Sitting of 22 July 1924

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (no Standing Orders applicable).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Scarishrick Estate Drainage Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 21st July, and agreed to.
Southern Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Manchester Ship Canal Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 21st July, and agreed to.

LONDON, MIDLAND, AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (DOCK CHARGES, SCOTLAND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges, Scotland)," presented by Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act), to be considered To-morrow.
Mr. W. THORNE: Is this another case of this particular railway company seeking powers, and refusing to put them into operation when they have been given the powers?
Mr. SPEAKER: There can be no discussion at this stage.
Mr. THORNE: I am only asking a question.
Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot now be asked.
Mr. THORNE: Then I object to the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot object to the presentation of a Bill.
Mr. THORNE: Then what can I do to get a grievance rectified?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can consult the Secretary for Scotland.

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered, "showing for the financial years commencing the 1st day of April, 1880, the 1st day of April, 1890, the 1st day of April, 1900, and for each financial year thereafter:—

(1) The total amount of dead-weight Debt outstanding on the 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1923–24, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and miscellaneous receipts; the gross amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the net increase or decrease of Debt in the year;

(2) A similar Statement in respect of other capital liabilities;

(3) A similar Statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 122, of Session 1923)."—[Mr. William Graham.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ANGLO-BURMA OIL COMPANY.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the Official

  1085
  Receiver's Report of the Anglo-Burma Oil Company which discloses the fact that a large capital sum has been lost, that there is a deficiency as regards creditors, and that the cash assets amounts to 2s. 8d.; and whether he will appoint a Departmental Committee to examine the Companies Acts for the purpose of ascertaining in what particulars they can be amended so as to render it less easy for the principles of limited liability to be used in future in such a way as to permit of results such as those disclosed in relation to the Anglo-Burma Oil Company?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I understand that the position disclosed in regard to the affairs of this company is as stated by the hon. Member. In reply to the last part of the question, the suggestion of the hon. Member shall have consideration.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is not this case a further and an immediate proof that steps should be taken to set up a Departmental Committee, in order to amend the Companies. Acts in such a way as to protect the public against scandals of the kind referred to in the question, just as the Committee on Bankruptcy is in the course of doing in connection with the Bankruptcy Act?
  Mr. WEBB: If the hon. Member will repeat his question when the House reassembles, I hope to be able to give him an answer.

  BREAD (PRICE).
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has recently been any increase in the price of bread; and whether he has made any inquiry into the cause of the rise in price?
  Mr. WEBB: A general advance in the price of bread, amounting to a half-penny on the 4 lb. loaf, took place in London on 7th July. It is, I think, generally known that reports on the prospects of the coming harvests in Canada and the United States have been somewhat unfavourable, and the recent advances in the world prices of wheat are traceable to this cause.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of London flour went up 1s. to-day—
  Mr. W. THORNE: And another 1s. to-morrow!
  Sir K. WOOD:—and are not speculators operating in this market, and so causing the increase in price?
  Mr. HANNON: Is not the speculation, in point of fact, taking place on the other side of the, Atlantic?
  Mr. WEBB: It is clear that a rise in the price of flour is taking place. I have no knowledge, of course, as to speculation, either on this side of the Atlantic or on the other, but when there is any apprehension of scarcity, there has always hitherto been a degree of speculation on both sides.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this another reason for getting on with the negotiations with Russia?
  Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the price of bread rose last February from 8d. to 8½d. per quartern loaf and again advanced by another halfpenny on 4th July last; and will he state what effect this increase in price will have on the cost-of-living index figure?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that there have been increases, during recent months, in the price of bread. The prices charged, however and the dates at which the increases have taken effect, have varied in different localities. A general increase of ½d. per quartern loaf would raise the official cost-of-living index figure by approximately three-fourths of one point.

  CLEARING OFFICE (ENEMY DEBTS).
  Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of the staff, all grades, employed at the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts, Cornwall House, on the 15th July, 1923, 15th January, 1924, and 15th July, 1924, respectively; and whether the administrator will, in order to reduce the cost of administration, pay off, at an early

  1087
  date, each adjudicated Anglo-German claim for compensation under Article 297 (e) of the Treaty of Versailles upon which an unpaid balance of not more than £100 is still outstanding?
  Mr. WEBB: The staff employed by the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts), including the Departments for the administration of Austrian, Bulgarian and Hungarian property, and the accredited representatives in Berlin, Vienna and Budapest, numbered:

  On July 15th, 1923

  …

  978

  On January 15th, 1924

  …

  862

  On July 15th, 1924

  …

  780

  I am afraid that the proposal made in the last part of the question is not feasible. I would remind the hon. Member that a further dividend of 7s. 6d. in the £ was paid on the 8th instant on awards under Article 297 (e), making a total distribution up to date of 15s. in the £, and that all awards of £50 and under have been paid in full.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: If we got rid of these small debts, would not the result be a very considerable saving in the administration expenses at Cornwall House?
  Mr. WEBB: Steps have been taken in that direction, but it must be remembered that there is a large number of these small debts; and it would not be profitable to save the salaries of a few clerks at the cost of losing many times the amount.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: Is the cost of this borne by the public or by ex-enemy funds?
  Mr. WEBB: In the first instance, it falls on the British Exchequer, but there is a charge, according to the Treaty, upon all items recovered; and the amount of that charge is estimated entirely to cover the cost of administration.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that the cost of the administration of Cornwall House falls entirely on the British creditor?
  Mr. WEBB: That is what I was endeavouring to explain.
  Mr. A. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in certain cases, debts
  1088
  due by a British national to a German on 4th August, 1914, have had interest charged on them by the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts) for the period of the War, although it was illegal during that period for the British debtor to pay the debt; whether a Gelman is treated in a similar manner in the case of a debt due by him to a British subject; and by what Statute the practice is governed?
  Mr. WEBB: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The provisions regarding the payment of interest on pre-War debts are contained in paragraph 22 of the Annex to Section III of Part X of the Treaty of Versailles, which was given effect to by the Order made under the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919. The provisions are applicable equally to German and to British debtors.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it just that a British debtor should be charged interest on his debt during the period when it was illegal to pay?
  Mr. WEBB: I would point out that, during that prolonged period when the British debtor was not allowed to pay his debts, he retained the use of his money, at a time when the rate of interest was considerably more than he is now charged.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Sir JOHN PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the payments to those who have sent in belated reparation claims will average more than £10 per claim, and, if so, how much more; and the total number and amount of the related claims received?
  Mr. WEBB: As to the first part of the question, the average of the payments will certainly somewhat exceed £10 per claim admitted, but until all the claims have been examined and assessed, no average can be exactly computed. As to the second part of the question, the total number of belated claims registered in the Reparation Claims Department is 30,041, some of which will not rank. The total amount claimed cannot be stated, since, in a large proportion of cases, no sum is specified.
  Sir J. PENNEFATHER: Will not the total sum of these claims vastly exceed the £300,000 allotted?
  Mr. WEBB: I will not commit myself to the adverb "vastly," but undoubtedly the total amount claimed by all the claimants will exceed the sum of £300,000. We do not, however, yet know how many of these claims will be admitted and at what amounts they will be assessed.
  Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the belated claimants will get approximately the same proportion of their total claims as those assessed by the Commission, or what less proportion?
  Mr. WEBB: I am sorry that, with the best will in the world, I am not able to give a proportion, but I think the inference must be that the amount available for each of these claimants will be less than the proportion that was available for the original claimants.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If it be the fact that these people are genuinely belated claimants, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Treasury for the provision of such a sum as would give them the same proportion as those whose claims were put in and assessed by the Royal Commission?
  Mr. WEBB: I am sorry to say that I cannot undertake to do that until we know what the position is. With regard to the expression, "genuinely belated claims," they were all belated, and in that sense they were genuinely belated, but if it be objected that they were all justified in being belated, I am afraid that that could not be admitted.
  Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by whose authority, and for what reasons, the term "in full and final settlement' has been officially applied to payments of compensation to sufferers from enemy action; and whether he is aware that these terms are not to be found in the Treaty of Versailles in connection with such compensation?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Graham): The authority is that of the successive Governments which have had to deal with this matter.
  1090
  The reasons for setting aside a fund for ex gratia grants have been several times explained recently. As regards the last part of the question, the Treaty of Versailles does not deal in any way with the grant of compensation to individuals in such cases, and has no bearing on the issue.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer that part of the question which asks by what authority the term "full and final settlement" was used by his Department?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It was used first of all when the original provision was made a number of years ago. It was a purely ex gratia payment by the Government of the day, and we have adhered to that.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does that full and final settlement only refer to the £5,000,000 which was put aside or to the total payment of these people?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Does the hon. Gentleman's Department accept the view that they are under a moral obligation to pay compensation to the full amount of whatever reparations they may receive?
  Mr. GRAHAM: In the Debate on this subject I expressly said we could not go into the realm of moral claims at all. There is no limit to the claims when you once get into that sphere. As regards the first question, it has been stated over and over again that this £5,300,000 is in full and final settlement—that is, full and final as regards the ex gratia payments which the Government could make.
  Mr. STURROCK: Shall we have an opportunity of resuming the discussion?

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade what articles are now taxed on import under the Safeguarding of Industries Act on the ground that they come from countries with depreciated currencies; to which countries these duties now apply; if he is aware that in the case of two countries, namely, Poland and Germany, which have had a

  1091
  very depreciated currency, a currency has been introduced which is nearer par than the British pound at the present moment; and whether steps are being taken to repeal this part of the Act?
  Sir HENRY COWAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, can he say whether, if the currencies of Germany and Poland are no longer depreciated, the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act in this connection apply at all?
  Mr. WEBB: I am sorry I do not feel able to reply to that question without notice. With regard to the question on the Paper, the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member in the first two parts of the question was given to him in my answer to the question which he put on the 1st July, a copy of which I am sending him. As he was then informed, the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, so far as they relate to imports from countries with depreciated currencies, will automatically cease to be operative or, the 19th August next.
  Mr. HANNON: Is there any real relationship between the new currency in Germany and the cost of production?
  Sir J. NALL: Do the Government intend to persist in dropping this Act, in spite of any unemployment which their action may create?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that these duties have caused a great deal of unemployment in this country?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    BRITISH PROGRESS, LIMITED.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the misleading name adopted by the firm known as British Progress, Limited, of which eight-ninths of the ordinary shares are held by an unnaturalised Russian who is one of the three directors, the second director being a naturalised British subject of Lithuanian origin, and the third a naturalised United States citizen of Russian origin; and whether he proposes to take any action under Section 14 of the Registration of Business Names Act of 1916, or otherwise?
    Mr. WEBB: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Section 14 of the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, does not apply to companies registered under the Companies Acts, nor have the Board of Trade any power to take action in a case of this kind. But the Company Law Amendment Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Wrenbury, who reported in 1918, made certain recommendations in paragraph 37 of their report (Cd. 9138) with a view to conferring additional powers on the Registrar, and these recommendations will be considered when the next revision of the Companies Acts is undertaken.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this All-British Company is now dealing in aeroplanes, and will he take steps, owing to the great danger that may exist on this point, to have this matter fully looked into?
    Mr. WEBB: I will have it looked into, but at present I do not see the great danger.

    TRADE WITH CHINA.
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the value and volume of cotton-piece goods exported from the United Kingdom to China in 1913 and 1923, respectively; what were the total imports from all countries into China of cotton-piece goods in the same years; and what percentage was imported from the United Kingdom in each period;
    (2) what was the value of British exports to China it 1913 and the corresponding value in: what were the total imports into China from all countries in 1913 and 1923; respectively; and what were the percentages of imports from the United Kingdom in those years?
    Mr. WEBB: I will take these questions together. As the answers are rather long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply to Question 8:
    The following statement shows the quantity and value of cotton-piece goods (United Kingdom manufacture) exported from the United Kingdom and registered as consigned to China (exclusive of Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories) during the years specified:

    1093

    Year.

    Linear yards.

    £

    1913

    …

    …

    573,476,300

    9,475,653

    1922

    …

    …

    276,003,100

    10,997,271

    1923

    …

    …

    201,420,600

    7,627,825

    —

    From all Sources.

    From United Kingdom direct.

    Proportion of value of Imports from all sources.

    Quantity.

    Value.

    Quantity.

    Value.

    1913

    Haikwan Taels.*

    Haikwan Taels.*

    Per cent.

    Returned by the Piece

    …

    28,037,587

    99,722,648

    14,990,433

    56,648,148

    56·8

    Returned by the Yard

    …

    103,979,787

    9,890,220

    11,771,223

    2,505,083

    25·3

    Total Value

    …

    —

    109,612,868

    —

    59,153,231

    54·0

    1922.

    Returned by the Piece

    …

    21,836,176

    137,745,343

    7,566,269

    57,124,547

    41·5

    Returned by the Yard

    …

    93,708,894

    14,064,551

    9,937,464

    4,717,386

    33·5

    Returned by the Picul

    …

    11,022

    682,109

    2

    51

    —

    Total Value

    …

    —

    152,492,003

    —

    61,841,984

    40·6

    Particulars for 1923 are not yet available.

    * The average rate of exchange of the Haikwan Tael in 1913 was 3s. 0¼d. and in 1922, 3s. 9d.

    Following is the reply to Question 9:
    The following statement shows the value of merchandise (United Kingdom produce and manufacture) exported from the United Kingdom and registered as consigned to China (exclusive of Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories) during the years specified:

    Year.

    Imports from all Sources.

    Imports from United Kingdom direct.

    Proportion of Imports from United Kingdom to Total Imports.

    Haikwan Taels.*

    Haikwan Taels.*

    Per Cent.

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    686,290,431

    96,910,944

    16·5

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    975,034,183

    145,292,550

    14·9

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    Not yet available.

    * The average rate of exchange of the Haikwan Tael in 1913 was 3s. 0¼d., and in 1922, 3s. 9d.

    TRADE COMMITME.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state the terms of reference and the names of the Trade Committee that the Government has promised to appoint?
    According to statistics published by the Chinese Maritime Customs, the quantities and values of cotton-piece goods imported into China from all sources, and from the United Kingdom, respectively, were as follows:

    £

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    14,845,291

    1922

    …

    …

    …

    22,978,232

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    18,609,014

    The value of merchandise imported into China from all sources and from the United Kingdom respectively, according to statistics published by the Chinese Maritime Customs, was as follows:
    Mr. WEBB: I expect to be able to make an announcement very shortly on this subject.

    GERMAN AND BELGIAN STEEL.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade

    1095
    whether his attention has been drawn to the placing of an order for spring bars With a German firm of steel manufacturers by the East Indian Railway Company because the firm was £4 13s. per ton below the figures quoted by British manufacturers; that the Ebbw Vale Steelworks closed down on Saturday for want of orders, thereby throwing 2,000 men out of work; whether he is aware that one Belgian steelworks has doubled its profits during the last year; that foreign firms are working for lower wages and longer hours than British; whether he has any information as to what other steelworks are on the point of closing down; and what steps the Government propose to take to meet the situation?
    Mr. WEBB: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have seen statements in the Press as to the closing of the works mentioned in the second part of the question, but the reason for closing is variously stated. I have no information as to the closing of other steelworks. The position in the iron and steel trade is being watched, but no immediate action is contemplated.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that as far as the workmen are concerned who are engaged in this industry—or any other—they turn out a greater production per man per week than any men in the world, except the Americans?
    Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the value of imports of

    1924.

    No. 1 Northern Manitoba; ex. ship.

    Australian; ex. ship.

    Rosefé; 63½ lb. ex. ship.

    English f.o.r. London.

    Per 496 lbs.

    Per 496 lbs.

    Per 496 lbs.

    Per 504 lbs.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d

    s.

    d.

    25th February

    …

    51

    6

    49

    3

    49

    0

    48

    0

    to

    49

    0

    31st March

    …

    48

    0

    49

    0

    46

    0

    46

    0

    to

    47

    0

    28th April

    …

    47

    9

    49

    0

    46

    9

    48

    0

    to

    48

    6

    2nd June

    …

    48

    6

    50

    0

    47

    3

    51

    6

    to

    52

    0

    (26 May).

