Lords Sitting of 20 June 1944

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

PILOTLESS AEROPLANES.
LORD BRABAZON: My Lords, I ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make on enemy attack by pilotless aeroplanes?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I have been asked to reply. I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on June 16 with reference to the flying bomb, as these machines are now designated.
LORD BRABAZON: I take it from that answer that the Government are fairly satisfied with the situation.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes.

URBAN DISTRICT OF FRINTON AND WALTON ORDER.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SECRET SESSION.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, before the House proceeds to a discussion of the Education Bill it is necessary for
252
me to move that the House should, for one moment, go into Secret Session in order to discuss a question relating to the business of the House.
Moved, That the House do now sit in Secret Session.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
Sitting resumed in Open Session.

EDUCATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I wish to take this opportunity, which in the circumstances will be recognized as legitimate, to ask the noble Earl in charge of this Bill whether he has anything to say upon a matter which I raised on the Second Reading of the debate, but which he was not then able to deal with—that is to say, the building regulations of the Board of Education. We know that there are some regulations, and that they have been drawn up. I suggest that we ought to know what they are before we proceed to any further detail. The matter, of course, both to local authorities and managers, is one of the first importance. I would almost say "vital" except that that word is so much abused when it really only means important. As it is known that there are these regulations, I submit that before the Bill finally passes through Parliament we ought to know what they are.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, in answer to the point raised by my noble friend, it is quite true that there are these regulations in draft, but they are only in draft, and I suggest it would be very difficult to publish them before the Bill becomes law. In fact, I do not see how that could be done. The point mainly arises in regard to an Amendment by the noble Lord on a clause that is not likely to be reached to-day, and possibly I might have an opportunity of a word with him after our proceedings

253
to-day, when I could explain to him some of the difficulties that might arise in this matter.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will take the opportunity to do that. This is really a difficulty all of us are confronted with. What the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, has said, he has said on behalf of most of those who are concerned with schools. We do not want to ask what is unanswerable, but we are in a difficulty and we shall be extremely glad if we can be relieved of that difficulty.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Appointment of Minister in charge of education and re-constitution of Board of Education.
1.—It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister"), whose duty it shall be to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.
LORD EARNBY LORD EARNBY moved, in subsection (1), after "education," to insert "and technical training." The noble Lord said: It may be that the Minister in charge of the Bill will be able very easily to accede to the Amendment which I now propose. I will discuss the two Amendments in my name together. In the first place it is right that I should remind the House that the subject of these Amendments was the cause of considerable discussion in another place and the object of the Amendments was not conceded. Therefore I propose to elaborate the matter a little. In view of the exhortation of my noble friend that speakers should be as brief as possible, it might seem that this Amendment could be quickly disposed of. I therefore make an apology in advance if, in the opening of this discussion, I may not be able to rely entirely on the first ball because the noble Lord in charge of the Bill might hit me for six, in which case I should have lost the opportunity of getting reinforcement by means of any subsequent balls. For that reason I beg the indulgence of your Lord-
254
ships while I make a few points in elaboration of the Amendment.
It is put forward on the thesis that this House is not second to the other House in urging the welfare of the realm. For that reason I may remind your Lordships of two lines from the foreword of the White Paper on Unemployment policy, which has been so recently published. I quote:
"Without a rising standard of industrial efficiency we cannot achieve a high level of employment combined with a rising standard of living."
In the debate on Second Reading reference was made to the relative importance of denominational and cultural as against technical education. The prosperity of the realm is dependent upon our industrial prosperity and it is curious that in a three days' debate only indirect reference was made to technical education. I submit that technical education is of vital importance. That has been emphasized by the recent exhortations of the Government and the lead they have given in the encouragement of technical instruction. Technical instruction is necessary in agriculture as well as in industry and that is true also of research. Applied research must be developed in industrial plants and agricultural stations and the output of trained technicians in the country has to supply both demands. We know that universities and technical colleges are the medium through which the output occurs.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I be allowed to interrupt my noble friend? I think we may be a little at cross purposes. The words he proposes to insert would add nothing to the substance of the Bill. The word "education" covers the whole field of technical education as well as other education. The Government entirely agree with him as to the importance of technical education and that is fully provided for by the Bill. Not only would the words he proposes add nothing to the Bill in that respect, but they would be very unsuitable because this clause sketches in the broadest terms the duties of the Minister. I can give an unqualified assurance to my noble friend that technical education is covered and therefore I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: Am I to understand that my noble friend accepts the Amendment?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, I cannot accept it, because it is entirely unnecessary; but I can assure my noble friend that everything he desires is provided by the Bill.
LORD BARNBY: I welcome my noble friend's assurance and I defer to his superior knowledge of the procedure of this House, but I cannot refrain from calling attention to the fact that when this matter was raised on what was then Clause 40, and is now Clause 39, on February 8 in another place, it was ruled out of order. I hope that he will see his way to accept my Amendment because the Bill as it stands gives only permissive powers to the Minister to include technical education in his responsibility—that is the responsibility of the Board—and I want to see these powers mandatory. I have been advised that that is the actual position. I am in the noble Earl's hands but I want to make sure that the Committee understands this Amendment. That is why I want to develop my argument so that there may not be the risk of my being ruled out of order on a subsequent clause. This is a matter which fundamentally affects the purpose of the Bill. If I refrain from appealing to the Committee now I might be denied the possibility of delivering a second ball in a later over. It is for that reason that I ask the Committee to consider this point, to consider the Bill as it stands, and its effects on industries of this country. It would be regrettable if at this early stage we did not make it clear what are the mandatory requirements of the Minister. I would like to add that here, as in the other place, we are under no doubt as to what were the intentions of the present Minister or concerning the earnestness of his assurances. But if this is only permissive and not mandatory it cannot commit subsequent Ministers nor is it any instruction to the Board. And it is to the interpretation of the Board of Education that I particularly refer.
I would remind the House—though indeed the House knows it well—that university finance comes from University grants, and most of the payments in relation to technical institutions, which cover a wide range from the highest technical colleges of the country down to the most modest technical schools, come from the Board of Education through the local education
256
authority. Therefore they are on two entirely different bases. That is one of the failures of the 1902 Act, and regrettable in view of the importance of technical education in the development of our export industry. This very subject must be a foundation of that full supply of teachers which is needed for the carrying out to the full of the Government's policy. If it is continued the necessary supply of teachers cannot be obtained. I urge the Committee to consider that a denial in this respect might well imperil the supply of teachers, on which our future prosperity depends. This applies to agriculture as well as to education.
I would add, that since the Bill passed through another place there has been considerable discussion in the Press which has urged that this might be substituted by a Commission being appointed as an alternative to the recommendation which the Minister made concerning the need for it by the appointment of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Eustace Percy. That Committee has terms of reference, but only powers to recommend. It has no mandatory powers. I would remind your Lordships that when this was being considered in another place the Minister on being pressed conceded an increase on the original amount proposed from £2,500,000 to £35,000,000. Curiously enough, no reason for the change was given and no indication of the proposed procedure. That, I suggest, is a most surprising thing, and it is one which I hope that the noble Earl will take notice of.
I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a moment to press the case of these higher technical colleges because they are fundamental to our educational system. The large colleges are in a more dangerous position because the emoluments which can come to the faculty are necessarily graded on a lower basis than those available to the professors of the universities. Therefore, there is a fundamental danger, and I submit that needs consideration. I speak with some knowledge of the wool textile industry, the dyeing trade and also the Bradford technical college. That college is of the highest status in this country; yet its faculty under the Board of Education is materially of a lower status than that of the universities. It is on behalf of these higher technical colleges who may well rank on a much lower scale that I make this appeal.

