Lords Sitting of 6 May 1948

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD (LANDS) BILL.
Read 2ª and committed.

MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2ª.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess at Whitsun, and that, until that date, Government Business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence of other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Advisory Committee]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CHERWELL: I would like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he can give any assurance that the representatives of industry will be consulted about the constitution of the advisory committee. The committee will have enormous powers; the whole Rill may well depend upon the constitution of the committee being satisfactory and in many respects their activities will impinge upon industry. I hope the noble Lord can give us some assurance that both sides of industry will be consulted about the committee's constitution or, indeed, will be represented on it.
LORD HENDERSON: The noble Lord raised this point on Second Reading. Your Lordships will remember that I said that before the advisory committee are appointed there will be consultation with certain scientific and other organisations, a number of which I cited by name. I then indicated that I was impressed by the point which the noble Lord raised, and that I would consult the Ministers about it. I added that it was the intention of the Ministers to have a balanced representation of the various industries concerned. I am glad to be able to give the noble Lord the further assurance that the Ministers concerned will also consult appropriate organisations representing the non-technical interests—what the noble Lord calls the industrial users—affected: for example, the British Employers Confederation and the Trades Union Congress. I hope that that assurance will satisfy my noble friend.
LORD CHERWELL: I am grateful for that answer.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Power of entry and inspection.
(2) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace on sworn information in writing by a person authorised as aforesaid—

(a) That the exercise of the right conferred by the preceding subsection has been refused or, in the case of premises wholly or mainly used for residential purposes, that a request for admission has been refused, or that the case is one of urgency or that an application or request for admission would defeat the object of the entry; and

683

(b) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under any provision of this Act (except section two) has been or is being committed in or in connection with the premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft in question;

the justice may by warrant under his hand authorise that person to enter and search any premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft, if need be by force.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (2) after "person" where that word occurs last, to insert:
"and any other person named in the warrant and any constable."
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I will speak on this and the next Amendment together. Clause 7 (1) empowers any person authorised by the appropriate Minister to enter premises, and so on, in order to ascertain whether an offence has been or is being committed under the Bill (excluding subsection (2)) and to take with him "such other persons as may be necessary." That is provided for in subsection (3). In certain circumstances, which are set out in Clause 7 (2), the authorised person has to be armed with a Justice's warrant. The effect of these two Amendments is, first, to give the occupier greater protection by requiring that any other persons whom the authorised person may take with him must be named in the warrant; and, secondly, to provide specifically that the authorised person may take a constable with him, if so authorised by the warrant. Where the authorised person is empowered, under subsection (1), to enter without a warrant, any other persons may receive a similar authorisation from the appropriate Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, at end insert "and any other person named in the warrant and any constable."—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Offences and penalties]:
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL moved, after sub-section (1) to insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Any person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) of the last preceding section shall—

(a) on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

The noble Lord said: As I mentioned on Second Reading, there are certain circumstances in which it may, and in my opinion would, be desirable to increase the penalties for offences under this Bill. In general, the offences would be accidents and mistakes, and only if they were persisted in would they be offences meriting imprisonment or some similar serious punishment. There is, however, one particular possibility which ought to be covered—namely, that of people entering premises in order to ascertain whether the regulations are being complied with, discovering something about processes of manufacture or methods of production, and disclosing them. That would obviously be a grave offence, and it does not seem sufficient that people guilty of such an offence should be able to escape with a fine of £100 on a first offence. It might be worth a great deal more than that to discover some secret process, and to disclose its nature. The effect of this Amendment is to make the penalties very much more severe for this particular offence, so that in such a case a man can be imprisoned on the first offence, and will not, like a dog, have a first free bite. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Cherwell).
LORD HENDERSON: It may be remembered that on Second Reading the noble Lord made this point about the disclosure of special processes or trade secrets. I stated in my remarks at the end of the debate that I had been impressed by the point made, and promised that I would take it to the Minister for reconsideration. That reconsideration has been given to the matter, and I am happy to tell the noble Lord that I can accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Amendments reported. Bill read 3ª; an Amendment (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
4.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The National Research Development Corporation.
(2) In this Act—
the expression "invention" includes any new process or new technique;
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after "technique" to insert:
"whether patented or not, including inventions not capable of being patented."
The noble Viscount said: I am sorry to say that my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, who was to have moved this Amendment, is not well, and in his absence I will do my best with these legal Amendments. With your Lordships' permission, I would move the first Amendment in the following form:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert (" and shall be construed without regard to whether or not a patent has been or could be granted ").
The object of this Amendment, as my learned and noble friend said last time, is to make it plain not only that the Bill deals with patents to the limited extent which he indicated, but, what is more important, that the Corporation will be able to deal with an invention whether it is patentable or not. There are cases where, because of some anticipation, a person is not entitled to patent a perfectly good invention. At the same time, it may be greatly in the national interest that that invention should be developed here.
686
Obviously, the Corporation ought to have power to deal with such a case. I am advised that the words I have proposed cover both those points, and with your Lordships' permission I will therefore move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert ("and shall be construed without regard to whether or not a patent has been or could be granted").—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am glad to say that we can accept this Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount, whose absence we all regret, put the first point clearly in his speech on the Second Reading. There is also the second and more important point, and with exquisite mark-manship he has killed the two birds with one shot.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the clause:
"(4) Nothing in this section shall authorise the Corporation to do or cause to be done anything which would involve an infringement of the patent rights of any person."
The noble Viscount said: The noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, said on Second Reading that there was no intention under the Bill of infringing any patent right. If our legal advisers tell us that this matter is also provided for sufficiently in the Bill, and that there is no possibility under the terms of the Bill of the patent right being infringed, then I think I may properly be advised that it would be undesirable to insert these words. I have in mind the point that if the Bill states that one thing if, not to be done, it may be assumed that various other things can be done. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is a more experienced lawyer than I am, could advise me whether this is or is not a sound Amendment, and I will act as the Government advise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"Page 2, line 15, at end insert the said subsection."—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD CHORLEY: As the noble Viscount has indicated, there are technical difficulties attaching to the form in which this Amendment is moved. I feel flattered at his suggestion that I am more capable of advising the House than he is himself, but I am myself advised that the difficulty which he has indicated is a real one. We