    30th June

    …

    53

    9

    51

    6

    —

    54

    0

    to

    55

    0

    21st July

    …

    58

    6

    57

    0

    —

    55

    6

    to

    56

    0

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CORPUS CHRISTI PROCESSIONS.
    Mr. FERGUSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on Sunday, 22nd June, 1924, soldiers
    steel products into this country has risen in the last six months from £5,500,000 to £11,000,000, compared with 1922?
    Mr. WEBB: I know that there has been a great increase, but I cannot remember the figures.

    STANDARD GRADE FLOUR.
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade the price of wheat used in standard grade flour at the end of each month since February and at the present day?
    Mr. WEBB: The answer contains a table of figures, and the hon. Member will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. WELLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of flour has gone up five times this month; and does he propose to make any inquiries into the matter?
    Mr. WEBB: I have already replied on that point in reference to the unfavourable reports of the North American harvest.
    Following is the table:
    The mixtures of wheat used in making the grades of flour commonly sold vary considerably. As an indication of the price changes of such wheats in recent months, the following are prices quoted on the London Corn Exchange on the dates named, as reported by the "Miller."
    stationed at Warley, Essex, with fixed bayonets, took part in a procession in that town and acted as a guard of honour to the Corpus Christi, and on the same day, at Cowes, Hampshire Territorials acted in the same manner, which is contrary to

    1097
    the King's Regulations; and does he propose to prevent such practices in future?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): I am obtaining reports on these allegations, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have received them.
    Mr. FERGUSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Manual was published in 1914 in which it was distinctly stated that honesty of purpose was no excuse for taking part in this procession? [An HON. MEMBER "Why should they not take part?"]
    Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that cadet units affiliated to religious bodies are allowed to wear the Service dress of His Majesty's uniform, and, that being the case, will the hon. Gentleman have the King's Regulations brought into conformity accordingly?
    Mr. LAWSON: I have nothing to add to the answer I have just given. Certain rather strong statements have been made, and I believe it, is better that there should be a definite investigation before anything is stated.
    Mr. FERGUSON: Is this not against the King's Regulations? I have been a private soldier, and I know the King's Regulations from A to Z.
    Mr. LAWSON: We have mutually had the experience of the Army.

    CADET CORPS.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to bring forward a scheme to encourage cadet corps in secondary schools, so that pupils may have the opportunity of discovering if they have a taste or capacity for a military career and he may thereby obtain suitable applicants to meet the present shortage of officers?
    Mr. LAWSON: Many such schools have established, for the purposes which the hon. Member has in mind, either cadet corps or contingents of the Officers? Training Corps, and these organisations are already recognised. I regret, however, that in the present state of public finance I cannot see my way to extend the existing arrangements.

    MARRIAGES ON THE STRENGTH.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the regulations affecting marriages on the strength have been modified in recent time; and, if so, in what direction; and whether the existing regulations ogre regarded as satisfactory?
    Mr. LAWSON: Yes, Sir, the regulations were modified in 1920 in a direction favourable to the soldier, and so far as I know are regarded as satisfactory. The details are rather too long to read, and with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the full answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Broadly, however, the change consisted in recognising the right of any soldier over 26 years of age, of whatever rank, to marry and to receive an allowance towards the maintenance of his family. Before the War, only a small percentage of soldiers were recognised as married.
    Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty agree with the answer that has just been given by the representative of the War Office?
    Following is the answer:
    Before the War, only a small percentage of soldiers in the lower ranks was admitted to the Married Roll. Such soldiers had first to obtain the consent of their commanding officer to the marriage and comply with certain other conditions. They were provided with free quarters for their wives and children, and an allowance towards the maintenance of their families if separated from them by the, exigencies of the service. No provision was made for the maintenance of the wives and children of soldiers not admitted to the Married Roll. The regulations were revised by Army Order 357 of 1920, which allowed every soldier over 26 years of age to marry and to receive an allowance, termed Marriage Allowance, towards the maintenance of his wife and children. In addition, a proportion of the married soldiers over 26 years of age are admitted to the Married Quarters Roll, and receive, besides Marriage Allowance, either public quarters or lodging allowance for their wives and children, and certain other privileges. The percentage of soldiers who may be admitted to the Married Quarters Roll is in course of revision.

    HANDCUFFING PRISONERS.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers convicted of military offences are marched through the streets and conveyed in public conveyances in handcuffs?
    Mr. LAWSON: Soldiers under escort are only handcuffed when necessary for their safe custody. When handcuffed they are ordinarily, whether in uniform or plain clothes, taken through the streets in a special covered conveyance, such as an ambulance wagon or a cab. They are not allowed to be marched through the streets unless such a course is absolutely unavoidable. The rule on the subject is explicitly laid down in paragraph 706 of the King's Regulations.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that soldiers handcuffed to an escort have, in the past few days, been marched through London and have been seen to the Tubes?
    Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware of any such incident. I shall be obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he will give me particulars.
    Mr. FOOT: Is it the general custom or a rare event for service men to be taken about handcuffed in this manner?
    Mr. LAWSON: I take it that the King's Regulations explicitly lay down the procedure, and I should say such an occurrence is rare. The fact that one particular instance has drawn attention is proof of that.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the number of skilled men at the Woolwich Arsenal to whom he proposes to offer semi-skilled or unskilled work and the nature of such work; and whether he has communicated his suggestion to any trades union or workers' organisation concerned in such matters?
    Mr. LAWSON: As regards the first part of the question, I am not in a position to state the particulars asked for, since I am glad to be able to say that so far it has been found possible to absorb upon skilled work, in other departments of the, factories, all the skilled men who have recently become redundant in the carriage
    1100
    department. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. No novelty in procedure is involved, and in offering to men who would otherwise have to be discharged such alternative work as might be available, I should be doing the best I could for them.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman still propose to continue his policy of offering unskilled work to skilled men?
    Mr. LAWSON: This is a long-standing policy in the War Office procedure, and it is also a common practice in other industries.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If men have got to go, why should not the killed men go as well as the unskilled?

    PENSIONERS (WAR SERVICE).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, for the purposes of increase of pension to the scale laid down in Army Order 325 of 1919, the special case of service pensioners before the Great War, who were borne on the war establishment of a military unit, and were employed with that unit during the whole period of the War and gave satisfactory service, will be considered?
    Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware what particular class my right hon. Friend has in mind, but under the terms of the Royal Warrant which he quotes, the requisite service during the Great War must be "satisfactory re-enlisted service." I am, therefore, precluded from considering claims based on service of any other kind.

  HOUSING.

    EVICTION PROCEEDINGS (FELTHAM).
    Sir PHILIP PILDITCHasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that, or the ground that the Rent Restrictions Act does not apply to the Crown, an action has been taken in his name in the Brentford County Court, the hearing of which is set down for 25th July, with the object of evicting the tenant of Faulklands, Feltham, Mr. C. F. Oldham, who has resided there for over five years, on a yearly tenancy, dating from 7th April, 1919, at a rent bringing it within the Rent Restrictions Act, and

    1101
    where he has with great labour and industry successfully built up a poultry farm which provides a living for himself and niece; and, seeing that the War Office only acquired the property in 1921, and that if the tenant is turned out it will mean his ruin, will he take steps to have the action withdrawn?
    Mr. LAWSON: The decision to proceed with this case was only reached after most careful consideration, and after an investigation on the spot by my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I regret that I cannot see my way to withdraw the action.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: Are there not means in the district whereby the needs of the War Office could be fulfilled without taking advantage of the privilege of the Crown in order to deprive this man of his livelihood.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is that the War Office should seek to obtain possession of premises and not provide other available accommodation in the same meaning as ordinary landlords?
    Mr. LAWSON: In answer to the second question, my hon. Friend is misinformed as to this case, which has exceptional features. My hon. and gallant Friend has made very careful investigation into the circumstances of this case, and he feels that the course suggested is the only one.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to my supplementary question, which was: Are there no other premises in the district that can be used by the War Office?
    Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware that there are such premises. My hon. and gallant Friend, after investigating the circumstances, felt, and felt strongly, that there was no other course to take.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to inquire whether or not there are other premises?
    Mr. LAWSON: Yes, I shall be very pleased to do so.

    SCOTTISH NATIONAL HOUSING COMPANY, LIMITED
    Mr. WILLIAM WATSONasked the Secretary for Scotland the total amount of money which has been advanced on
    1102
    loan by the Scottish Board of Health to the Scottish National Housing Company, Limited, and the rate of interest charged; how much has been invested as shares in the company; whether the Board has any say in the fixing of the rents of the houses at Bosyth; if it has been consulted in any way regarding the imposition of certain conditions which have recently caused a considerable amount of irritation amongst the dockyard workers there; and, if so, what steps the Board propose to take in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): The amount of the loan advanced by the Scottish Board of Health to the Scottish National Housing Company, Limited, as at 30th June last, is £969,015; the rate of interest charged is 3½ per cent.; the sum invested by the Board as shares in the company is £62,500. The rents of the houses are provisionally fixed by the Company, but have to be approved by the Board and the Treasury after consultation with the Admiralty. Complaints have recently been made to me with respect to the conditions of tenancy and I am making personal inquiry into these with a view of finding a remedy.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Can the Secretary for Scotland explain why it is that this company should get a loan of public money at 3½ per cent. while the poor fishermen are charged 5 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May we have an answer to this question?

    AGRICULTURAL PARISHES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. FALCONERasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state the areas in each county of Scotland which will be entitled to the subsidy of £12 10s. under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, either as parishes under Section 8 (2) (a) or as areas within the Highlands and Islands under Section 8 (2) (b)?
    Mr. ADAMSON: As the answer to the question is long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    List of parishes in Scotland in which the landward area will be entitled to the subsidy of £12 10s. under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill:
    Note.—In this statement effect is given to the substitution of 50 persons per 100

    1103
    acres for 35 persons per 100 acres in Clause 8 (2) of the Bill.
    (1) Scotland, excluding Highlands and Islands.
    Aberdeen County.
    All parishes except—

    * Aberdeen.

    Aboyne.

    Crathie and Braemar.

    Glenmuick.

    Newhills.

    Peterculter.

    Ayr County.
    All parishes except—

    Auchinleck.

    Beith.

    Dalmellington.

    Dalry.

    Dalrymple.

    Dundonald.

    Dreghorn.

    Irvine.

    Kilbirnie.

    Kilbride, West.

    Kilmaurs.

    Largs.

    Muirkirk.

    Riccarton.

    Stevenston.

    Banff County.
    All parishes except—

    Kirkmichael.

    Bute County.
    All parishes except—

    Kilbride.

    Kingarth.

    North Bute.

    *Rothesay.

    Clackmannan County.
    All parishes except—

    Alloa.

    Alva.

    Clackmannan.

    Dumbarton County.
    All parishes except—

    Arrochar.

    Bonhill.

    Cardross.

    Cumbernauld.

    Dumbarton.

    Kilpatrick, New.

    Kilpatrick, Old.

    Kirkintilloch.

    Roseneath.

    Row.

    *Parish wholly burghal.

    Dumfries County.
    All parishes except—

    Dornock.

    Gretna.

    Kirkconnel.

    Morton.

    East Lothian County.
    All parishes except—

    Ormiston.

    Prestonpans.

    Fife County.
    All parishes except—

    Aberdour.

    *Anstruther Easter.

    Auchterderran.

    Auchtertool.

    Ballingry.

    Beath.

    Burntisland.

    Culross.

    Dalgety.

    Dunfermline.

    Inverkeithing.

    Largo.

    Leslie.

    Markinch.

    St. Monans.

    Saline.

    Torryburn.

    Tulliallan.

    Wemyss.

    Forfar County.
    All parishes except—

    Edzell.

    Lintrathen.

    Lochlee.

    Montrose.

    Kincardine County.
    All parishes except—

    Bervie.

    Lanark County.
    All parishes except—

    Blantyre.

    Bothwell.

    Cadder.

    Cambuslang.

    Cambusnethan

    Carluke.

    Carnwath.

    Culter.

    Dalserf.

    Dalziel.

    Douglas.

    Glasgow.

    *Govan.

    *Parish wholly burghal.

    1105

    Hamilton.

    Monkland, New.

    Monkland, Old.

    Rutherglen.

    Shotts.

    Stonehouse.

    Wandell.

    Midlothian County.
    All parishes except—

    Borthwick.

    Calder, Mid.

    Calder, West.

    Carrington.

    Cockpen.

    *Edinburgh.

    Glencorse.

    Inveresk.

    Kirknewton.

    Lasswade.

    Newbattle.

    Newton.

    Penicuik.

    Temple.

    Moray County.
    All parishes except—

    Bellie.

    Cromdale.

    Knockando.

    Peebles County.
    All parishes except—

    Kirkurd.

    Linton, West.

    Tweedsmuir.

    Perth County.
    All parishes except—

    Aborfoyle.

    Arngask.

    Callander.

    Comrie.

    Glendevon.

    Killin.

    Redgorton.

    Renfrew County.
    All parishes except—

    Cathcart.

    Eastwood.

    Erskine.

    Greenock.

    Inchinnan.

    Inverkip.

    Kilbarchan.

    Kilmacolm.

    Lochwinnoch.

    Neilston.

    Paisley.

    Renfrew.

    *Parish wholly burghal.

    Stirling County.
    All parishes except—

    Baldernock.

    Buchanan.

    Campsie.

    Denny.

    Drymen.

    Falkirk.

    Grangemouth.

    Killearn.

    Kilsyth.

    Larbert.

    Logie.

    Muiravonside.

    St. Ninians.

    Slamannan.

    Stirling.

    Strathblane.

    West Lothian County.
    All parishes except—

    Abercorn.

    Bathgate.

    Bo'ness.

    Dalmeny.

    Ecclesmachen.

    Kirkliston.

    Livingston.

    Torphichen.

    Uphall.

    Whitburn.

    Wigtown County.
    All parishes except—

    *Stranraer.

    (2) Highlands and Islands.
    All parishes in the following counties—

    Argyll.

    Caithness.

    Inverness.

    Orkney.

    Ross and Cromarty.

    Sutherland.

    Zetland.

    All parishes in the Highland district of the County of Perth.

    *Parish wholly burghal.

    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the gross valuation of the Parish of Tibbermore is £13,081, and the valuation of agricultural lands in the parish £8,052, the population of the parish 975 persons, and the area 6,148 acres; and on what grounds, therefore, is to be excluded from participating in the higher grant of £12 10s. to be given to agricultural parishes under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed that the figures quoted in the Noble Lady's question are correct and that the landward part of the Parish of Tibbermore will not be excluded for the purpose of participation in the higher subsidy of £12 10s. I regret that, owing to a clerical error, I misinformed the Noble Lady on this point in the reply which I gave to her on the 14th July.

  SCOTLAND.

    BALNACRA BRIDGE.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland what was the estimated cost of the Balnacra Bridge, Strathcarron, submitted by the surveyor of the Board of Agriculture and by the surveyor of the south-western district of Ross-shire; and what was the recommendation submitted to the Board of Agriculture by the county council?
    Mr. ADAMSON: No estimate of the cost of erecting a bridge at Balnacra has been made by a surveyor of the Board of Agriculture, but the Board surveyor for the South-Western District of Ross-shire has estimated the cost of this work at £227 16s. 6d. The County Council recommended to the Board that a grant should be made to permit this work to be carried out.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Board intend to proceed with the erection of the bridge in view of the fact that it is necessary in the winter that the bridge should be constructed to let children go to school?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I cannot at present say more than that this and similar applications have been noted for further consideration as the state of the funds of the Board permit.