257
If I may, I would ask my noble friend particularly for his attention to this one point. When the Bill was being considered in another place the Minister gave no indication as to how the works schools fit into the young people's colleges. Do the Government give grants direct to the private firms? I would draw attention again to the Amendment put forward by Sir Harold Webbe in another place on this point and to the emphasis laid by Lord Soulbury in this House on the point that to look for reform by local action is idle. On this again, I ask the Minister in charge of the Bill, as he was not able to accept my Amendment without discussion, whether he cannot give an assurance now that he will look into this most carefully, and then the same point will have to be raised at a later stage. I should like him to say that it will not necessarily be out of order in this House, as it was in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("education") insert ("and technical training").—(Lord Barnby.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend is correct in saying that this matter was raised in another place, and the answer which was given then is the same that I attempted to give just now. This clause says:
"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister … whose duty it shall be to promote the education of the people.…"
The answer to my noble friend is that "education" includes technical education. It would be just bad drafting to insert "and technical training" at this point, and would not add anything to the Bill at all. I can assure my noble friend that the Government are just as keen as he is about technical education, and that this Bill is going to lead to a tremendous development of technical education. He asked me certain detailed questions about that, but, with his permission, I would rather defer going into that matter until we get to the appropriate clauses.
LORD BARNBY: Does that refer to the particular question which I asked with regard to the young people's colleges?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Certainly.
LORD BARNBY: I accept that, but, on the main point, am I to understand from what has just been said that tech-
258
nical education is mandatory on the Minister?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Certainly, as a branch of education.
LORD BARNBY: I ask for an assurance from the noble Earl that at some stage in the proceedings he will incorporate it, so that it will be beyond question, because I have the assurance of Parliamentary counsel that at present it is not.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid that I cannot agree to separate technical education from other education. It is part of education, which is mandatory upon the Minister.
LORD BARNBY: That last sentence is sufficiently definite. I accept what my noble friend has said and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Central Advisory Councils.
4.—(1) There shall be two Central Advisory Councils for Education, one for England and the other for Wales and Monmouthshire, and it shall be the duty of those Councils to advise the Minister upon such matters connected with educational theory and practice as they think fit, and upon any questions referred to them by him.
(2) The members of each Council shall be appointed by the Minister, and the Minister shall appoint a member of each Council to be Chairman thereof and shall appoint an officer of the Ministry of Education to be secretary thereto.
(3) 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.
LORD ROCHE LORD ROCHE moved, in subsection (2), after "Minister," where that word occurs for the first time, to insert "as to two-thirds of their number, and as to the remaining one-third of such number half by the President of the Board of Trade and half by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries." The noble and learned Lord said: I can tell the Committee in a very few minutes the point which I have in mind. I very much regret, as I am sure we all do, the absence of the President and the reasons for it. I was the more disappointed personally because he most courteously and kindly asked me

259
to discuss with him, before this stage was reached, one or two points, of which this was one; but, after all, if the matter is at all in doubt it can be dealt with on the Report stage.
The point is this. Like Lord Barnby, I am very anxious that technical education should receive due prominence, and this Amendment is an effort to see that it shall. Clause 4 (2) provides that the members of these two important Councils, one for England and the other for Wales, are to be appointed by the Minister. I sympathize with any Minister who is bombarded with applications from this person and that to be represented on an advisory committee, and there is no doubt a great deal of convenience in having all the appointments in one's own hands; but I think there are limits to that, and I am suggesting that the Minister should not hesitate to delegate some of his responsibilities, not to outside bodies, but to colleagues of his own. I make that suggestion for this reason. The Bill itself is a piece of machinery and administrative order, and naturally it does not go into the contents of education. The Councils are obviously intended to do that. The curriculum is one most important matter; everything depends on what the children are taught. A second matter of which they will no doubt take cognizance—there may be others—is how the children shall be taught. These are matters for experts. Many of us may be able to deal with the practical matters of administration, but these educational questions are undoubtedly matters for experts. It is highly desirable, however, that they should not all be experts of one pattern.
That is a sad tendency where Advisory and other Departmental Committees are concerned. Many of your Lordships will have had the same experience as myself. I have been on such committees on a number of occasions during the last thirty years, and have been Chairman of some of them. I should be the very last person to bring any accusation against the Civil Service, which is an entirely competent and highly honourable body of men, and the last thing I would desire to suggest is that they would pack committees consciously. The human mind, however, is a very curious thing. They will be in search, no doubt, of sensible men and women to sit on these bodies, but it is very odd to see the extent to
260
which you judge of sense by agreement with yourself, and therefore one often finds committees sadly of one complexion. That is what I want to avoid.
I suggest that it would be a very good thing, in order to give due prominence to technical matters, whether urban or rural, that some appointments should be in the hands of the Board of Trade and others in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Supply might be more appropriate than the Board of Trade at the present time, but I hope that that Ministry may cease to exist before this Bill has been long in operation, while the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture are likely to be permanent. It would be a particularly happy gesture if certain appointments were delegated to the Ministry of Agriculture, because they have been rather self-denying about this matter of education. The majority of the Committee reported in favour of the Minister of Agriculture having much more power over agricultural education. A Minority Report by a lady not distantly related to the noble Earl prevailed, and the Ministry of Agriculture gave up the claim. It would be a very noble gesture—that is the popular phrase now, I believe —if the Minister of Education resigned some of his powers of appointment in this matter to the 11Iinister of Agriculture.
There is a sad failing in Whitehall—it is not peculiar to the Ministry of Education—which is to neglect rural matters for the simple reason that people are very ignorant of them. I think that this idea might help to remedy that. I confess that there may be an answer which it would be difficult to get over—namely, that those two Ministries do not wish to accept the right to make appointments. I do not know how that may be. I am not wedded to any particular solution of this problem, but I think it is very desirable to have representative Councils, which are more likely to be secured without undue outside interference by some of the appointments being outside the power of the Minister of Education, who may not always be the Minister of to-day. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, after the first ("Minister") insert ("as to two-thirds of their number, and as to the remaining one-third of such number half by the President of the Board of Trade and half by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries")—(Lord Roche.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very grateful to my noble friend for the lucidity with which he has explained the objects in view, but I do not think he has quite visualized the circumstances in which these very important Advisory Councils will be appointed. They are appointed to advise the Minister, and I think that we must give the Minister power to choose his advisers, because the Minister will require the help of these advisers very much indeed. My noble friend seemed to think that there might be a tendency for the Minister to wish to have a committee of "Yes" men, a committee of nonentities, of people who always agreed with the official view. I am quite sure that no Minister would be well advised in choosing a Council of that sort, and I can assure your Lordships that that is not at all the desire of my right honourable friend. My right honourable friend will have to appoint a Council drawn from all the numerous walks of life which are affected by this great education system and therefore the Council will necessarily be a very varied team. Any Minister of Education will of course desire to get the very best men to help him in this great work because he will rely on the Council very much to keep him straight on all matters where technical or local knowledge is of importance. Therefore I think that the fear of my noble friend is really unfounded.
But I would like to tell him, if he is not already aware of the fact, that my right honourable friend in another place gave the most specific pledges that on these councils there would be representatives of industry and of agriculture, for the precise reasons that my noble friend gave. This Bill will affect industry at every turn. It will also affect agriculture very much, and it will be absolutely necessary to the Minister of Education to have the very best advice that be can get on those subjects. Therefore I can assure my noble friend that the President of the Board of Education is fully in accord with him in his views in regard to the composition of these Councils, that the Bill allows the Minister to select his own team, and I do not think it would be fair to the Minister to have any other arrangement. Also I do not believe that the outside Departments suggested by my noble friend would really welcome the Amendment. Therefore I hope very
262
much that my noble friend will not press it.
LORD ADDISON: I hope the noble Lord will give a little further consideration to this matter. We know that, quite naturally and almost inevitably, Departments are inclined to think of matters in their own sphere and it might very well be that the Committee might be of too academic a character. I cannot imagine that there would be any difficulty about the Minister of Education consulting with his colleagues in the Government. I am sure that neither he nor they would appoint "Yes" men. But I am sure there is a little more in this than the noble Earl recognized and I hope he will give some further consideration to the matter and see if he can meet the noble Lord's suggestion.
EARL DE LA WARR: I would like to add a word in support of what the noble Lords, Lord Roche and Lord Addison, have said. I think many of us have felt in the past that it was a great fault or deficiency of our educational system that it ignored country life. The noble Earl speaking on behalf of the Government has mentioned as an obstacle to accepting this Amendment that he knows of no precedent for one Minister having a right of appointment to an advisory committee to another Minister. One must recognize that as quite a practical difficulty. I think it would be quite reasonable if we did not press the noble Earl for an answer to-day, but I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Roche, and the noble Earl, that this Amendment might be considered in a slightly different form by the inclusion of the words "after consultation." That is very normal and there is a great deal of precedent for it. I do not know whether the noble Earl may be able to give a reply now or at a later stage.
LORD ROCHE: I should be quite prepared to accept an assurance that between now and the Report stage the words that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has suggested should be inserted in the Bill. I only desired the thing—I am indifferent as to the means. If an assurance could be given in that form I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very willing to give the assurance that my noble friend asks for and I certainly will