687
have, of course, no intention that the Corporation shall have powers of compulsory acquisition on the lines suggested, but it is true that the insertion of these words might raise the difficulty which the noble Viscount has indicated.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And there is no power of infringement under the Bill as drafted?
LORD CHORLEY: Under the Bill as drafted there is no such power.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the clause:
"(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section the Corporation shall not engage in manufacture in connection with an invention unless they are satisfied that it is impracticable to arrange for such manufacture by a suitable person or organisation."
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment of more substance, but one upon which I am equally sure the Government will be prepared to meet what I know is the general intention on both sides of the House. The object of the Amendment is to limit the power of manufacture, and it is drafted in order to carry out the policy laid down by the noble Viscount the First Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the Second Reading. Your Lordships may recollect that when the Bill was before us on Second Reading, the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, said (column 574 of Hansard):
"The Corporation, therefore, will usually exploit inventions through established industry, but, in the very exceptional case in which industry cannot see its way to take up an invention which the Corporation believe is good and valuable, the Corporation may arrange for manufacture, and distribution, if necessary, on their own account."
That undertaking was entirely satisfactory to me as an expression of intention, but, as I said on Second Reading, I thought it would be wise that we should make that intention plain when we came to the Committee stage of the Bill.
The common intention was made still clearer by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, when he replied. I had said:
"I leave aside the question of whether something should be done by a. Royal dockyard or a Government establishment of that sort. What I think would be very wrong
688
would be for this Corporation to set up a competing industry in order to exploit an invention, whether the invention was found in a Government workshop, in a mixed laboratory—if I may use that term—or in private enterprise."
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, replied:
"I am glad to assure the noble Viscount that, in carrying out the powers conferred by this Bill, it is the general intention that the Corporation shall be in the closest touch with industry. If it appears that there are facilities in industry which can efficiently exploit a patent, whether it is obtained from a Government Department or from a trade association, the course that will be taken will be to entrust the patent to that industry."
I said:
"Then I think we are very near together."
I am quite sure we are not only near together but in complete agreement that the common intention ought to find its place in the Bill. As the Bill is drafted, this new Corporation—to which I wish every success in its proper sphere—would have an almost unlimited power of manufacture. I am quite sure that that is not intended. It would be limited only to the extent of a revolving credit of £5,000,000—and you can do a lot with a revolving credit of £5,000,000. I am equally sure that when the First Lord gives an undertaking as to what is going to be done, that undertaking will be honoured to the full, and not only in the letter but in the spirit.
The Corporation will, I hope, have a long and beneficial life, and the noble Viscount will be the first to agree that an undertaking which is given and accepted across the floor of this House binds both parties to it, but that of course it has no binding force at all upon a subsequent Parliament. No question arises of a breach of faith. Any Government which comes into power is entitled to change a policy. When we come into power next time we shall change the policy in quite a number of ways, though I think we shall carry on with this Bill. There is, as I said, no possible question of a breach of faith. I have made changes, and the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has done so. I can recollect ways in which we were constantly chopping and changing. For instance, I operated one thing one way and then the late Lord Snowden came in and operated it in quite another way; then he went out and we came in and it was changed

689
once again, until in 1931 we came together—and, I almost said, lived happily ever afterwards. Any Government is absolutely entitled to say to Parliament: "We want to carry on a different policy" in cases where there are no limiting words in an Act, and no one will accuse them of any breach of faith.
What I want are words in this Bill—I am not wedded to my own particular wording—which will not limit the Corporation when they cannot get something done outside. Both noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have said that they will work through ordinary industry. It has been said to me—and I am grateful to the Government for making the comment—that the words I have drafted might be unduly narrowing and might be construed so as to limit the purely experimental work on the part of the Corporation or the making of a thing such as a prototype—though I think they would naturally get a prototype made by someone in industry or in a Government workshop. There is no limitation on the placing of orders; they can place any number of orders. What I am concerned to do here is to carry out in terms of the Bill what is our common intention, and if the Government can meet me on the principle I am not in the least wedded to these particular words. I think there are two possible alternatives. Either we can have general words, though better drafted than mine—I think probably that is the better way—or there is an alternative way, and that is to put in a financial limitation on manufacture, but I like that rather less than the other way. What I would like to do, if we are in complete agreement in principle, as I think we are, would be to leave it over to Report stage and for the Government to find words suitable and convenient. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD CHORLEY: I think I can assure the noble Viscount that the noble Viscount the First Lord and myself are gratified by his touching confidence in our integrity. We quite appreciate that such a "tontine" arrangement between himself and the First Lord does not give him that statutory assurance which he would like to have. While, as the noble Viscount says, the words of the Amendment
690
which he has moved do not satisfactorily achieve his object and might, as he suggested, be rather hampering, we appreciate his desire and the desire of other noble Lords to have something in the Bill that will achieve what he has in mind. I can promise him that by the Report stage we will find some form of words which will give him what he wants.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and in view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Accounts and audit]:
VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved to omit the proviso to subsection (5). The noble Viscount said: On the Second Reading I promised to move an Amendment to this effect. This part of Clause 10 provides for censorship in the national interests of the reports of the auditors of the Corporation. The reason for deletion is that it is now felt that the circumstances requiring censorship of this kind are unlikely to arise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 29 to 33.—(Viscount Hall.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged. I think this is a definite improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