    WHALING LICENCES (SHETLAND).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make any announcement with regard to whaling licences in Shetland?
    Mr. ADAMSON: Looking to the fact that both herring fishery and whaling operations are in progress at the present time, I propose to defer a decision on the
    1108
    application made to me until the close of the present season when the situation will be reviewed in the light of all the information then available. In the meantime I am obtaining weekly statistics which, I may say, indicate considerable increases to date in the catch both of herrings and of whales as compared with last year.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give an answer next year?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have already promised to give a decision at the close of the present season.
    Mr. BECKER: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that a whale was a fish?

    SCOTTISH NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a trading company, incorporated under the Companies Acts and calling itself the Scottish National Trust Company, Limited, is inviting subscriptions; will he state in what respect the company is national; and, if it is not a national trust, will he either request or compel the promoters of the concern to delete the word National from the title of the company so that no misunderstanding by investors may arise?
    Mr. WEBB: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Under the provisions of the Companies Acts the Registrar has no power to refuse to register a company on the ground that the word "National" is included in its title, but the question whether greater powers should be conferred on the Registrar has already been noted for consideration when the next revision of the Companies Acts is undertaken.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the case of misleading titles of companies was dealt with by Lord Wrenbury's Committee in 1918, and has he any power to put that recommendation into operation?
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the words "National" and "Imperial" are employed by unscrupulous speculators in this country and will he take steps to stop this?
    Mr. WEBB: It is quite true that there was a report in 1918, but no steps were taken in the succeeding years to carry those recommendations into legislation. The result is that the Board of Trade finds itself without power to take any action.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Can he make this request to this company, which may be perfectly respectable?

    PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government has yet decided to make grants to local authorities for the treatment of diseases in respect of which orders are made under the Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The reply to the question is in the negative.
    Captain BENN: Did the right hon. Gentleman not say when discussing the Bill that it was the intention of the Government to give the necessary grant to the local authorities? Will he kindly follow his usual practice and answer this question?

    TERRELGESTOWN, DUMFRIES (LAND SETTLEMENT).
    Major DUDGEONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish Board of Agriculture have let 49,079 acres of meadow land at Terrelgestown, Dumfries, under the Land Settlement Act; that an attempt is now being made by the Board to obtain the signatures of the holders thereof to an agreement to cancel their registration rights; and whether he will give full information as to why such a policy is being pursued?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The area of the land in question is about 49 acres. I am informed that the Board's scheme of subdivision of Terrelgestown Farm made no provision for the allocation of this area of about 49 acres as part of the holdings. In making application to the Land Court for the registration of the holders, the area referred to was, through inadvertence, erroneously included in their holdings. Twelve of the holders concerned signed a joint minute craving the Court to amend their Order and thus to rectify the error, but seven others refused
    1110
    to sign, and the Board have now made a separate application to the Court for this purpose.

    MINERS' DISEASES (INFECTIVE JAUNDICE).
    Mr. CLARKEasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if, in view of the rapid development of the East Lothian coalfield and the growing anxiety among the miners on account of the epidemic of infective jaundice or spirochætosis that has continued for over a year with such serious results, he is in a position to state what are the conclusions arrived at between the three Departmens concerned; and meantime will he consider the advisability of recommending that this disease be included in the schedule for compensation purposes?
    Mr. ADAMSON: Investigation is still proceeding into the nature of this disease under the auspices of the Medical Research Council, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject. As regards the second part of the question, understand that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in whom is vested responsibility for the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, would not feel justified, on present information regarding the disease, in scheduling it under the Act.
    Mr. CLARKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when I should be likely to receive an answer to my question, if I put it down again?
    Mr. ADAMSON: if my hon. Friend will put it down at a future date, I will try to give him an answer.

    CALDER DISTRICT (WATER SUPPLY).
    Mr. CLARKEasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that there is a serious shortage of domestic water supply in the district surrounding Ratho station, in the County of Midlothian; and, as this condition has continued for several years, causing serious hardship and great inconvenience to the inhabitants, what steps does he propose to take in order to effect a remedy so that the health of the people may be safeguarded?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am aware that there has been a considerable shortage of water in many parts of the Calder

    1111
    district of Midlothian, including the area referred to by my hon. Friend. The county council have promoted a Provisional Order to enable them to provide an adequate supply for the Calder district, and the Bill to confirm the Order was introduced in this House yesterday.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    LIFE-SAVING (WIRELESS).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the decision of the American authorities to test wireless as a means of saving life in mining disasters; and whether he will undertake investigations on similar lines?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I am aware that experiments have been made in the United States. Experimental work on a small scale has also been undertaken privately in this country, and my Department is watching developments both here and abroad. I will communicate my hon. Friend's suggestion to the Safety in Mines Research Board.

    EXPORTS.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Secretary for Mines the causes explanatory of the recent diminution of our coal exports and give the direction in which this diminution has taken place?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The recent diminution of our coal exports is, no doubt, chiefly due to the resumption of coal-getting in the Ruhr district, from which Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Italy are now drawing a large part of the supplies which were drawn in 1923 from Great Britain.

  TRANSPORT.

    STEAM TRACTORS (SPARKS AND SMOKE).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the decision not to deal with the public nuisance caused by steam tractors emitting sparks and dense smoke during their progress on the public highway in the proposed Smoke Abatement Bill, he will state what steps he is proposing to take to deal with the matter?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I do not propose to take any steps in the matter. The enforcement of the existing law is a matter for the police authorities.

    RAILWAY FACILITIES, MANCHESTER AND WARRINGTON.
    Mr. DUKESasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the lack of adequate train facilities between Warrington and Manchester, on the Cheshire lines' route, and that, contract ticket holders travelling between the stations named invariably have to stand in the corridors; and whether he will make inquiries into the circumstances of Saturday, 12th July, when the company reserved a considerable number of coaches for private parties on the 12.30 ordinary service train from Manchester to Warrington, which resulted in serious overcrowding, and over 40 passengers having to travel in the goods' van?
    Mr. GOSLING: The Cheshire Lines Committee have informed me that they have received no complaints either of inadequate train services or of shortage of accommodation in the trains between Warrington and Manchester. They explain that there is an hourly express service between Liverpool and Manchester, stopping in each direction at Warrington, and that, in addition, there are local trains stopping at intermediate points, and additional trains at times of special pressure. The 12.30 ordinary train from Manchester to Liverpool, to which my hon. Friend refers, was, I understand, run in duplicate last Saturday, and will continue to be so run for the next few Saturdays.

    ARTERIAL ROADS (LAND FRONTAGES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has examined further into the question of the land frontagers on the proposed new arterial roads; and what steps are proposed to ensure that the enhanced value of this land consequential on the building of these roads by the community goes to the benefit of the community?
    Mr. GOSLING: As I explained in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member on the 3rd June, I am taking all steps possible under existing enactments to

    1113
    prevent these works of public utility conferring undue benefit on adjoining landowners.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his present powers will ensure this desirable result?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am doing the best I can with the powers that I have, but I should never like to say that I am satisfied.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will not the hon. Gentleman come to the House for further powers, and is he aware that he has a majority for that?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to prohibit the building of houses, &c., within a certain distance of the new arterial roads; if so, at what distance; whether it is proposed to do this by legislation or by exercise of his existing powers; and whether he will consider taking steps to prevent the sides of the new roads being disfigured in the country districts by advertisement hoardings and signs?
    Mr. GOSLING: In the present state of the law it is impossible to ensure the general prescription of adequate building lines, and I am considering, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, what additional powers are required for this very desirable purpose. As regards unsightly hoardings, one of my predecessors issued a Circular last autumn to all local authorities, urging them to make use of their powers for the regulation of advertisements, and I believe that a Bill from another place, aiming at an extension of the powers of local authorities in this matter, is now before one of the Standing Committees of the House.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that, in the case of these new roads at any rate, the Government will see that they are not disfigured in the way that the old roads are?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Have not the local authorities the right to fix the building line, without interference from anyone?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the last part of the question, are we to understand that the
    1114
    Government are going to prevent the disfigurement of the new roads by advertisement hoardings?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am all against disfiguring public highways, and will help in any way I can.

    STREET ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents and collisions to motor vehicles have occurred during the current year at the crossing of the roads in the centre of Eaton Square and from Eccleston Street to Belgrave Place, at the cross-roads in Chester Square, and in Eccleston Square at the junction of Belgrave Road and Gillingham Street, respectively; and whether he proposes taking any steps to warn the drivers of these danger spots, either by placing danger signs or extra constables at these points?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply. The numbers of accidents known to the police during the current year at these places are 24, six and four respectively. In only two cases did serious personal injury result. In each case the road junctions are so obvious that a danger sign should not be necessary, but in any case the comparatively small volume of traffic would hardly justify the special employment of extra police.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that 34 accidents is pretty bad in one season?

    CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the design for the construction of an improved road and railway bridge at Charing Cross; whether he is aware that the construction of such a bridge would provide a large amount of work for skilled labour now unemployed, and would enormously facilitate traffic conditions in the Central London area; and whether, in view of these considerations, he can make any statement upon it?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am acquainted with several projects for a new bridge at Charing Cross, but their merits cannot usefully be discussed by way of question

    1115
    and answer. The matter is one of great importance and will be carefully studied by the London Traffic Advisory Committee if it is established under the Bill which is now in another place.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the scheme outlined by Mr. Campbell Swinton, of the London County Council, will be specially brought to the notice of the Committee to which he has referred?
    Mr. GOSLING: Yes.

    NEW MILLS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (RAILWAY EXCURSION).
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the treatment meted out by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway to a party from the New Mills Co-operative Society when visiting the British Empire Exhibition on Whit Friday; if he is aware that this party booked accommodation from New Mills to Wembley; that no accommodation was provided for the party; that it was stranded on New Mills Station from 12.40 a.m. to 2.20 a.m., and eventually 95 per cent. of the party had to stand in the corridors throughout the whole of the journey; and will he make representations to the railway company protesting against such treatment?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have been in communication with the railway company with regard to this case. They have explained the matter in detail and have expressed regret that in the exceptional circumstances it was impracticable to provide seating accommodation for the majority of the New Mills party.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the railway company did not receive adequate notice of the number of persons who proposed to travel on that occasion?
    Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that the railway company labelled these carriages for the New Mills Co-operative Society and that other people got into the carriages and there was no one but a small boy to turn them out of the carriages?

    PERTH-INVERNESS ROAD.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Minister of Transport whether an intimation has been made to the authorities concerned
    1116
    that the Government are prepared to defray the whole cost, approximately £500,000, of reconstructing that part of the Perth to Inverness road which lies between Blair Atholl and Inverness; and, if so, from what funds will this expenditure be made seeing that the work is being undertaken largely for the benefit of unskilled labour which is now unemployed in the North of Scotland?
    Mr. GOSLING: No such intimation has been made, and the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

    LIVERPOOL MANCHESTER ROAD.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Transport if he can now make a statement with regard to the progress of the negotiations for the construction of the Liverpool to Manchester road?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have nothing to add at present to the answer given on the 24th June to a similar question addressed to me by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch Division, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. WHITE: Having regard to the fact that negotiations have been proceeding for two years, is it hoped that they may be concluded in time for the work to be done this winter?
    Mr. GOSLING: I will look into it.

    RAILWAYS (CARRIAGES for WOMEN).
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to make it compulsory on railway companies to provide carriages reserved for women on all their trains?
    Mr. GOSLING: I do not think that legislation to the effect suggested is necessary, but I should be glad to discuss the matter with the hon. Member. If I am furnished with particulars of any cases in which it is considered that railway companies have declined to meet reasonable demands for the provision of accommodation reserved for women, I will bring them to the notice of the companies concerned.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is quite as important as making provision compulsory for smokers?
    Mr. STURROCK: Is it not very frequently the case that smoking carriages are almost exclusively occupied by women?
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that probably if carriages for women were provided, women would not require to be in smoking carriages?
    Mr. BECKER: Can the hon. Gentleman provide carriages reserved for men only?

    BRIDGES, CHERTSEY ARTERIAL ROAD.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the great number of unemployed in Richmond, Surrey, he will take immediate steps to get plans passed for the new bridges which will be required for the Chertsey arterial road, so that work may be found during this coming winter?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am inviting the county councils concerned to share with my Department the expense of preparing designs for the bridges on the New Chertsey Road, so that estimates for their construction may be obtained as soon as possible.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
    Mr. CAINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to carry out the Fair Wages Clause in Government contracts, Government Departments are instructed to place no contracts abroad unless the firm with whom such a contract is placed pay the same wages and enforce the same hours and conditions of labour as corresponding British firms; and, if not, what precautions are taken to ensure that British firms do not suffer when tendering in competition with foreign firms by reason of having to comply with the Fair Wages Clause?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is only in very exceptional circumstances that contracts for manufactured articles are placed with firms abroad when satisfactory service can be obtained in this country. It is not, therefore, considered that British manufacturers are subject to any unfair handicap by having to comply with the terms of the Fair Wages Clause.
    1118
    It would not, in any case, be practicable to enforce this Clause in foreign countries.
    Sir J. NALL: Will the Treasury consider whether this Clause should be applied to all goods imported into this country, so that, if the Clause does not apply, the goods should not be admitted
    Mr. HANNON: In the case of private contracts—not Government contracts—would not a very large amount of work have been brought into this country during the last 12 months if this Clause had not applied to them?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: If firms supply to the Government goods which they have bought in, how do the Government know that such goods have not been brought from abroad and produced under conditions which would not be allowed by this Clause?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I could not possibly, within the limits of question and answer, go into the details of the last two supplementary questions. The short point here is that it is only in exceptional cases that we go outside, and the real reply is that we could not enforce these conditions.

    GOVERNMENT SURPLUS WAR STORES.
    Mr. BLACKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the approximate value is of all the assets remaining for sale in the hands of the Disposal Board; whether he expects that these assets will all be liquidated during the current financial year; and, if not, what is the estimated value that will remain for disposal after 31st March, 1925?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The estimated value of all the assets remaining for sale in the hands of the Surplus Stores Liquidation Department is approximately £6,500,000. Every effort will be made to dispose of these assets during the current financial year, but as they include a number of factories and considerable quantities of machinery, it may not prove possible to dispose of them all at satisfactory prices before 31st March next. In these circumstances, the hon. Member will realise that I am not in a position to answer the last part of his question.
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: Have any further arrangements been made since the contract with Cohen and Armstrong under which they were entitled to dispose of the whole of the goods remaining in the hands of the Government?
    Mr. BLACK: Does the sum of £6,500,000 include any amounts that are to be received from assets that have already been sold? Is £6,500,000 the total of everything?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the last supplementary question, I rather think that this refers only to the amount remaining to be sold, and not to payments which may be due, but I will inquire on that point. As regards the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), I could not, of course, without notice, tell whether there has been any variation in any individual contract.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Is it not the fact that the whole of the remaining goods were stated in this House to have been handed over under contract to this new firm of Cohen and Armstrong, and how will that matter be dealt with?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet had better put that question down.
    Mr. BLACKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum received by the Disposal Commission for goods sold since the Commission was set up; what has been the total amount of bad debts and losses made by the Commission; and what has been the total cost of selling the goods, in commissions and expenses, and otherwise?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. Member will find the information which he desires in the annual progress Report on the disposal of surplus Government property and on liquidation which has been presented to Parliament (Command Paper 2106 of 1924).
    Sir J. REMNANT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of this Disposal Board ever having made a profit at all? They claimed a profit which was made by the Australian Government over the wool deal as if it had been their own, when they had nothing whatever to do with it.