263
consult my right honourable friend's advisers as to whether any words of that sort could be usefully added to the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "persons" and insert "men and women." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed not only to clarify a point in the clause, but it will enable the President, I hope, to make certain that in the Advisory Councils appointed by the Minister there shall be included a certain number of women, instead of only men. The word "person" certainly includes men and women, but by the substitution of the words which I propose it would be obligatory that at least some women should be included in the Councils.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("persons") and insert ("men and women").—(Lord Rennell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My noble friend who is in charge of the Bill asked me to say a word on this, as it is partly a drafting point. It was undoubtedly at one time not uncommon in Acts of Parliament to put words in specifically to show that women were included. It was due to the fact that formerly government was a masculine institution, but that day has long passed, and not only is it not now usual to do so, but certainly in some quarters it is thought rather offensive to deal with the female sex as though it were brought in by way of exceptional privilege. There is not the slightest doubt in the world—and this assurance I am authorized to give on behalf of the Minister—that both men and women are included. It is better to keep the word "persons," which is a neutral word, and it would in all circumstances be construed to include women.
LORD RENNELL: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved to insert at the end of subsection (3), "and also persons with experience of technical education." The noble Lord said: The matters urged by Lord Roche just now were not dissimilar from what I am seeking here. As he
264
said, not all experts are of one pattern. In view of the fact that my noble friend the Minister in charge of the Bill has stated that it is mandatory on the Minister to provide technical education—and that goes right through the aims of the Bill —may I ask him whether therefore he finds any objection to accept the Amendment standing in my name?
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24 at end insert ("and also persons with experience of technical education").—(Lord Barnby.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope very much that my noble friend will not press this Amendment. I have already given him an assurance, which I can confirm, that technical education is mandatory upon the Minister as part of the system of education of this country. Of course there is not the slightest doubt that the Minister will require on his Advisory Councils people who are qualified to speak on matters concerning technical education, but I suggest to my noble friend that it would really be very invidious to pick out one particular branch of education. We should at once be faced with similar and equally reasonable requests that all the other branches of education should also be mentioned in this particular clause. Therefore I suggest to my noble friend that for the reasons I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Roche, it is really unnecessary to try to tic the Minister's hands in this respect. The Minister will wish—and it will be greatly in his interest— to provide himself with a body of advisers capable of giving him the best advice on all the multifarious sides of education with which he will have to deal.
LORD BARNBY: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his explanation. I do not want to press the point in view of what he has said—that it would be discriminatory to put this forward in this particular case—nor do I wish to encroach on the time of the Committee. As, however, this is different from the previous point I discussed, may I ask my noble friend, as I have not with me the terms of reference to Lord Eustace Percy's Committee, that he will make sure that this is a matter which will not be omitted from the consideration of that Committee?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Certainly.
LORD BARNBY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORE GORELL LORE GORELL moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) Each Council shall include persons nominated by the Teachers Registration Council."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment in my name. The wording is quite simple and can be very easily understood. The Amendment provides that each of these Councils shall include persons nominated by the Teachers Registration Council, and I put it down in the hope that it may provide a definite and, indeed, a decisive test of the sincerity of the Government in their dealings with teachers. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I endeavoured to obtain an answer from the noble Earl as to whether it was or was not the intention of the Minister to make any use of the registration movement of teachers. The noble Earl in his reply gave me no answer at all. Of course, I personally have no claim to receive an answer, but those on whose behalf I spoke—the 90,000 registered teachers—have a right to an answer, and they did not receive it.
I was told that the point I raised was irrelevant—a very odd comment upon something which is absolutely fundamental to the success of the Bill—and that it called, not for legislative, but for administrative action. The noble Earl is perfectly correct in that latter statement. It does call for administrative action, but it has never received administrative action. Though this registration movement has been in operation for thirty-two years, it has never been made the slightest use of by successive Presidents of the Board of Education. What I am asking for in this Amendment is that some use —very humble, very simple, and very reasonable use—shall be made of this body.
This Teachers Registration Council is the one and only body which represents all branches of teachers. No similar request can be made to the Minister by any other body. This body is statutory under an Act which was passed in 1907. It consists of members drawn from every section and grade of teachers, from the universities, from the specialist groups, from the secondary teachers, and from the primary teachers. It, and it alone, has the right to claim that it speaks for
266
teachers as a whole. It alone stands for that which successive Presidents of the Board of Education have praised, but have not encouraged—namely, the unity of the teaching profession. We are really living in a Parliamentary paradise, if I may so describe it, if we hope to make a success of this Bill without the cooperation of the teachers. I offer this Amendment in the belief that it will encourage those who hereafter may join the teaching profession to feel that their profession is recognized and is being used. It is said—I do not know with what truth—that the President of the Board of Education does not attach very much importance to the registration movement. I am quite sure that he would not send his child to an unregistered medical practitioner, nor would he have his house built by an unregistered architect, though that is a much more recent growth than the registration of teachers. "Registration" is a dull word. It is not generally understood by the public, but it means that those are placed upon a register who possess full qualifications in the eyes of their fellow workers. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl may be able to accept this Amendment. After all, these two Central Advisory Councils are charged with the duty of advising the Minister under Clause 4, subsection (1), "upon such matters connected with educational theory and practice as they think fit." Who, therefore, has a better right to advise the Minister than the teachers themselves? It is true that the Minister will select teachers, but that is entirely to set aside their own body, representative of all of them. This is a very small request. It would be one reasonable means of recognizing that this movement exists, that it can play its part, and that it is qualified to have some say among those who will advise the Minister upon the lifework of teachers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Gorell.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The clause, as I have said before, vests the Minister with unrestricted power to appoint the members of each Council, and to include the duty of appointing persons nominated by any one body would be inconsistent with that principle. That is why my right honourable friend does not wish to accept this Amendment. I need

267
hardly say that I entirely agree with my noble friend when he says that the Government will require the co-operation of the teachers to make a success of this Bill. Nobody feels that more strongly than does my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education. I can also assure my noble friend that on these Advisory Councils there will be representatives of the teachers. But I do not think that I could promise that those representatives would necessarily be persons that were entitled to speak on behalf of the Teachers Registration Council, though very likely they would be. I think I should explain to your Lordships that the registration movement which my noble friend Lord Gorell has so much at heart, and which he has done so much to promote, has not made quite the same progress in the teaching profession as it has in other professions. Therefore it might well be that the President of the Board of Education or the Minister of Education, as he will be, might find somebody who was most representative of the teaching profession who was not associated with the Teachers Registration Council. These things cannot be hastened. My right honourable friend, I think, must be free to find the best representatives that he can of the teachers' profession.
I must apologize to the noble Lord if he feels that I did not give him an adequate answer to the very interesting speech he made on the Second Reading, but the added importance he would like to see given to the Registration Council by the Ministry is really a question of administrative rather than legislative concern. In this case, of course, this does raise the issue which the noble Lord has so much at heart and raises it, if I may say so, in a very pertinent form. I am sorry to say my right honourable friend could not accept the Amendment and I am not able to accept it, because it would tie the Minister's hands in a way that might be unfortunate. Therefore I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD GORELL: I am well aware that to attempt to press an Amendment against the Government without general support from your Lordships would be rather a waste of time. At the same time your Lordships will have observed that the noble Earl, though very courteous in his reply, has really evaded
268
the issue. He says that the registration movement has not made that progress in the past which might have been hoped for. The reason is quite simple, that under the complete non-recognition by the President of the Board there is no advantage whatever attached to anybody undergoing the necessary training and qualifications in order to become registered. The noble Earl speaks of giving added importance to the registration movement, but in fact under the policy of cool dislike of the teachers who have taken the trouble and gone to the expense of getting registered, the registration movement has no importance at all.
I take it that my very humble Amendment is rejected, but let there be no misunderstanding. I have no possible power of enforcing it upon the Government, but its rejection will cause great dismay among teachers, and it will be taken as symptomatic of the refusal on the part of the President to give any importance at all to this movement, a movement which is struggling, and has struggled for so long against the difficulties of being treated with contempt by the Board, and it will probably falter and may perish. If that is a happy opening to an attempt to secure a very large and increasing number of fully qualified teachers, I am bound to say that to me it seems a matter of very great concern. I do not know that anybody in the future could be recommended to enter a profession which is treated so cavalierly and I would most earnestly ask the noble Lord to consider, even if he cannot accept this Amendment, giving some public assurance which would be gratifying to teachers generally, that some use is to be made of their desire to be a unified profession, some recognition to be made of their movement and some use made of it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
LORD GORELL: No, I do not feel I can withdraw it. It is too much in the minds of too many people. If your Lordships decide that it cannot be accepted then it must be rejected, and that must go forth as the decision of the Government.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Stages and purposes of statutory system of education.
7. The statutory system of public education shall be organized in three progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, and further education; and it shall be the duty of the local education authority for every area, so far as their powers extend, to contribute towards the moral, mental, and physical development the community by securing that efficient education throughout those stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I beg to move to leave out the word "further" and insert "higher," as applied to the third stage of education described in Clause 7. Your Lordships will notice that the statutory system of public education is to be organized in three progessive stages—and I would ask you to note that word "progressive"— to be known as primary education, secondary education, and further education. After the passage of the Education Act of 1902, education committees were set up and there were sub-committees I think in every county described as elementary education committees and higher education committees. Now for the first time we have education divided for departmental purposes and for the purposes of the local authorities into three progressive stages. I suggest that as the word "higher" is no longer applicable to a post-primary school or to post-primary education, this new stage might quite fitly and more properly be described here as "higher" education.
Incidentally I may submit that I doubt very much whether there is such an adjective as "further." There certainly is an adverb and there certainly is a verb. It is open to all of us, including our children, to go further and fare worse. I have consulted some dictionaries on this subject and I find that Chambers's and other dictionaries do not admit the existence of the word as an adjective. But however that may be, I would venture to suggest that the word "further" is a geographical term indicating a horizontal or linear movement and not a vertical movement. I gather from the White Paper that this so-called further education is intended amongst other things to form character as well as no doubt assist in proper preparation for some vocation. I suggest that there can he no particular
270
harm in substituting for that possibly erroneous and ungrammatical word a word of more inspiring signification, or, if the Government are not prepared to accept "higher," perhaps "advanced" or "extended" would be a good substitute. The word "further" is quite applicable to the extension of any erection or edifice, but it would not apply to the coping stone of that erection or edifice. If as I believe, it is intended by the Board of Education that this form of education shall be the coping stone I suggest that the word "higher" would be a more suitable term. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3o, leave out ("further") and insert ("higher").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am rather afraid that if this Amendment were accepted it might be interpreted as giving the Minister of Education some power over the universities which he has not got at present. Therefore I should deprecate the word "higher" being inserted in this clause.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am greatly entertained by my noble friend accusing the President of the Board of Education of being ungrammatical, but I am not quite sure that he is right in his description of the word "further" as being a horizontal term. I think even my noble friend would agree that the sun is further from the earth than the moon but certainly at midday that would not be horizontal. Moreover if we are to talk about grammar I doubt if my noble friend's grammar is impeccable. He wishes to use the word "higher" as the superlative of three stages of education, primary, secondary and higher. I suggest that he ought to have used the word "highest." That would have been a grammatical way of dealing with that particular problem. There is however a practical reason against my noble friend's suggestion. Up to now education in common parlance has been divided into elementary and higher education—elementary education covering ages up to fourteen and higher education covering the ages beyond. Under the new scheme primary education will cover the ages up to eleven, secondary education will cover the ages from eleven to fifteen at first and later to sixteen and then further education will cover the ages beyond. If at my noble friend's suggestion we take a