COTTON SPINNING (RE-EQUIPMENT SUBSIDY) BILL.
4.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, in asking for a Second Reading of this Bill I do not think that I need take up a great deal of your time—not that this is not a significant Bill, but it is one of which the purpose is clear and the terms are not too long. As its title indicates, the object of the Bill is to provide assistance for the rebuilding of the cotton industry

691
in Lancashire. Your Lordships recently had before you an Order for the setting up of the new Cotton Board. This is the second Bill which comes before your Lordships' House as part of the Government's reconstruction proposals for the cotton industry. There is no need for me to emphasise in this House the importance of this industry, and the vital part which it can play—and, indeed is already playing—in the great export drive on which the future prosperity and standard of life of this country so much depend.
In order that that export drive may be successful, we need a substantial increase in the production of cotton piece goods in Lancashire. And not only do we require a substantial increase in the quantity of cotton goods manufactured, but it is also equally essential that they should be produced more economically, at a price which will enable us to compete successfully in the world markets after the sellers' market has come to an end, as it already shows signs of doing. As your Lordships are probably aware, the most pressing need in the industry at the present time is recruitment of workers. It has so far proved impossible to build up the army of cotton operatives to the number at which it stood before the outbreak of the Second World War. Although substantial progress has been made, we are still something like 30,000 below the figure required. A good deal of progress has been made with the recruitment of workers from abroad; already numbers of them are successfully at work in the cotton mills in Lancashire, but it is obvious that this is a source of supply that cannot be relied upon much longer.
Moreover, from the point of view of recruitment in Lancashire itself, there are obvious difficulties. The workers in the mills are growing older. The younger generation in Lancashire are not displaying a great deal of enthusiasm for entering the mills, and it is obvious that in the future recruitment will not be easy. However, even if there were no particular difficulty about recruitment, it would still be essential, in the interests of Lancashire and of the export trade of this country, that there should be a great deal of re-equipment and modernisation in the industry, in order to make the best use of the labour which is available, labour of high skill and of fine tradition. So I
692
suggest to your Lordships that the solution, or at any rate the first part of the long-term solution, of this problem is that the machinery in the Lancashire cotton industry should be brought up to date, and made thoroughly efficient, as quickly as possible; and at the same time that the labour forces in the industry should be redeployed, in order that full and effective use may be made of this new machinery. A great deal of attention has been given over recent months to the redeployment of the labour force, and in some of the more progressive mills in Lancashire remarkable achievements have already been secured.
Your Lordships may have heard about the Musgrave Mill, for example, where scientific redeployment has been going on, and where already remarkable achievements have been obtained. I will not take your Lordships into the details but, per £100 of production, the hours which before redeployment stood at 10.48 have been reduced already to the figure of 7.58, a reduction of something like 25 per cent., which I am sure your Lordships will agree is a very encouraging figure. The Working Party which produced a most interesting and instructive Report not long ago on the Cotton Industry made it clear that it was their opinion—and I think there can be no question that it is right—that in future the cotton industry of Lancashire will have to rely upon a smaller and more highly paid labour force. The scope for this re-equipment and redeployment is evident throughout the industry.
As your Lordships are aware, this particular Bill deals only with one section of the industry, the spinning section. This has been chosen as the first part of the industry to be dealt with, not because it is behind the others but partly because the problem here is simpler—the number of concerns occupied in spinning is not so large—and partly because yarn not only has an outlet in the weaving mills but is also a very saleable article in other parts of the country—as in Leicestershire for hosiery—and overseas. Therefore, if we could step up the production of yarn from the spinning mills, there should be no difficulty about selling it. Indeed, over the last months very favourable results have been achieved. Yarn is coming forth well. Only last week, for the first time since the Second World War, a