    RICHBOROUGH.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government have yet arrived at a decision on the Report of the Disposal and Liquidation Board regarding Richborough?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The matter is still under consideration
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: If the Government decide during the Recess, will the hon. Gentleman communicate with me?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly; I will let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible

    AIRCRAFT AND BOMBARDMENT INSURANCE.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to redeem the pledge officially published in 1916, that owners of property in the United Kingdom of an aggregate value not exceeding £500 will be compensated by the Government in respect of damage or destruction of any such property by the perils coverable by the Government Aircraft and Bombardment Insurance Policy, whether the property be insured under the Government insurance scheme or not?
    Mr. WEBB: I have been asked to reply. The scheme for compensation of owners of property in the United Kingdom of an aggregate value not exceeding £500, in respect of damage or destruction by perils coverable under the Government Aircraft and Bombardment Insurance Scheme, was put into effect as from 1st September, 1917. Under the terms of the scheme claimants were required, when damage occurred to uninsured property, to give immediate notice in writing to the Committee appointed to administer the scheme. All claims notified to that Committee have been duly investigated, and awards have been made in all cases in which the claims have been substantiated and the claimants have complied with the requirements of the scheme.
    Major WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that in each case an

    1121
    official has gone down and investigated it? I am informed that in many cases no official has been down.
    Mr. WEBB: I am sorry to say that my official memory does not go back to 1917.
    Major WHELER: Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries if these cases have been properly investigated?
    Mr. WEBB: I shall be very glad to consider any case the hon. and gallant Gentleman may bring before me.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the cost per Member per annum for the free travelling facilities; how many Members have availed themselves of the free travelling warrants; and has information been obtained as to whether the railway companies would charge any more money per annum to give Members a season ticket to travel upon all lines to any destination in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the first two parts of his question after the Recess, when I hope to be in a position to give him some information on the matters to which he refers. With regard to the last part of the question, I have not thought, and do not think, it necessary to inquire as to the cost of giving every Member a season ticket entitling him to travel to any point in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. BECKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of money apportioned already for tickets comes to £140 per Member per annum, and a trader's season ticket can be got from London to Aberdeen for £140?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think the hon. Member should take these figures with very great caution. When we have a little more information, after the Recess, I hope to make a detailed statement, and I think that the House had better await that information.
    Mr. W. THORNE: At the time my hon. Friend made his statement giving the cost of this particular matter, did he anticipate that the cost of this railway
    1122
    travelling was to be subject to deduction of Income Tax?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

    GRETNA (SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there is strong public feeling in Scotland against the proposed sale of national property at Gretna; and whether, in view of the fact that schemes for re-starting parts of the plant, on a profitable basis are awaiting his consideration, he can postpone or cancel the proposed sale at Gretna?
    Mr. GRAHAM: His Majesty's Government, have decided that it is impossible to postpone or cancel the sale by auction at Gretna which is proceeding.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour party, which he represents, stands for nationalisation, and can he explain why the Labour party now seeks to sell some of that which they wish to nationalise?
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask the reasons why it was impossible to postpone—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that can be done at Question Time.
    Mr. HARDIE: Owing to the unsatisfactory answer, "I shall raise this at the very first opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORKS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the printing works in Hare Street are still being run at a loss?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. The accounts for 1923–24, which are subject to audit, show a profit of over £6,000.
    Mr. HANNON: Is this the first time these interesting works have shown a profit?
    Mr. HANNONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Foreign Office Press is still being credited

    1123
    for the purposes of its trading accounts as if its sales took place at prices which prevailed in 1918?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The work executed at the Foreign Office Press is priced out at rates specified in a contract which came into force in 1909, subject, however, to the adjustments which have been made from time to time in accordance with variations in wages. Such adjustments were made before the Stationery Office took over the direct management of the Press in November, 1918, and have been made since, and bear no relationship to that date or to the question of management, since they are equally applicable to contracts in private hands. I may mention that prices in the printing trade are still generally above the 1918 level.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman commend these interesting experiments in State trading to his Friends behind him?

  POST OFFICE.

    NEWS (BROADCASTING).
    Mr. BAKERasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Company, at its first annual general meeting, that he hoped to secure certain additional privileges in respect of broadcasting news; and, seeing that the present service is very inadequate, through no fault of the company, he will use his influence to secure the additional facilities which are required?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): The company have been in negotiation with the Press and have agreed upon a scheme under which they would obtain certain additional facilities. The draft agreement has been considered by the Broadcasting Board, who have recommended that it be concluded, and have expressed the view that, if it is carried out by the parties in a spirit of mutual accommodation, it should afford a satisfactory solution of the problem. I am informing the Company that I see no objection to the conclusion of the agreement, subject to a provision that it shall not prevent them from complying with any instructions given to them by the
    1124
    Postmaster-General in regard to the broadcasting of news.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Will the agreement be placed before Parliament?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It will not be laid before Parliament.

    ST. MARTIN'S-LE-GEAND (VACANT SITE SOLD).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Postmaster-General what is being done with the vacant site of the old St. Martins-le-Grand Post Office; and will he state why it is allowed to stand derelict.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The responsibility of the Post Office for the site ceased with its' recent sale to a private purchaser.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Has the Treasury received the money due to it?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Yes, I think the whole amount has been paid.

    LETTER DELIVERY, SHAW END.
    Sir CHARLES STARMERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Shaw End, Lealholm, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, there is only one delivery of letters every other day; and, as this causes great delay in correspondence, whether he will establish a daily delivery of letters in this village?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The postal arrangements at Shaw End ware reviewed about a year ago, when it was found that the number of letters which would benefit by the provision of a daily delivery was insufficient to justify the additional expense involved. I am having fresh returns taken, and I will consider whether they warrant an extension of service.

    STAFF (ANNUAL LEAVE).
    Mr. BECKERasked the Postmaster-General if he will give instructions that members of the Post Office staff who, in the ordinary course of events, have to take their annual leave in the winter months shall be allowed to take at least one day of such leave in the summer months during the present year for the purpose of visiting the British Empire Exhibition?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It is the practice to allow Post Office servants to take the major portion of their annual leave during the period March to October, and I am

    1125
    not aware of any case in which the whole or any substantial part of the leave is restricted to the winter months.

    PARCELS POST DELIVERY IN ITALY.
    Mr. R. JACKSONasked the Post master-General whether he is aware of the extraordinary delay in the delivery of parcels in Italy posted from Ipswich, such parcels not being received by the Italian firms within 16 days of their despatch from Ipswich, whereas similar parcels posted from London, Leeds, and even Ire land have been received by the same Italian customers within eight days of postage; and, in view of the serious loss of orders thus incurred by Ipswich traders, will he fake immediate steps to remove the causes of such handicap upon their trading activities?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Parcels posted in Ipswich for transmission to Italy are sent forward from this country without delay. I shall be glad to have inquiry made in Italy if the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the case which he has in mind.
    Mr. JACKSON: If I give the right hon. Gentleman cases of delay, will he inquire into them?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: If my hon. Friend will give mo evidence, I will see that the matter is attended to, but I am assured that the delay is not here.

    CLERICAL STAFF (APPOINTMENTS).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the principles that govern appointments made as a result of examinations for the Post Office clerical class; and whether those who obtain the highest number of marks are selected before those who obtain lower marks, or whether other qualifications are taken into account?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The appointment to the clerical class of successful candidates in the Post Office limited competition may be delayed through various causes, namely, through doubt as to a candidate's eligibility as regards health; but, subject to such delays in individual cases, the appointments are made in accordance with the order of merit in the competition. The competition of September, 1923, was held in two sections with different age limits; and in making
    1126
    the appointments each section is treated as a separate competition.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: When the right hon. Gentleman says that these appointments are made on the number of marks, what does he mean by saying that they are delayed for health reasons?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Sometimes before an appointment is made, notwithstanding the fact that the candidate has passed his examination, we have to make certain that he has already passed the health test.

    EX-SERVICE CANDIDATES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the recommendations of the Southborough Report that the special facilities now being afforded to ex-service men should not interfere with the normal promotion arrangements approved for the subordinate classes in the Civil Service, and that ex-service candidates who qualify should be appointed, he will undertake that equal opportunity for promotion is afforded to qualified candidates at the Post Office at the last examination for clerical classes?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The terms of paragraph 26 of the Southborough Report, in which it is suggested that the claims of members of the manipulative grades in the Post Office to clerical appointments should be sympathetically treated, will shortly be considered by the Committee of the Post Office Departmental Whitley Council which is mentioned in the same paragraph of the Report. I am unable to anticipate the Committee's recommendations, but I can assure the hon. Member that due consideration will be given to the claims of the men concerned.

    WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Post master-General the average number of words sent weekly by wireless telegraphy to the different parts of our overseas Dominions which have wireless installations?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: An average of 40,000 words of Press traffic is transmitted weekly by wireless telegraphy to Halifax (Nova Scotia). In addition, it is understood that parts of the British official wireless messages, which are transmitted

    1127
    via Leafield at 8 p.m. and midnight (Greenwich Mean Time) daily, are picked up in India and in certain of the Dominions whenever conditions are favourable, although they are not intended specifically for reception in the Dominions. There is no information as to what proportion of these messages, which average 9,000 words a week, is picked up regularly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: Can the Deputy-Leader of the House say what Bills he proposes to take after Eleven o'Clock to-night?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): After Eleven o'Clock we propose to take the items on the Order Paper:

7. Post Office (London) Railway (re-committed) Bill;

8. Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee);

9. Public Works Loans (Remission of Debts) Report;

10. Public Works Loans Bill, Committee.

In the case of No. 9, we propose to proceed from the Report stage to the Third Reading.
Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking the necessary steps to see that the Old Age Pensions Bill is passed before the Recess?
Mr. CLYNES: Yes. We hope to take it at a later stage this week.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

NEATH HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the Third time.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Second Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence arid Appendices, brought up, and read,
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SHOPS BILL,
"to make further provision with respect to shops and other places where trade or business is carried on; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. HOFFMAN; supported by Mrs. Wintringham, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Murray, Mr. Robert Wilson, and Mr. Lansbury; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 5th August, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 139.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 139.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken in consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.
      CLASS IV.

        BOARD OF EDUCATION.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £25,900,000, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."—[Note: £16,000,000 has been voted on account.]
        The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I am anxious to-day, if I can, to keep the interest of the generality of Members of the Committee. I shall, therefore, avoid as far as possible the recital of statistics. I shall assume that the Memorandum on the Estimates and the Report of the Board of Education has been studied by those who have a thirst for detailed information, and I shall not attempt to give to the Committee an account of all the activities of the Department over which I preside. My object will rather be to deal with the present and prospective policy in education which I should like to see followed by this and succeeding Governments.
        All that I need to explain in regard to the Estimates is the reason why they stand at the same figure as last year, namely, £41,900,000, although they have been calculated to allow of considerable expansion in educational activities. The situation is this: the expenditure by local education authorities on which all the main grants of the Board of Education depend has of late years been contracted and was, when I took office, showing signs of continuing to contract. This has operated to reduce the Board's expenditure, and the Board's Estimates are also being relieved by the disappearance of a post-War service, the
        1150
        scheme for the higher education of ex-service officers and men. There is another factor which still operates. The child population of this country is still declining. In 1903 the births in this country were 948,000, whereas in 1923 they had fallen to 758,000, a reduction of about 20 per cent, in 21 years. Thus, in spite of the changes in the law with regard to school attendance, the number of children in schools is decreasing. Putting these various factors together it is fairly clear that if there had been no change in policy at the beginning of the year the general Estimates might have undergone some considerable reduction, while fully providing for the services to be maintained on the same scale as last year. By asking Parliament, therefore, to vote the same amount as last year, I am leaving rope for some considerable extension and improvements. I reckon that these Estimates contain a sum of from £500,000 to £750,000 which will allow for the beginnings of a new era of productive expenditure.
        In asking the Committee to sanction these Estimates I wish first of all to express my gratitude for the friendly way in which members of all parties have so far received my administration. I do not claim any credit for myself, beyond the fact that I interpreted correctly the prevailing discontent, which was becoming very widespread, at the financial parsimony which had stopped the progress and was threatening the standard of education to which we had already attained. I do not claim any credit, because I believe that my two predecessors would have been glad enough to act as I have done if they could have succeeded in getting the consent of the Governments and of the Chancellors on whom they had to depend. They may be secretly jealous of my better fortune, but they do 'not disapprove of my taking advantage of the opportunity which has been afforded me.
        I feel specially anxious to say this in relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Fisher), for the fact that it has been left to his successors to put into administrative force many of the things which he desired to do cannot now deprive him of the transcendent credit of having provided the legislative instrument by which progress is now made possible. But it is not my right hon.

        1151
        Friends or Members of this House only who have responded to the new policy. It has had the approval of nearly the whole of the press of the country, and, what is very much more important, the local education authorities have shown their willingness to make a real effort to put the policy into operation. What are the principal things for which I first of all ask? I have asked for a determined effort to reduce the size of the classes throughout the country. I have asked for higher standards of staffing in elementary schools, a steady increase in the use of trained teachers, and a progressive decrease in the use of untrained teachers, especially in the supplementary grade. I have also asked for replacement of the worst class of school buildings. In many cases I have already found local education authorities showing considerable alacrity, first in making a general investigation into the position of their districts, and, secondly, in putting their schools into order.
        This process is of course for some of them a comparatively simple thing. A little re-arrangement has been all that has been needed. I may mention the case of a largo county borough in the neighbourhood of London which, within a week of the issue of the circular 1325 by the Board, had taken action for the reduction of the size of the classes throughout the schools under its Jurisdiction. They had at this time 10 classes with 60 children or more on the books, and 33 classes with from P5 to 60, but partly by reorganisation and partly by partitioning classrooms, in order to reduce their size, they have secured that after the summer holidays there will not be in this area more than two classes with more than 50 children on the books, and these two will be reduced as soon as a new school now in course of provision is completed.
        But there are, of course, many local authorities, especially in large cities with whom crowded elapses are the rule in whose case school has instead of being left vacant for special purposes are occupied for ordinary class work, places in which school accommodation has been in arrear since the beginning of the war and where little has been done since. In such cases there is a difficult, and at first sight, an even despairing problem for the local authorities. But even in such cases I find
        1152
        in these places a readiness to grapple with the difficulty. Many local authorities are considering a programme of development which in a few years should put even those who are most backward at present into a comparatively satisfactory position.
        I may take as a sample of what is being done, a county borough in the North of England where only two schools have been built since 1902, and where, in the opinion of the Board's inspectors, a large proportion of the schools should be condemned. Strong representations have been made to the authority to build at least two new council schools, and also to the voluntary school managers to set their house in order. I am pleased to say that in both directions we have been mat most fairly. The authority has agreed to proceed with the two new council schools forthwith, and the managers of the Church of England schools have met and drawn up a scheme to remedy, as far as possibe, the defects in the premises of their schools. That is a, sample of a great deal of what is going on throughout the country.
        I may say a few words more upon the subject of the worst kind of school buildings. There are many schools which were in process of condemnation before the War which are still in existence, and have remained untouched and unimproved. Many of these schools are ill-ventilated, ill-lighted, over-crowded, and even insanitary, and they have, some of them, barely any playground, and some of them have even no playground at all. I am at this moment having n complete survey made by my inspectors, and I intend in the course of the autumn to make clear what school buildings can be allowed only a limited period for their continued existence. Some of them will have to be condemned outright and the reconstruction of others will be required. I want to make clear that I do not intend to set up too high a standard. Many poor sorts of schools will still remain in existence, for if we wanted satisfactory school buildings everywhere, we should have to condemn schools in droves in every county. I am going to do no such thing. What I am going to do is to get rid of the worst, and I think that this is a right limitation for wood reasons, which I think will commend themselves to the wisdom of the Committee.

