hon. Members wish to move the Amendments, but in any case it is a repetition of what has gone before.
The Deputy-Chairman: I wanted to hear whether it was necessary. I do not think that it is necessary.
Mr. Linstead: I will be mindful of the hon. Member's advice if not mindful of his practice. When I listened to my right hon. Friend making his speech concerning an Amendment earlier on the Paper I rather thought he was moving an Amendment of my own and that possibly all that I needed to do was to tell him, after his persuasive remarks, that I had much pleasure in accepting it. There is another point of view to be put with regard to councils which has not been sufficiently emphasised. They have to concern themselves with the whole of the educational system and not merely with the primary and the secondary schools. That is why some of my colleagues and myself have put down the Amendment in these terms.
In Sub-section (3) of the Clause:
"Each council shall include persons who have had experience of the statutory system of public education as well as persons who have had experience of educational institutions not forming part of that system."
We are a little concerned lest the educational system is to be handed to the professional educationists. There is an opportunity in this Bill of a new conception of education in much closer relationship to life than has been the practice in this country hitherto. I hope that in connection with the young people's colleges and with adult education we shall not be afraid to look upon things such as seamanship and navigation, forestry or mountaineering as part of education. I would like to see on these councils not merely cultural experts and educationists but an explorer, a mountaineer or a sailor, somebody who could bring in a very much wider conception of what preparation for life is than the professional educationist. There must be a very much closer connection between education and industry in future than there has been in the past. The Minister indicated that he expected somebody with experience of industrial life to be on these councils. If that is done and, as his speech indicated, he is able to enlarge the whole conception of the present system through putting on these councils people of very wide and diverse experience, he could not come very much closer to meeting the ideas in the Amendment. I do not suppose that he has very much more to say than he has said already, but my hon. Friends and I have seen in his remarks a desire to put into

1729
operation exactly the sort of things contemplated in the Amendment which is on the Order Paper.
Mrs. Cazalet Keir: My hon. Friend has made clear what we have in mind in moving this Amendment and we are all very glad to have heard what the President of the Board of Education has said already on the matter. We all agree with him that education in future must be more closely connected with national life. I really think that, to sum up what my hon. Friend has just said, it would be wise to see that the consumers of the product of education as well as the producers really have an equal share in shaping the policy of the future. One of the main reasons why we have moved so slowly on the educational front in this country in the past is that public opinion—and I mean informed public opinion—has not kept pace with educational opinion. To-day public opinion is ready and anxious for this Bill, and I believe that the speed with which we put it into operation will very largely depend on the co-operation of all sections of the community working together and not only educational experts and enthusiasts. I am sure it would be wise and right at the very outset for the President of the Board of Education to make it abundantly clear to the country that he is going to set up the advisory councils on the broadest possible basis.
Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: I hope to raise what I think will be perhaps the most important issue on this Bill, but we are approaching the end of the Sitting. On a point of Order, may I ask whether it is your intention, Mr. Williams, to put this Amendment or whether you will allow my Amendment to stand over until the next Sitting Day?
The Deputy-Chairman: There are several subsequent Amendments which I shall put, if hon. Members wish them to be put for the purpose of a Division, but it is agreed that we should take the discussion on the Amendment which I have now called standing in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead).
Sir G. Shakespeare: The greatest weakness of our educational system is the extent to which education in rural areas has lagged behind that of urban areas. If I had the time I should develop the point. The Minister made a reference to
1730
it in his speech, and I want, by moving the Amendment, to ensure that there are on the Advisory Councils persons with a great knowledge of educational problems in rural areas. That is absolutely vital, and having raised the point it will enable the Minister to reply on the next Sitting Day.