693
figure of over 18,000,000 lb. was produced, which again, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is a most encouraging sign.
The history of the cotton industry between the First and the Second World Wars is only too well known, and I do not propose to take your Lordships again over that rather gloomy era. But, for various reasons, it meant that there was comparatively little modernisation and re-equipment of the mills with up-to-date machinery. This was due partly to difficulties of finance, but even more, I think, to difficulties of psychology. At any rate, the context of this Bill is a twin one: it is a context of new machinery and redeployment. The installation of new machinery is important not only on its merits, from the point of view of increased material production, but also from the psychological angle. It is necessary, in order to convince the workers of Lancashire that the managements really intend to put their house in order and to have the mills in an up-to-date and efficient condition. Only when they are satisfied in that respect, can the best will and the most efficient efforts be obtained from the workers. On the other hand, however, from the point of view of the management, if a great deal of money is to be spent on new and up-to-date and very expensive machinery, the management must be clearly satisfied that the workers are prepared to play their part. Therefore this Bill is important from both points of view.
I have referred to the great expense of modern machinery. Many of the mills (possibly most of them) are still equipped with spindles which were installed before the First World War, when the cost was something like £1 per spindle. Nowadays, the cost has risen to something like £9 per spindle. That is a very substantial increase indeed and, therefore, the cost of re-equipping the mills with the new spinning machinery is heavy. This drain on the nation's resources cannot possibly be justified unless the machinery is to be fully worked, and the machinery cannot be fully worked unless a two-shift system is introduced. The object of this Bill is to enable this new equipment and machinery to be put into the mills and, we hope, to enable the two-shift system to be worked there.
The essence of the Bill, which is contained in Clause 1, is to provide a 25 per cent. subsidy to manufacturers who
694
re-equip or modernise the machinery in their mills. Naturally, that subsidy will be forthcoming to the manufacturers only if certain conditions are satisfied; and, broadly speaking, those conditions are two in number. Before applying for ass stance under the Act, the applicant will have to show that there has been he formation of a group—that is to say, that a certain number of mills have formed a group, which must consist of not less than three mills. Not only must there be a group of mills in this scheme for the re-equipment and modernisation of that particular little section of the industry, but it must also be shown that the group is operating no fewer than 400,000 equivalent mule spindles. Where there is a vertical set-up, that number may be reduced to 250,000, which I think your Lordships will agree is a reasonable proposition.
There has been a certain amount of criticism in another place of the grouping proposal, but I believe that your Lordships will agree that that is an essential part of the proposals under this Bill, and that it is necessary if an efficient two-shift system is to be introduced. It is necessary for this reason: that as the operative force stands at the present time, it will not be possible for one mill to run a two-shift system without bringing in he workers from another mill and, therefore, it will be necessary, on the proposals which are contained in the Bill and which the Board will operate, to have three mills. It is proposed to go forward in two steps. The workers from the less efficient mill (if there be a less efficient mill) will go into the two more efficient mills, and eventually in that way the industry will be concentrated into a smaller number of more efficient mills. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would be wasteful to spread modernisation thinly over the whole industry; it is much better to concentrate on the most efficient and up-to-date mills where the largest production can be achieved with the smallest labour force.
I think those are all the observations of a general character which I need address to your Lordships. I do not think it is necessary to ask you to go through the Bill clause by clause. The substance of the matter is contained in Clause 1, and if your Lordships would look at that for a moment you will see that it requires

695
not less than three in the grouping. Sub-section 2 (b) lays down that the group must be organised
"with a view in particular to making the best use of the more efficient mills."
That is, so to speak, the acid test of the reorganisation. I should perhaps point out to your Lordships that the subsidy is in respect of re-equipment with machinery. It is not limited to the actual spinning machinery; it covers the whole area of machinery which leads up to, and works in connection with, the spinning. It does not, however, mean the rebuilding of the mills themselves. It does not cover the structural side of the matter; only the machinery. The other clauses deal with matters which are necessary to the carrying out of this main clause.
Your Lordships will see that further down in Clause 1, there are various dates within which the application has to be made, and within which the modernised machinery must be installed, and that no subsidy will be forthcoming until the machinery has, in fact, been installed. But I would like your Lordships to look at subsection (7) of Clause 1, which was inserted in another place and which is directed to the provision of better arrangements for the safety, health and welfare of the operatives in the mill. Owing to the fact that many of these mills are so old, they have fallen behind the more up-to-date engineering works, and other works of that kind which have been built during the present generation. It is necessary that a good deal of improvement should be effected in this matter, and this clause gives the Board power to see that effective arrangements are made to that end before the subsidy is forthcoming.
I need not ask your Lordships to look in detail at any of the other clauses. If there are any points which are not clear, or upon which I can assist your Lordships, I shall be glad to do so in reply. I hope that your Lordships do not think, from anything I have said, that there is dismay or downheartedness in Lancashire. Such figures as I have been able to give you, indicate, I think, that they are pulling their weight; but it is undoubtedly necessary that there should be a considerable amount of re-equipment and modernisation, which can be done only if the nation comes in and helps.
696
Undoubtedly, very great energy, vitality, skill and inventive capacity are left in Lancashire, the home of a great industry which was for many years our pride, and which, with the assistance of the Government and the hard work and ingenuity of the people of Lancashire, will, I am sure, once more take its place in the van in British industrial progress. I beg to move that the Bill be read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Chorley.)
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a clear and concise explanation of this Bill, but really the justification for it could be summed up in a sentence—that the re-equipment and redeployment of this industry, the basis of all Lancashire textile industry (and indeed, of all textile industry) is so vital that we must do everything we can to expedite that dual process. I do not suppose any of your Lordships are greatly attracted by a subsidy Bill, particularly when the subsidies are irrecoverable. I may have missed it, but I do not think the noble Lord told us how much this is going to cost. I have seen an estimate—I do not know whether it is correct—that the cost will be about £12,000,000.
LORD CHORLEY: That is the estimate: not more than £12,000,000.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think any limitation is put in the Bill. But that is the estimate, and it seems rather noteworthy to me that of the two sections of the industry, spinning and weaving, the weaving side appears to have placed all its orders for re-equipment without a subsidy, but there has to be a subsidy for the spinning side. We gather that the argument is that this subsidy is needed as a sort of carrot or inducement to bring about the right kind of amalgamations and groupings. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that if we spend this money we must spend it as effectively as possible. It is not desirable to spread a little margarine over a lot of bread. What is desirable is to give an increased butter ration, so to speak. Incidentally, I observe that when one ration goes up the other comes down. What is required is that a good pat of butter should be applied where the bread is of the highest quality.
I would add that I hope the Government will not try to use a sealed pattern

