Lords Sitting of 27 June 1944

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

EDUCATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Education Bill. In doing so I would like to address myself to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, at our last sitting. The question he asked was where in the Bill is power given to the Minister to make regulation as to the curriculum. The answer is to be found in subsection (3) of Clause 94, which provides that any regulations made by the Minister may specify the conditions subject to which grants shall be paid. In this connexion I would remind your Lordships that the present regulations governing the conduct and curriculum of schools of various types are made under Section 118 of the Education Act of 1921. That is the section which corresponds to Clause 94 of the present Bill.
I should like to give to the House an example of references to the curriculum which are found in such regulations. In the Board's grant regulations No. 10 made under Section 118 of the 1921 Act there occurs the following article:
"Except with the previous permission of the Board, adequate provision must be made for instruction in the English language and literature, at least one language other than English, geography, history, mathematics, science, drawing, singing, manual instruction in the case of boys, domestic subjects in the case of girls, physical exercises and for organized games."
That is an example of the type of regulation at present being made for secondary schools. As I reminded your Lordships the other day, any future regulations of this sort that may be made will, in accordance with the provision of Clause
424
105 of the Bill, have to be laid before Parliament and will be subject to cancellation if a Resolution against them is passed by either House.
There was a further point made by Lord Rankeillour. He asked in effect whether Clause 105, which brings regulations made by the Minister within the purview of Parliament, could not be rendered nugatory by the Minister's withdrawing a regulation and substituting for it an order or direction under Clause 104. When the noble Lord first asked me that question I said I thought the Minister could not do that. I then subsequently corrected myself, but I now find that my original statement was correct. I am advised that this could not be done because, where a Statute gives power to do anything by regulations, it can only be done by regulations and not otherwise. Any regulations, therefore, can only be revoked or amended by a subsequent regulation, and that subsequent regulation must itself be laid before Parliament and is subject to cancellation by Parliament in the same way as the original regulation. That, I hope, disposes of the qualms of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. I should say that that does not apply in the case of a regulation which is made for a limited period. If the regulation is made for a limited period of course it expires by effluxion of time. But if the regulation is not so limited it can only be altered or revoked by another regulation.
In regard to the question asked by the noble viscount, Lord Sankey, I would like to make this point for the consideration of your Lordships. Up till now the control by the Board of Education has been exercised through the medium of grant, and the withholding of the grant is the sanction. The present Bill proposes to continue that system. It has been found perfectly adequate in the past. It limits the power of the Minister of Education but in my view gives him all the power he requires. I think that if there was a clause in the Bill giving him wider powers of making regulations it might lead to serious interference with the local education authorities and schools. I would remind your Lordships that a large measure of autonomy on the part of the local authorities and schools has always been a feature of our education system, and the Government is very anxious to preserve that feature if possible. Therefore we do not propose to extend in

425
principle the machinery of regulation by which the President of the Board of Education has up to now worked.
Moved, That the House do now resolve into Committee.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT SANKEY: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Does the clause that a regulation can only be revoked by a subsequent regulation apply to all Departments? Does it rest on any Statute or merely on the practice of Parliament?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I speak on that matter subject to correction in the presence of much greater authorities than myself but I believe it rests on the practice of Parliament.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 38 [Enforcement of school attendance]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6), and insert:
"(4) Where proceedings have been instituted for an offence against the last foregoing section alleged to have been committed in respect of any child and it appears to the officer by whom the proceedings were instituted on behalf of the local education authority that there is reasonable cause to believe that the punishment of die parent would not be sufficient for the purpose of securing the regular attendance of the child at school it shall be his duty to apply to the court for a direction under the last foregoing subsection and where application is so made such a direction shall be given unless the court is satisfied that no such direction is necessary for the purpose aforesaid.
(5) For the purposes of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, any child with respect to whom a direction has been given under this section that he be brought before a juvenile court shall be deemed to be a child about to be brought, or brought before such a court under Section sixty-two of that Act and any order made by a juvenile court under this section shall be deemed to be an order made under that section, and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly, but subject to the modification that in relation to any such child subsection (1) of Section sixty-seven of the said Act shall have effect as if the words 'A constable, or' were omitted therefrom."
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 45, leave out from the beginning to the end of the clause and insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): Perhaps I may explain that in our previous proceedings the whole of the consequential proposal was not put from the Chair. We adopted the first half, the second half might have been adopted at the same time. This is merely consequential upon the proposal before the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39:
General duties of local education authorities with respect to further education.
39. Subject as hereinafter provided, it shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education, that is to say:

(a) full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age; and

(b) leisure-time occupation, in such organized cultural training and recreative activities as are suited to their requirements, for any persons over compulsory school age who are able and willing to profit by the facilities provided for that purpose:

Provided that the provisions of this section shall not empower or require local education authorities to secure the provision of facilities for further education otherwise than in accordance with schemes of further education or at young people's colleges.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in paragraph (a), after "education," to insert "including instruction in homecraft and technical subjects." The noble Earl said: Those of your Lordships who are country landowners and are accustomed to visit the homes of those you employ will agree with me when I say it is our common experience to go into a house and find it beautifully kept, the children very well turned out and the whole house like a new pin; and then to go next door into a similar house, occupied by a man who is being paid perhaps the same or even higher wages and with perhaps a smaller family, and there to find clothes scattered all over the floor, food lying about and the children by no means looking either as well turned out or as well in health as those of their neighbour. In the one case it is due to the wife being a good manager and knowing how to lay out the weekly wage to the best advantage and in the other case to the wife being

427
without those qualities. In the first case you have a house which the husband and the children have every right to call home and a home to be proud of, whereas next door it is exactly the reverse.
When I was President of the Board of Education I asked why it was that there were so many cases where cookery and homecraft were deficient. I was told it was largely due to the fact that, although cookery was taught in our schools, by the time the child had grown up and married and got a family of her own, she had entirely forgotten how to cook. That explanation did not satisfy me, for the simple reason that a boy learns carpentry at school and remembers something about his carpentry all his life. I can see no reason why a girl should forget all about her cookery. It seemed to me that there was something wrong, so I set up a Committee to inquire into the whole matter, but unfortunately the war intervened before any further action could be taken.
I entirely agree with those of your Lordships who place great importance on milk in schools and also of meals in schools, but as I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill it is only one of the meals of the day and there are others. The important meal in an ordinary working-class family is what is called high tea. A great many of us are inclined to forget that every German between the ages of twenty-six and forty-four was either an adolescent or was born during the time of the blockade in the last war, when there was a real food shortage in Germany. Therefore if giving meals to children makes a difference, that in one case a child grows up into a weakling and in another case into a strong and healthy man, the Germans obviously would be an unhealthy race. I do not think there is any member of your Lordships' House who would say that for one moment. It would obviously be wishful thinking for one thing and for another it depreciates the credit due to our gallant troops and those of our Allies in the victories they have won and are going to win against the Germans. The best feeding at schools will not guarantee that you will get a healthy race, nor the lack of it that you will get an unhealthy one.
Therefore I maintain that what is necessary is that the wife and mother should
428
be taught how to get the best out of the money she receives, how to lay it out to the best advantage, how to buy what is cheap at the moment, and then how to cook it and to keep her house and her children in order. If I may quote my own experience, shortly after the last war a demobilized officer asked me if he could buy fruit and vegetables from my garden to retail in the outskirts of London, and he went to other gardens in the vicinity. We all agreed to sell him fruit and vegetables at wholesale prices. We thought he had got a very good business and was likely to build up a good connexion with the van and to sell these things cheap in the suburbs of London. He failed, and the reason why was that he would go into a street and say that at that moment there was a glut of, say, plums and the price was extremely low. But "No," said the housewife, she wanted not plums but apples. But apples were not in season. And it was the same with regard to vegetables. Go to France and you will there find that the housewife will go to the local market, look round and see what is in good condition and what is cheap, and that is what she will buy. I want the same sort of thing done in England—not necessarily that the housewife should have to go to market but that she should be taught at school and in the colleges (because I think it is necessary to carry on this instruction after a girl has left school) in order that she should learn how to lay out her money on food to the best advantage and, having done so, how to cook it in the best possible way.
A friend of mine once said that he had been having a survey into the incidence of tuberculosis, and in the area of the county which he visited he found that in most places it was very bad indeed, but he found one oasis where there was practically none. He sought out the medical officer of health and asked why this was so. The medical officer's reply was this: "When I first came here this was one of the blackest spots in this part of the country. I got hold of the local headmaster and said So far as I can see the women in this area hardly know how to make a cup of tea. I want to teach them how to make nutritious and cheap dishes.' So he applied to the local authority for the necessary cooking pots and pans and he was told that that was no part of education." Well, they were

429
not to be defeated. They bought the material, made their saucepans and frying pans and proceeded to teach the women of that area how to make dishes such as Lancashire hot-pot, toad-in-the-hole and so on. The women were glad to learn and still more glad were the men that the women knew how to cook these dishes. The result was that the health of that area went up and they had the strength then to throw off the tubercle—which, after all, I am told 8o per cent. of us have got in our system but which does not take effect because we have the strength to resist it.
I think that is a real proof of what can be done in the way of teaching home-craft. I do not want merely the teaching of cooking. I well remember visiting a great agricultural college in Canada with the father of the noble Earl, Lord Grey, when he was Governor-General and there we were given lunch, with other members of the staff, cooked by two of the girls under instruction at that agricultural college. They were given a certain sum of money and they had to cook for the staff for a week. That meant that they had to lay out their money to cover the cost of nutrition for that week, and they were judged according to the results which they produced. So far as my experience went on that one occasion, I can only say that the results were extremely good. That is the sort of thing that wants doing.
The same thing applies with regard to technical training. Many of your Lordships have already remarked that unless the people of this country are fully equipped with technical knowledge we have no chance whatever of regaining our foreign trade, still less of increasing it, which is essential. My noble friend Lord Barnby has an Amendment which follows this, on which he has asked me to speak, as he is unable to be here himself to-day, and which goes further in regard to the training of an adequate number of technologists and research workers. That is a further development, but at any rate it is on the same lines.
My noble friend Lord Selborne will very likely say that both these subjects, homecraft and technical education, are covered under the word "education." I want more than that. I want him to say that the Minister of Education will lay special emphasis on these two
430
subjects. In the ordinary phraseology of the educational world, the former is called "domestic science"—I never quite know why "science," I always understood that cookery was an art; but let that pass. But neither domestic science nor technical education is a popular subject with educationists. They are not popular subjects either with the local education authority or with the teachers. The reason is obvious. In both cases the cost of buildings for teaching cookery, still more for teaching technical subjects, is very high, and therefore, when there is a question of keeping down the rates, naturally the local authorities are inclined to look at the things that cost most and to leave these out. Secondly in regard to teachers. Teachers who can teach these two subjects are the most difficult of all to find. Owing to the nature of their training the ordinary teachers have never had a chance of cooking and doing for a working-class family for a week. They go from their secondary school either to the university or direct to the training college, and then come back as teachers, never having had to do for a working-class family, as I say, or to lay out money to the best advantage and produce food in the right way.
It is still more so in regard to technical education. Not every technician can impart his knowledge to somebody else. Few ordinary school teachers get the chance of acquiring technical knowledge and technical proficiency. Unless they have got that proficiency, obviously the instruction they can give to the children is going to have small effect. Therefore, both the local education authority and the teaching profession are rather inclined to shy at these subjects, and unless special pressure is brought by the President of the Board of Education to see that these two subjects are included in the curriculum, and in fact dealt with, they are those which are likely to be most neglected. Many of your Lordships will have read the speech made by Lord Horder yesterday which is reported in The Times to-day. Everything I have said on these two subjects, particularly on cookery and homecraft, was better said by Lord Horder yesterday than by me to-day. At any rate, everyone of us would agree that homecraft—which is a name I prefer to "domestic science"—is essential for the future health of this country and technical education is