Earl Winterton: I do not understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare). He has told us that he was about to deal with the most important point of the Bill. It would be out of Order to discuss whether it is or not, but he proceeded to say that it was rural education and that of he had had time he would have developed it. As I represent a rural constituency, and as my constituents take a considerable interest in this matter, I am not prepared to allow the matter to come to an end on this occasion. There are a great many other hon. Members who are interested. I say this out of no disrespect to the Minister, but my hon. Friend having raised the matter in the way he did, it would be very wrong if this particular discussion came to an end at this moment.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of business, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

DOMESTIC COAL SUPPLIES, GLASGOW
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
Mr. Buchanan: I would like to raise an issue which is neither so absorbing nor interesting as the subject of education which we have just left. The issue is one that mainly concerns the part of Scotland which I represent, not the whole of Glasgow but the tenement dwellers within the City. There is serious concern within that City, which has well nigh 1,000,000 population, and the surrounding districts, as to the supply of coal to tenement dwellers. I take this seriously and I am sorry there is no member of the Cabinet present. This House discussed the whole question of the rationing of coal. I confess that at the start I was not a keen rationer, but this was one

1731
of the few occasions when I had an open mind. After I had heard the responsible Cabinet Minister coming solidly down for rationing, I decided that the Government had, on the whole, made out their case. But the House of Commons and the Minister rejected rationing, and now we have, in effect, a bitter rationing system which is an attack on the very poor. My city is largely one of tenement dwellers. The Department comes along and says, "Five cwt. per four weeks." That is bad enough if you can get it, but frequently you do not get it. It would have been bad enough in peace-time when, on the whole, the quality of coal was not so bad, but the poor buy the worst quality of coal and their allowance of five cwt. is frequently discounted by a fairly large amount of bad material in it. The most the majority of our people can store is three cwt. Some have what is called a bunker, but unless they intend to fill the bath—which they do not do—or some other receptacle, then they are limited to the three cwt.
Look at the unfairness of the position. I live in a fairly modem tenement in Glasgow which is capable of storing about a ton of coal. I have no family. I have electric light, a gas fire and a hot water system. I am allowed five cwt. per month, plus my ton which is stored, plus my gas, my electricity and my hot water. As I say, I have no children and I have a clean job. What is the position across the road, where they have only three cwt. per month to heat a house which needs far more heat than mine and where there are young children and perhaps a moulder, who is working all day in dirt and grime? They have no gas fire and frequently there is no electricity in the house. Is there a defence for all this? I say you have no right to ration the poor until you come to the House of Commons and get our consent.
On the whole the Minister has been fortunate up to now. I think I can speak about the weather without incurring displeasure if I speak of it in the past tense. The B.B.C. does it and, therefore, I take it that a humbler member of the community can do it too. Some days ago I was afraid that the weather would be very severe. If that happens, panic will break out in the City of Glasgow. While we are waiting on the development of housing we are all concerned with the
1732
care of children. I defy anybody with two or three children to keep themselves in comfort on the limited amount of coal which the Ministry of Fuel and Power are allowing. There is another thing that angers me. Ministers must not walk away with the arrogant assumption—which is becoming all too common—that just because they say certain things those things must be so. Just because a Minister says things they are not necessarily true. Ministers must prove what they say. The Minister says that in exceptional cases coal can be obtained. It is the exceptional case which is the every day rule. A family with children is entitled to more coal than I get. What about the woman with children who falls ill? Suppose a man in a foundry takes a day off to get more coal He is attacked for misbehaviour and perhaps jailed for absenteeism. If the woman leaves her children it is worse. What is she to do? Wait patiently until she gets the coal? The situation is most unfair.
Some of them are telling me that they can get a limited amount of charcoal. I often wish that people knew these tenement dwellings and the kind of fireplaces they have. No doubt, charcoal could be burnt in a bedroom fireplace properly set up and well equipped, but a kitchen grate is no place at all for it. It does not fit in. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who was once Minister of Mines, made a remark which got echoing cheers throughout the House. He said that there was one thing that he was not going to do and that was to lower the already too low standard of many of the working folk. You are lowering the standard. People have not shivered vet in our City, but that has not been the Minister's fault. We thank Providence for that and not him. I understand we may be told that those who distribute coal have given certain undertakings. Why should I have to depend on the kindness of a particular merchant? There is much to be said against rationing and much for it, but if we are to have it let it be equitable. Those with children need more coal than those who have none, and women who have husbands out in the Far East and two or three children have enough to do without the Government throwing on them the problem of running around looking for an inspector. Let these people get their coal not by begging or pestering for it but as a right.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): It is seldom that I make speeches of what my hon. Friend calls an arrogant order, but I want to face up to this point fully and, I hope, fairly. Since he first mentioned the matter to me I have gone into it very thoroughly, even before he gave notice to raise it on the Adjournment. His complaint can be divided into two parts. First of all five cwt. a month is not, he says, adequate for people living in tenement dwellings, largely because they have not stocking room and cannot get stock when stocks are going. The second complaint is that this discriminates unfairly in favour of those who have stocking room and were able to get coal in when coal was available.