        1153
        4.0 P.M.
        First of all, our greatest national need is for more school buildings rather than for perfect school buildings. We want more school places to meet the needs of our increasing industrial centres and mining areas, and to make up for the long deficiency of the war years. We want our local authorities to be able to provide many more secondary schools, and it would be a great mistake to divert the energies of local authorities solely to replacing bad schools. That is the first thing; but there is another reason why I am unwilling to be too exacting, because I should be at once accused of trying by administrative means to get rid of non-provided schools. I shall pursue no such policy. Many of us remember how education 15 years ago was suffering in that period of religious quarrelling. I value far too highly the atmosphere which exists to-day, and it is not I who will disturb the present religious peace which fortunately broods over the land. I must, for educational reasons, give a time limit to the existence of a certain number of the worst schools. But I have the clearest indication that this will not be resented by a great part of the leaders of the Church of England and of the Catholic community—
        Mr. FERGUSON: On a point of Order. It is not the Catholic community, but the Roman Catholic community—
        Mr. TREVELYAN:—who recognise the responsibility which the present system places upon them, and will, I am sure, make the necessary effort where their schools are really below a recognised national standard. I may, in this connection, Bay that in one large county borough in the South of England, where the state of elementary school accommodation has for many years given the Board a good deal of anxiety, we have laid our views about it before both the authority and the managers of the voluntary schools, and we have been met very fairly. The Church of England managers have undertaken to consider the whole problem sympathetically, and they will bring before us in the autumn proposals for making a beginning both by the improvement of building and by the grouping of schools for the purposes of organisation.
        In general, there has been a bound forward in educational activity, as the pres-
        1154
        sure was released six months ago. Educational progress is necessarily slow. It takes several months to build a school, and it takes several years to train a teacher. But already the progress which is going to be made can be put into statistical form. To give the Committee some idea of the increased activity, in the whole of last year the approved expenditure for the building of elementary schools amounted to £1,097,000, and for the first six months of this year it has amounted to £838,000, or only £200,000 less than the whole of last year. That shows the increased activity in the elementary branch. When we come to the secondary schools, in the whole of the financial year 1923–24, 30 new secondary schools were approved, and in the six months since the beginning of this year, about 40 new schools have been added to those already approved, so that it is quite obvious there is a great and general increase of activity among the local education authorities
        The very general approval with which the ending of the reign of parsimony in education has been received has led me to entertain a hope, which I will now develop to the Committee. I am wanting, if I can, with the common consent of all parties, to map out a plan of advance to the next great stage in national education. It is less possible than usual with us at the moment to estimate the fortunes of our three great parties, but it would be a happy thing if, during the political vicissitudes of the next ten years, there could be no difference in the main objective in education of succeeding Governments. I ask to-day, therefore, for criticism and suggestion on the main lines of a continuous national policy. The present Government feel that the central need is a great expansion of secondary education or of equivalent types of advanced education. The thirst for advanced education after the War was frustrated. At that time the secondary schools of the country had to refuse thousands of pupils for whom they had no room. What a misfortune that the opportunity was not there for those boys and girls! The habit of longer schooling might have been acquired by that generation and would have been passed on to the next and so on to the next.
        There is no reason to suppose, even if the immediate demand at this moment

        1155
        appears to be rather less because of the higher fees and the strain of the economic situation, that the real desire is not there still. In many districts, the secondary schools are still over full and still turning away scores of applicants. I think it ought to appear to us as a great tragedy that at the very age when most boys and girls begin to show their maximum development, nine out of ten of them are thrown into the industrial world. Almost all the parents in this House, who have the opportunity of educating their children, there are lots of fathers I am sure who only begin to get interested in their sons when they go to public schools at the age of 13 or 14. They expect nothing of them before that. They know that that is the moment when their intelligence begins to blossom and their character begins to grow. I do not believe that there is any real dispute between us. Shortly after the War a Secondary Education Committee, presided over by Mr. Hilton Young, reported that it was of opinion that 75 per cent, of our children could profit by advanced education. I think all parties are agreed. I noticed, in the recent statement of Unionist principles and aims, these words:
        "The party would maintain a close co-ordination between elementary, secondary, technical and higher education, so that secondary and university courses should be brought within the reach of every child in an elementary school who might be desirous and capable of taking advantage of them."
        I therefore propose to encourage a deliberate advance to a new national standard, and I suggest that, whereas now there are less than ten per thousand of our population in secondary schools, We should set before ourselves the objective of doubling that number in the next decade, so that there may be 20 per thousand in the secondary schools. I should like to see throughout the country a standard of at least 40 per cent. of free places instead of the present 25 per cent., and I should like to see largo areas in the next few years experimenting with complete free secondary education. If we could agree upon some such objective as this, we might in the next few years follow the same lines whatever Government was in office. One Government might go faster and another might go slower. One Government might not enlarge the grants for education, but still pursue the same policy. The next
        1156
        Government might encourage a more rapid effort by a larger expenditure of public money.
        When I speak of a great extension of secondary education. I must make it clear that I am not contemplating a lowering of the standard in order to obtain greater numbers. The standard at the present time is steadily and slowly rising. The number of children who stay till the age of 16 in the secondary schools is steadily increasing. We ought also in any extension of secondary education to be ready to offer a variety of type of school and to encourage local authorities to provide, for instance, schools with a technical or a commercial bias or an agricultural or art bias In accordance with the needs or desires of the population in the different areas. One of the virtues of our system, as I see it, lies in its variety, and we ought to welcome experimental efforts by the local education authorities. For here, if in any range of human effort, it is difficult to be dogmatic about the best forms of school. I am, therefore, prepared to encourage local authorities to try other means than ordinary secondary schools for advanced education. I am fally prepared to encourage them to adopt the continuation school system, from which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities expects so much. I frankly say that have not so much faith in the value of education as he has for the young person half in industry and half in school. When hoys and girls first leave school their minds become wrapped up in the new world of industry and life into which they have been plunged, and half-time education is less than a half-value education. It is only later, when they become penetrated by a sense of the need of improving themselves, which characterises so many of those who, a few years later, clamour for an adult education, that schooling and industry can be most effectively combined. Nevertheless, I am prepared to welcome the efforts of any local authorities which think that on the lines of continuation schools progress can be made. Most of all, however, I welcome any extension of full-time school life of children.
        All that I have been saying has a close relation to a matter of grave concern to us all, namely, the entry into industry of

        1157
        young people between 14 and 16. A few weeks ago the House decided that it did not want even to seem to give any mark of national approval to an early industrial life for our young people, and therefore it refused a proposal for insurance. That clearly makes it imperative on the House to try and keep continually more children within our educational system. I have consulted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I find that he is prepared to agree that some of the money which might have gone to the insurance project-should go to education. He is prepared for a sum of £440,000 a year to be spent in England, Wales, and Scotland in this respect. I have not yet finally settled all the details of the methods to which this money may be put, but I hope to have settled them with the Chancellor before the end of the Session. I am able at once, however, to offer to local authorities the opportunity of beginning some of those things for which they might have had to wait longer.
        I am enabled, first of all, to allot a sum of £20,000 for expenditure, for one year in the first instance, on local juvenile associations. The Committee will remember that under a valuable Section, Section 86, of the Education Act, 1921, local authorities may promote physical and social training either themselves or through voluntary agencies. There was a Committee of the Board a few years ago to organise and stimulate these juvenile associations. I have now brought it into existence again, and I am glad to say that my friend the Right hon. Sir Herbert Lewis has consented again to take the Chair. I hope that with these resources at its disposal it will be able to do a good deal for young people between 14 and 16 in our cities. Next, I propose to remove the present limit on maintenance allowances given by local education authorities in higher education. The London County Council and several other authorities have reached that limit and would like to go beyond it, I am now in a position to permit them to raise it from 6s. to 9s. per unit of average attendance in the elementary schools of the area. I think that raising of the standard will enable local authorities to go as high as they want in the matter of higher education maintenance. As the Committee knows, we are anxious to get children to
        1158
        stay longer in our elementary schools. I cannot discuss on the Estimates the question of the compulsory raising of the school age to 15—
        Viscountess ASTOR: Why not?
        Mr. TREVELYAN: Because it would be out of order. As always before, we must prepare for the next advance in the school age by the more progressive authorities showing the way for the future. Every raising of the school age has been heralded by local advance first. I am, therefore, anxious to encourage local authorities to utilise Section 4 of the Act of 1921 to raise the compulsory age to 15. Some scepticism has been expressed as to whether this is likely, but several local authorities are already considering it and two—Bath and East Suffolk—have practically arranged to do it and are making their by-laws. No one will be inclined to say that what Bath and East Suffolk are able to do should be impossible for other areas. There is a growing feeling in all parts of the House that maintenance allowances ought to be more freely available for elementary education, and that, if they were, many children would be kept at school by their parents for an additional year. I sympathise strongly with that feeling. At present, unfortunately, the local authority only gets 20 per cent. of the grant from the State for maintenance allowances in elementary schools, and many local authorities are, no doubt, deterred from offering them by the fact that 80 per cent. falls on the rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has consented to allow 50 per cent. in the future to be borne by the State and that will, I hope, give some encouragement to local authorities in this direction. The aggregate expenditure recognised for this purpose in any one year will be subject to a limit of one shilling per unit of average attendance. I do not intend that these allowances shall be given merely to enable children to wait in school until they can get employment, and I should propose to steadily maintain the provision which exists at present that the parents of children receiving them must undertake to keep the children at school until the end of the school year. That is to say that maintenance grants ought to be used in order to open the doors of learning to children and not

        1159
        merely to turn the schools into convenient employment bureaux. The, Chancellor of the Exchequer has also given his general approval to the application of a large part of the sum for the provision of free places in secondary schools. The exact method of the disposal of the grant for the encouragement of free places is not yet decided in detail, but I hope to be able to make an announcement on the subject before the Adjournment.
        I want now to say a few words about the teaching profession, on whom the whole structure of education depends. I am precluded from discussing the question of salaries to-day for the scales are at present the subject of negotiation. The Committees of teachers and local education authorities over which Lord Burnham presides are still sitting. It would be unwise for me to do more than express my conviction that neither party would be any better if they fail to come to a national settlement, and if in consequence the question of salaries has to be fought out separately in each borough and county. I wish most earnestly that a lasting settlement of salaries could be arrived at on broad and liberal lines. The profession is so important to us that I want it to be made attractive, and material considerations of salary should not be constantly forced into prominence both in the minds of the public and of the teachers themselves. There is a growing appreciation of the work of our schools which is rapidly making the teacher a person of greater social importance, and better men and women will, I hope, be constantly attracted into the profession.
        I can see no reason why the best educated men and women in our country who are anxious to do the best social service for their fellow citizens should not many of them teach in elementary schools. There are many villages in this country where one first class man or woman as a teacher might stir up and change the whole life of the place. I wonder more people do not see this as a patriotic and social mission to say nothing of its interest. In any case we want a steadily improving standard of attainment in education in our teachers. Of the supply of certificated teachers last year about 850 passed into the teaching profession out of the Universities, having obtained a degree
        1160
        there. The largest proportion of these University trained teachers go into the secondary schools. Out of the training colleges not attached to Universities about 6,000 teachers come every year, while the rest of the profession is recruited by the addition of some 3,000 uncertificated teachers.
        I do not want to commit myself to any detailed statement about our system of training teachers until the Departmental Committee has reported, as I hope it very soon will. But I should like general agreement in my statement that we ought not to be satisfied until all the teachers in the country have a training in which the Universities play a part. That a quarter of those entering the profession should have no training at all is a very serious matter. A two years' course in a segregated college is not ideal. There ought to be attained some closer connection between the colleges and the Universities in every case, which I believe would be generally welcomed by the colleges themselves. I am not prepared in all things to hold up the Scotch as perfection, but a I least they are so far ahead of us that an immensely greater proportion of their school teachers have been educated at Universities. I think there should be an increasingly wide conception, of what the influence of the teacher can be. There are signs that this is begun to be appreciated by our people. Teachers are appreciating the advantage, of a much closer relationship with the parents. One recent new phenomenon are the education weeks which are being held in very many towns to enable parents to see what is being done in the schools. In some of our towns crowds of parents for several days have visited exhibitions of the children's work, and large and successful public meetings have been held to popularise educational ideas. The truth is there is no limit to the extent to which the habits and though of a district might be changed in a short generation through the influence of the kind of effort which the teachers are using in their class teaching and in other ways.
        I may mention some other activities, great and small, which are making our schools more human and civilising. Numbers of our teachers in our cities now plan school journeys for a week or a fortnight, and take a band of from 30 to 50

        1161
        children to places of natural beauty or historic interest, where in a few days they very often learn as much as in the duller round of school life they could learn in as many months. The crowds of children now coming to London, attracted in the first instance by the great exhibition at Wembley, are a phenomenon with which many of my fellow Members delight to be troubled. It may interest the Committee to know that I have information, upon which I can rely, that while Wembley is the source of great and hectic amusement, what numbers of the children appreciate oven more is their visit to the different sights of London. It makes me feel that in future years we must manage to make it easier for troops of children to come to the Metropolis in years when there is no abnormal attraction.
        Then, again, I should like to call attention to the teaching of local history and folk lore to children in the rural schools of Wales. This development has had the effect at once of broadening the basis of local patriotism and giving reality to lessons in history and geography. I only wish that we might see a similar development in English rural schools. Then there are the musical competitions, which are beginning to be very general throughout the country and which imply a high standard of musical attainment and interest in the schools which compete. Then there is the growth of folk dancing, which I sincerely hope is going to show a continuous development, in spite of the fact that the original and ingenious spirit of Mr. Cecil Sharp, who rescued from oblivion the folk dances and tunes of our country, is no longer with us. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) issued a few months ago a suggestion to local education authorities that they might consider making the League of Nations more familiar in the schools. I agree with him that teachers night exercise a great influence on the future of peace in the next generation by implanting in the children's minds an understanding of the meaning and structure of the League of Nations. I am contemplating, in the autumn, issuing a further memorandum to the local education authorities on this subject.
        There are two other sides of the work of the Education Department which I am most anxious that the Committee should
        1162
        appreciate and be ready to develop if the opportunity occurs. The grant for adult education was increased this year from £20,000 to £30,000. Since the War the thirst for knowledge has become more apparent among men and women who have been in industry for some years and whose experiences and disappointments have made them realise the insufficiency of their early education. Thousands are undertaking three-year courses of study of a University standard. There is a great demand for lectures and shorter courses, and there are several settlements in our great towns where education for adults is being promoted. A very able Committee appointed by the Board is advising me on the development of this form of education. It is through their representation that I have become aware of the situation in regard to public libraries generally in our country. We now have many local libraries, but there is a great want of organisation. There are many blank spaces, and such resources as there are are probably not used to their best purpose. I am proposing to have a Departmental Committee to inquire into the best way of perfecting our library system, without which our educational system is not complete.
        The other subject to which I want to allude for a moment is the relation of the Board of Education to Art. We are very chary as a nation in concerning ourselves with Art in any form. There is no Ministry of Beaux Arts, as in France. But we have the magnificent Victoria and Albert Museum with its priceless collections. I am glad to say that it is appreciated more and more every year. Largely owing to the ability of the present Director, Sir Cecil Harcourt Smith, whose services, I am sorry to say, the country is losing this year, the educational value of the Museum has been becoming every year greater. Since the War, it is used very much more for children and schools, and parties of adults are guided round it every week. I have taken steps to open it twice during the week in the evening. I have also obtained a larger grant of money for purchases for the Museum, but I want to take this opportunity of thanking publicly those generous benefactors who have come forward so readily to help to add to the collections. In spite of the fact that we now