431
equally indispensable if we are going to hold our own in the trade of the world once the war has been won. They are both important subject, and unless we get some really specific assurance from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, I feel we are doing the cause of education a great disservice, and possibly doing much to hinder the improvement in health and the virtue we hope to achieve by improved housing, leading to the general happiness of the country, if we do not press for these things to be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 22, after ("education") insert ("including instruction in homecraft and technical subjects").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend Lord Stanhope has rendered a valuable service in drawing attention to the importance of this subject. Many of us have felt that one of the great failures of our education system in the past has been that it has turned out not only too many black-coated workers, but also men and especially women who are quite uneducated in those fundamentally important subjects about which the noble Earl has spoken. It is a travesty of an education system to ignore those aspects of the education of the people. For that reason I am very glad that the noble Earl has stressed the importance of the subjects; but, as he himself anticipated, I am going to suggest to your Lordships that it would be very clumsy drafting, to put it at its lowest, to mention one or two particular subjects, however important, in the Bill, which after all, as I have reminded your Lordships before, is merely creating a piece of machinery. It is a well-known rule of drafting that if you once start mentioning things, anything you do not mention is, by implication, not provided for in the Bill, or at any rate it can be so argued. Therefore, a good draftsman always tries to achieve his purpose with a general phrase instead of giving a list of all the subjects that a Bill is intended to cover, because there might be no end to that process. Once my noble friend started to lead us down the slippery slope by mentioning subjects which are to be included in education, we should be getting into really serious difficulties, and we should turn what is an extremely well-drafted Bill into a Bill which might lead to all sorts of trouble when it
432
came to be interpreted in the Courts. Therefore, there are solid objections to the course suggested by the noble Earl in his Amendment.
He asked me for an assurance or something more than an assurance. I have no difficulty in giving him that at all. If the noble Earl has studied the White Paper on Education, as I am sure he has, he will have seen that there is nobody keener on this particular aspect of education than the present President of the Board of Education and his advisers.
EARL STANHOPE: I think that is true as regards technical education, but as regards homecraft and domestic science, so-called, I do not think that is mentioned.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble friend is mistaken in that respect. Let me give him this instance. Up to now secondary schools have all been, in the popular mind at any rate, lumped together. It has been left to my right honourable friend in his new education policy to devise three categories of secondary school—the grammar school, the technical school, and the modern school. It is precisely in such subjects as the noble Earl has spoken about that the modern school will specialize, and therefore in preaching his doctrine to my right honourable friend he is really preaching temperance to Pussyfoot, if I may put it that way; he is preaching not only to the converted but to the apostle. One of the great objects which the Government have in mind in this new education policy is to correct what we all admit to have been a very serious blemish in our education system in the past, and to provide in the modern school just that type of education to which my noble friend rightly attaches so much importance.
He made a very pertinent point when he said, "How are you going to do that with the old type of teacher or rather the teacher who has not got the particular qualifications to teach these subjects?" Under the new system there will be an immense addition to the teaching staff. A tremendous amount of new blood is coming into the teaching profession, and I can assure my noble friend that, in selecting the new teachers, great care will be taken that they will be able to teach those subjects which will be taught in the modern school. I can not only give my noble friend that

433
assurance, but can assure him also that this great instrument is designed very largely to achieve the very thing that he wishes to achieve. I ask him not to press his Amendment, because it would mean very bad drafting and would lead us into all sorts of difficulties.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think any of as can question the point which the noble Earl has just made. It is a recognized rule of drafting that by particularizing special points one cannot help minimizing other points. There still remains, however, the point which the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has made. Nobody for a moment questions that the subjects mentioned by the noble Earl—homecraft and other technical subjects—are in fact included in the definition of education; we have had the Minister's assurance on that point at the beginning of the discussions on this Bill. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is, however, that as this clause stands at the moment the teaching of those subjects is permissive. For a variety of reasons, in the past they have been neglected by the local education authorities, and it is the local education authorities and not the Minister who will carry out this Bill. Would not it be possible to meet the point raised by the noble Earl by the inclusion of words of the type which he suggested in the regulations under Clause 94 (3)? I think that that would meet the noble Earl's point, and at the same time it would not incur the disadvantage referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like to endorse what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has just said. I think that this is a case in respect of which a regulation might quite confidently be promised. After all, we have had a certain amount of domestic science teaching in our schools—to some extent in our elementary schools and very markedly in our secondary schools. This, however, is an entirely new departure; we are dealing with that section of the Bill which refers to further education, and what exactly "further education" means we have not yet been told specifically. We might very usefully draw attention to the sort of further education that we want our young people to absorb and that we want to see provided by our local education authorities. Incidentally, I may say that this sort of teaching for adolescents is
434
being provided by Governments in the Antipodes to a greater extent than in this old country. I notice that the noble Earl talked about cooking as being an art, and said that domestic science would not necessarily embrace the art of cooking. I should like to go further and emphasize the importance of both science and art as applied to domestic activities and domestic instruction. If there is one thing more than another that our young wives do not understand in this country it is food values. That is undoubtedly a scientific subject and ought to be taught to our young people if they are usefully to apply the art of cooking.
LORD KENILWORTH: I should like to raise a point in connexion with this question of technical education. I do not think it is appreciated how valuable a source of such education is provided by apprenticeship in industrial establishments. I have in mind a proper system whereby indentures are signed and the employer undertakes to teach a boy the whole of his trade from A to Z, and does not merely regard him as a form of cheap labour, but takes him from department to to department. At the end of his period of apprenticeship, the boy has probably shown ability in certain directions and is promoted to be a member of a particular department. In engineering industry, the design department is supposed to represent the height of a boy's ambition when he enters industry.
I think that if the advantages of apprenticeship were more thoroughly emphasized by those responsible for education, and if a real effort were made to interest employers in that development, a great service would be done to the country; we should turn out craftsmen and not merely machine-minders. I would remind the Committee that the great reputation of British engineering rested in the past on craftsmanship pure and simple, whereas in this machine age that seems to have been largely lost; but a man who thoroughly understands his trade, whether it be engineering, weaving, printing or anything else, is in a very much better position to look after his future than he would be otherwise. A youth who goes through such a form of apprenticeship would of course be allowed time away from the works to improve his education, and a good employer—and I used to class myself as one—would offer him rewards for doing well and for taking a first-class certificate from

435
the educational authorities. Armed with such a certificate, and having served his apprenticeship, such a boy would have no difficulty in obtaining employment anywhere in the world; whereas, as the Committee is aware, a young man who goes abroad after being employed in a casual manner beforehand is simply one of the crowd. I would emphasize the importance of this to the Board of Education.
Dealing with girls, there should be no difficulty in apprenticing them to various businesses and trades. In the case of domestic matters, I should like to suggest that these girls should be apprenticed to what I should call a domestic training establishment, and from such a domestic training establishment I am sure that housekeepers all over the world would be delighted to recruit their staffs. I realize that a girl wants to get on, and cannot always find a suitable position in the establishment in which she is first engaged, but she might be able to come back to it after gaining more experience. I should like to emphasize this question of the value of technical education and of the great services which can be rendered both to education and to industry in this country by the encouragement of apprenticeship.
EARL STANHOPE: My noble friend Lord Selborne accused me of having led him up the garden path. I am not sure that he did not try to lead your Lordships up the garden path, because I was dealing with young people's colleges and not with the types of secondary schools to which he referred. My Motion relates to young people's colleges and in that particular he was not dealing with the point under consideration. I realized, of course, that he was likely to say that these matters ought not to be specially dealt with in the Bill and should be dealt with by regulation, and that if you put in any particular subjects there would always be a demand for others to be mentioned. I hope my noble friend will remember that when we come to a later clause where a number of subjects are mentioned. In regard to this particular Amendment, however, I am content with the assurance given and I hope it will be carried out. I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in the proviso, to substitute "county colleges" for "young people's colleges." The noble Earl said: I think everyone will agree that the term "young people's college" is a wrong one. As I said on Second Reading, whoever heard of old people's colleges or middle-age colleges? Surely when we want continuity of education the simple thing is to go to a county school or auxiliary school and then to a county school. That shows that the natural flow will be from primary school to secondary school and from secondary school to college. If you use the same term throughout it shows definitely that there is that expected flow. I cannot imagine that the new generation are likely to enjoy being called "young people." It seems to me very patronizing and rather to follow a pat on the head and the remark "I hope you will do well when you get to your new college." It would be simpler and more logical to call them "county colleges."
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 32, leave out ("young people's") and insert ("county").—(Earl Stanhope.)
EARL DE LA WARR,EARL DE LA WARR, who had given Notice to move, in the proviso, to leave out "young people's" and insert "part-time," said: I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I mention my Amendment to substitute "part-time" for "young people's." My noble friend and myself agree, and I rather gather most of your Lordships also agree, in dislike of the term "young people's." The noble Earl has suggested the word "county." Personally I prefer that to "young people's," but on the other hand I think there is something to be said for the perfectly descriptive term "part-time." That is what these colleges are going to be and what I suggest we should call them.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Nomenclature is always difficult and I am very much inclined to agree with both noble Earls that the term "young people's college" is not a completely happy one, but I would point out to your Lordships that in common parlance the term will never be used. These colleges will always be known by the localities in which they are situated. There will be the Basingstoke College, the Stamford College or the Alton College. The term "young people's