I took the precaution of trying to get some information as to the amount of coal that was used in these tenement dwellings in Glasgow in pre-war days, not in order to try to justify the present allowances, but to see how the position worked out with the present restrictions. In a survey that was made in Glasgow about 1937–38 it was found that those living in tenement houses bought about one cwt. of coal per week, taking it over the year, and that over the 22 colder weeks of the year they used about 1.77 cwt. I have to admit that the present restriction gives about one half cwt. a week less than it was at that time.
Mr. McKinlay: Who made the survey?
Mr. Smith: It was made by the gentleman who to-day is Regional Coal Officer for Scotland.
Major Markham: Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures are contradicted on page 86 of the Beveridge Report, which gives the amount spent weekly on coal in households all over the country?
Mr. Smith: I am talking about tenement dwellings in Glasgow.
Mr. Buchanan: I would like to know much more about the kind of tenements to which those figures relate.
Mr. Smith: I am giving the figures in all good faith, but I am bound to concede that at that time Glasgow was a distressed area and that if people had been able to afford more coal they would possibly have burned more. With regard to the question whether five cwt. is adequate
1734
or not, there does not appear to me to be any possible chance at the moment of any additional quantities of household coal. I will show later what the supply position is. With regard to the argument that there is unfair discrimination against those who cannot accumulate stocks, my hon. Friend is not right in assuming that those who have substantial stocks can continue to get five cwt. per month.
Mr. Buchanan: But what you can do is this. If I have 10 cwt. now and reduce it to five, I can go to my merchant and get five more to bring it up to 10. Poor people who can store only three cwt. cannot do that.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend in his own personal case and in a supplementary question on 1st February rather implied that those who had been able to accumulate stocks of coal would, whatever their stock, get this five cwt. in addition. That is not the position.
Mr. Buchanan: It was the position a month ago.
Mr. Smith: In January the maximum was one ton. In February it was 10 cwt.
Mr. Stephen: The people in tenements might not be able to get even five cwt., because the Ministry point out in all their notices that the people are not guaranteed five cwt., but only what they can get.
Mr. Smith: If I had time I would deal with that point, because I have given a good deal of attention to it. With regard to the argument that the five cwt. per month discriminates unfairly against those who have no stocking room, the position is this. It was essential to stock in the summer for two good reasons. First, if we had not stocked, the pits would have had to work short time or we should have been compelled to stock the coal underground. Second, the mere fact that we were able to stock a good deal of domestic coal left us with the same quantity of transport for fewer people and more than we would otherwise have had.
That is absolutely essential in order that hon. Members may understand the reason for the summer stocking policy. In addition to that, there were limits upon those who could accummulate domestic stocks. They could not have more than the maximum of two tons in stock, unless they had a special licence. In getting that licence

1735
they had to sign that what they had would keep them going until the end of March, 1944. Some of these people are now complaining that they would have been much better off if they had not got the licence to stock but had taken their chance with any restriction scheme that was going.
With regard to Glasgow, there are certainly complications. A very large proportion of the trade is carried on by small merchants, and some of them are apt to take a less serious view of their responsibilities. There is the difficulty of getting coal carried up four or five flights of stairs. In peace time the distribution of household coal was not a perfect machine, and the calibre of the labour which is handling this coal to-day is not the same as it was in peace time. It takes a very strong man to carry a hundredweight of coal up two or three flights of stairs. With regard to the exceptional cases, instructions have been sent out that additional coal can be granted on account of sickness or confinement on the production of a medical certificate and if my hon. Friend knows of any case—I put this to him quite honestly——
Mr. Buchanan: I know the case of a woman who is hawking and is living on a soldier's allowance. She gets a doctor's certificate and she can get an extra hundredweight by going over to the town hall, and she can get it every week if she repeats it. Does the hon. Member say that that is a good thing to do to poor people? If so, he can go and do it.