        1163
        have £16,000 to spend in purchases—and, as a matter of fact, I am coining to the House for a small increased Supplementary Estimate—many invaluable Art objects are still being carried away to America and elsewhere, which ought to be in our collections if they are not in private collections. I, therefore, venture to appeal to anyone whose means and tastes make the task possible and attractive, to co-operate with us in this excellent work. Suppose, for example, any individual should decide to make a collection of early English silversmith's work or English furniture, on the understanding that it should, during its formation, he exhibited in the Museum as a loan, and ultimately be added to the permanent collections, it is difficult to conceive of any form of public memorial which would be at once so attractive and so durable.
        The Committee have been very patient. There are many other ranges of the work of my great Department about which I might speak, and in which I am profoundly interested. If I have omitted to mention them, it is only because of a deliberate intention on my part not to overload the speech of one man on an occasion when everyone is apt to speak too long. For instance, I have said nothing about university education. You have already spent a considerable time in exploring the possibilities of getting a statutory settlement of the problems of London University, in which I had considerable help from the late Member for the University, Sir Sydney Russell-Wells. Moreover, one of my first acts as a Minister was to restore the national scholarships which send to the universities students who could not otherwise afford to go from State-aided schools. What I have attempted, however, to do to-day is to map out a main line of policy. I have placed emphasis on an advance in secondary education. I have done so, first of all, because everything cannot he done at once, and this is what is most needed. It is easier to inspire a public and universal interest in one special need which affects the whole population, than to expect enthusiasm for every form of education. But an advance in secondary education carries with it this advantage, that it is bound to influence the education which comes before and the education which conies after. If we wish to see increasing numbers of young and able
        1164
        men and women having university training, nothing can bring that quicker than the natural and irresistible demand which would arise if there were twice as many secondary schools. In the other direction, the efficacy of secondary education depends on a sound elementary system. We shall all the less tolerate in children physical deficiencies and mental poverty if we find that at 12 and 14 they are unable to profit by higher education. The best lever we can have for improving elementary education is to have a complete system of secondary education.
        I do not see on the Paper any notices of reduction, which is a pleasing testimony to our general agreement. Two lines of criticism I can imagine may be offered. In different ways I should welcome either of them. I think it may be said, "Well, but there is nothing new about all this. It is what we would have done, or it is what NN e began." I am not going to spend time in discussing who is responsible for the present atmosphere of progress. I have no sense of proprietorship, and if everyone thinks himself responsible for it, everyone will go on with me to realise our common objects more fully. It may also be said that I am not going fast enough. That attitude, too, I welcome, for I intend to go as fast as I am able, but my ability is bounded by public opinion probably more than in any other Department of the State. I am so far from being an autocrat that I cannot build a single school or employ a single teacher myself. To a limited extent I can promote progress by advocacy. To a limited extent I can exert pressure. To a limited extent I can offer inducements. But the fulfilment of any policy which I suggest lies with my fellow-countrymen exerting their will on Governments, and on local education authorities. I have done already the biggest thing that I could do, which has been to create a new tone of activity and hope in the world of education. It now remains for my fellow-countrymen to co-operate in applying the new spirit to a new notable advance.
        Mr. FISHER: The Committee have listened to a speech of unusual interest and suggestiveness from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, and if I rise it is not, I need hardly say, in any critical or hostile spirit, for I am in complete agreement

        1165
        with the general tenour of the speech to which we have just listened. But in order that I may touch upon some points, and suggest some special directions in which, I think, my right hon. Friend has indicated the true line of progress. We have had, as my right hon. Friend has reminded us, a very full and helpful White Paper from the Board of Education, and that document, coupled with the speech to which we have just listened, dispenses me from the necessity of asking many of the questions which I had it in my mind to put to the Government upon their Estimates. There are, however, one or two questions which I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who will, I understand close the discussion. The President of the Board of Education gave us some very welcome illustrations of the manner in which the local education authorities all over the country were setting to work to improve the fabric of national education. He told us, I think, that schemes for the erection of no less than 40 new secondary schools had already been approved by the Board. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can tell us how many plans for new schools for defectives how many plans for new secondary schools, how many plans for new clinics have been or are now, under consideration of the Board, or have been approved by the Board since my right hon. Friend took office
        There is another question to which I should like to direct attention. When I. was at the Board, I was somewhat concerned by the relations sometimes difficult, between the Welsh Department of the Board of Education and the Central Welsh Board. I understand that some negotiations have been going on with respect to the inspectorate, and if the hon. Gentleman has any information to give either as to the Welsh inspectorate, or as to the present condition of secondary education in Wales, I, for one, should be very grateful to him.
        The kernel of the President's speech consisted in his appeal for co-operation in all parts of the House in a continuous plan for the development of the national system of education, and I heartily echo, his appeal. I remember, when I was piloting the Education Bill through this House in 1918, I received the most generous assistance from every quarter of the House—from the Liberal party, from
        1166
        the Members of the Labour party, and, I think I may say, from the greater proportion of the Conservative party. It is, quite true there were certain Members of the Conservative party who did not, approve, but, on the whole, I received most generous assistance, and I think we may regard the policy of the progressive, development of our national system of, education which is embodied in the Education Act of 1918, not as the work of one party only, but as the work of all parties; and, therefore, we may confidently look upon the assistance of Members of this House, whatever may be their political allegiance, in forwarding, the task of national education.
        I am glad also to note the observations which my right hon. Friend made with regard to the attitude that is now taken up by many of the responsible leaders of the Church of England with respect, to the necessity of making the Church schools efficient and worthy of the organisation with which they are connected. In the course of my period of office, I had often occasion to meet leading churchmen when questions arose with reference to the closing of a Church school which I regarded as unnecessary, and I do not think on any occasion I failed to meet with a very sympathetic response to my appeal I therefore believe that my right hon. Friend will find far less difficulty than the President of the Board would have found some years ago in an effort to raise the standard of efficiency in the Church schools of this country. I am a great student of the speeches of my right hon. Friend, and I note in them a sanguine, early sunrise effect, which is refreshing to my spirit. But I must admit that on the face of it, the rosy-fingered dawn shines very faintly upon the surface of these Estimates. I think he is fortunate. Here he is asking of this Committee £34,000 less than his Conservative predecessor, and £3,000,000 less than his Liberal predecessor, and yet, by reason of a fortunate turn of circumstance, he is able to offer not only the prospect but the certainty of a very welcome educational advance.
        My right hon. Friend is not proposing—and I do not blame him—any very serious revolution. These Estimates read to me very like the Estimates of previous years. The system of education is not to be revolutionised. It is still to be

        1167
        administered by 318 local authorities of varying degrees of zeal and efficiency, the authorities engaging the teachers, paying the teachers, anti dismissing the teachers. The grant system is not changed, and some features in our recent administration which excited a considerable degree of criticism when they were proposed are continued. I notice the proposal that teachers should pay a contribution of 5 per cent to their pension, a proposal which excited very lively indignation among members of the Labour party when it was first made, is now being continued by an Act of special legislation and finds a place in these Estimates as an Appropriation-in-Aid. Well do I remember the amusing vehemence with which my right hon. Friend, the present Secretary of State for War—whose absence through illness we so much regret—denounced the President of the Board of Education at that time, but my right hon. Friend, I am glad to say, still draws his salary. So changeable and inconstant is man and so short is human memory.
        A few weeks ago we were debating a very important educational proposal which came from the Government it was the proposal that children between the ages of 14 and 16 should come under our insurance law and should be able draw unemployment benefit in certain circumstances on condition of attendance at instructional centres. That suggestion was resisted by the House, and I think everybody will agree that the Government have very much improved upon their first proposal. I must say I greatly welcome the announcement of the President of the Board of Education. He has obtained from the liberal hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer an adequate sum, adequate at any rate for the present moment, to deal with the difficulty. He is going to put into operation, I am delighted to hear, Clause 86 of the Education Act of 1921, and he is further going to increase the proportion of the Board's grant towards maintenance allowances. I think the Government's second thoughts are, thanks to the action of the House, altogether better than their first, and I most heartily congratulate my right hon Friend and the Government on the course they are now taking.
        1168
        Nobody could listen to my right hon. Friend without feeling that he put the accent in the right place. He is conscious, as we all are, that the great unsolved problem, not only of British education, but of education in every industrial country in the world, is the problem of adolescent education. Here we have every year hundreds of thousands of children going out to make their living in industry after the age of 14, absolutely exempt from any educational direction or control and too often going to waste both morally and intellectually, to the undoing of the work of the elementary schools. Is it not altogether irrational that a great civilised country should spend millions on elementary education, and should not take steps, far less expensive, to secure the results of that elementary education during the period of adolescence?
        The proposal of my right hon. Friend is that during the next few years we should concentrate our attention on the secondary schools. I agree with him that the secondary schools should be multiplied. There are I think at the present moment something like 465,000 or 467,000 children undergoing education in our secondary schools, and I remember suggesting last year that we should not be content until we raised the number at least to 600,000. That I think would bring us upon the level of the Scandinavian countries, and I submit that a country like Great Britain ought not to be content with a place lower than Norway or Sweden. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend pointed out very truly, we must be very careful not to debase the quality of the secondary school. The secondary school system cannot be expanded very rapidly. You have to get buildings, you have to get teachers; the teachers have to be on a high level of qualification, and I think there will be general agreement among educational experts that if you can add something like 10,000 fresh secondary school places a year, you are going on the whole at a very good pace, and the time will come 10 or 15 years hence when you will reach the limit of the number of children able to receive and profit by a full time education in these schools. Perhaps we friends of education are somewhat too apt to exaggerate the intelligence of the human race. I was reading the other day some observations

        1169
        by an American psychologist with regard to the results of the intelligence tests for the American army. It appears that 170,000 young men in the prime of life were submitted to these tests with the somewhat distressing result that it is the opinion of American psychology there are 45,000,000 people in the Union who will never reach a standard of intelligence higher than that of the normal child of 12 years of age.
        Sir BURTON CHADWICK: Is that an American child of 12?
        Mr. FISHER: We, of course, may be more advanced, but, in any case, I think my right hon. Friend would agree with me that however much work and zeal we put into the development of our secondary schools, the secondary schools will not cover the whole adolescent problem. I wonder if you went to Lancashire and suggested to the great mass of parents in the cotton industry that the time had come, or would soon come, when ail their children would be expected to go for full-time education to a secondary school until they had reached the age of 16, what response would come from the working parents in that county? I suspect they would be opposed to it. I suspect they would say to that proposition, "We are quite prepared to give our children some further measure of education. We fully realise that to turn our children out into the industrial world at the age of 14 and give them nothing further, inflicts an injury upon them, but at the same time we are sensible that the whole industrial structure of our county depends upon the labour of children or young people between the ages of 14 and 16, and that you are asking us to undertake an industrial revolution." It is for that reason, I think, we cannot look to the secondary school alone for solution of the major part of our problem. I wish we could, but I believe that if we look facts in the face, and take account of the, industrial circumstances of our age and of our country as they really are, we are driven to the conclusion that owing to poverty and industrial pressure the, great mass of the children of this country must go out into industry after the elementary schooling is over; that it is necessary for them to add to the slender household budget of the family, and that the problem before us is therefore how
        1170
        to effect a combination of learning with earning.
        That leads me to the day continuation school. I believe it is here we shall find the solution for our greatest difficulties. I know many feel that the experiment which was tried in London was not altogether successful. It was tried at a very difficult time—at a period of great unemployment. The teaching was good, the employers as a whole worked in very well with the scheme, and before the end of the schools came some 60 per cent, or rather more than 60 per cent of the children who were in attendance at the school were in regular employment. I should like to read to the Committee a short extract from the Annual Report of the London County Council for 1923.—
        "The compulsory day continuation school attained a considerable measure of stability. The initial opposition both from the employers and firms had, to an appreciable extent, been overcome. The policy of suiting the organisation of the school in respect of curriculum and hours of attendance to the convenience of employers had been pursued with success. In many cases the schools and employers had so arranged matters that they might almost be regarded as partners in a joint undertaking. In cooperation with the Ministry of Labour, employment bureaux had been established at each of the centres, and this arrangement had secured in an increasing degree that close relationship between individual aptitude and suitability of work which is so vitally necessary to juvenile employment. The suspicion on the part of certain parents that the attendance is inimical to a child's start in life was rapidly being removed, and the schools were becoming recognised as employment agencies for most kind of juvenile work."
        5.0 P.M.
        That is the report of the London County Council. The fact that the policy has a future is, I think, sufficiently warranted by the popularity of the voluntary day continuation schools which are now working in London, and axe attended by no fewer than 5,000 young people.
        Another suggestion which has been receiving a great deal of attention lately is that the President of the Board of Education should press local authorities to extend the school age to 15 years. I notice that Alderman Jackson, who has done so much for the promotion of education in Yorkshire has expressed himself in favour of this proposal. He has urged upon the President of the Board that he should put pressure on the authorities to submit schemes for the ex-

        1171
        tension of the school age by 1927, and he has offered very substantial arguments in favour of that course. From these benches not long ago a question was asked as to the expense involved. It is quite obvious that the adoption of this course would mean great additions to our educational structures, great additions to our teaching personnel, and that even without any provision of maintenance allowances, it would be a costly policy. The outcome of the President's reply was to the effect that if the school age was raised to 15, and if maintenance allowances were granted at the rate of 5s. a week for 40 weeks in a year to half the pupils attending these schools, the cost would exceed £8,000,000. That is a very large sum, but if our adolescence problem could be solved for £8,000,000, it would be money very well spent. I should certainly not resist the proposal on the score of expense alone, but I doubt very much whether that course is, from the educational point of view, the best course. I have been struck, in talking to directors and secretaries of education and teachers, with the very wide impression that prevails in present circumstances many children are sick of school by the time they have reached 14 years of age.
        Mr. NICHOL: They used to be sick at 10 years of age.
        Mr. FISHER: I do not say that that is a complete argument. But the argument points to smaller classes, and, so far as it goes, it is an argument against the immediate prolongation of the school life to 15 years. I think the Board should pursue more than one policy. The Act of 1921 laid down many alternative lines of advance. It enabled local education authorities, where they desired to do so, to raise the school age to 15 with the approval of the Board. I am glad to know that some authorities are willing to take that step, and I hope that more will do so. At the same time I think we would be shutting our eyes to the probabilities of the case if we supposed that such policy would be very widely adopted in this country. I do not believe that it will, however much pressure is put on local authorities by the Board. I think also that my right hon. Friend is wisely inspired in pressing on his secondary school policy. I note with pleasure that
        1172
        he has resisted a proposal which has come to him from some quarters that he should abolish the fees in secondary schools. Free secondary education is never an ideal which has appealed to me. I have always felt that it would be very foolish to dispense with £3,000,000 of good educational revenue, paid by parents who are willing to pay it and can afford to pay it.
        All that we ask is that no child who deserves to receive a secondary education should be debarred from it by reason of poverty. The remedy is not the abolition of fees, but the multiplication of free places in the secondary schools. That is the second line of advance. The third line of advance is the development of continuation education under the provisions of the Act of 1921. My submission is that the Board should take an early opportunity of inviting local education authorities to prepare schemes for the development of secondary education, whether it be whole-time education or part-time education, upon these alternative lines. I should hope that by 1927 the most flagrant deficiencies in our education system will have been remedied, and that my right hon. Friend may be able to see preparations for an advance on the lines which I have suggested.
        I would not like to pass away from the consideration of these Estimates without expressing my warm approval of certain features in them. First of all, I greatly welcome the opportunity which my right hon. Friend has found, and is finding, of increasing the help which the Board is giving to the special services—to the school medical service, the play centres, the provision of meals and the organisation of physical training, as also to secondary education. Then the increased scale of grants for university tutorial classes and other forms of adult education will be generally welcomed throughout the country. I only wish that the late Master of Balliol, who threw so much of his vivid energy into the promotion of this form of education, had been alive now, when the Workers' Educational Association is celebrating its 21st year of existence, and when the Government of the country has given this further and well-merited mark of recognition to the admirable work which has been done in the promotion of enlightenment and learning among members of the working classes. Although it does not come on