437
college" is a legislative term, a generic term, whereas the school itself will be simply the Basingstoke College. That is where the esprit de corps or the traditions will be built up. Therefore "young people's college" will not pass into the ordinary English vocabulary, but will be retained far lawyers as a statutory term. Therefore I think it is easy to exaggerate the importance of the name. One objection to the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is that the Bill provides for count; schools. If you have county schools and county colleges, two totally different types of institution, you might possibly get a good deal of confusion.
EARL STANHOPE: Why?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Because you would have a similar name.
EARL STANHOPE: Surely the argument that the institution will be called the Basingstoke College applies to that?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, but not in official documents.
EARL STANHOPE: Am I to understand that local authorities and Government officials cannot differentiate between a school and a college?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, but when the matter is being discussed in Parliament or at meetings of county councils or local education authorities, there might be a certain amount of confusion. That is the reason why the term "county" was not adopted. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, thinks that "part-time" would be a better -term but I do not think that is very inspiring either, l suggest that there would be serious disadvantage in changing at this stage a label, whatever its limitations, which has been the label used up to now in a thousand and one discussions all over the country. Local authorities, teachers' associations and other bodies in discussing this matter have always used, up to now, the term "young people's colleges." I think it would be a pity to alter it now for what is really only a matter of taste, particularly, as I have said, when these colleges are likely to be known by the name of the locality. The Amendments standing in the names of the two noble Earls really appear mutually destructive.
EARL DE LA WARR: I understand that really the only argument for the name "young people's colleges" is that
438
nobody will use it. It is a strange argument to put forward in favour of it. I see a serious danger of the noble Earl trying to divide our forces and therefore, although I prefer the term "part-time," I am going to support my noble friend if he presses his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: I cannot say I am convinced by what my noble friend has said. I have the very highest opinion of local authorities and teachers and I cannot think they are going to get confused between county schools and county colleges. That being so I propose to press my Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I make an appeal to my noble friend? It may be that your Lordships will decide; if he presses his Amendment, that his term is better than the one put forward by the Government and which has been used hitherto, but I would suggest that it would be better not to settle the matter in the Committee stage. Now that the matter has been raised and your Lordships have had the opportunity of considering the pros and cons, I venture to suggest that that matter could perfectly well be pressed on the Report stage and that it would be desirable to have a short interval elapsing between the two stages for the further consideration of the subject.
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid that I do not agree. I have had a good deal of experience of this House—nearly forty years of it—and I know that the proper time to make Amendments is in the Committee stage. There are always a certain number of other Amendments that have to be dealt with on the Report stage, and when we find that there are any left over to the Third Reading that is when we may get into real trouble, because it has been agreed that any Amendment to be made on the Third Reading must appear on the Paper and therefore it might be too late to suggest anything further. I propose to stick to my Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has used the argument that we should not alter this unfortunate term because it has been used up and down the country in recent weeks since this Bill was first drafted and presented to the House of Commons. I hope that that argument will not be

439
used in your Lordships' House in future. After all, this is but a Bill, and there are two Houses of Parliament. If this House is going to perform its function of revision with any sincerity we should not be swayed, by any arguments to the effect that the term may have been bruited about the country while the Bill was still in draft before it is passed, in order to affect any such Amendment as we may choose to make.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lord Cecil): Perhaps I may say one word before your Lordships proceed to vote on this, if that is your decision. In the last words which my noble friend Lord Selborne spoke he did use what I thought was a material argument. He said that if this matter was left until the Report stage that would give time for further consideration by the Government of the views expressed in Committee. No doubt what that means in effect is that he will report to the responsible Minister what has been said here. Your Lordships are losing absolutely nothing by postponing this until the Report stage. If it is possible in the interval to find an agreed solution, well and good; if not, well in that case no doubt your Lordships will vote as you think best. It seems to me that it will be a pity if the noble Earl presses the matter to a Division, after the Minister in charge has already said that he wishes time for a little further consideration of the arguments used in Committee to-day.
EARL STANHOPE: Surely we cannot keep on postponing this. It is a waste of your Lordships' time, and we should but repeat on the Report Stage all the arguments used to-day. Surely if your Lordships have made up your minds we can divide about this thing now. If the Minister has got other views and a better name to put forward he can still do it on the Report stage. But a fortnight has elapsed since the Second Reading, when I mentioned this matter particularly and said that I was going to move an Amendment to this effect. I really cannot see why the Minister wants further time now.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: This is a matter of individual taste and not one on which Parties would vote as Parties. For my
440
own part I would say, as I said on the Second Reading, that I consider the expression "young people's colleges," a most unhappy one—it is unduly sentimental and patronizing. As to the alternative I do not see that it is possible in colloquial language for these colleges to be named after the locality in which they are situated. If there is one in Manchester you could not call it the Manchester College.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You could call it the Trafford Park College.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: If there were such colleges in Oxford and Cambridge you could not name them the Oxford College and the Cambridge College. In many other places which already have old-established educational institutions called colleges there would be difficulties. There may be grammar schools which often are named after the locality and are called colleges. In any case it would not be a generic term and you must have a generic term. So far I do not think we have had anything better than "county" suggested, though I admit that "part-time" is better than "young people's." If the noble Earl presses his Amendment I shall vote with him. If there is to be reconsideration between now and the Report stage, and the Government can think of anything better after your Lordships have recorded your view to-day, they can bring it to the notice of your Lordships then.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Of course the local education authority in a great many cases will be a county borough and not the education authority of the county council. I do not know if the noble Earl really thinks that "county college" would be an appropriate title for a college administered by a county borough. It is a nice point.
EARL STANHOPE: I have considered the point and I imagine that the Government have considered it too, because they talk about county schools although they are run by county boroughs.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not now move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The passing of this Amendment involves some consequential verbal Amendments.
EARL STANHOPE: May the officers of the House be given authority that the consequential Amendments shall be made in the course of reprinting the Bill before the Report stage? If that is done, it will save a great deal of time and also paper which might be used in circulating further Amendments.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That would clearly be the most convenient course.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41:
Young people's colleges.
41.—(1) On and after such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council determine, not later than three years after the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act, it shall be the duty of every local education authority to establish and mainain young people's colleges, that is to say, centres approved by the Minister for providing for young persons who are not in full time attendance at any school or other educational institution such further education, including physical practical and vocational training, as will enable them to develop their various aptitudes and capacities and will prepare them for the responsibilities of citizenship.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (1), after "training," to insert "and (subject to any regulations made by the Minister under subsection (4) of this section) religious education." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to bring Clause 41 into agreement with what I conceive to be the spirit of this Bill. I take it that the spirit of the Bill is to train character through religion, and in this clause as now drafted there is not a word about religion. I would add this. I was very much impressed by the arguments used by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and also in another form by Lord Quickswood, about the point that it is just after boys and girls leave school that they are most in need of religious instruction, and often the young people in these colleges are not in any way provided for in that respect. I dare say the same argument may be used as was used on a previous Amendment: that if you put in a specific provision you will invite others to be put in. But in this particular clause there is a specific provision already in the words "including physical practical and vocational training."
Therefore the drafting vice, if it be a vice, is already in the clause, and I submit
442
that if you are going to give a lead at all you should give a lead to religious training rather than to physical, practical and vocational training. Of course I quite understand that there will be difficulties in applying this principle to county colleges because of course the time is limited; there is the competition of other subjects and the like. Therefore I have specially put in on that account "subject to any regulations made by the Minister under subsection (4) of this section." I am the more willing to do that because I know now on high authority that a regulation will not only be subject to the consent of Parliament but will not be revokable without such consent. But I do suggest that if for no more than to give a lead to the Minister and to Parliament on the subject of religion my Amendment is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 34, after ("training") insert ("and (subject to any regulations made by the Minister under subsection (4) of this section) religious education").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think my noble friend's Amendment is open to the same objections as I made to the Amendment moved earlier by my noble friend Earl Stanhope. Religion is, of course, specifically mentioned in a good many parts of this Bill. I am advised that as the Bill is drafted at present religious teaching could be given in what we now call county colleges in official time if the pupils demanded it and if the local education authority agreed to do so. But as I think I mentioned on the Second Reading stage of the Bill, my right honourable friend thinks it would be inadvisable to try to crowd this very big subject into the very limited time that these colleges will have for their work. The noble Lord will remember that it is only for one day a week that the young people will attend. There is also this further point. I personally feel that it would be dangerous to take any step which would lead the young people to imagine that religion was being forced down their throats. We must give them every facility for acquiring religious knowledge and for the practice of religion, but to impose religious teaching on anybody of adolescent age who does not want it is generally attended by the most disastrous results. I think that