271
word which by common usage has been applied to a different age group and graft it on to the new Bill, I think it would really tend to a good deal of confusion. I am assured on very high authority that the word "further" can most properly be used in this connexion and at any rate it fulfils the essential condition that everybody understands what it means. Therefore I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved to insert "spiritual" before "moral." The noble Viscount said: This is a much more important Amendment. We are always being reminded that man is a tripartite organism made up of body, mind and spirit and that no man can be described properly as perfect who has not developed not merely body and mind but also spirit. I cannot believe that when for the first time we are introducing religious education as an obligatory subject in all our schools as well as an act of worship, that that can be done without it being intended to develop the things of the spirit. Surely the things of the spirit are the greatest source of moral strength and mental inspiration. I emphasize that because in the introduction to the White Paper it is stated to be the object of the present proposals to strengthen and inspire the younger generation. If your Lordships look at page 11 of the White Paper you will find it said that religious education is to be given a more definite place in the life and work of the schools, springing from the desire to guide the spiritual and personal values in our society and in our national traditions. It may be said that the word "moral" is quite sufficient for this purpose.
The words in the Bill are that it shall be
"the duty of the local education authority … to contribute towards the moral, mental and physical development of the community …"
I notice that my noble friend Lord Aberdare has an Amendment to leave out the word "moral" and insert "spiritual." If your Lordships were prepared to accept that Amendment I would not press for the acceptance of mine, but I suggest, especially remembering what the most
272
reverend Primate said on the Second Reading, that ethics or morality are by no means identical with spirituality if we really intend the advancement of what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, described on Second Reading as the Christian ethic as against, let us say, the ethic of Buddhism. Surely we ought to incorporate in the Bill words which indicate our conviction that it is the Christian ethic and that it is spirituality which we want to advance in every stage of our national education if we want to promote the morality as well as the other virtues of our race. I do not feel competent to put into appropriate words the strong feelings I entertain on the subject, but I believe that if in the time of our grandparents some such Bill as this had come before the House they would undoubtedly, probably with unanimity, have adopted this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, at end insert ("spiritual").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF PERTH: My noble friend Lord Rankeillour has an Amendment on the Paper which deals with an exactly similar point and he has asked me to state it on his behalf. His Amendment is to insert the word "religious" before the words "moral, mental and physical development." The reason for doing so, I think, is that the word "religious" covers the point which my noble friend Lord Bledisloe made, and to my mind it is far more in accordance with the Bill as it stands to-day. Religion is happily given a very prominent place in the Bill, as can be seen from Clause 24, which provides for a collective act of worship at the beginning of the day and also that religious instruction shall be given in every school, subject, of course, to a conscience clause.
There is another reason why I hope the Government will be able to accept this. The President of the Board of Education, in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, very clearly stated—and I have his words here—that the Government hope to try and help children both in physical, moral and religious development. Oddly enough, in the Bill as it stands, local authorities have been told to contribute as far as they can to the mental and physical development of the children, but curiously, the word "religious" has fallen out. I hope that

273
that was by an oversight. It was not even mentioned in another place. I trust very much that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will be prepared to accept the word "religious" instead of the word "spiritual," and that, if so, the Government also will accept the proposal which I have the pleasure to state.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have been very anxious that one or other of these Amendments should be adopted. I confess that I would rather prefer the word "religious" to "spiritual." I think it is the more germane to the purpose of the Bill. It is also more specific in its bearing. I am always a little frightened of the word "spiritual," and when people say that education ought to have a "spiritual" foundation I feel that I want them to define what they mean. When it is said that education ought to have a religious foundation I should myself be much nearer knowing what they mean.
THE ENRL OF SELBORNE: I think that the reason why neither the word "religious" nor the word "spiritual" occurs in this particular clause is that the extent of the clause is wider than the primary and secondary education for which the Bill provides religious education. If your Lordships will read the clause you will see that it says:
"The statutory system of public education shall be organized in three progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, and further education."
That, as I would point out particularly to my noble friend Lord Barnby, includes technical education. It was felt to be inappropriate that the local education authorities should be enjoined to contribute towards the spiritual or religious improvement of people in connexion with technical education or further education. There was no sinister intent in leaving out the word. It was merely felt to be inappropriate at this particular stage. I recognize the strength of feeling which has been shown by the Committee in this matter, and I will give an undertaking that I will consult my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education between now and the Report stage and see whether he cannot adopt either the word "spiritual" or "religious" to meet what I feel is the general feeling of the Committee.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: In the light of what the noble Earl has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I may add, having regard to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that I am not tied to the word "spiritual," particularly if the most reverend Primate prefers "religious." I bow to his authority. So long as it is made perfectly clear that this is the objective towards which we are moving, I am content.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE,LORD ABERDARE, who had on the Paper an Amendment to substitute "spiritual" for "moral," said: Although my Amendment seems quite unnecessary in the light of what has just been said, I would like to explain my reason for it. I felt strongly that the word "moral" had not a high enough or deep enough or wide enough meaning for the second half of this general Clause 7 headed "Purposes of the statutory system of education." It is quite clear what was the intention of the Board of Education. By the White Paper issued in July, 1943, which is Command Paper 6458, it is stated in paragraph 36
"There has been a very general wish, not confined to representatives of the Churches, that religious education should be given a more defined place in the life and work of the schools, springing from the desire to revive the spiritual and personal values in our society and in our national tradition. The Church, the family, the local community and the teacher—all have their part to play in imparting religious instruction to the young."
I merely wanted to underline the word "spiritual" and the fact that the teachers are to impart religious instruction to the young, "to revive the spiritual and personal values in our society arid in our national tradition." The word "spiritual" is much used by the Board in their White Papers, and my noble friend Lord Woolton on the Second Reading used it three times, and only used the word "moral" in quoting a phrase. I therefore rely on what has been stated by the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, after "securing," to insert "or making provisions for ensuring." The noble Lord said: This is not a matter of first importance, but I suggest to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill that it would be more appropriate to put these words in otherwise it might be argued that the local education authority were responsible for the religious education,

275
although it was not carried out in schools provided by them. This smacks somewhat of Erastianism. I do not wish to press it too much, but I ask my noble friend to consider it between now and the next stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("securing") insert ("or making provisions for ensuring").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have made particular inquiry about my noble friend's point and I am assured that the word "securing" completely covers "making provisions for ensuring," so that really the effect of my noble friend's suggestion would be repetitive and therefore unnecessary. Accordingly I hope that he will not press his Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I will not move the next Amendment standing in my name.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Duty of local education authorities to secure provision of primary and secondary schools.
8.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools—

(a) for providing primary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils; and

(b) for providing secondary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of senior pupils, other than such full-time education as may be provided for senior pupils in pursuance of a scheme made under the provisions of this Act relating to further education;