697
for these amalgamations or groupings; that the process will not be carried out entirely on a rigid blue-print plan. I am sure that it is necessary to have flexibility. I do not set myself up as possessing special knowledge of the textile industry. I have never been connected with it apart from my six or seven years' tenure of the office of President of the Board of Trade, but I have sufficient knowledge of it to be aware that this reorganisation cannot be properly carried out according to a sealed pattern. All the different firms and factories must be considered on their merits. Flexibility is becoming one of the latest clichés, and it is a very good one. I hope that in this case it will be something more than a cliché—that it will be embodied in practice.
Little as I like subsidies, and preferring much more, as I do, the discarded profit motive as an incentive, it is clearly so vital to stimulate production in this industry, both in quantity and quality, that I expect that we shall all be prepared to swallow this dose and—to mix the metaphors—to put our hands in our pockets. But it is essential—and I am glad that the noble Lord, himself, has stressed this fact—that the best use should be made of this machinery in the factories in which it is to be installed, that there should be no restrictive practices, and that management should be brought to the highest pitch of efficiency. There can be no fear of unemployment in this industry. The only fear is that there may be a failure to produce the almost unlimited quantities of goods necessary to meet the demand for export and the home market. Nor is there any doubt, as the noble Lord also fairly said, that, if there is this redeployment and this abolition of old practices, the workers will earn more.
That extraordinary system on which wages were calculated has, I hope and believe, gone by the board. I never could begin to understand the system of calculating wages in the mills. I understood the system employed in the coalfields because I spent nine months in the mines, and at one time I had a considerable coal practice at the Bar. Therefore, in the old days, I could calculate miners' wages. But I doubt whether any of your Lordships, unless you happen to have been connected all your lives with the industry,
698
could calculate wages in the cotton trade. However, I understand that as the result of a sensible joint trade arrangement a great deal of the old complexity has gone, and, as a result, he or she who runs may now read. I am sure it is true that redeployment and re-equipment have to go forward together. Each is necessary to the other. And as we are priming the machine to this very considerable extent we have the right to ask management and workers alike for a great combined effort. I must say that I wish this could have been brought about sooner.
I have only two other observations to make. They are rather more general than those I have made, but I think they are relevant and, perhaps, worth making. This great demand for textile goods comes from all over the world now, but I would like the people of Lancashire to realise that by increased production not only can they make a great general contribution to the national economy, but they can make a large contribution—as no one else can—to food production and development in the great African territories. There is a direct link in this matter. Lancashire needed the market of our great African territories before the war, and will need it again. We need greatly increased food production in Africa. It became char to me when I was Minister in West Africa, during the war, that if we were to get maximum production, not out of the great plantations, of which we have very few in West Africa, but out of the millions of small native farms which, in the aggregate, have a colossal production, we must give the people there textile goods. I must say that my colleagues in the Government were extraordinarily good to me over that matter. They took steps to keep up a most remarkable flow of cotton textiles to West Africa. I do not think that I am putting it too high when I say that it was that flow of goods, coupled with—and I must stress this—a genuine appreciation of the war effort by the people of West Africa, that kept the fat ration going in this country during the war.
We want all the development we can get to-day, and the people of Lancashire can greatly help to increase the food supplies of this country by increasing their production. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in believing and trusting that this industry can be as efficient in the future as ever it has been in the past.

699
But I hope that more than efficiency will be promoted. I hope that we shall see a closer partnership within the industry. The Lancashire cotton industry, re-equipped, with the right spirit, with able management and taking full advantage of the latest inventions, will, I am sure, hold its own against any fair competition. I want to add this, however. Before the war there was competition which no European country, or the United States for that matter, could meet. That was the competition of Japan with its frightfully low wages and standard of living. No country (I was going to say no civilised country) with anything approaching decent standards of living and labour could compete with the products of those Japanese mills. Both Britain and India had to take measures. In concert with India, I had to take measures to safeguard ourselves against Japanese competition, and we took them with the greatest good will of the African consumers, who saw Japan importing nothing from them whereas other countries—ourselves first and then other European countries—took a great deal. There was no difference of opinion between us, even before the war. By the most stringent measures—a tariff was not enough, and quotas had to be imposed—we had to safeguard our trade against that competition. After all we have suffered at the hands of the Japanese, it would be a travesty of justice if that competition were allowed again to swamp this industry and the cotton industry of other countries in the concert of Europe. I am glad to see that recently the cotton industries of this country and America have been getting together, as I understand, to study this problem, which is of common interest to both. Noble Lords on this side must accept this Bill and will certainly expedite its passage. I express the hope that the re-equipment and redeployment of this industry will proceed as expeditiously as the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
5.3 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for the way in which he has welcomed this Bill. He has left me very little to answer. I would point out that in the Financial Memorandum the expenditure on this subsidy is limited to £12,000,000.
700
As he has done in the past, the noble Viscount referred to the need for avoiding a sealed pattern in this co-operation with industry. I can assure him that we on this side of the House appreciate the importance of that. I am sure that during the time the noble Viscount was President of the Board of Trade, he saw enough of Lancashire to know that it would be the most difficult county on which to impose a sealed pattern, even if anybody wanted to make the attempt. I had the pleasure of working with the people of Lancashire on Civil Defence during the war years, and I found they were not people who took easily or readily to a sealed pattern—individuality of character is of the essence of that great county, and of the men who work and earn their living there.
The noble Viscount's excursus to Africa was interesting. He spoke with great knowledge of that Continent, on which so much hope is now rested, and I am sure he is right in his view that there must be much greater exports of cotton textiles to Africa, so that food of one kind or another may be forthcoming in larger quantities from that Continent. It is my own impression (though I speak without great knowledge) that in the future Lancashire will have to rely more and more on Africa for the raw materials for its industry. Again, the most obvious way of purchase will be by the return to Africa of the completed cotton articles. The noble Viscount invited me to follow him even further, into the Far East. I hope he will forgive me for not being prepared to make so distant a voyage. As he said, these problems are very much in the minds of the industry in Lancashire and of His Majesty's Government. I conclude by thanking him for his support and ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
5.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, as your Lordships know, great legislative measures often need to be tuned up after they have been tried out, just as it is usual for any