443
those of your Lordships who were at Oxford or Cambridge and who can remember their attitude of mind when they were passing through that examination which was known as "divvers," will understand what I mean. I believe that "divvers" has now been abolished, and a very good thing too, because it certainly did not add to the religious knowledge of any of the undergraduates who were forced to take that examination, and I am sure that in most cases the spiritual reaction was not that which was desired or intended.
Therefore I think there are very strong arguments indeed against using words or inserting provisions in this Bill which give the impression that we are trying to force religion down the throats of young people who are not asking for it. As I have said, the Bill does enable it to be given if the young people ask for it and if the local education authority is willing to give it. Moreover, I expect that the young people, having come together in their college and having got a comradeship and collective spirit, will be able to expand their religious knowledge—those of them who feel led to do so—out of college hours altogether. I anticipate that that might take place on a much greater scale and it would probably be the easiest way for them to acquire further religious instruction. When pupils have got to this age they are able to think for themselves in these matters and to make their own choice and it is far better to get them asking for it than to try to force it upon them. Therefore, my right honourable friend would be very unwilling to see this proposal put into this clause, and your Lordships would be well advised in this matter to leave the Bill as it is.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I raised this question on the Second Reading, when the noble Earl gave a similar reply to that which he has just given, and with that I had perforce to be content. I think it is very important that we should have this clear assurance now repeated that there is nothing to hinder the giving of religious instruction in these colleges if it is asked for. The noble Earl used some such expression as "forcing religion clown people's throats." I confess that I had supposed that there would be a list of provided subjects and that pupils, no doubt under advice, would
444
choose what they would take, and I had hoped that religious knowledge would be among those which were offered. But if there is any suggestion that the pupils are to be compelled to take particular subjects when they come under direction from their authority it would be disastrous to make religion one of those.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The most reverend Primate has misunderstood me. The expression I used was "giving the impression of forcing it down their throats". I did not suggest that we should actually be doing that.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Thank you.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I do not think that the arguments of the noble Earl are altogether consistent. He talks about drafting a Bill and he says that if you include special subjects you are inclined to minimize others. This particular clause does definitely include "physical practical and vocational training," and I suggest that if his argument is to be consistent he ought either to omit those words or accept the Amendment moved by Lord Rankeillour. May I ask him one other specific question? He says that it will be for the students to ask for religious education, if they wish it, in these colleges. Supposing the parents ask for it, will that be admitted or not? It is rather an important point. I should like to know that parents' wishes are taken into account in the same way as those of the students themselves.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I feel very much the force of what my noble friend Lord Perth has just said, and it might be pressed a little further. My noble friend Lord Selborne has pointed out on more than one Amendment suggested in this Bill, that if any particular subject is mentioned it will be inferred that all other subjects are excluded. That is just what has been done in this clause. The clause states that the education is to include "physical practical and vocational training." It is said that that does not exclude religious teaching, but in that case the argument which has been repeatedly used by the noble Earl ought to be struck out of the reports of this debate because it is quite evident that in this case religion would be excluded by the noble Earl's previous argument from the possibility of being taught

445
in this way. It may be thought that that is going rather far. I must say that it seems to me that this is a clear indication of the will of Parliament that these subjects, and these subject only, shall be taught in the county colleges. It cannot possibly have any other meaning. It is stated in the Bill that the education is to include "physical practical and vocational training." That means that it is not to include, normally, anything else.
I speak with great diffidence but I confess to considerable doubt as to whether my noble friend is really right in saying that the pupils can demand something to be taught and then the authorities of the colleges will be able to teach it. I may have overlooked something, but I see nothing in the Bill to indicate that it is for the pupils in the college to meet together and say: "We want you to put in this and the other subject; we want to have another subject, something quite different." It may be they would want something dealing with the history of sport or something of that kind. I doubt very much whether it would be open to the authorities of the college to teach that particular subject.
I must say I was a little alarmed by another argument my noble friend used. He said that you must avoid the impression of thrusting religion down the throats of the pupils. Is not that going a very long way considering what you have done in this Bill? You have already said more than once in this Bill—I thought we all agreed rightly said—that religious instruction is to be part of the instruction given in all schools. I think my noble friend corrected me the other day when I said it did not include secondary schools, and said in effect that it did. Religious education is put forward as one of the elements, and surely rightly put forward as one of the elements, of education; therefore it is a thing that is to be taught in schools. Surely if it is to be taught in schools it cannot be said, if it is also to be taught in the colleges, that you are thrusting religion down the throats of pupils. If it is to be done for a boy up to the age of fifteen or sixteen, why is it not to be done also for a boy up to seventeen or eighteen or whatever be the age included in the college? Therefore it does seem to me that the arguments put forward by my noble friend are not sufficient to deal with the suggestion of Lord Rankeillour. Really, as Lord Perth said, it is not
446
enough merely to leave the word "training" and not include religious education as well as the other subjects that are to come into the general training of these colleges.
I press this as strongly as I can on the Government because this is just an instance of what has happened so often in our educational history of putting religion into the backround, saying "It is all very well, it is a very good thing in its way, but it is really not one of the essentials of education." We shall never get a satisfactory system of education in this country unless we really and honestly accept the view that religion is as essential to a good education as any other subject, and much more so. If we persist in this attitude we shall assuredly hamstring the whole of our educational efforts. For those reasons I hope my noble friend will be able to reconsider his attitude to Lord Rankeillour's Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise only to say with the greatest respect to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, that I am quite unable to accept the view that as a matter of construction the words "such further education, including physical practical and vocational training" exclude religion. I think that is quite a wrong view of the words as a matter of law. I conceive there are many forms of education which are neither physical, practical nor vocational training which the county school will have a right to provide under Clause 41. I say nothing of any other points of the case but I am quite satisfied it is not right to say that religion is excluded.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I was not putting the argument so much from my own point of view but as an argument that has been constantly used by Lord Selborne in previous debates.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If Lord Selborne expressed the same view in some other part of the Bill I must say with great respect I think he was wrong.
LORD ROCHE: I agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken and I wish to say this in reference to what has been said by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. With the greatest sympathy for the Amendment it seems to me to depend entirely on circumstances. In towns no doubt these boys will attend on one day a week, and I think it would be quite fatal

447
to shove religion down their throats on that day of the week. On the other hand, the only way of taking companies into the country would be to take them there for a month at a time and then it would be equally fatal to leave religion out. But that surely can be implied under subsection (4) which expressly empowers the Minister to "make regulations as to the maintenance, government and conduct of young people's colleges and as to the further education to be given therein." That seems to me to sweep away entirely the point made by the noble Viscount opposite, and to put everything in the power of the Minister. I am not so satisfied with the general regulation-making power as the noble Earl said he was, but let that pass. Here there is express power given under this clause to say what the education shall be under these particular circumstances and I suggest that ought to be sufficient.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: There is another criticism that might be made in support of Lord Cecil and that is on the question of balance. The subsection ends with the phrase "responsibilities of citizenship" and the only clear direction which is given in training for the responsibilities of citizenship is an emphasis on "physical practical and vocational training"—that is to say, they are gymnastic and technical courses. Nothing is said about history, nothing is said about elementary philosophy, nothing is said about religion. I should support Lord Rankeillour on the ground not only that religious education as an option is desirable, but that it throws the window more widely open.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am glad to have the assistance of the noble and learned Lords, Viscount Maugham and Lord Roche, on the drafting point. I think even my noble friend Lord Cecil will agree that it is a well-known rule of drafting that if you once start to mention subjects you do by implication cast some doubt on other subjects. It is also true that the words "including physical practical and vocational training," do occur in this clause but they are generic terms on subjects. I think after we have heard what Viscount Maugham and Lord Roche have said that there is no doubt that religion would not be excluded if the Amendment of my noble friend Lord
448
Rankeillour was not accepted. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, is, if I may say so, a little at cross purposes in regard to the matter of offering religion to children in our schools. I think the Bill is quite consistent in that regard.
The point is the age at which religious instruction should cease to be compulsory—that is to say, compulsory so far as the child is concerned. Infants and young children will, generally speaking, accept religious instruction from their parents and teachers and accept it as they do any other subject, but at a certain point of human growth when people start having their own religious experience, and thinking for themselves about religion, their attitude changes and the point made by this Bill is that in the young people's or county colleges the pupil has ceased to be a child and is treated as a young man or woman. Therefore I think the Bill is quite consistent in that respect and that so long as their parents wish them to have religious education they would be given religious education. And this I think is the answer to my noble friend—when they get to young people's colleges it is their choice. No doubt a normal child or young person will consult his parents. If he is not disposed to consult his parents on a subject of that sort, I think we may be sure that the parents' influence will not be of very much help to the particular cause that the parent wants him to espouse. The normal young man will consult his parents, and no doubt will also consult his teachers. But he is given a measure of choice which he does not get in the primary or secondary school.
Therefore, I am afraid I do not think my noble friends have brought forward reasons that would justify the acceptance of this Amendment. But if they attach great importance to it I would lay their representations before my right honourable friend most gladly. I cannot act in this matter without consulting him and, as I have said before, your Lordships have been most generous to me in recognizing the disability under which I suffer in that, owing to his accident, I have no speedy means of consulting him. But as he is the Minister responsible for this Bill and our great Education Department, I do not think it would be right to carry an Amendment of this character without giving him an opportunity of expressing his opinion and giving his advice on the subject. If my noble friend is willing

449
to withdraw his Amendment at this stage, I can certainly assure him that I will consult my right honourable friend between now and the Report stage.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I most perfectly appreciate the disability of ray noble friend and commiserate with him. I quite understand in a matter of this sort that the Minister would have to be consulted. May I say, however, with regard to my own Amendment that I never thought for one moment of making religion a compulsory subject? What I contemplated was that parents would request that religion might be made an optional subject, which their children might avail themselves of if necessary. That certainly is as far as I wished to go. But I would throw out the suggestion for my noble friend's and the Minister's consideration, that in subsection (4), after the words "further education," he should put in "including religious education." My noble friend has thanked Lord Maugham and Lord Roche, in spite of the fact that what they said was completely counter to what the noble Earl himself said on Clause 38, but I know he is of a wise and forgiving disposition, and I take it now he will be converted to the point that to put in "religion" after "further education" will not mean that nothing else is to be admitted. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Enforcement of attendance at young people's colleges]:
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "ten pounds." The right reverend Prelate said: My Amendment was designed to save from the penalty of imprisonment a young person guilty of an offence. I understand that Clause 44 applies both to the young person and to his employer. But if it is the case, as I understand is possible, that there are other provisions in the Bill which save anyone under eighteen from the penalty of imprisonment I do not wish to move.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is so.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46 agreed to.
Clause 47:
Provision of milk and meats at schools maintained by local education authorities.
47. Regulations made by the Minister shall impose upon local education authorities the duty of providing milk, meals and other refreshment for pupils in attendance at schools and young people's colleges maintained by them; and such regulations shall make provision as to the manner in which and the persons by whom the expense of providing such milk, meals or refreshment is to be defrayed, as to the facilities to be afforded (including any buildings or equipment to be provided) and as to the services to be rendered by managers governors and teachers with respect to the provision of such milk, meals or refreshment, and as to such other consequential matters as the Minister considers expedient so, however, that such regulations shall not impose upon teachers at any school or college duties upon days on which the school or college is not open for instruction, or duties in respect of meals other than the supervision of pupils and shall not require the managers or governors of an auxiliary school to incur expenditure.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to leave out "maintained by them" and insert "including independent schools within their area." The noble Lord said: There is a large number of independent registered schools throughout the country, and I do not see why, if they desire it, they should not have the benefit that other schools, maintained schools, would have in this matter of milk and similar advantages. I say "if they desire it" because I understand that in many cases the managers and governors would rather make their own arrangements, and I certainly would not force the arrangements of the local authority on them. If necessary I would be delighted to put in "if desired by the managers or governors." That might perhaps come in at a later stage, but those who desire it surely should have it. They are recognized, they are registered, and the children in them are, or may be, in the same need of sustenance as others.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 21, leave out ("maintained by them") and insert ("including independent schools within their area").—Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD ROCHE: I am interested in this as a governor or trustee of an independent school. This Amendment would be thoroughly unacceptable to us and, I think, to all governors of independent schools and to the local authorities as well. Independent schools under a later Part of the Bill have nothing to do with local authorities; they are under the central