(2) In fulfilling their duties under this section a local education authority shall, in particular, have regard—
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved to add to paragraph (a) in subsection (1): "and knowledge of the British Commonwealth and Empire shall be deemed to be among the educational requirements of both junior and senior pupils." The noble Viscount said: There is a general feeling in various parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire overseas that we are deplorably ignorant of the great area of which our King is the Sovereign Head,
276
and in which loyalty to his rule is almost universally proclaimed. We have had a large number of men in the Forces from various parts of the Empire in our camps up and down this country and it has been a source not merely of outspoken regret but sometimes of bitter criticism that our young people in this country are so evidently provided in the schools with such a meagre knowledge of the great British Commonwealth and Empire, of which they themselves are the prospective heirs.
It may not be possible to insert in this Bill any words which would effectually ensure that such instruction in the geography, history, ideals and outlook of the peoples of the various parts of the British Commonwealth should be inculcated. Such matters will have to be left to a large extent to the local education authorities, with some guidance from the Ministry of Education; but there have been times, and recent times, when, although considerable pressure has been put, as I have every reason to know, by different Empire organizations upon the Board of Education to encourage what I may call Empire education in our schools, there has been, for political and other reasons, a tendency to emphasize the importance of knowledge about other countries than those within the Empire, even in preference to knowledge of our own Commonwealth and Empire.
I know that there is a tendency nowadays—no doubt a commendable one—to encourage internationalism or an international outlook, and to put before our young people, as well as our adults, as a great objective the spiritual, moral and indeed economic advancement of the peoples of the whole world; but for my part I hold very strongly that we have to make our own Commonwealth and Empire the unit before we make the world our unit for these purposes. The British Commonwealth and Empire is both the heritage and the future responsibility of the children at present in our schools, and I submit that children from their earliest days should be made conscious of the existence of the British Commonwealth and Empire, inspired with a spirit of inquiry regarding its history and its scattered location, and, above all, filled with a deep sense of responsibility regarding it. With such knowledge inculcated in early childhood there is a greater prospect of main-

277
taining hereafter the integrity of the British Empire and the sense of responsibility regarding it among all its citizens, young and old, a sense of responsibility which is at present sadly deficient in some quarters
It is very difficult to justify the continued integrity and future development of the British Commonwealth and Empire unless we have full knowledge of it and unless our young people are brought up to develop that knowledge and to develop a sense of responsibility accordingly. I move this Amendment not with any certain prospect of the noble Earl accepting it, but because I venture to hope that, even if he does not accept it, he will make it perfectly clear what is the intended future policy of the Board of Education with regard to Empire knowledge. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, at end insert ("and knowledge of the British Commonwealth and Empire shall be deemed to be among the educational requirements of both junior and senior pupils.")—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am very glad to be able to support this Amendment. I have little but praise for this Education Bill, but I have explored every sentence of it, and almost every word, in an endeavour to find a single reference to the British Commonwealth and Empire, upon which the whole fortunes of the country depend to-day and will depend in future. I should like for a few moments to give a brief account of what has happened in the past with regard to this question. Nearly fifteen years ago I was connected with an Empire body which produced, with the help of certain of its members, a book called A Junior History of the British Empire. That was compiled by Professor A. P. Newton, a well-known authority on British Empire subjects who lectured at London University upon them. It was an admirable little work, from which the children in the secondary schools could well have been taught, and from which they would have imbibed a great deal of knowledge about the Empire.
I sent that book to the then President of the Board of Education, now a very distinguished member of your Lordships' House, Viscount Halifax. He read it, and said that it was the best book of its kind that he had ever read, and that it was most suitable for use in secondary
278
schools, but that there was the difficulty that the Board of Education had no control over subjects of that nature which were taught in those schools, and that the whole matter rested with the local authorities. We came up against a seven-barred gate. At that time there were a great many "little Englanders" connected with local education authorities, and we could make no headway whatever. When the present President of the Board of Education was engaged in preparing this Bill, I sent him this book. He read it and, like Lord Halifax, he agreed that it was an excellent work and very suitable for its purpose, but he too was faced with difficulties in connexion with the local authorities. He has gone so far, I understand from him, as to place it upon a list of books which are recommended to the teachers in our schools as being possible subjects for education in the various schools. There is something all wrong about that, because unless our children are educated to know what the British Commonwealth means, how can we expect them in the future to take that part in the development of the British Empire, the Colonies especially, which we hope many of them will?
Then, again, there is the industrial question, the question of our export trade. After this war we hope that a great deal of our export trade will still be done with the British Commonwealth and Empire, and that it will be extended. If that is the case, is not it important that the children in our schools, who will ultimately enter industry, not only as workers but as employers, should know something in their early days about the British Commonwealth and Empire, where this trade will be found? There is another point in connexion with this, and that is that in the future the British Commonwealth arid Empire will have a very important part to play in world affairs, and unless our children are brought up to know what the British Commonwealth and Empire mean, what they contain, and what effect they may have in world politics, I feel that the future may be no better than the years before the war, when our children were bereft of any knowledge of the British Commonwealth.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I, too, support the proposal made by my noble friend. Coming from a county where there are so many troops at present, I can confirm

279
what he said. I have been astonished and not a little disappointed to find that so many of the young people know very little indeed about the places from which the Empire troops come. I feel this acutely because I served with Empire troops in the last war. When we come to this war we look like winning it, but it has been a damned near thing—of course I am quoting from the Duke of Wellington.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: A "damned close run."
LORD MOTTISTONE: Yes, but he added "I do not think we should have carried it without me." We should not have won this war if it had not been for these troops of the Empire; so I respectfully suggest to my noble friend in charge of the Bill that we have got a new history to teach these children and these adolescents. If only in gratitude, you surely should teach them something about the people without whose help we should not be teaching them anything except to adore Hitler. May I add that I hope my noble friend will not move his Amendment to a later Amendment that I have on the Paper, because it would rather queer the pitch to a straight issue on that point?
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: Having spent a considerable part of my working life in the Transvaal, where I was in close touch with both Europeans and natives, may I be allowed to say that I do not think there is anybody who has lived for any length of time outside this country who, when he returns home, even on leave, is not shocked to find the appalling ignorance of the most elementary facts about the British Empire, the Dominions and the Colonies? If you look back, I think you will find that that is due to a feeling that it is one of the things that ought not to be spoken about much—something that is rather out of fashion, a back number. That is what struck me when I returned from South Africa twenty-four years ago, and I must say I do not think things are very much better now. Part of it is due, I believe, to the fact that there is a feeling on the part of a number of people who are not really keen about these things that they should hesitate to say anything in public for fear of hurting the feelings of the Dominions. I myself
280
have frequently wished to get up and make a considerable number of remarks about certain things that have gone on in South Africa, particularly affecting the native question, but I have refrained because I have felt that it is very difficult to do that with regard to the Dominions.
But the Colonies are our own business and nobody can have studied the way in which the Colonies as a whole have been treated by this country during the last thirty-five years, or even fifty years, from a financial point of view, without realizing that we have not fulfilled our responsibilities at all, and I maintain that we are not fulfilling them now. That is because the public are unaware of what is going on, and they are unaware because it is a subject, I am sure, which is not taught in our schools as it should be. It may be said, "But is this the right place to put it in—a Bill about education?" I think it is exactly the place to put it in, because it does call attention to the fact that this country is responsible for the races of the British Empire, and mainly responsible for their education in the widest sense of the word. We have again and again merely exploited them, and we are doing that to-day in various parts of the British Empire.
I do not know what the Government think about this. We may receive the answer that if you put in the British Empire you will have to put in a lot of other things. But there are not a lot of other things like the British Empire to put in. From an educational point of view, I think it is all wrong to teach history the way we do; it ought to be taught backwards. If you do not know what is going on to-day you are not likely to be interested in what was going on five hundred years ago. Many of our people have not got beyond King Alfred and the cakes. You will find that if you get the younger people interested in the live things that are going on to-day you will give the youth of this country a sense of real responsibility. Unless there is such a sense of responsibility I tremble to think what the future of the British Empire will be. One of these days we shall not be able to justify our presence in a great many parts of this world unless we show we are doing the right thing by the natives of these countries.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I need hardly say how much I agree with much

281
that has fallen from your Lordships this afternoon in regard to this matter. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education has, I believe, done more than any of his predecessors—my noble friend who spoke just now bore testimony to that—to give an impetus to teaching the children about the British Empire. I entirely agree that it is absolutely essential, if we are to have an informed democracy, and one that is brought up to recognize and accept its responsibilities, that particular attention should be paid in all history and geography matters, and in all matters of political theory or science, to the development and the facts of the British Empire. I can most gladly give the assurance that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe asks for. It is the policy of my right honourable friend to do everything in his power to promote knowledge of the history and geography and existing circumstances of the British Empire.
LORD MOTTISTONE: And its military achievements?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And its military achievements. I do not think the right reverend Prelate—who has just spoken—was wholly justified in everything he said. We all agree there have been mistakes committed in the past in regard to the British Empire. Possibly there have been stains on our history in that connexion. But, taken all in all, I believe that the contribution that the British race has made in acquiring the Empire, the contribution it has made to human happiness, human emancipation, human progress, peace and justice, has been an immeasurably large contribution of which we have no reason to be ashamed. We have every reason to be proud. It is in no vain spirit of boasting that knowledge of the Empire should be taught. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said that it should be taught in the light of the great responsibility and great privilege which have fallen on the rising generation of this country.
My own difficulty comes in accepting this actual Amendment. In the first place, there is the difficulty, which is really an important one, of picking out particular branches of education and putting them into a Bill. As I said to my noble friend Lord Barnby in regard to technical education, the mere fact that we were not able
282
to accept his words did not mean that the Government were not anxious to promote technical education. So it will be, I am afraid, in regard to the Amendment by Lord Mottistone on Clause 22. I do assure my noble friends that there is great difficulty in picking out individual subjects of education, however desirable, however right, however necessary, and putting them into an Act of Parliament. After all, an Act of Parliament is an instrument that lawyers have to operate, and we all know that if undue emphasis is put, in one part of the Bill, on certain subjects you may, by implication, be producing an effect different from what you intended in regard to other matters.
I would call your Lordships' attention to how the subsection would actually read if it were inserted in the Bill. It would read thus:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools—

(a) for providing primary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils; and

(b) for providing secondary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of senior pupils, other than such full-time education as may be provided for senior pupils in pursuance of a scheme under the provisions of this Act relating to further education; and knowledge of the British Commonwealth and Empire shall be deemed to be among the educational requirements of both junior and senior pupils."