701
complicated machine to need minor adjustments and alterations after a period of trial. At the design stage it is impossible to foresee and solve all the problems which arise in practice. In the same way, operation of the Education Act of 1944 has revealed a need for correction, adjustment and amplification in some parts of the wide field which it covers. Some two years ago, this House considered an earlier Bill amending the 1944 Act, and the measure before us to-day is similar. It aims not at altering the principles of the original Act, but at simplifying the administration of that Act by removing a few difficulties and doubts and by filling in a few gaps which experience has shown to exist. There is, therefore, no unifying theme running through the Bill as a whole, and as it would be tedious to describe each clause separately in detail, I propose to confine my remarks to those which I think are of most importance.
Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to go some way towards bringing the administration of Charitable Trusts into line with the new system of education outlined in the 1944 Act. In exercising his powers under the principal Act, the Minister of Education has an administrative responsibility for certain endowments which are partly educational and partly non-educational. There are, for instance, endowments for youth welfare, community centres, libraries and some technical colleges which receive grant from the Ministry, either direct or through local education authorities, and it is vexatious that these institutions should come partly within the scope of the Ministry of Education and partly under the control of the Charity Commissioners. Clause 1 of the Bill will enable this mixed type of endowment to be brought entirely within the purview of the Minister. Lest it should be thought that the Minister is seeking by this clause to assume arbitrary powers over a new field of activity, I would emphasise that subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides for the jurisdiction of these partly educational charities to be transferred from the Charity Commissioners by Order in Council. Naturally, before an Order in Council is made, the Charity Commissioners will have full opportunities to express their views and to influence the final decision.
702
The law affecting Charitable Trusts has in other ways fallen behind our progress in educational administration. There are many endowments whose funds cannot at present be used for the benefit of education in accordance with the wishes of the founders, because the State and the local education authorities have gradually assumed responsibilities which 100 or 150 years ago were left to private benevolence. For instance, endowments which were founded to enable poor children to obtain a secondary education have become redundant, because fees have been abolished in all maintained schools and local education authorities now have wide powers to provide scholarships and other forms of financial assistance. Clause 2, therefore, is intended to enable the Minister of Education to make new schemes for endowments of this kind, and to apply the funds to the education of adults, as well as of children. I should like to stress the fact that the clause does not apply to any endowment for a university or similar institution, or for any school which is not maintained by a local education authority. School endowments will, however, continue to be regulated by the terms of the Endowed Schools Acts, in so far as they are not amended by this clause.
Clause 3 is necessary because the principal Act as it stands lays it down that the dividing line between primary and secondary pupils is the age of 12. It has come to our notice that this, strictly speaking, makes illegal the general practice of local education authorities, which is to transfer children from primary to secondary schools between about 10½ to 11½ years of age; the average is a little over 11. The clause does not lower the age at which children can be transferred. It merely brings the law into line with existing practice. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 will, I think, be generally welcome as simplifying the day-to-day administration of education. Clause 4, among other things, relieves schools and local education authorities of a mass of paper work connected with the registration of children at school and with the withdrawal of children from school. It is estimated that many scores of thousands of forms will be saved by the operation of this clause. Clause 5 amends and consolidates the law concerning the powers of local education authorities to provide clothing for pupils at schools and for young people attending

703
establishments of further education. Clause 6 deals with the financial arrangements in cases where local education authorities provide for children whose parents do not live in their own area. The new procedure laid down in this clause for those cases where the parents or legal guardian cannot be found, or lives abroad, is, I understand, generally acceptable to the local authorities.
Another problem of administration which was not adequately covered in the 1944 Act is the difficulty of applying the statutory building regulations without modification in every case where a new school is provided. For existing schools the Minister already has power to modify the statutory requirements. The purpose of Clause 7 of this Bill is, first of all, to make more precise and more practicable the powers which the Minister had in the original Act in relation to existing schools; and secondly, to give him a new power to deal with new schools in a similar way. The clause has been very carefully drafted so as to confine the Minister's exercise of these powers to cases where it would be unreasonable to expect complete conformity with the building regulations on account of site difficulties, or shortages of labour and materials. It is obviously unreasonable to suppose that in thickly populated areas, such as London and many other cities, it will be possible to obtain for every school the amount of land which is specified in the building regulations. Therefore, both for existing schools and for new schools to be provided in the future, the Minister ought to have power to accept a lower standard where it is quite inevitable.
Similarly, it is obviously sensible that the Ministry and the local education authorities should be able to make use of the many large houses which are to be found up and down the country for such purposes as special schools. These buildings can often be adapted to make admirable schools, but they do not necessarily conform strictly to the letter of the building regulations. Clause 7 will make it legal for the Minister to allow local education authorities to seize the opportunities which those places provide. I do not think that any of the other clauses of the Bill, or the Schedules, raise any matter of great principle, though they
704
are all extremely useful in order to enable the spirit and intention of the 1944 Act to find expression in practice. I hope the House will be prepared to give a Second Reading to a small but very useful measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Walkden.)
5.16 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, has said, when a large measure like the Education Act, 1944, goes upon the Statute Book it will be found necessary, as time goes on, whatever care was taken by Parliament during the passing of the Act, to make some modification. We all know the care that was taken over the Education Act, 1944, not only by the Minister who was primarily in charge of it, Mr. Butler, but also by his Parliamentary Secretary, the present Home Secretary, when they worked together on that Bill. Some of us were then members of another place, and we know what care was taken with the Bill when it was before the other place. This is not an easy Bill to discuss in principle, because it is a kind of hotch-potch of various small points—some quite important—which need to be cleared up. I suppose the only principle underlying it is that if one finds in practice that it will work better with some amendment, then the amendment should be made.
I will just touch on one or two of the clauses, as the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, has already done. Under Clause 1 the Minister can now take over from the Charity Commissioners, or from the trustees of the charity, both solely educational endowments and endowments that are partly educational and partly trusts for other charitable purposes. In a great number of cases it is probably right that that power should be given. But at the present time, when the Bill comes before us, there is no right of any public protest, at any rate by the Charity Commissioners, or by the trustees of the particular charity concerned, if they think that the Minister is going too far in taking over a particular charity. This point was raised in another place on the Second Reading, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education was quite sympathetic. He said:
"Theoretically, we might, at the Ministry of Education, be too greedy, and attempt to