451
authority, the Minister, who has powers of inspection and of seeing whether they are in order. To that nobody can object. But it would be very irregular, very inconvenient, if local education authorities, who are given under this Part of the Bill from Clause 46 onwards a bundle of duties with regard to their schools, had the right or duty to provide milk, meals, and other refreshments to pupils at Eton, or at my school, which is a poor boy's school, and which has to look after itself and does not want the local authority to look after it. If this Amendment is right, the local authority ought also to have the duty to see that the medical attendance, the clothing and everything else at independent schools is in order. It would be an impossible position, both for the local authorities and for the independent schools.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Lord Rankeillour said that he would be quite willing to insert some such words as "where so desired." If he did that, his Amendment would have the same effect as, though less specifically than, Clause 73 of the Bill. That clause states:
"Where under powers conferred by this Act a local education authority make special arrangements for any child or young person to receive primary or secondary education otherwise than at school, the authority may provide for the medical inspection or medical treatment of that pupil as if he were in attendance at a school maintained by the authority."
And subsection (2) states:
"A local education authority may, with the consent of the proprietor of any school in their area which is not a school maintained by the authority, and upon such financial and other terms, if any, as may be determined by agreement between the authority and the proprietor of the school, make arrangements for securing—
(a) the provision of milk, meals and other refreshment for pupils in attendance at the school";.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I may say that this time I am entirely convinced, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51:
Provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training.
51.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that the facilities
452
for primary secondary and further education provided for their area include adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training and for that purpose a local education authority, with the approval of the Minister, may establish maintain and manage, or assist the establishment, maintenance, and management of camps, holiday classes, playing fields, play centres, gymnasiums, swimming baths and other establishments at which facilities for recreation and for such training as aforesaid are available for persons for whom primary secondary or further education is provided by the authority, and may organize games expeditions and other activities for such persons, and may defray or contribute towards the expenses thereof.
(2) The Minister may make regulations empowering local education authorities to provide for pupils in attendance at any school or young people's college maintained by them, such articles of clothing suitable for the physical training provided at the school or college as may be prescribed.
(3) Sections one to three of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937 (which relate to National Advisory Councils and local committees and sub-committees for the promotion of physical training, and to the power of the Board of Education to make grants upon the recomendations of the grants committee appointed for the purposes of that Act) shall cease to have effect.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved to substitute "shall" for "may," where that word occurs for the first time in subsection (1). The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to make it perfectly clear that in every area it is the local education authority which will be responsible for the camps, playing fields, gymnasiums, swimming baths, and so on mentioned in Clause 51—not only responsible for seeing that they are properly equipped but that they are supervised so as to make the best possible use of all the facilities provided. The word "may" is permissive. If you use the word "shall" you impose an obligation. We have been living this afternoon among the youths. I am going down a bit to talk about the younger children, the children who will be pupils of the 90,000 extra school teachers you are going to have. The introduction of this Bill has been widely acclaimed, and one of the principal reasons for that has been that it does recognize that development of character is one of the primary objects of education. It is not within the four walls of the schoolrooms that the most desirable qualities can best be fostered, but in the open and outside the restraints of the schoolroom, where individuality gets a better chance. I do not only refer to formal games like football and cricket, but

453
to hobbies and activities of all sorts in which you can get at the child, find out what he likes, what his inclinations are, and thereby draw the best out of him. This form of education, after all, will play a much larger part in the child's life. You can keep the pressure on for so much longer than you can for the twenty-five hours a week, forty-four weeks a year, which he will spend within the four walls of the schoolroom.
This form of education must not be looked upon as "ancillary," as it is termed in the text of the Bill, but as a fundamental and integral part of education, the most efficient way of getting at a boy or girl. The dictionary meaning of the word "ancillary" is subordinate and subservient, and that is how the Bill is inclined to regard this vocational training and also how some of the speakers who have spoken during the debate regard the mater. It is four years since the Government laid down that the Board of Education should have direct responsibility for youth welfare, that that welfare was to become a recognized province of education, and that the local education authority should co-operate with the various voluntary associations interested in this work. There must be one supreme and unquestioned authority to deal with this form of education, which will make use of all voluntary help it can obtain without being in any way dependent upon it. I am talking about the pupils of the junior school age up to twelve. In his interesting speech on the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, gave a list of some seventeen voluntary organizations which are concerned with the welfare of youth. That is a rather older stage than the pupils I have mentioned, but it might be thought that with all these bodies working together all is well. In spite of all this work which is being done, however, much more remains to be done if this education system, from which so much is hoped, is to bear fruit. Whatever the causes may be, all those who are connected with organizations like the Barnardo Homes or the Shaftesbury Homes know that there is at the present moment any number of children who have no interest in life except what they can devise for themselves. That, too often, in an urban district, leads to petty crime.
I am going to give your Lordships an example of what I mean. A little chap aged ten was recently brought before the juvenile court charged with larceny from a church—very reprehensible, no doubt, but I hope the little chap enjoyed it because he had nothing else to do. The probation officer told the magistrate that it was desirable the lad should be removed from his depressing environment, which he proceeded to describe. The father was away, serving in the Royal Navy, and according to the probation officer the mother was a woman of poor type who neglected her family. That might well be, because the family consisted of six young boys. The home was described as miserably furnished with everything in a state of filth and disorder. The house is one of a number of council houses, completely isolated, one and a half miles from the school which the children attended. The report goes on to say that "there is nothing at all for the interest of the children in the vicinity unless you can call the local refuse clump an object of interest, two hundred yards from the houses." It is impossible for these youngsters to have any degree of happiness. At this moment, when we are intent on developing mental, moral, and physical qualities, it is important to develop all three, and to avoid overlapping, the education authorities should be responsible for planning the three into one educational system.
One would have thought that it was impossible for such conditions as I have mentioned in this case to exist without some clergyman, schoolmaster, policeman, postman, one of our many inspectors, or some neighbour bringing the matter to light, but perhaps they were so used to seeing these things that it did not cause any surprise. It required the prosecution of this child to bring the wretched state of this family to light. Clause 7 of the Bill says:
"… 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 of the community by securing that efficient education throughout those stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area."
I regard these words as dangerous, because they leave room for jealousies, rivalries, and procrastination. I ask you to give the local authorities, at least as far as the junior pupils are concerned, full

455
powers to act to avoid overlapping so that the children may be brought up in a way that will enable them to benefit by the education which this Bill means to provide. Otherwise, you are going to build on unsound fundations, in trying to teach the children all these things, and you will turn them into little criminals before they start. If you adopt this small Amendment and the consequential alterations, you will greatly strengthen the hands of the enlightened education authorities, who will be able to help those who do not take so readily to new ideas.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend is under a slight misapprehension in regard to the wording and effect of Clause 51. I can assure him that the object of the Government, the object of the Bill, is precisely the same as his own. The noble Earl asks that in line 1, on page 42, the word "may" shall be changed to "shall." The word "shall" occurs as the second word of the clause, and that is the word which governs the whole of Clause 51. Let me read it to your Lordships:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that the facilities for primary, secondary and further education provided for their area include adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training."
It would not be possible to have stronger words than those, or to put it more emphatically. The clause goes on to say—
"and for that purpose a local education authority, with the approval of the Minister, may establish maintain and manage …"
and so on. That is surely the practical way of doing it.
We do not want to order the local education authority to have a swimming bath for every school. There may be schools by the side of very good rivers or by the sea, or the local education authority may feel that at this moment the expense is greater than they can afford. This list of gymnasia, swimming baths and so on instances the kinds of expenditure which, in order to carry out what they are required to carry out by the word "shall" in the first line of the clause, they may incur, subject to the consent of the Minister. I
456
suggest to my noble friend, therefore, that what he desires, which I understand is an order to the local education authority to provide these things, is entirely covered by the clause as at present drafted.
LORD AMMON: I wonder whether that is so. I have read this, and it seems to me that there is a qualification here. Suppose they did not make application, even if they had the means to do these things, what is the position? It seems to me that the authority goes by the board; there is no compulsion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If a local education authority fails to carry out any of its duties under this Bill, the Minister can proceed against it by mandamus. That is provided for in a later clause.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I see the drift of the clause, but I do not feel quite satisfied. I do not suppose that these Government officials are fools and will build a swimming bath alongside a river.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I interrupt? If you want them to use common sense you should employ the word "may," because then you give them some discretion. If it is an order which is not to be varied, you employ the word "shall." I suggest that the word "shall" is employed at the appropriate place in the clause, and that when we come to discuss means the word "may" is appropriate because it gives some discretion.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think that my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery can be satisfied with the explanation given. It is a fact that if the word "may" is left there is an option for the authority to do what it thinks necessary for the voluntary bodies which are mentioned in the early part of the clause, but if you put in "shall" every local education authority would have to do all these things for every school, including every primary school, which is really impossible.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: On the advice of the noble and learned Viscount, I am satisfied. In future no local education authority can ride off on that word "may." I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, in subsection (1), after "management," to insert "by voluntary organizations in youth service or otherwise." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment at the express wish of the Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organizations. I feel a very heavy responsibility in representing such a very large body of opinion, and I hope that, as most of your Lordships are members of one or other of these organizations, I may have your attention, support and sympathy. It would rot be out of place if I repeated the names of those bodies which form part of this Standing Conference; they now number eighteen, and not seventeen, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, mentioned. They include the Boys' Brigade, the Boy Scouts' Association, the British Red Cross Society (Youth and Junior Departments), the Catholic Young Men's Society, the Church Lads' Brigade, the Co-operative Youth Movement, the Girl Guides' Association, the Girls' Friendly Society, the Girls' Guildry, the Girls' Life Brigade, the National Association of Boys' Clubs, the National Association of Girls' Clubs: the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, the Salvation Army Youth Department, the Welsh League of Youth, the Y.M.C.A. and the Y.W.C.A.
Perhaps I should add that the Standing Conference is strengthened by having as Observers representatives of the Association for Jewish Youth, the British Council of Churches Youth Department, the National Catholic Youth Association, and the Pre-Service Cadet Organizations of the Army, Navy and Air Force, and in addition of the National Association of Training Corps for Girls. The Standing Conference was set up by the National Council of Social Service some years ago, and no doubt the Committee are aware of the very good work which they have done. The Board of Education have recognized the Standing Conference, to advise them on their youth work, since at any rate 1939, when they set up the National Youth Committee, as a useful link with the various organizations concerned,. which help in dealing with the welfare of so many young persons. The Board of Education themselves appoint one of their number as an assessor on the Standing Conference.
In 1939 the Government gave the Board of Education the task of supervising the
458
full education of youth, of its school training and of its welfare, and this is made clear in the Board of Education Circulars 1486 and 1516, issued in 1939 and 1940, and in the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction which was issued by the Board of Education. I rest the whole of my case on the two circulars and the White Paper, and I must refer your Lordships to four short passages. First of all, the Government are determined to prevent the recurrence during this war of the social problem which arose during the last. They have accordingly determined that the Board of Education shall undertake direct responsibility for youth welfare. Secondly, it is said that to-day a new beginning has been made, and the principle has been accepted that youth welfare must take its place as a recognized province of education, side by side with elementary, secondary and further education. Thirdly, now as never before there is a call for the close association of local education authorities and voluntary bodies in full partnership in a common enterprise; nor need this entail any loss of prestige or individuality on either side. Fourthly, in the sphere of social and physical training, which is now recognized as standing by itself as an appropriate element in the education service, particular attention is naturally due to the interests and requirements of young persons who have left school and entered on employment, and who so largely pass outside the sphere of formal training.
Shortly after the outbreak of war the youth service was brought into being to extend the recreational training of young people by assisting the national voluntary organizations which have worked so long and so well in this sphere, and by enlisting the assistance of local education authorities in increasing the opportunities open to young persons to use their leisure wisely to their own advantage, and in great measure to the advantage of the war effort. It was made clear from the start that the service was not to be regarded simply as a war-time expedient, but was to take its place as an integral part of the national, system of education. I would specially stress those words "full partnership"—not even junior partnership, certainly not sleeping partnership. I know that the Board of Education has approved of the work done for youth by various organiza-