It really would not be a workmanlike piece of legislation, and it would be rather confusing to anybody who was trying to interpret the Act. Therefore I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment, but will be content with the assurance which I can give him on behalf of my right honourable friend that it is his policy and the policy of the Government, and I believe also the policy of the great majority of local authorities, to see that knowledge of the British Empire, its history and its future possibilities, is improved among the school children of this country.
LORD MOTTISTONE: May I ask a question? In replying to Lord Barnby the Minister said that technical education was mandatory. I take it that those who support this Amendment desire that knowledge of the British Empire shall also be mandatory. If a local education authority said, "We do not propose to teach the children anything about techni-

283
cal education," the Minister would say, "On the contrary, you have got to do so, we have given a Parliamentary pledge." What will happen if a local authority says, "We will not teach them anything about the British Empire"? What reply will they get?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We have already given a Parliamentary pledge. My right honourable friend has said that it is the policy of the Government and the desire of Parliament that knowledge of the British Empire shall be greatly improved. May I also say that, in his instructions to teachers, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education has included the duties of citizenship among the subjects that have to be taken, and knowledge of the British Empire is included under that heading.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would it not be possible to put it in a separate clause that knowledge of the British Empire shall form part of the curriculum, or whatever words may be selected? After all, the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Education, to-day has a great interest in this matter, but there may come a President of the Board of Education in the future who has not got the same interest in the Empire, and there is nothing in the Bill to bind him in any way whatsoever. If my noble friend could find some words which could be put into the Bill in a separate clause or subsection, that I am sure would meet our views.
LORD BARNBY: I am sure the indulgence of the Committee will be extended to anyone speaking on a question of education about the British Empire. Before Lord Bledisloe indicates what he will do with regard to the Amendment and before the noble Earl in charge of the Bill further replies, I may say that I appreciate the emphatic way in which he has emphasized the need for education of an extended character upon matters affecting the British Empire. We are all conscious of the sadly insufficient degree to which this has been done in the past. May I ask the noble Earl in reply to bear in mind the point raised by Lord Elibank who reminded the Committee of a statement made by Lord Halifax that the whole matter of the selection of subjects resided with the local authorities? Therein lies the anxiety underlying what has been said on this subject—namely, that while
284
the intentions of the Minister are that this and that shall be imposed, it may well be that succeeding Governments will find that the Board has not any commitment which under its mandatory instructions calls for an extended education on various matters, particularly the one under review, raised by Lord Bledisloe, which is of particular interest to the House.
EARL STANHOPE: There is a further point I should like to impress on my noble friend who talked about instructions to teachers. I feel very strongly that teachers, rightly, can be given great latitude, but when I was President of the Board of Education and was entitled to send out a handbook of suggestions for the consideration of teachers, it appeared that the matter was entirely in the hands of the teachers. That is why my noble friends, I think quite rightly, want this mandatory Amendment put in the Bill now before your Lordships' House, then it becomes obligatory on the local authorities and on the teachers to do what we now require.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we were all moved very deeply by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on the British Empire. The only trouble is that while he was speaking one had the uncomfortable feeling that one has when one hears a rocket bomb coming along, and waits for the engine to stop. One felt that in the end he was going to turn down the Amendment, which, of course, he did. I think that was a great disappointment to many of us in your Lordships' House. As many of your Lordships suggested, and the right reverend Bishop in particular said, so many of us before the war had really forgotten the pride we should be feeling in our Empire and Commonwealth. Too many people in this country were not only ignorant but were slightly ashamed of what we have done as they are of what we are doing at the present moment. To anyone who has had the privilege of travelling to the Empire or the Commonwealth as I have lately had, it has been tragic to find the appalling ignorance that we have about one another and what that leads to. At the present moment we are sending many people abroad and to the Dominions to do this or that job, and one finds in travelling about that some of the most excellent Englishmen going out there to do the job

285
do not know the simplest things about our Common wealth. The consequence is they make blunders and do a great deal of damage. I do hope the noble Earl will take this Amendment seriously. It may well be that the proposal as moved is in the wrong clause, but that is something which can easily be adjusted. I do ask that the views of so many in this House who feel most deeply about this matter shall have consideration.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I recognize the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House on this matter and indeed I share it, as I have already made quite clear. I pointed out that the Amendment moved by my noble friend would not be suitable and I hope I have made it clear to your Lordships that the word "curriculum" really does not occur in the Bill at all. Curriculum is dealt with by regulations. But I will between now and Report stage consult my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education and will convey to him your Lordships' strong views on this question and see whether what you desire, if it cannot be provided in the Bill, could be ensured—and that is all your Lordships care about —by regulation so that you should be satisfied on this subject.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: In the light of the statement which has just been made by the noble Earl, I do not wish to press my Amendment. I hope it may be possible that something in the way of a mandatory injunction (as my noble friend opposite has suggested) can be incorporated in the Bill before it receives the Royal Assent. I should like in passing, however, to say that I do not think most people would necessarily infer that instructions regarding the duties of citizenship involved knowledge of the British Empire. I would also suggest that unless a lead is given by our Education Department on this subject to the local education authorities and to the teachers, the wishes of your Lordships will not be adequately realized. One word finally to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He always plays with so straight a bat that I for my part stall never "queer his pitch."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (2) to substitute "part of this Act" for "section." The noble Lord said: This
286
is an Amendment of some importance but I am in a technical difficulty about it. I would ask your Lordships to look at page 5, line 15, which says:
"In fulfilling their duties under this section, a local education authority shall in particular have regard—"
Then it goes on to say that subject to certain conditions they shall have regard for enabling pupils to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. I wish to leave out the duties under this section in order to insert something wider but I admit there is a considerable difficulty in doing this. At the same time this is the opportunity for raising the subject and I feel bound to make use of it. This is really governed by a statement of the President of the Board of Education in another place in which he was pleased to note that his Amendment regarding the wishes of the parents was generally acceptable, but he added that while this appeared in this section the general duty would pervade the whole Bill. In my view it does not unfortunately pervade the whole Bill. On a matter of strict interpretation there are many occasions, notably under Clause 12 and others, where the need for having regard to the parents' wishes prevails just as much as under this Clause 8. So it is later in the Bill. I should like if possible to have this matter dealt with in a separate clause so that there would not be the difficulty of fitting a proper Amendment to this clause or any other particular clause.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I be allowed to interrupt, because I think I can possibly save time? The noble Lord says that the words of the clause are not wide enough and that they do not fulfil what the President claims for the Bill. May I tell him why I believe he is mistaken. Clause 8 (2) says:
"In fulfilling their duties under this section a local education authority shall in particular have regard—"
to the wishes of the parents. "Their duties" under this section are set out at the beginning of the clause. Subsection (1) says:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools—

(a) for providing primary education, that is to say, full time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils; and

(b) for providing secondary education …"