705
filch by means of Orders in Council too many endowments from the Charity Commissioners; and so it is reasonable to suggest that some impartial person should be empowered to decide which endowments should be transferred."
By that, I presume, he meant in the case of dispute.
Apparently, no way of doing that was found in the other place, because the Bill comes before us without provision for such an impartial person. I think it would be right to see whether there may not be some way of carrying out that intention and remedying that possible defect. I do not expect that any person or body would have many cases to deal with, but it is always a check on officials in a Ministry if they know that in the background there is the possibility of appeal to an impartial person. It might well be—because I can see some difficulty in having these matters taken to the Chancery Court, which would normally be the Court to deal with the alteration of trusts—that there would be some difficulty in that. I had noticed, of course, that these are Orders in Council to be made by the Minister, but are not the kind of Orders in Council which can be prayed against by either House of Parliament.
LORD WALKDEN: Under Clause 12 there is provision that they may be annulled by either House of Parliament.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the noble Lord will see that that applies to regulations. It will be possible to pray against regulations made under this Bill in either House of Parliament. I think if the noble Lord consults those who are in a position to advise him, he will find that an Order made under this Bill cannot be so prayed against. I suggest that it might be a good thing (I do not expect the noble Lord to reply now; I am only making the suggestion, and it can be raised again on the Committee stage) so to alter Clause 12 that the Order made under Clause 1 can be prayed against in the same way as the regulations. That would give an opportunity to the trustees of one of these charities, if they thought they were being unfairly dealt with, to bring the matter to public attention, either by communicating with one of your Lordships here or with some Member of another place who could voice their grievance. That might well be a suitable way of getting over the difficulty.
706
With regard to Clause 2, it may be said that it is quite right chat a lot of these old endowments should be reviewed, to see whether the money available in them cannot be used more effectively than as originally provided for under the trust which created them. But I hope that kind of thing will not be done on too extensive a scale, because if it becomes known that the wishes of generous persons who set up these charitable endowments and trusts have been completely overriden it may stop other people devoting some of their money in these excellent ways. They will begin to say that, although they may lay down the terms of the trust, a Minister may step in and take the money for ordinary purposes, which, in a lot of this school work, means merely in relief of taxation; and in such circumstances the money would not be used for the particular purpose which the donor had in mind.
I understand that Clause 3 arises because some local educational authorities have been extremely stubborn, and have insisted on keeping all their primary school boys and girls rigidly in the primary school up to the age of eleven or twelve, even though in some cases it would be quite right and proper that a particularly bright young boy or girl should go on to secondary education earlier than normal age. By this rigid adherence to an age limit the authorities can keep the children at the top of the primary school, perhaps for two or three terms, far in advance of the rest of the class, when in the interests of the child it would be much better that he or she should be moved rather earlier. If this clause is making the system more flexible, there are great advantages in it.
I would like to ask the noble Lord a question on Clause 2, where paragraphs (a) and (b) provide an excuse for parents not sending a boy to school. The Bill refers to a child who is prevented from attending school:

"(a) by his being ill or by other circumstances beyond his parents' control; or

(b) by his parents having been then resident at a place whence the school was not accessible with reasonable facility;"

and says:
"… the parent of a child shall not be under any duty to cause him to receive full time education … "

707
Does that widen the defence that a parent now has for not sending his child to school? It is extraordinary that some parents, who have free education for their children, should be so stubborn in keeping their children away from school. The Bench on which I happen to sit were concerned only a short time ago with a case in which a parent had been fined (and under the old clause the maximum fine was only £1 a time) a total of £50 in the last seven or eight years on a succession of children whom he just will not send round to the local school. I am wondering whether this new draft will in any way widen the line of such parents' defence. If so, I think we should look rather carefully at the words before we make it easier for some of these stubborn parents to keep their children at home. Often, of course, the elder girl is kept at home because the mother likes her about the house to look after the youngest child, but it is not in the least fair to that child, who ought, like everyone else, to have a chance of a good education.
With regard to Clause 9, I think the drafting of it may have to be examined. It appears from that clause that the court have to assume, without any real proof, that a child is of compulsory school age. I refer to Clause 9 (1) which says:
"For the purposes of a prosecution of the parent of a child for an offence against Section thirty-seven or Section thirty-nine of the principal Act … in so far as the child's having been of compulsory school age at any time is material, the child shall be presumed to have been of compulsory school age at that time unless the parent proves the contrary."
I should have thought that the school attendance officer would have to show that, in his belief at any rate, the child was of compulsory school age. I should have thought also that there ought to be some initial measure of evidence before the Bench, before the onus was completely shifted to the parent.
Coming now for a moment to Clause 5, I am glad that the provisions in regard to the supply of clothing have been consolidated in this way. I particularly like the provision that allows the school to provide the clothing needed for games and other forms of physical exercise. In the ordinary way, in these days there is little excuse, except the need for clothing coupons, for any parent sending a child to school not properly clothed. In passing, may I say that I notice that the
708
local education authority can require parents to pay cash when clothing has been provided, but there is no provision for making them surrender clothing coupons. I must say that if I were one of these parents I should be inclined to send my child to school in a rather ragged condition, in the hope of possibly getting a few more clothes than the President of the Board of Trade allows coupons for in the ordinary way.
I think that Clause 7, which is the clause dealing with building, is obviously right, in view of building difficulties in the times in which we live. Apart altogether from the housing programme—which is progressing all too slowly—in another measure that is now before your Lordships' House, the Criminal Justice Bill, we are making provision for all sorts of places such as remand homes and detention centres; and we know that the effectiveness of the educational reform provided for in the 1944 Act is being held up, in some places substantially, by the lack of appropriate school buildings. It seems to me that it is better not to wait for the best, but, if necessary, to lower our standards a little and make alterations to some of the existing schools, even though they might not quite comply with the regulations or be up to the standard everybody would like to see. Quite a number of people received part of their education at some of our older public schools in classrooms that certainly would not satisfy the best standards of the Ministry of Education, but I do not think any of us is any the worse for it. One has to do the best one can in the circumstances. For instance, if some of the big houses in which the owners can no longer live, can be acquired for use as schools, it will be an excellent policy to adapt them, especially if they have a certain amount of pleasant ground which can be used as playing fields.
In regard to Clause 8, which I do not think the noble Lord touched upon, I understand that hitherto, if a child was once certified as being so mentally deficient as not to be capable of education at school, the certificate stood for all time. Clause 8 now provides that in suitable cases the certificate may be cancelled and a different certificate issued. That seems to me to be a very sensible provision. In fact, by and large, except for the one or two points I have raised and about