459
tions, especially appreciating their variety of approach and technique, by generously giving grants in aid. Because of the use of the words "full partnership" the Standing Conference do feel that somewhere in the 107 pages of this historic Act there should be some mention of these organizations.
If the words of my Amendment are not suitable, I would suggest that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill might consult the President of the Board of Education before the Report stage to see if it is possible to meet the point by altering these words or altering their place or even by inserting a new clause, headed "Youth Welfare," seeing that youth welfare is recognized as a province of education side by side with primary, secondary and further education and therefore should be included in this Bill. Could not this be done by setting out the functions of local education authorities as stated in Circular 1516 in a new clause in this Bill? It is said there that the function of the local education authorities is that they are to take the initiative in their local areas; provide for local co-operation; encourage existing organizations to extend their work and fill the gaps not covered by such organizations. I would ask the noble Earl to see that somewhere in the Bill recognition of these organizations shall be given acknowledging their collaboration or consultation with the local education authorities making clearer their responsibility and showing by Act of Parliament that it is the will of the people expressed through the Government that the closest relations be maintained between official and national bodies that exist for the welfare of youth.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 3, after ("management") insert ("by voluntary organizations engaged in youth service or otherwise").—(Lord Aberdare.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I need hardly say that I have every sympathy with the object of my noble friend in moving his Amendment. Undoubtedly what he desires to see done forms part of the Government plan. I would suggest to him however that the clause as worded at present does provide exactly what he wants and very definitely provides it. If my noble friend will look at the Bill he will see that it provides that
460
"a local education authority, with the approval of the Minister, may establish, maintain and manage, or assist the establishment, maintenance, and management of camps, holiday classes"
and other things. The words "or assist" mean that they will be established, maintained and managed by some outside bodies and not by the local education authority. Those are the bodies that my noble friend had in mind. So my answer to him is that the Bill does specifically provide for local education authorities to assist voluntary organizations engaged in youth service in establishing, maintaining and managing all these things. I do not think that the words he proposes would add anything at all to the powers of the local education authority and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD HAMPTON: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Aberdare in pressing his Amendment. It is not a question of calling the attention of local authorities to their duty in this respect. What matters is the fact that as far as I am aware none of these voluntary organizations which have been engaged for years and years in helping the youth of the country, often with very little recognition or encouragement especially from the Government, are mentioned in the Bill. Surely it could do no possible harm to mention them and it would be of immense encouragement, given where encouragement is due after all these years of work, if these organizations were mentioned in this great educational measure, the greatest educational measure in our history. I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment and that the Government will see their way to accept it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If my noble friend thinks the mere mention of these organizations is of real importance I will certainly make representations to the President of the Board of Education. I cannot see that his Amendment will make any substantial difference to the Bill, but if he thinks valuable results would be gained I will certainly consult my right honourable friend. I hope however that he will accept the fact from me that the words he proposes will not increase the power of the local education authority.
LORD ABERDARE: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. He and I, I think, are very close together in this mat-

461
ter. If the noble Earl will be good enough to look into the matter and see if somewhere reference can be made to these organizations I should be quite satisfied. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: moved, in subsection (1), after "camps," to insert "community centres." The noble Viscount said: I desire to move the Amendment standing in my name on behalf of the National Council of Social Service of which at one time I was the President, and of which I am now Chairman of the South Western Regional Committee including the five south-western counties. The purpose of the Amendment is to include community centres among the institutions which local education authorities may with the approval of the Minister assist in establishing or maintaining. Already reference has been made to what is generally expressed in a Latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, specific mention of one is the exclusion of the other. We have mentioned in this clause a considerable number of objects, including swimming baths and gymnasiums. I suggest that we should not leave out so important an institution as a community centre. That term has now a specific and technical meaning.
I have endeavoured to obtain from the National Council of Social Service the best definition. It is that a community centre is a building within which members of a local community provide either through existing voluntary organizations or otherwise for the educational, social and physical recreation and well-being of those who reside within the neighbourhood unit. I lay particular stress upon what is called the neighbourhood unit. It must be democratically managed by an association or executive representative of all classes of the community as well as of the local authority. Now of course there must be some latitude in its definition and scope according to local conditions and social institutions. But it would include both urban workmen's institutes as well as village clubs and halls, and the experience of the National Council of Social Service suggests that the optimum community centre is one that caters for a radius of not more than a mile and a population not exceeding 10,000 The inclusion of community centres in this
462
clause very materially affects the availability of facilities for adult education as well as for, juvenile welfare and particularly the wholesome employment of leisure—a consideration which, I suggest, is becoming more and more vital as time goes on. The increased mechanization of industry and the intended provision of a fuller life of wider interests for our workers both point to a shorter (although possibly a more strenuous) working day and with it the vital problem of catering for the hours of leisure without encouraging moral or physical decadence.
Let me summarize the reasons why I ask your Lordships to have community centres included specifically among the objects which local authorities may assist. First of all, I would stress their outstanding importance as focal points of social and educational enterprise. Secondly, their wide and growing acceptance throughout the country as among the best methods of promoting a good community spirit and co-operation between voluntary and statutory bodies engaged in social service work, especially in regard, as I have said, to the employment by youths and adolescents of their leisure time. Thirdly, the fact that the need for such centres is bound to be felt increasingly not merely in the older parts of our cities and towns, and as village halls in our rural areas, but also and especially on the new housing estates where there is apt to be an entire lack of community spirit, local esprit de corps and co-operative social effort. In passing, I may mention that in all community centres in urban areas, and, where possible, in rural areas also, there is a special and separate provision made for the social and recreational needs of adults and juveniles; it is often found by experience that, in the towns, at any rate, it is quite possible to make separate provision in those centres for the juveniles, apart from the adults.
Fourthly—and I hope that Lord Aberdare, who has done, if I may say so, such magnificent work for improving the physical fitness of our young people, will give me his support in regard to this fact—the passing of the Physical Training and Recreation Act of 1937 stimulated very considerably an interest in community centres. A very large number of schemes were prepared which had to be postponed in 1939 owing to the outbreak of the war. When that Bill was before

463
Parliament in 1937 a memorandum was issued which specially mentioned and stressed the importance of community centres in connexion with the physical fitness of our young people. May I say this, that the war-time experience of the National Council of Social Service, and also of other social service organizations up and down the country, has demonstrated a very live local interest in these community centres schemes. I do not think I am exaggerating if I say that of all the numerous branches of social service work for which the war has demonstrated a crying need, two are outstanding. One is the provision of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the other the provision of Community Centres.
I will not occupy your Lordships' time longer than is required to mention this rather important fact. The advantages of these community centres from an educational point of view have been repeatedly stressed by some of our leading educationists, and the last occasion on which that was done was at what was called the Community Centres and Associations' Conference which was held in London last September and presided over by Professor, now Sir Ernest, Barker. At this gathering the great importance of these centres from an educational standpoint was emphatically stressed by, amongst others, Sir Robert Wood, Deputy Secretary of the Board of Education, and Mr. E. G. Savage, Education Officer of the London County Council. With those few words, my Lords, I submit with great sincerity and emphasis, the desirability of including community centres among the objects specifically mentioned in Clause 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 3, after ("camps") insert ("community centres").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD ABERDARE: I have very great pleasure in supporting this Amendment. I do not think, however, that my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe needs my own personal support. I think he really gets it in the White Paper, "Educational Reconstruction."
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Yes, it is mentioned there.
LORD ABERDARE: It was also mentioned in the Report of the Youth Advisory Council which was appointed by
464
the President of the Board of Education in 1942 to advise him on questions relating to youth services in this country. The Report is headed "The Youth Service after the War," and was published in 1943. I think perhaps I should quote from it:
"It is essential that the Youth Service should so operate as to lead young people onwards towards adult life and not keep them back unduly in the atmosphere and surroundings of adolescence. We therefore do not regard as ideal the separate 'Youth Centre' with the buildings of the day continuation school as its physical nucleus. We do not want to see young people segregated in this way from the community as a whole. Rather, we hope that they will use for some of their leisure activities the buildings of the genuine social centres, community centres or civic centres, which we expect to be built after the war. As indicated in paragraph 52, the day continuation school might well find its place in some such design, but the important point is that the young people should feel themselves to be part of the whole community. This does not, of course, mean that Youth organizations would carry on all their activities in such a centre. They would all, in turn, or in collaboration, use the gymnasium, theatre, workshops and playing fields. But each organization would have its own 'private life' outside any such centre, so that it would carry on that variety of intimate social and corporate activities which could not flourish in the more public and impersonal surroundings of a civic centre. Nothing can or should take the place of a 'room of one's own,' especially if it has been equipped, decorated and furnished by the personal labours of those who use it."
There is also a passage from the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction which I should like to read:
"With the extended period of full-time education and the introduction of compulsory part-time education it may be anticipated that the interest of young people in worthwhile pursuits will be further stimulated and that there will be an increased demand for the facilities offered by clubs, youth centres, and the national associations of the various voluntary bodies, which the Youth Service is designed to expand. The young people's colleges will develop their social and community life and will make provision for a wide range of leisure-time interests. The partnership that is now being established between the voluntary agencies and the education authorities through the local youth committees should be of the greatest assistance in securing, on a widely extended scale, a variety of opportunities suited to diverse interests, which will enable young people to obtain the experience of community life, self-government and individual self-discipline which are the foundations of democratic citizenship."
I should like to add that I think youth centres can be of considerable value in small districts, and especially in rural