        1173
        the Estimates, there is the grant to the British Academy—an excellent innovation—and the restoration of the purchase grant to the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum. Finally, I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has renewed the State scholarships which were suspended for a period of two years, very largely because of the somewhat unsatisfactory report on the first examination. There are not too many scholarships in this country for men, and the provision of scholarships for women at the older universities is deplorably deficient. These State scholarships, divided as they are equally between both sexes, are, therefore, additionally welcome.
        My right hon. Friend spoke very kindly of my own efforts to improve the system of education when I was at the Board. Shortly before I came into this Committee, a friend of mine suggested that I might take this opportunity of meeting some of the criticisms which have been levelled against me from time to time in various educational organs. I am unable to do that, because I have not read the criticisms, feeling reluctant to think worse ether of myself or of my fellow human beings than I am obliged to do. But I may perhaps make three observations which have some relevance to the educational Estimates. My first observation is this. When I first came to the Board, the Estimates for public education in England and Wales stood at the figure of £15,000,000. When I left the Board they stood at She figure of £45,000,000. I should be much surprised if my scholastic critics, or their children, or their grandchildren, live to see a Minister who will propose, or a Parliament who will vote, subsidies on any comparable scale for the development of public education. My second observation is that the Act of 1918 is still in effect upon the Statute Book, unaltered, unabridged, unrepealed and that every part of that Act is exercising, directly or indirectly, a beneficial effect in some part or other of the country. My third observation is that, although I was compelled in the last two years of my administration to practise some distasteful economies, I was careful that those economies should not injure the general fabric of our education system, and that they should be such that, when the favourable occasion came, they could be easily and
        1174
        rapidly removed. The favourable occasion has come, and the man has come. My right hon. Friend has used his opportunity, and has used it well, and I wish him all good fortune.
        Mr. EDWARD WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken always intervenes in these Debates with the authority of one who held the office of Minister of Education for three or four years and who, as has been stated, in the course of holding that office was instrumental in effecting great reforms. He, therefore, speaks with a wide measure of authority, and, as always, he has made to the Committee a speech full of suggestion, information, and value. To some of his points I shall recur a little later. I only, in passing, note the contrast of position between both him and the Minister and myself. I am unable, as the right hon. Gentleman, to stand at this Box and say that I was able in two or three years to raise the Education Estimates from £15,000,000 to £45,000,000, just as I am unable to stand at this Box, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, and say that I was able to reduce the Education Estimates by £35,000 and at the same time to increase the educational service. I may envy their fortune, but I am not able to rival their achievements. The Minister concluded his speech with what struck me as an observation of surprise that there was no Motion on the Paper for the reduction of his salary. Apart from the fact that anybody who has ever enjoyed that salary will know that it is much too small to reduce, I think that, as he himself, indeed, was conscious in his speech, there is really no big ground of controversy on the educational field at the present moment by which we are divided Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman made, what I may term, a most disarming speech.
        I state quite frankly to the Committee that when I came down to the House this afternoon I had it in mind, as I think my right hon Friend below the Gangway had it in his mind, while, of course, sympathising with the reforms or advances that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make, certainly to suggest to the Committee that a perusal of his outside-the-House speeches would have led me to suggest that he was perhaps painting his actual achievements in too favourable a light. I recall, though I

        1175
        have almost dismissed it from my mind, a speech that struck me very much et the time, when, no doubt encouraged by the exuberant atmosphere of Newcastle, he gave wings to his fancy and announced to a no doubt enthusiastic audience that he visualised himself—this was the inference, I suppose, of his actual words—as the commander of allied armies repulsing Ludendorff-Geddes forces and sweeping on over new Hindenburg lines to bigger conquests. When I read that, I confess I rubbed my eyes a little bit and wondered where the new policy, and all the rest of it, that would justify so warm a description of language, was in fact to be found. But, as I say, he disarmed my criticism, and I do not dwell upon points that might otherwise have tempted a reference.
        I come directly to what the right hon. Gentleman has been able to tell us in his extremely important and singularly lucid and, if I may humbly say so, well-arranged and also, let me add, short speech. He made me jealous of the skill with which he compressed all he had to say. I only want to make one observation, with which I do not think he would differ, by way of preserving a just, balance of perspective, in our judgment, with regard to deficient and bad school buildings. No one defends them or would wish to maintain them, but I think it is only fair to point out that throughout, since the War, there has been a steady replacement of the worst buildings, not indeed as fast as either he or I would like, but, I think, one that can fairly be claimed to have been continuous, and it is right, I think, to remind the Committee of this, to which I remember drawing their attention last year, and that is the fact that, owing to the gradual fall in building costs, the fact that local authorities were precluded from undertaking large building schemes for a year or two has, in a great many cases, inured to their extreme financial advantage, by enabling them to secure their buildings at a vastly reduced cost and at a much more real value. I am not competent to say whether that continued fall in the cost of building is going to be maintained under the activities of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of Health, but it certainly was maintained until the present Government came into office.
        1176
        I was extremely glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had no intention at all, as, indeed, all his colleagues in this House who know him never thought he had, of reviving by any hostile action the denominational issue and difficulty in our elementary system I can, I am sure, speak for all those with whom I sympathise in these matters in saying that, in my judgment, no denomination can complain if reasonable pressure and reasonable demands are made upon it to bring its buildings up to a state of reasonable efficiency, and, indeed, I would go further, and I would say that I believe that by doing so every denomination strengthen its claim upon the nation, which is so vitally concerned with the preservation and maintenance of religious teaching, to extend the fullest impartiality of treatment in giving any support which they may be able to give to all forms of religious belief who are doing their work efficiently and well.
        That brings me to say something with regard to the secondary side, upon which the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend below the Gangway dwelt at some length. I have no doubt in my mind at all that they are both right in laying the principal emphasis upon that part of the educational system. While, however, here again we are all able to agree in deploring a shortage of secondary provision, we ought, I think, in fairness to the facts, to remember that that has in part been due to the fact that the secondary school life, satisfactorily enough, has been growing progressively longer. Pupils have been staying longer in the schools, and, as I ventured also, I think, last year to tell the Committee, we need not forget that, I think between the years 1912 or 1913 and 1923, we had, in fact, succeeded in doubling the provision of secondary school places, and in doubling the total number had also doubled the provision of free places that were available for those who required them there, and along with that had also been growing a steady improvement in the quality of the teaching, as represented and expressed by a steadily increasing proportion of graduate teachers in the secondary schools. But there is no difference, of course, between us as to the great need of increased provision in this direction.

        1177
        The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway quoted on e figure on this head, and I would like to quote another, and, of course, we can all quote many. I am told that quite recently there were no fewer than 320 candidates for 18 free places at a London secondary school, and those who were competent to speak said that, of the 320 candidates, 100 at least would have been very good material to receive secondary education. Therefore, as I say, there is no argument, and there can be no effective argument, as to the necessity of providing an increased number of and an increased accessibility to our secondary schools to meet those needs. My own ideal in that matter is the same, I think, as that which actuates both my right hon. Friends. I have never myself been able to see, any more than the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway—and I think this is also the view of the Minister—that there is any magic in, or indeed that it was a wise catchword to employ, the phrase "free secondary education for all." That ought not to be the educational ideal to which we should work. Rather would I work with the ideal of seeing that in no grade of society should there be a child who, possessed of the adequate intellectual merit and ability, should be debarred, by reason of his or her poverty, from obtaining the best education that the State is able, right the way up, to afford. That I believe to be a great deal sounder than the other.
        I come for a moment to say a word about adult education, and in that connection my attention is claimed by the Parliamentary Secretary, who also, the other day, fell into an error with regard to the actual achievements of his predecessors that I am sure it is in the interests of accuracy, as in the interests of his own reputation for scrupulous fair-mindedness, that I should correct. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education, speaking in the very stimulating atmosphere of the annual conference of the Labour party last year, proposed the longest Resolution I have ever seen, and with which I shall not, therefore, trouble the House. It was divided into 20 parts. I shall only deal with that part in which he condemned the then Government—which was myself—for the serious restriction of the provision, if not the practical stoppage, of the increase of adult education in all its varied forms if the right hon. Gentleman likes to
        1178
        refresh his memory as to the Resolution it is here. I have no objection to reasonable criticism, but, in point of fact, I felt the injury of this very much, because I thought that that was one of the good things I had done, and with regard to which I had received warm letters of thanks from those connected with the organisation of the Workers' Educational Association. I want to take the thing a little bit further than that. I have always thought that the development of adult education was one of the directions in which, with the least possible expenditure of money, you could get the greatest possible results. I think there is no field which produces so satisfactory or so rapid a result as this. Therefore, I was extremely glad to hoar that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to carry on the good work in which I was able to lend a hand last year, and, in this field, extend support to the Workers' Educational Association and other kindred branches of the-movement.
        There are two particular points that I want to put to the Minister of Education, if I may, under this head. I am inclined to think, and I believe it has been impressed upon him from other quarters, that there is a case for special consideration; that, where you are trying to organise the adult movement, a very strong case could be made out for giving special consideration, by way of grant, to such organisation in rural areas, where the movement is very much more expensive, very much more difficult to encourage, but where there is real soil to be tilled if the work can be undertaken. The other point is this: I am sure that there would be a general consensus of opinion in the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman found his way to extend the grant to encourage the extra-mural work of the universities, As the Committee knows, in the last Parliament action was taken in regard to a Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Fisher), and which resulted from the Oxford and Cambridge Commission Report. I think it would be a complement to that Bill if, while you are endeavouring to deal more satisfactorily with the universities, you should also strengthen the extra-mural work of the universities in the way I suggest.

        1179
        On these matters all parties, as I have said, occupy common ground, as also with regard to the aspirations of the right hon. Gentleman as to teachers and the teaching profession. Nobody who has had the opportunity of knowing anything about it can, or would wish to, underestimate the value of the hours of unpaid devoted work that the vast majority of teachers give outside teaching hours to those who are brought under their charge. It is vital that we should continue to draw, or, if we are not drawing it, that we should draw the best material into the teaching profession that we can. One of the potent influences in that connection is, obviously, the matter of salary. The President was, as he said, precluded from saying anything about the discussions of the Burnham Committee which are still proceeding, and in regard to which those of us who are outside them, and have no sure means of knowledge, would certainly wish to say nothing to make those negotiations in any way more difficult than they are necessarily bound to be.
        I will only say two things. First of all, I am sure the general sense of all people who have had the opportunity of studying it must be with the right hon. Gentleman when he emphasised the extreme importance, whether from the point of view of the local authorities or the point of view of the teachers, or the point of view of the State, of doing everything that we can to preserve the principle of national agreement. I am sure it would really be disastrous to education once again to revert to all the evils that must follow disorder in the field of salary regulation. I would add this further observation. Speaking for myself, I have quite clearly come to the conclusion that once an agreement has been arrived at between the local education authority and the teachers, and has been approved by the Board, the interests of education demand that such an agreement should be adhered to, and in such circumstances, the administrative powers of the Board should be used to secure the observance of it. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, will be in a position to say anything as to the progress or otherwise of these negotiations. If so, the Committee will be pleased to hear it. If he cannot, he may rest assured that he will not be
        1180
        pressed on the matter at this stage. Can he tell us, when he comes to reply, also about a matter which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to—when he expects the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Training of Teachers. It was in this subject that our late colleague, the Member for London University, the late Sir Sydney Russell-Wells was so very much interested, and some of us remember his singularly well-informed speech last year. I only say at this stage that I concur with others in thinking that the system of training of teachers at present need not necessarily in any quarter be regarded as ideal or permanent, and that whatever steps we can take to bring the training arrangements of the teachers into closer connection with the universities, I suspect, are likely to be well advised.
        I want to say a word about the third part of the triple partnership of the State, the teachers, and the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman more than once in his speech emphasised—for he recognised it—that no Minister of Education by strokes of the pen or by issuing ipse dixits can possibly manage to do the work of the local education authorities for them. The case that he spoke upon, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities, was the question of raising compulsorily the school age. I confess that after all I had been led to suppose would have followed in this field from the advent of the Labour Government to power, however good I may think their reasons to be, it is a little bit astonishing to me that, after all these months, there should only be, as I understand it, two definite proposals before the Board at this moment, from Bath and East Suffolk. I confess I am not quite clear haw the matter stands, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give us some information as to whether Bath and East Suffolk have applied for permission to raise the school-leaving age to 15, or whether they have applied for permission to raise the age by by-law until such time as the child obtains employment, which was, as a good many hon. Members will be aware, the policy and the proposition that had been advanced. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to enlighten us on this point.
        I welcome the statement that the right hon. Gentleman was able to make in

        1181
        regard to the action that he proposes to take as an alternative to the proposal which the House rejected a week or two ago in the matter of the insurance of juveniles. I am sure that whatever money he can get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would have gone to, the insurance fund, for such educational purposes generally, and the local and, social advancement such as he has outlined, will be very warmly welcomed by all sections of this House. I conclude what I want to say about that with a general observation. However much it may be possible to guide and assist the formation of education policy from Whitehall, it has never been the English fashion of mind either to create or to suggest the creation of a bureaucracy effectively operating over the country. Therefore, I am quite certain that the real results of educational achievement will always principally depend upon the spirit that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever may stand at that box opposite, is able to infuse into local administration. I sometimes think that we take that so much for granted that we are a little bit apt to overlook the debt of gratitude that we owe to the local unpaid, voluntary, indefatigable administrators.
        I want the right hon. Gentleman to keep his mind open as to the advisability of devising a plan by which, without sacrificing the just interests of the, taxpayers, he can contrive to extend a greater measure of liberty to the local authorities and local administration in order to spare them the irritating necessity that both my right hon. Friend and I am afraid, laid them under, and which, although my right hon. Friend has proposed to relieve them to some extent from, they are still laid under, of having a great many things, as they consider it unnecessarily reviewed and overridden be the Board of Education in London. The fact is, I think, that in the general structure of the educational system, as a result of the War, both the theory of what real education is, and an appreciation of what education may moan, has outstripped the development of the external frame work around which the system has to develop. I am not satisfied that we have succeeded, in spite of all the efforts of the last few years, in effecting an ideal juncture of all the different stages and joints of the whole system of elementary, secondary,
        1182
        technical, and university education. I do not think there ever was, looking at this matter as a whole, a greater need than there is at the present time for standing out for establishing real unity and harmony right through the whole system, and unity of conception should be the first sheet anchor of a really forward educational policy such as that which the President of the Board of Education invites all parties to co-operate in.
        My second point is one that I rejoiced to hear the President emphasise not less strongly than any one on this side would have wished to do, and that is the necessity for having a genuine and thorough diversity of treatment. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that this is an age of experiment; in which we should encourage and welcome this policy, because it is by experiments that we, may find the truth. That I am sure is profoundly true. It is most certainly true, and more and more we appreciate it, that what feeds one child suffocates another in matters of the mind, and therefore you need to aim at as wide a diversity as your curriculum, within limits, will permit. We want a great deal of hard thinking in which the members of all parties may very well put their minds. Let us he certain, however, that the mere expenditure of a large amount of money will not be enough unless we know exactly what our system is and what we want to get out of it.
        Personally, while welcoming the extension secondary education, and regarding that for the moment as the main key of the position that we want to make good, I join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that it is necessary to maintain your standard in your secondary system, and that there is need to make considerable provision for those who are not intellectually fitted for the secondary school course as well as for the large number who will remain. For these I hope the right hon. Gentleman will develop the Central school idea. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last in detail into his consideration of continuation schools. I am not so sanguine about their future as he is, although I recognise that until you can realise your ideal they may have a useful part to play, but I do not put them quite as high as he does. I might perhaps mention that almost the last thing that it fell to me to have the oppor-