Mr. T. Smith: I want my hon. Friend to know what instructions have been sent out about exceptional cases, apart from any general policy on rationing. Hon. Members should know what the arrangements are. Where there are exceptional needs and the premises are entirely dependent upon coal is the second case. The third is where there is more than one family in premises with only one registration. In any other circumstances, additional coal can be granted only with the concurrence of the Assistant Regional Coal Officer.
Mr. A. Bevan: Are those Regulations?
Mr. Smith: They are not exactly Regulations, but instructions which have been sent out.
Mr. Bevan: There is no Parliamentary authority?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will find that everything will be done to deal with any exceptional case brought before the local fuel overseer. Nobody regrets more than I that we cannot have a full discussion on the points that this raises. The house coal emergency scheme, of which my hon. Friend knows a good deal and which was in operation before the Ministry of Fuel and Power was set up, puts the responsibility upon coal merchants to see that coal is equitably shared among the different merchants, who have undertaken to give priority to the small consumer. The position, from the angle of supplies to-day, is this: It is not getting any better; is is to some extent getting worse. The present drastic restriction was intended to secure the necessary reduction in disposal to an average of 707,500 tons a week spread over the whole country for the seven weeks ended 15th January. Disposals have averaged 675,800 tons, showing a saving of 32,000 tons a week more than was anticipated, or a total additional saving of 222,000 tons. Against this, however, supplies over the same period have fallen short of the programme by an average of 63,600 tons per week, or 447,500 tons over the seven weeks and we are at present 225,000 tons worse off than was intended. [interruption.] I am speaking of house coal over the whole country. The deficiency has had to be made good through stocks which have therefore been seriously depleted and the worst of the winter may yet have to come. Only last week, due to disputes alone, we lost roughly 178,700 tons of coal, the largest recorded loss through disputes in any week since the war began. We all know what the causes are.
Mr. Bevan: Through disputes?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Bevan: Caused by the Government's policy.
Mr. Smith: That may be, but through disputes. In addition we lost last week 56,700 tons due to a shortage of wagons, and these two figures added together show a formidable loss last week which is bound to have an effect.
Hon. Members: Shocking.
Mr. Grenfell: Is my hon. Friend bound to state these figures now?
Mr. Smith: I hope I am trying to state the position absolutely fairly. I want to be frank. I was only trying to show that our supply position is not so good as we should like. My hon. Friend said there was fear of panic in Glasgow. That is not my information. The problem in Glasgow is one largely of distribution rather than supplies, I am told. Merchants' stocks in Glasgow stood at 46,000 tons on 22nd January. This represents about three weeks' supplies at the January rate of disposal, and is 13,000 tons more than the merchants' stocks at the corresponding date last year.
Mr. Buchanan: Despite what my hon. Friend says if there is one week—goodness knows I hope it does not happen; I back my hon. Friend and I know my city—such as we had two years ago my hon. Friend will withdraw every word he has said.
Mr. Smith: I would not, because I think the House will appreciate that if we had such weather as that more places than Glasgow would suffer. I am trying to show what supplies are in hand in Glasgow. I can only say this in all fairness to the household scheme and to the services of the directorate generally, that there has not been that number of com-
1738
plaints in Glasgow brought to the notice of the local fuel overseer that my hon. Friend tries to make out. There are 318,000 consumers in Glasgow. Over the last month there has not been the huge increase in complaints my hon. Friend has mentioned. I can give him an assurance from the local fuel overseer that any complaint my hon. Friend has got will be examined and dealt with. There have been large numbers of people who have been supplied with coal immediately the facts have become known, but the local fuel overseer cannot handle complaints unless he has knowledge of them.
Mr. McKinlay: Has the fuel overseer the power to instruct the merchant to deliver coal?
Mr. Smith: Yes, under the voluntary scheme we have power to reinforce it if we have difficulties in that direction. If any hon. Member will bring to the notice of the local fuel overseer any complaint in any district every effort will be made to put such complaints right as quickly as possible.
It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.