287
This clause covers the whole of primary education and the whole of secondary education. Then we have the provision that in fulfilling their duties under the section the local education authority shall have regard to the wishes of the parents. Therefore that admonition covers the whole of primary and secondary education.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I confess I do not quite see how that will cover the future establishment of a new school for example. The words of the 1902 Act specially laid down that the wishes of the parents should be taken into account on the provision of a new school. I do not think there is a repetition of that in this Bill. Words are wanted to govern not only the duties generally of the local education authorities under Clause 8, but also other duties which they will not necessarily have to discharge immediately. Moreover, nothing is said about the Minister having regard to the wishes of parents. I suggest that this general provision for having regard to the wishes of parents should be binding, subject of course to proper conditions, on the Minister as well as on the local authorities.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Surely the point in regard to a new school is answered by the words of subsection 1(a) which provides that it shall be the duty of every local education authority to provide primary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils, and in carrying out that duty they must secure that it is carried out in accordance with the wishes of the parents. The same consideration applies in regard to secondary schools.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Questions will arise about transport. Will this provision about having regard to the wishes of parents govern transport and medical attendance and all those matters on which parents may probably have a special desire? I cannot see that it will.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that that is so. I must remind my noble friend of the words of subsection (2) (b), which provides that a local authority shall have regard
"to the expediency of securing that, so far as is compatible with the need for providing efficient instruction and training and the
288
avoidance of unreasonable expense to the authority, provision is made for enabling pupils"
that is a wide term—
"to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
That enjoins on local authorities to do what they can within reason to meet the wishes of the parents.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I really think this is a matter for counsel's opinion. I confess I am not satisfied. The Minister has not said anything about a general declaration that the Minister also shall respect the wishes of the parents in his decision.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the Minister would really come into this. If any parent were aggrieved by any action of a local authority he would go to his Member of Parliament and the Minister would have to defend himself in the House of Commons for his action. I think my noble friend would agree that no Minister would like to stand up before the House of Commons—
EARL DE LA WARR: Or this House.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Still less this House, and confess to any form of religious intolerance.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This seems to be a matter of drafting. I am wholly impartial on this point, but I am not certain that the phrase goes far enough. I am not certain that Clause 12 ought not in part to be subject to the provision of Clause 8, and Clause 9 is a little confusing. I would suggest to the noble Earl that this matter should be further considered before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The President of the Board of Education distinctly stated that the wishes of the parents would pervade the whole Bill but the only place in which they are really referred to is this clause. Would not the noble Earl at least agree that it should be this part of the Act? I do not think it does pervade the whole Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I was advised that it did, but since the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has raised this question I would gladly undertake to consult my right honourable friend again between now and the Report

289
stage. If there is any doubt on the question he would agree to an Amendment to settle the matter beyond doubt.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I suggest that my noble friend should consider whether this point can be better dealt with by an Amendment to this clause or a new clause setting out with detail and care where parents come in and where they do not?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: As a matter of fact the question has not been put, but in view of what my noble friend has said I will not press the matter now. I was a little surprised at the ascription of such humble qualities to the Minister of Education or any other Minister in the House of Commons. From my twenty-six years experience I should say they evade awkward questions altogether, and turn them aside with a polite gesture if they are really pressed to answer.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
County schools, auxiliary schools, nursery schools, and special schools.
9.—(1) For the purpose of fulfilling their duties under this Act a local education authority shall have power to establish primary and secondary schools, to maintain such schools wt ether established by them or otherwise, and, so far as may be authorized by arrangements approved by the Minister, to assist any such school which is not maintained by them.
(2) Primary and secondary schools maintained by a local education authority, not being nursery schools or special schools, shall, if established by a local education authority or by a former authority be known as county schools and, if established otherwise than by such an authority be known as auxiliary schools:
Provided that any school which by virtue of any enactment repealed by this Act was to be deemed to be, or was to be treated as, a school provided by a former authority shall, notwithstanding that it was not in fact established by such an authority as aforesaid, be a county school.
(7) The Minister shall make regulations requiring local education authorities to secure that the school premises of every school maintained by them conform to such standards as may be prescribed
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (2), to leave out "auxiliary" and insert "managerial." The noble Earl said: Lord Rankeillour, who also has an Amendment on this, has asked that I should move my Amendment first. It would, I think, be for the convenience of
290
the Committee that I should do so. At any rate we should have to discuss the two Amendments together. It is suggested that the non-provided school is now to be termed "auxiliary" school. I maintain that "auxiliary" is a wrong and inaccurate term. I admit that the term I have put down is a dreadful one. I cannot say that I am enamoured of the word "managerial" at all. But at any rate it is more accurate than "auxiliary." What do we mean by "auxiliary"? My dictionary tells me that it means being helpful. Being helpful to what? What would be the position of the Government if the non-provided schools ceased tonight and failed to operate to-morrow? It is not a question of obtaining assistance in education. If the non-provided schools were to close, education in a large part of the country would cease altogether. As is made clear in the White Paper, there are actually more non-provided schools in the country than provided schools.
LORD LATHAM: But fewer scholars.
EARL STANHOPE: I quite agree. So in many country districts education would come to an end. As I say, therefore it is inaccurate to talk about "auxiliary" schools. "Auxiliary" surely has a rather derogatory and a rather patronizing sense. I think that here I shall have the support of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He will remember that when the Territorial Army was coming into being Lord Haldane made a great point of the fact that the term "Auxiliary Army" would come to an end and the Territorial Army would become one and the same with the Regular Army. He said that the change was made because "auxiliary" was thought to be patronizing and derogatory. I think that very much of the progress that was made with the Territorial Army was due to the abolition of that distinction. I do suggest that in this matter we should not use terms which are both inaccurate and derogatory. I have yet a third inspiration which is perhaps better than the other two, and that is that we should call these schools "non-county" schools. Instead of talking about "provided and non-provided schools" why not talk about "county" and "non-county" schools? That seems to me to be simpler, clearer and certainly more accurate and less derogatory than "auxiliary." I hope the Committee will agree that "auxiliary" should go.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Earl wish to move his Motion with the word "non-county" instead of "auxiliary"?
EARL STANHOPE: I prefer to do so if my noble friend will allow me.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("auxiliary") and insert ("non-county").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I must say that I cannot congratuate my noble friend on his nomenclature. I do not think "non-county" is a happy phrase, and I do not think that "managerial" is any better. "Auxiliary" may not be a very inspiring term, but so far as I am aware it is a term the use of which in this connexion has not been criticized to any extent in the numerous conferences that have taken place all over England and in the debates in another place. The word has been accepted and I think it fills the bill quite well until we can think of a better one. I do not believe that my noble friend has done so.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I earnestly hope that before the next stage of this Bill is reached we shall think of a better word. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, that the word "auxiliary" is unconvincing, but I am not quite satisfied that "non-county" is altogether convincing. I sit on a local education authority, and I am conscious that a very large proportion of these schools that are so inaptly described as "auxiliary" are really county schools also, and under a large measure of direct control by the local education authorities. I think that the nomenclature of this Bill is very unfortunate in many respects. We have previously criticized "young people's colleges" and I think it is a most unfortunate expression. That applies also to this term "auxiliary." After all this is a revising Chamber and surely it is up to us as a revising Chamber to find more apt words for these schools than have been introduced into this Bill.
LORD QUICKSWOOD: I do not know if I may be allowed to make an alternative suggestion,' but perhaps the word "founded" would correspond much more to the history of these schools than the words which have previously been suggested. These schools have all been
292
founded by private persons in one way or another, and to call them "founded schools" would distinguish them from county schools which are run by public authority.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Are other schools unfounded?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Perhaps my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment and the matter can be further considered. I cannot, however, hold out hopes that my right honourable friend is ready to depart from a phrase which has been discussed up and down the country and which has really taken its place in the politics of the day. But it will always be open to your Lordships to review the matter on the Report stage of the Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: I see no reason why just because this matter has been discussed for a few months this Bill, which is going to last, I hope, for many years, should not have included in it better terms than those which have been discussed recently. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I do not now move my Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert as a new clause:
Requirements as to school premises.
"—(1) The Minister shall make regulations prescribing the standards to which the premises of schools maintained by local education authorities are to conform, and such regulations may prescribe different standards for such descriptions of schools as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, it shall be the duty of a local education authority to secure that the premises of every school maintained by them conform to the standards prescribed for schools of the description to which the school belongs:
Provided that if the Minister is satisfied with respect to any school that having regard to the nature of the site or to any existing buildings thereon or to other special circumstances affecting the school it would be unreasonable in that case to require conformity with the requirements of the regulations in any particular respect, he may direct that the school premises shall be deemed to conform to the prescribed standards if in lieu of conforming to the requirements of the regulations in that respect they conform to such other requirements as may be specified in the direction."
The noble Earl said: The subsection as it stands is too narrow, since it requires