465
areas where only one or two organizations can be expected to flourish. I have known of many youth centres in various parts of the country. I believe that there are over one hundred such centres in one Riding of Yorkshire and a considerable number in Hampshire. Youth centres and community centres are only ideal if they provide adequately for boys and girls separately and have separate management committees. In Cambridgeshire a community centre has been provided to cater for groups of villages which could provide only for the primary social needs of a small community. I feel very confident that youth centres and community centres have come to stay and to increase greatly. Much was done, as the noble Viscount stated, by the National Fitness Council from 1937 until war broke out to encourage such community centres in very crowded neighbourhoods and equally to encourage village halls for smaller communities.
Some of your Lordships may have visited the Slough Social Centre. This was, and still is, I believe, a show place, except for the buildings. The three blocks of buildings were erected originally for purposes of works and have high curved roofs. The community centre will necessarily vary in size and type with the community it has to serve. In order to fit closely into the cultural and social life of the community it must reflect local circumstances and wishes and give expression to local demands. It should cater for women as well as for men, but also there should be separate rooms for boys 'and girls' activities, and for separate youth organizations, and again for the very young, even for babies. The centres should have adjoining them gardens and playing fields, including a swimming bath, for outdoor recreation. The Board of Education has to provide for full education, including welfare for youth—a word which now must be taken to include all persons at least up to the age of twenty-one—so that it could grant-aid that part of the Community Centre which caters for youth welfare. I do hope that this Amendment, or one slightly altered to cover the youth part of it, may be accepted by the Committee.
LORD AMMON: My noble friend Lord Addison would have supported this Amendment had he been present. I want to make one or two references because it
466
does seem to me that we are rather in a muddled position so far as community centres are concerned. I remember thirty years ago Dr. Paton, the then Headmaster of Manchester Grammar School, inviting me to take part in a conference on "Youth and leisure." We are still thinking about that subject and are not much clearer than we were then. A fortnight ago I had the honour of opening a community institute under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour. It was established mainly to meet the needs of transferred workers. The institute was well received and evidently supplied a need, so much so that I found that within an hour after the opening, on looking into the drying rooms, some of the young people were already using them for washing and ironing out some of their garments.
The point I want to make, however, is that the London County Council on some of its housing estates has set up some community centres. Those community centres are in the main for the use of the whole population of the estate on which they are situated, and certainly not for the exclusive use of children. In fact, I think, the inclusion of children is sometimes resented by some of the older folk. Then there are the evening institutes, which are certainly doing a very big work. I know of one or two in some of the most difficult districts in the County of London which are performing a very excellent part in bringing in the young folk who have run wild and have got rather out of hand. By means of these institutes they have been instructed in the corporate spirit.
That is where I join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I do not agree with the separateness on which he lays such insistence. Much, of course, depends upon the leader of the young people of both sexes and upon his or her tact and ability. I know of one district of London where an institute for youth was opened at very great expense and with a great flourish of trumpets, but has been practically neglected by the youth, who preferred to go to another institution nearby, in an L.C.C. school, but run by someone who has evidently got the habit of handling young folk successfully. In that institution no fewer than 1,200 young people pass in and out during the week while the other institution nearby, which, as I have said, was opened with such a great flourish of trumpets, and at tremen-

467
dous expense, and is still heavily subsidized by the State, is, to a large extent, not used. In this case the licensee of the public house nearby complained—and I raised the matter in another place—about people from there going over to his place to get drink, while he was put in a difficult position because he was never quite sure about the ages of these young people from the point of view of serving them with drink.
I, for one, very much desire that there should be community centres under the right influence and auspices. I think that these are essential in order to take the young people off the streets. I fully support the noble Viscount in the spirit of his Amendment, but I think that there is a great deal more required when we come to examine how, and when, and in what form, these centres are to be established. They must not be run on the lines of pure sentimentalism nor regardless of discipline. I want to express to the noble Viscount my appreciation of what he has said. It is borne out by my own practical experience extending now over a long period of years in connexion with education under the auspices of the L.C.C. and also in view of the fact that one of my own relatives is in charge of one of the evening institutes in London, grappling with some of the worst—no, I will not say the worst, for sometimes they turn out to be the best, but difficult types of youth. But the full purpose will not be served merely by the establishment of community centres in housing estates unless care is taken to see that they are on well organized lines and that they have a proper educational and disciplinary direction.
LORD HAMPTON:I will not detain your Lordships for more than a brief moment. I only have one point to add and that is that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill may probably take the view that the words "and other establishments" cover community centres. I hope he will not. I think it is important to focus the attention of local authorities upon the value of and the need for these community centres. After all, the very fact that a community centre could help in the provision of such things as playing fields, playing centres, gymnastics and swimming baths is an important consideration. They can all be very well
468
combined with a community centre as well possibly as with centres in a very big scale establishment for the various organizations who wish to use them. I should like to see a further extension with regard to community centres and that is that they should have attached to them in the country but run under the same management such things as playing fields for games and health classes and so on. These would be in the country but managed by the community centre. That seems to me the ideal at which we should aim and encourage local authorities to provide. I hope therefore that the words "community centres" may be included as a sort of focal point for the whole of Clause 51.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We have listened to some very interesting speeches from noble Lords who are well qualified to speak on this important subject. I think the very apt quotation of Lord Aberdare from the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction shows that the policy of the Government is strictly in line with what my noble friend Lord Bledisloe desires. I am advised that the only reason why the term "community centre" was not put into the Bill at this point was that it is not a sufficiently precise term. Any one can point to a swimming bath for instance and say "That is a swimming bath." There is no doubt as to what a swimming bath is, but I am told that a "community centre" has never been officially defined in a way that could be safely inserted in an Act of Parliament. I am aware that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe in his eloquent speech did produce a definition, I thought rather an elaborate definition, though no doubt a very good one, but I do not think that definition has any legal authority, and ultimately it would have to be decided by a Court of Law what was a community centre unless you defined it, as I think you would certainly have to do in this Bill.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Why not?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The difficulty about that is that the community centre movement is comparatively a young one. It is in a stage of evolution, rather rapid evolution, and any definition you produce to-day might in a very short time be out of date, and you might find yourselves precluded from assisting community centres which incorporated the

469
latest improvements and ideas because you had not covered them in your definition. That is the reason why the Government were advised it would be inadvisable to mention community centres in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe is mistaken, if I may say so, in thinking that in this case under the drafting rule I have quoted so often community centres are excluded by the mention of gymnasia and swimming baths. Community centres, as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed out, are covered by "other establishments." I do not think there would be the slightest doubt that it would be possible for any local education authority with the approval of the Minister to establish or assist in the establishment of any community centre.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I interrupt the noble Earl on that point? We have here many distinguished legal luminaries and I think I am right in saying (they will correct me if I am wrong) that where in an Act of Parliament this short expression "and other establishments" is used it is always interpreted to mean "and other establishments ejusdem generis," and if they are not establishments ejusdem generis there will be extreme doubt expressed by any independent person as to whether the establishment referred to would be included in the terms of the Statute.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If the noble Viscount is appealing to me I must express my opinion that he has not got the rule quite accurate. If the various things which are enumerated can be said to belong to the same genus the words "and other establishments" will be taken ejusdem generis, but if they belong to a number of different colleges which cannot be classed in a particular genus then the rule will not apply.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Of course I bow to the greater authority.
LORD ROCHE: I am not going to pose as a legal authority but to make an appeal to the noble Earl. If you have places that are less important than community centres and they are no better defined surely you can ask your draftsman to meet the manifest will of the House and try again. He may use such words as "centres whether for community life or training" or words of that kind. That I believe would meet the noble Viscount and I think he will be satisfied if he got
470
an assurance that the matter would be looked into.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will certainly look into the matter again and consult the draftsman but I think my noble friend is now satisfied that he would not be precluded by the present form of words from establishing a community centre in his locality, and that after all is what we want most to achieve. But in response to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Roche, and other noble Lords to-day I will certainly see that the matter is reconsidered. It is really I think not so much a case of altering the effect of the Bill as of giving due prominence to this particular form of social amenity.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should like to express my pleasure at the answer given by the noble Earl and I hope the words "community centre" will appear in this clause. Community centres are likely to be a very important feature of the social life of this country in the years to come. All through the middle ages the town had a living centre, it might be the church or it might be established by guilds; but our modern vast spreading industrial cities are lacking in organic unity at all events in their suburbs, and that has been found as has already been mentioned in this discussion in many of the great housing estates of the London County Council. Now in the planning arrangements for post-war reconstruction provision is being generally made by thoughtful planners for the establishment of civic centres and community centres and since this Bill also deals with adult education there is all the more reason for including these community centres in the category of institutions which ought to be assisted.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am very reluctant to waive this Amendment because there is such a strong feeling in regard to the importance of these centres on the part of our leading organized social workers in the country. I hope that the lack of a precise definition will not stand in the way of the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Education accepting the inclusion of this term. After all, it is quite possible for a local education authority to consider in every case whether it has any definite educational advantage either for juveniles or for adults, and if so to give financial support