709
which we may have further discussion on the Committee stage, the Bill certainly has my blessing. I hope that it will be in fact another chapter completing the volume which was started by the Education Act of 1944. If, by means of this Bill, we can get more children in this country better educated, then it should have the support of all of us.
5.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we welcome this Bill as a useful measure which does some tidying up of loose ends left in the existing Acts. Some of us will have Amendments to put forward on Clauses 2 and 4, but I do not intend now to develop arguments in support of those Amendments. I shall, therefore, reserve what I have to say on these points until the next stage.
5.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lords who have spoken for their welcome to this Bill. It is a miscellaneous bundle of proposed alterations in the law, arising out of the practical application of the 1944 Act. I should like to reply to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I will gladly fall in with the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that his points be dealt with when the Committee stage is reached. Lord Llewellin will agree, I am sure, that the advantage of Clause 1 from the administrative point of view is that it will reduce the authorities concerned in this matter from two to one—from the Charity Commissioners and the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Education. It should, I think, be remembered that the Charity Commissioners have themselves agreed to the handing over of those responsibilities which they will transfer to the Ministry of Education under this clause.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Of course, there are the trustees of the Charities concerned. We cannot look at this matter as though it were just a question of the Ministry of Education on the one side and the Charity Commissioners on the other. There are these third parties.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I accept that. I was only pointing out that, so far as the Charity Commissioners are concerned, everything that is proposed in
710
this clause will be done with their consent. The noble Lord raised an important point about the procedure that has been suggested as regards Orders in Council made under this clause. He was anxious that such Orders should be subject to the veto of either House of Parliament. I think that that was his point.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It would not mean an affirmative Resolution. I thought this would be an appropriate way of appealing against the Minister's action rather than going to the courts.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We are all familiar with that procedure, which is the usual procedure with the great majority of orders made by Government Departments under Acts of Parliament. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that the procedure for making regulations under Clause 12 does not cover the making of an Order in Council under Clause 1. I understand that my right honourable friend the Minister of Education would be prepared to look again at this question of making Orders in Council under Clause 1, and a suitable Amendment will be introduced into the Bill. I hope that we may be able to satisfy the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord also made some other observations on Clause 2. I am glad that he agreed with the principle of the clause. It is indeed a fact that appeals to everyone that many endowments made a hundred years ago or more can no longer be used in accordance with the wishes and intentions of their donors. The result of this acceptance by the State of what used to be a responsibility of philanthropic individuals is that thousands of schemes have to be worked out in order that those funds can continue to play a useful part in our educational system The time has surely come to extend such schemes to include adult education, which has grown in recent years into one of the most important branches of our educational service. But, under existing legislation, the Minister has no power to use these funds for the furtherance of adult education, and this clause will give him the necessary enlargement of his present powers. The noble Lord has issued a warning which I am quite certain that my right honourable friend and those who work under him will take to heart. It is certainly not the Minister's intention to divert funds that have been allocated

711
and earmarked by a specific endowment for a specific purpose to other purposes, if the original purpose can be carried out.
The noble Lord then asked a question on Clause 4. He wanted to know whether that clause would make it easier for parents to keep their children away from school, a most undesirable thing which I am sure we all wish to prevent. I can give the noble Lord a reply but I cannot give it to him now, because I have not had an opportunity to study the note which my advisers have placed before me. However, I will gladly give him my reply when this clause is reached on Committee stage. I am very glad also that the noble Lord opposite agrees with what I may call the emergency provisions in Clause 7. He accepts the necessity for giving the Minister power, in the case of new schools, to waive the standard requirements of building regulations. Of course, everyone hopes that this necessity will be only temporary, and that the new schools will be able at
712
the earliest possible moment to accommodate the children at the standards to which we have been accustomed in times past. I will not weary your Lordships by speaking at any greater length now on what, as my noble friend has said, is a small but useful Bill. I will undertake to cover during the Committee stage any points which I have been unable to cover now, and to see that the undertaking of my noble friend, Lord Walkden, in regard to the Order in Council procedure is carried out, whether or not it involves actual amendment of the text of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee; with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before six o'clock.