293
all maintained existing schools as well as future schools to conform to rigid standards. The remedy that is proposed in the new clause gives the Minister the power of modifying the building requirements within certain limitations. No Minister will be empowered to drive a coach and four through the building regulations but it is clearly essential that regulations which are intended to be his instructions should not become his master. For example, an existing school may be entirely suitable for its purpose, but the central hall may be ten feet short of the standard. In such case it would clearly be ridiculous to rebuild. The purpose of the clause is to allow the Minister some elasticity in the interpretation of the regulations.
Amendment moved—
Leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new clauee.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I ask one question? We are told by this Amendment that the premises shall conform to the standard prescribed for schools of the description to which the schools belong. I should like to ask whether those are permanent standards or whether they are standards which, in the light, for instance, of the difficulty of finding materials in the early future for the hasty erection of essential schools, can be varied and continuously varied to meet existing conditions. I want to enter a caveat with regard to this because in the county whence I come we have two or three most admirable schools built entirely of wood and because they are built entirely of wood it is possible to make extensions and to vary the type of structure much more rapidly co conform with the conditions existing from time to time. I hope that in the interpretation of this clause it will not be assumed that those standards are definite, permanent standards which cannot be varied.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I suggest to the noble Earl in charge of this Bill that it would be desirable to add, in the last few lines of his new clause, the words "from tine to time." It does seem, as Lord Bledisloe has suggested, that if there is a provision that the buildings must conform to the standards laid clown, they will have to do so for all time. If the words "from time to time," or words to that effect, were inserted, it would be clear that it would be only a temporary provision.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I shall certainly look into that point. I can assure my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that the regulations of the Minister of Education will not be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be altered. It will be within the power of the Minister to issue regulations from time to time, and to revise them in the light of any fresh knowledge or fresh circumstances.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Development plans as to primary and secondary schools.
(2) A local education authority, before submitting to the Minister the development plan for their area, shall take into consideration all schools available for providing primary and secondary education for pupils in the area, and the development plan for the area shall:
(a) specify …
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (g), to insert:
"(h) include information as to the size of classes which the authority propose as a maximum for the different stages of public education in their area; and"
The noble Earl said: If I present this Amendment to your Lordships very 'briefly, it is not because I underrate the importance of the subject, but because I believe that the tragedy of the over-large class is fully realized and that it is not necessary to make out a case for dealing with the problem. It may well be that His Majesty's Government have some other method that they desire to propose for dealing with the matter, but in the past, although we know that the question of the size of classes has theoretically been dealt with in the Code, in practice we also know that classes have gone up to forty, fifty and even larger. I would ask the noble Earl, therefore, either to accept this Amendment, which makes it obligatory on all local authorities to submit to the Minister, in presenting their scheme for education, the size of the classes that they propose, or else to tell the Committee what steps the Government intend to take in order to deal with this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 45, leave out ("and") and insert the said paragraph ("h").—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the answer to my noble friend is that he has put the cart before the horse, if I may use colloquial terms. It is not for the local education authority to tell the Minister what the size of the classes is; it is for the Minister to tell the local education authority what the size of classes is to be, and the local education authority will have to provide buildings which enable them to carry out those instructions. I think that that is the answer to the suggestion.
EARL DE LA WARR: Is the noble Earl prepared to give an undertaking that the Minister will in fact put out regulations for dealing with the size of classes?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes. The Minister will put out regulations limiting the size of classes, but when he puts out those regulations he must of course have regard to the building conditions of the moment. It would not be possible for him to-day, for instance, to put out regulations such as he would hope to be able to put out in two or three years' time, after the necessary buildings have been completed; but the Minister will put out regulations specifying what the size of classes is to be.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that the noble Earl has made out the case for some such Amendment as I propose, because it is recognized that, in the present state of buildings, if the Minister makes regulations he will have to do so on an unduly generous scale, because of the existing shortage of buildings. There may be many local authorities, however, who are in a position to have smaller classes straight away, and I suggest that this more flexible machinery is more suitable for dealing with the situation at the present moment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think that it is unnecessary to include this in the Bill as a function to be fulfilled by the local education authority. Every authority will have to submit its development plan to the Ministry, and, of course, if some authorities are able to have smaller classes than others it is to be hoped that they will not fail to take advantage of that. I do not see, however, how we can provide for that in an Act of Parliament, and I do not think that my noble
296
friend contemplates it. The point that I was making was that the maximum size of classes will be fixed by regulation, and that where local authorities are able to have a better figure than the maximum I think we can agree that they will be glad to take advantage of that fact.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I hope that this will receive the very earnest attention of the Minister, and I have no doubt that it will. I said something about the size of these classes on the Second Reading. I am not concerned with whether this is the right place for dealing with it, but I hope that a firm line will be taken, and that there will not be easy yielding to the difficulties of building. They must be considered, but the kind of permits given by the Ministry of Works may in part depend on the kind of regulations the Minister issues.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If I understand this clause aright, I understand that this is a case in which the local education authority submits a plan for supplying the necessary schools for the consideration of the Minister of Education, and in submitting that plan these authorities are directed to give a great number of details, which are set out in this clause, as to the proposals which they make. Is not it right that they should include the number of pupils proposed for each class to enable the Minister to judge whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is right to allow schools with that number of pupils in each class to be built or not? I may have misunderstood the clause.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think so, because the wording of the Amendment is:
"include information as to the size of classes which the authority propose as a maximum for the different stages of public education in their area."
I do not think that the children of Surrey ought to have a different standard from the children of Sussex. Surely it is for the Minister to fix the standards and for the local authority to make such arrangements as are possible to conform with those standards. That is what I meant by my rather irreverent expression to my noble friend.
LORD GORELL: In supplementation of what fell from the most reverend Primate,

297
I ask the Government to bear in mind that it is a question not only of the provision of buildings but also of the provision of teachers. That seems to be quite inadequately recognized.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord is quite right on that point.
EARL DE LA WARR: After what the noble Earl has said, if he would not mind making it clear that he has given an undertaking that the Minister will make himself responsible for putting out regulations on this subject I would ask leave to withdraw.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Certainly. My right honourable friend will make himself responsible for issuing regulations as to the size of classes. I can assure the most reverend Primate that it will be his endeavour to get those classes down to the proper size as soon as circumstances allow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to
Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Classification of auxiliary schools as controlled schools, aided school, or special agreement schools.
(3) The managers or governors of a controlled school shall not be responsible for any of the expenses of maintaining the school, but the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the maintenance of aided schools and special agreement schools:
(a) the following expenses shall be payable by the managers or governors of the school, that is to say,
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning of paragraph (a), to insert "subject to the provisions contained in Section ninety-six." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment. I think your Lordships will see if you refer to subsection (3) (a) that it appears that the school managers are entirely responsible for the maintenance of the building, and it is not until you get to the financial clauses of the Bill that you discover that the Minister is going to pay half the cost. I think it would be easier for those who study the Bill in the ordinary way if their attention were called to the fact that the Minister proposes to pay half by putting
298
in these words which I propose in my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 34, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend, because my reaction to reading this Bill for the first time was exactly the same as his apparently when he did so. It is not very obvious to the layman, but I am advised that the Amendment that my noble friend suggests would be very bad drafting and would necessitate a lot of other Amendments, which would only complicate the Bill and produce even more confusion in the end. I believe it was my noble friend who on the Second Reading congratulated the Government on the excellent drafting of the Bill, and I think the Bill is indeed a masterpiece of lucid drafting; it is amazingly lucid and entirely precise.
EARL STANHOPE: I qualified that by saying "from the Parliamentary point of view," not from the outsider's point of view.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think that in all these matters the outsider must be provided with a handbook. It is no good giving him an Act of Parliament and telling him to get on with it. I have no doubt that my noble friend will provide a handbook for the use of local education authorities. I hope therefore my noble friend will not press his Amendment, as I am told it is unnecessary and would he very bad drafting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I understand it is the general wish that we should adjourn at about this hour, and I think we have now got to a stage in the Bill where it would be convenient to do so, because I think the next Amendment is a matter that will require probably a good deal of discussion. Therefore if your Lordships agree I would beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.
LORD PORTSEA: My Lords, I beg to ask the starred question which stands in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will arrange that a contingent of Island troops, senior and other ranks, be at once made ready and available for the coming redemption of the Norman Islands and to act for the protection and safety of the inhabitants in view of the large number of alien prisoners of war in the islands.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, due consideration has been given to the fact that there are in the Channel Islands a large number of alien prisoners of war and everything possible will of course be done for the protection and safety of the inhabitants. The composition of any Allied garrison must depend on the military situation at the time. Men from the Channel Islands are, as the noble Lord is aware, serving in many different units. In order to raise a contingent composed of them it would be necessary to withdraw them from their present duties. On military grounds it is not considered that this course would be justified.
LORD PORTSEA: Is the noble Lord aware that there are very many hundreds of Norman Islanders in this country who are over military age, but all trained men, who would be only too glad to volunteer and to go to the Islands for the purpose mentioned in my question?
LORD CROFT: I am afraid that if there are Channel Islanders who are over military age and not actively engaged in the Forces that would make it still more undesirable that they should be used for this particular purpose at a vital moment in operations. But I can assure my noble friend that everything possible will be clone and that his point is very clearly in our minds.

LAND ACQUISITION AND CONTROL.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government the date when they propose to introduce legislation dealing with the acquisition and control of land for planning purposes; and whether they intend to issue a White Paper on compensation and betterment at the same time.]
THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question as to the date when His Majesty's Government propose to introduce legislation dealing with the acquisition and control of land for building purposes is that that legislation was introduced in another place to-day. As to the second part of the question, the noble Lord will understand my not being too precise about the matter, but I think I might say this White Paper will be issued shortly after 2 o'clock on Thursday of this week.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WARRINGTON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
CHESTERFIELD AND BOLSOVER WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER, &c.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.