471
to the maintenance of such an institution. In view of the sympathy expressed by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and the prospect of having some reference to it at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment but I do so with great reluctance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, in subsection (1), to insert "playgrounds" after "playing fields." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that playgrounds, such as were recommended in the Report of an Inter-Departmental Committee in 1936, set up to consider road safety among schoolchildren, can be provided. The Report gave for the year 1933 the most alarming figure of forty-five per cent. of child victims on the road being caused among children rushing into the road, generally after a ball. Playing-fields are generally considered to be something different from playgrounds, the former having a grass surface and the latter an asphalt one. The latter are usually much smaller, an area of half an acre being a recognized size. The Committee recommended the provision of playgrounds at half-mile intervals so that they might be as near as possible to the children's homes. I do not know whether playgrounds are included under the words "play centres." They have not been defined. The latter sound however too grand and may not be adopted at half-mile intervals. Perhaps some of your Lordships saw in The Times not long ago that the city of Leeds has been most progressive and has made post-war plans to set up children's playgrounds at half-mile intervals. It is sad to discover how many cities and towns in this country have provided more elderly citizens with bowling greens and at the same time neglected to provide playgrounds for their very young citizens. I believe the Report I have referred to was sent round to all highway and education authorities. As far as I know nothing has been done; at any rate, nothing was done as regards one of the Committee's most practical recommendations. Can this possibly be because there is no charge possible for maintenance? I hope not. I trust that this Bill will contain the word "play-grounds," that the local education authorities will be enabled to provide playgrounds, and that thus many lives may
472
be saved, casual wards may be emptier, and juvenile courts may be less crowded.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 3, after ("playing fields") insert ("playgrounds").—(Lord Aberdare.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that the reason why "play-grounds" is not inserted in this clause is that a playground is held to be an essential part of a site of a school and when my right honourable friend comes to make his building regulations they will provide that every school must have a playground. Therefore it was thought to be inappropriate to mention a playground among the facilities that a local education authority may or may not provide or assist in maintaining in fulfilment of their duty to provide proper recreation. With that assurance I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am not quite sure that that is right. What the noble Earl has just said is that playgrounds must be included in the site. Supposing the case is one in which it is necessary to buy a small piece of ground in a crowded city, say 200 yards from the school, for the purpose of affording recreation for little children, does that come within the words "playing fields" or is it within the rules that a proper site will include a playground as part of the site? It is the separate playground which would perhaps not be quite covered by the present words.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the playground was separated from the school it would either be a playing field or a play centre.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It might be a play centre but I doubt whether it would be a playing field.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: What is a "play centre"?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: A play centre is a centre in which you play.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: And a playing ground is therefore a ground on which you play. "Playground" is a far better known word than playing centre. I have not the slightest idea what a playing centre is.
LORD ROCHE: Will not the draftsman think again? From what the noble Earl said it almost looks as if "play-

473
ground" were excluded on purpose. "Playground" is a well-known word. There is no harm in putting it in and every harm in leaving it out.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is excluded because it is unnecessary. The policy of the Board of Education is that every school must have a playground and the building regulations will provide that. When the local authorities or other persons wish to provide new schools under Clause 12 the Minister again will see that they have proper playgrounds. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, puts to me the case of a school which is in such a restricted position that it has no contiguous playground or no adequate contiguous playground and therefore its playground is a little way off. In the view of the Board of Education that is not a satisfactory position. I am not saying that there are no cases where that might not occur, but I think the Board would try to make arrangements by which school and playground were contiguous, especially when you are dealing with primary schools. In the case of secondary, schools, of course the danger is less. In regard to those rare occasions where a playground will not be contiguous I venture to suggest that the words "playing fields" or "play centres" or certainly "other establishments" would be adequate. But if noble Lords attach importance to the point I will certainly look into it again.
LORD HAMPTON. There is one point that has not been referred to. Will these school playgrounds be open all day long, or at any rate a fairly extended time during holidays—just the time when the children have most leisure to play and when it is most dangerous for them?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is a matter which would have to be determined by the local education authority, and I think that the considerations which Lord Hampton has in mind would also weigh with the local education authority.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Could not the difficulty be got over, especially as none of us seems to know quite what a play centre is, by putting into the Interpretation Clause under the head of "playground" all these areas upon which young people can have recreation, whether they be playgrounds, playing fields or so-called "play centres"?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That would be one way of dealing with the point.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very grateful for the support I have received. The only danger I can see is that where in a crowded city playgrounds are needed the Board of Education will not as such provide them, except where the school premises are. But it seems that in many cases playgrounds might be needed further afield from the school. I hope the noble Earl will have the matter looked into. Further, I cannot help feeling that the addition of the word "playground" would not harm the Bill, but with the assurance the noble Earl has given I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE VISCOUNT CALDECOTE had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: I can relieve your Lordships of the strain of listening to any observations I may make on this point because I dealt with it on the Second Reading of the Bill. Although the noble Earl then said it was a Committee point, it was a major Committee point, and at any rate he paid me the compliment of saying that, of course, anything I said was accurate. No doubt that explains why the noble Earl has put down an Amendment on the matter, and for that reason I do not move.
LORD ABERDARE: As my name is associated with this Amendment, might I be allowed to move it?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Amendment, although in slightly different form, covers the same point.
LORD ABERDARE: Before the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, decides to withdraw his Amendment, perhaps I could say one word.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: For the convenience of the Committee, I am prepared to move, but I do not wish to do so as the noble Earl has entirely met my point with the Amendment he has placed on the Paper.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope Lord Aberdare will make the remarks he clearly desires to make, on the Amendment which follows in my name. The

475
effect of the two Amendments is to make the subsection read as follows:
"Sections one and two of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937 (which relate to National Advisory Councils and local committees and sub-committees for the promotion of physical training, and so much of Section three of that Act as relates to the grants committee, to recommendations of that committee and to consultation with such Councils as aforesaid) shall cease to have effect."
These Amendments meet the point made on the Second Reading by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Caldecote. He then pointed out that subsection (3) of Clause 51 abolished the power which the President of the Board of Education at present has to give grants to local authorities and voluntary bodies for the furtherance of recreational facilities.
I should like to explain how subsection (3) came to be in the Bill. The rest of the Bill provides so much in the way of physical training and recreation that the greater part of the objects of the Physical Training and Recreation Act were fulfilled in other ways. In fact, at every point where physical training touched education of old or young, that was otherwise provided for in the Bill. Therefore, if the Physical Training and Recreation Act had been left as it was, the President of the Board of Education would have been left to administer an Act which would only apply to people outside the scope of the education service—that is to say, people outside his proper sphere. For that reason, not unnaturally, it was proposed in the Bill that that part of the Act should be repealed. The Act also created very big machinery in the way of advisory councils and the like which would be far too great for this residual function.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, pointed out in his speech on the Second Reading that it would be most unfortunate if the President of the Board of Education was deprived of his power to make grants to local authorities, voluntary societies, and clubs who were affording recreational facilities in towns and villages for people who could not, by any stretch of the term, be said to be undergoing any form of education. My Amendment is designed to enable the President to continue to make these grants, but its effect is that the very elaborate machinery erected by the Act will come to an end. In its place the
476
President intends to appoint a non-statutory Committee to advise him in the administration of these grants. If this Amendment is carried it will enable him to continue the policy of making these grants within the limits prescribed by Parliament, to which Lord Caldecote paid such eloquent tribute in his speech on the Second Reading. I hope, therefore, the Amendments will be accepted. I beg to move the first.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 16, leave out ("to three") and insert ("and two").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: The noble Earl's statement is entirely satisfactory to those who were made anxious by the proposed appeal of the Act of 1937. The whole substance of the point is that the repeal diminished the sums—in fact it destroyed altogether the capacity to make grants out of the Exchequer, not only to voluntary clubs but to local authorities, and some 500 of these schemes were approved by the Committee that was advising the President of the Board of Education. These grants, it will be realized, were only in the nature of seed corn. They were going to have the amount necessary for the playing fields made up by the local authorities or the clubs in question. I am grateful to the noble Earl for meeting the point so fully.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like to say this in this connexion. I do not want for a moment to oppose the Amendment, but I would point out that under the Tenth Schedule, which repeals Sections one to three of the Physical Training and Recreation Act of 1937, the National Fitness Grants Committee will, I understand, be disentitled to make grants in future to a good many of the institutions to which they have promised grants in the past. For instance, I referred just now to community centres. It so happens that the Physical Fitness Grants Committee have promised grants to community centres and under the combined effect of this clause and the Tenth Schedule they will no longer, apparently, be able to make such grants, which I for my part think somewhat unfortunate.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have an Amendment to the Tenth Schedule which deals with the point which the noble Viscount has raised.
LORD ABERDARE: I should like to approve of what the noble Earl has said. Grants promised for the schemes approved by the National Playing Fields Association amounting to more than £460,000 were cancelled, and will now automatically be revived. I hope that some of the further amount of £3,000,000 allotted to the Fitness Fund will be available also. I had hoped to move the Amendment similar to that standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Caldecote, but all I wish to say to the Committee is that the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, NA as an Act to provide fitness facilities not only for young persons but also for those of riper age; that is to say, for the general public. I suggest that this is a wrong method of legislating. Here is a Bill dealing with the education of young people which is being used to mutilate an Act of Parliament concerned with the recreational interests of people in general, and I suggest that the correct procedure is to achieve the object desired, to which I do not object, by an Amending Act. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider that before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There will be nothing to prevent an Amending Act later, but if there were to be fresh legislation on the subject it would clearly have to be decided which Minister would administer this service. At present the service is administered by the President of the Board of Education, and the effect of the Amendment which I am now moving is to leave that service with him but to scrap the very elaborate machinery, which is no longer required. Whether Parliament will subsequently feel that fresh legislation is necessary I am not sure, but that point is not affected by the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I thank the noble Earl for his reply.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 19, leave out from ("training") to ("shall") in line 21 and insert ("and so much of Section three of that Act as relates to the grants committee, to recommendations of that committee and to consultation with such Councils as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think we have reached a point where the Committee would wish to adjourn, and I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Borough of Wednesbury:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Warrington).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (North Lindsey Water Board),

North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order.

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Anglesey County Council (Water, etc.),

Chesterfield and Bolsover Water,

London County Council (Money).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.