        1183
        tunity of doing before the late Government left office, was to give what I conceived to be a very important and valuable reference to the Consultative Committee who are now considering this matter, and I hope, in due course, that they will furnish the Board with their judgment about it. What I asked them to do was:
        "(1) To consider and report upon the organisation objective, and curriculum of courses of study suitable for children who will remain in full time attendance at schools, other than secondary schools, up to the age of 15 plus, regard being had on the one hand to the requirements of a good general education and she desirability of providing a reasonable variety of curriculum, so far as is practicable, for children of varying tastes and abilities, and on the other to the probable occupations of the pupils in commercial industry and agriculture."
        I mention that to show the very wide measure of agreement in the desire to find a really scientific solution for all these problems with which the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself so well fitted to deal. One word with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal. He made to us this afternoon an appeal for continuity of administration in matters of education. There is no service in which continuity of administration is more vital because there are few services in which organisation moves so slowly, and in which therefore results follow more gradually, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman can certainly depend upon it that his appeal will fall upon very sympathetic ears. It is most certainly true as he said, that in these days no Government can rely with assurance upon longevity, and it is also most certainly true that on what we make of the children in the schools will depend what they make of England the day after tomorrow. As long as the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister can convince this or any subsequent Committee that he is pursuing his task with a due regard on the one hand to inspiration and vision, and on the other to practical steps by which a sound purpose may be brought into execution, so long I am satisfied he will be able to count upon the ready, willing, and ungrudging cooperation of all parties.
        Mr. COVE: I desire to congratulate the Minister for Education upon what he has done and upon some of the things which
        1184
        he proposes to do. My congratulations are all the more vivid and sincere because during the last few days I have had occasion to peruse the circulars issued to the local education authorities during the last two or three years. Although I am sorry to intrude with a note of this kind, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) induces me to refer to some of the things which were done under his regime, and under the regime of his successor at the Board of Education who has just sat down. I wish to refer to the famous Circular No. 1190. That circular stopped all progress in school building. It stopped all the tendency towards a reduction of classes, and all efforts towards an extension of secondary education, more especially secondary free education. It also stopped all continuity of policy between the Coalition Government and the Government which followed it, which adopted a policy of restriction for educational services.
        Mr. FISHER: Will the hon. Member substantiate that observation, because I remember distinctly that I gave my permission for the erection of several secondary schools after that.
        Mr. COVE: There may have been some exception, but in Circular 1190 issued on the 11th January, 1921, I find the following words:
        "It must, however, be clearly understood that for the present the Board's approval to any general scheme cannot he given in such a form as would commit them to recognising for the calculation of substantive or deficiency grants, expenditure incurred under it."
        As recently as 26th September of last year, I find in Circular 1317 the following passage:
        "I have to request that the authority will furnish the Board not later than the 15th November next with a forecast of their expenditure in the year 1924–25 on the form enclosed herewith.
        In framing their forecast the authorities should not anticipate any relaxation of the financial stringency, or regard the necessity for economy as less urgent than in the two preceding years."
        I presume that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) found at the Board of Education an era of restriction and stringency that began under the regime of his predecessors. I should not have referred to this point but

        1185
        for the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman about the sun rising. I have recently refreshed my memory with regard to these education restrictions—
        Mr. FISHER: Will the hon. Gentleman read the last words of Circular 1190?
        6. 0 P. M.
        Mr. COVE: I think I had better not. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Read it. '] Undoubtedly these restrictions exist, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) will deny it. He has said himself this afternoon that the President of the Board of Education is much more fortunate than he was, because he has come into a new era, and has a better chance, having regard to the reduction in the number of children in the schools. I say that for the last two or three years every member of every local education authority is ready to tell you that buildings have been restricted, secondary education has been restricted, and the feeding of necessitous school children has been denied, and, therefore, I am all the more gratified to hear that the President of the Board of Education has deemed it wise to remove the restrictions imposed, and restore the system under which the grants were paid. There was instituted what was generally called the principle of rationing in our schools—a new departure in educational finance. I am glad that the new President of the Board of Education has gone hack to the system which prevailed before the rationing system, and is considering every proposal on its merits. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the general outlook of his speech and the new atmosphere which has already realised itself. His forecast of a secondary school provision of 10,000 places in a single year is a good commencement. Forty new schools have already been approved, and, taking them at an average of about 250 places in each, according to the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities, the Minister is already going at a very good pace. Having said that, however, I should like to ask him one or two questions, and, perhaps, if I may, offer one or two criticisms.
        I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that now is an opportune time for insisting that all the local education authorities should get on with
        1186
        their schemes. The Act of 1921 provided that every local education authority should make a forecast of its educational requirements over a term of years, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that now is an opportune moment for securing those schemes. You cannot develop in educational system piecemeal. You cannot develop it unless you take long views, and it is time that the local education authorities were asked to take long views as to their requirements, and that the Board of Education, with its expert advisers, should aid, suggest, and co-ordinate the schemes of the local authorities, in order that they may get the fullest benefit from them. Then I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what, I am afraid, will develop into a very serious menace in the educational world unless it is carefully watched. I am willing to admit that, as yet, it has not assumed very large proportions, but I find that the spirit prevails at the Board of Education, and that the words contained in this Report are being taken advantage of, even by what are generally known as progressive local education authorities. I refer to the new emphasis that seems in the mind of the Board to be laid on the examination of children in schools. I find that on page 13 of their Report for this year the Board say:
        "Indeed, the importance of a definite written test … is coming to be increasingly recognised in elementary school inspection to-day."
        No educationist or teacher will, I am sure, deny the right of this House, of the Board of Education, and of the public in general, to be satisfied that the work that is being done is being done efficiently. No one will deny the right of the public to know that the work going on in schools is bearing fruit and is effective work; but I want to suggest to the President that the system of written examinations is attended by very grave dangers. If you are going to insist, as appears to be the case in some local authorities, upon a written examination in the three R's, with arithmetic looming in front of all other subjects, I am afraid we are going to get some of the effects of the old system of payment by results. Unless we are very careful, written examinations are going to prevent educational development and experiment, and nothing is more necessary in the educa-

        1187
        tional world to-day than freedom to experiment. We have not solved our educational problems, in spite of mental tests in the United States of America, and I would quite definitely ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I understand, is going to reply, is it the policy of the Board to insist upon written examination in the three R's of all the younger children, say of the age of 11, in all the elementary schools of this country? If that be not the policy of the Board, will my right hon. Friend advise the local education authorities of the dangers arising from the continual holding by inspectors of examinations in the three R's in all the schools under their jurisdiction?
        I notice that the inspectorate forms a special feature in the Report, and, although it is, perhaps, a very dry part of the subject, I feel that it is a very important and necessary part, so perhaps the Committee will hear with me. I want to know a few other things from the Board, because this has to do with my social outlook and my political philosophy. How many elementary school teachers have been promoted to the inspectorate? What proportion of the inspectorate consists of men who have had no practical experience of elementary schools, but who have been through the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge? I find that the Board, in their Report, say a few nice things about inspectors in general, and rather lay emphasis on the wide outlook and broad experience of men who have gone through the older Universities. It does not, however, necessarily follow that men who have been through the older Universities have a broader view and a wider outlook as far as elementary education is concerned. I do not say that they have not got it, but it does not necessarily follow as a result of their having been through the older Universities, and that is what I want to emphasise. Inspectors, like teachers and like education authorities, are all human. This is only an isolated instance, but the other day I was speaking to a headmaster, and he was telling me of a man who had been through one of the older Universities and who had suggested to him that formal grammar should be taught in the schools. "It seems to me," said the headmaster, "to be rather out of date to insist too
        1188
        much upon formal grammar." "Well," said the University inspector, "I suggest that you take one formal grammar lesson a year."
        That is an extreme and isolated case, I know, and I am merely using it to suggest to my right hon. Friend that, after all, we not only want university experience, but we want experience of actual teaching in the elementary schools to a large degree in the inspectorate of this country, and I hope he will be able to satisfy me that it is still the policy of the Board to grant promotion to competent and qualified men and women who have rendered service in the actual elementary schools of the country. The next thing I want to know is, again, perhaps, technical, but I think it is a very serious matter, and that is, what is the policy of the Board regard to classification by age? I am afraid there is a tendency in the educational world at present to put children in certain standards because they are of a certain age, driving them up mere quickly than they ought to go. This means that those children may get into classes for which they are not educationally fitted. There are many things that go towards the standard of education of the child, and you might, by undue pressure of what is called classification by age, and pressure of examination, rob the child of what, to me, is most vital in the school, and that is that the child should be happy in school. There is something far more important in the school than getting sums right. Right conduct is far more important than getting sums right, and if we are going to have this pressure, the danger is that drill will be brought back into the schools, that we shall have the drill-sergeant instead of the teacher.
        The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) said that he did not agree with or was never enamoured of, free secondary education—that free secondary education did not appeal to him, and that what he wanted to see was an opportunity for all children in ail grades of society to gel this secondary education. I do net agree. Fee-paying secondary education is anti-democratic, and if you are going to have fee-paying in the schools, with the present provision continuing for a good many years to come, you are going to cut out the child who, by capacity, ought to be there. There is not enough secondary school provision, and

        1189
        there will not be enough for a considerable number of years. There are thousands of children who have qualified to enter the schools and cannot get in, and that means that the people who can afford it are able to pay, not for their children's education, because they do not pay for more than about one-third of it, but for a chance to get their children into the secondary school, to the exclusion of other children. The true democratic principle in secondary education is entrance by capacity. Even the Geddes' Committee were right in that respect, and that is the only thing in which I agreed with them. The Geddes Committee suggested that there were a good many children whose parents could pay for their education in secondary schools, but who were not fitted for it; but the Geddes Committee did not say that there is a large number of children who are not in the secondary schools though they are fit to benefit from them.
        I want to ask the Minister another practical question or two. Is he going to do anything in regard to the preparatory secondary schools? There are about 26,000 children in the preparatory schools, and they are there because their parents can pay for them. If they were out, there would be more room for other and older children. The Minister has suggested that he is going to welcome the, raising of the free places to 40 per cent. There is too much persuasion about that, too much permission to the local authorities. I want to ask him whether he is prepared to say, not that they shall be 40 per cent. but that, as a minimum to begin with at once, there must be 40 per cent. of free places for grant-aided children in the secondary schools? With regard to the Education Act of 1918, I was sorry—this is only a personal opinion—to hear my right hon. Friend state that he was going to allow education authorities to experiment with continuation schools. Continuation schools are a misfit in modern industrial society. You will not get even the employers to agree with them, and a great number of them have already pronounced their opposition to them. Further, I am of opinion that less benefit will be obtained from continuation schools for the money expended than would be obtained by raising the school age for all children.
        1190
        When I left school at 12 years of age and went down to work in the mine, I was, after I had been a very few months amongst the colliers, a very different lad, and every boy who enters industry becomes a very different lad. He becomes a man quickly, objecting to the restraints and discipline of school life—not while he is in school, because I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that children are sick of being in school. As a matter of fact, the general evidence is all the other way. School life has been radically changed during the last 10 or 15 years. There is more sunshine and happiness, because there is more individual freedom. Continuation schools are going to be a failure, if only because of the tremendous psychological change that takes place immediately a boy has gone to work. The straight line for the Minister to go upon is not to give 50 per cent, for maintenance grants. It is to give 100 per cent. for maintenance grants and to get powers to raise the school age compulsorily all up and down the country.
        May I say one or two words about higher education. I believe I speak the mind of a great many who are interested in education when I say that I am tired of names. It is time to get rid of "elementary" and "secondary" and to visualise the thing as one complete whole. The key is not the secondary system any more than it is the elementary, neither is it the elementary any more than it is the secondary. The whole structure ought to be visualised as one. In all educational developments which the Minister envisages, I hope he will give money for local authorities to experiment in a great number of ways. I am not afraid at the moment of bias as long as it is not a black coated and vocational bias. I am not afraid of vocational education if the word "vocation" connotes a wide enough horizon. I am inclined to think sometimes that in this industrial society of ours tire most useless education is the most useful. What is the tendency I have here some figures from Cardiff of the tragedy of the unemployed child. I have said before that by the very operation of the machine in industry you are tending to make the large bulk of our labour unskilled work, repetition work, monotonous work in which there is no room for human personality to expand.

        1191
        You cannot get to-day, for tens and hundreds of thousands of our people, education in and through work; therefore, you have to get it in some other way. You have to get it in the schools. You have to bring the arts and the crafts back into the schools. Give your biases, but do not give them too young. A liberal, broad education, an education in the arts in the crafts, in the humanities—that is the education that I think is going to help us in this industrial era.
        Mr. P. HARRIS: We have heard a very interesting speech, with most of which I entirely agree, and which represents, I think, the right kind of attitude that ought to inspire the President of the Board of Education. Before the last speaker intervened we had a very harmonious atmosphere—perhaps in some ways too harmonious. Any stranger who wandered into the place might have thought that controversy was quite absent from our Debates. That, perhaps, marks the fact that at any rate in the general aspect towards education there is no party division. It is purely a matter of degree and of difference of opinion as to what particular line we should march along in educational progress. I have been working for many years in an East End district doing a great deal of work amongst the schools, and one thing that has impressed me is the enormous progress, in spite of all the limitations and disadvantages of our present educational system, which has been made as the result of the efforts of educationists during those years. I was very glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) went out of his way to pay a special tribute to these men and women who give so many years of their life in the local work of education, not merely education authorities, who have, of course, to do important work, but also the school managers and the care committees, who do so much to make our schools human institutions in touch with the needs and requirements of those who are in them.
        I hope the President of the Board in the big work before him will make it part of his duty to have a complete survey of buildings. I do not want to overrate buildings. I have seen good, efficient teachers in the most inadequate buildings get better results than rather ordinary
        1192
        teachers get out of a perfect building. We all know that buildings are not everything, but they are very important, and it is a great handicap to keen teachers who find themselves in antiquated buildings without school halls. I want to impress on the President of the Board—it may seem small and trivial, but anyone who has been in touch with the schools will bear out what I say—the immense importance of the school hall for the effective work of the school. In the East End of London, in ninny of the very old buildings, there is a complete absence of the school hall. That means that it is impossible really to carry on the unified life of the school. It becomes a detached building with separate school rooms instead of one school, of which the head teacher can keep complete control. I will put it to the Minister in this way. There is likely to be great difficulty in getting the necessary materials and labour for building schools owing to the competition for houses. There has been in the last few years a really feverish battle between the educationists and the housing enthusiasts who were going to get the capital, the labour, and the materials for the necessary building. But many of our old buildings are capable of reconstruction, particularly in the direction of constructing a school hall, and the right hon. Gentleman is likely to meet with greater and more rapid success if he concentrates, with the Treasury and the local authorities, on bringing antiquated schools up to date rather than on the more ambitious scheme of building entirely new schools.
        I want to congratulate hire particularly on the new attitude which has been adopted towards the whole teaching profession. Undoubtedly, there has been very grave discontent and unrest in many branches of the profession. Sometimes it may be thought that too much was made out of the five per cent. reduction in salary and the five per cent, contribution to the superannuation fund. As a matter of fact, I think the teaching profession have submitted to this reduction very patiently and with comparatively small complaint, but it has caused a feeling of unrest and uncertainty, and I think all parties should aim at giving the teaching profession a proper professional status and save them from con-

        1193
        stant irritation in the revision of salaries in a downward grade. Let them feel that the teaching profession is recognised by the State as the noblest and most important of all professions, and let it take its proper rank among the learned professions. Everyone who is keen on education also welcomes the new campaign against the uncertified teacher. But hope the President will not limit his efforts to London. We are duly grateful to him for the disappearance of the infants' assistants, not so much because of their particular work, but because it was a suggestion to the profession that it was not absolutely essential for teachers to go through the necessary course of training and qualify for their work. Unfortunately, in other parts of the country there are still thousands of men and women who are not really qualified for their particular job. We talk a lot about quacks and unqualified people in the medical profession. It is equally important that education should be in the hands of people who have hen through a proper course of training and know their job.
        I specially welcome the remarks of the last speaker in reference to the whole attitude towards elementary schools. The great bulk of the people go to a school which is limited to teaching the elements of an education to be completed at 14, and the ordinary parent of the ordinary child, when the age of 14 is reached, thinks the education is complete, and they can go out into the world to earn their living as properly educated persons. That is a very unfortunate atmosphere to create. It may seem trivial to quibble about words, but I should like to substitute "preparatory" for "elementary." The great council schools that give elementary education should be regarded as preparatory schools, in the same way that private schools are regarded as preparatory for the secondary or great public schools. That would get into the minds of the parents and the child that all they had been getting up to 14 is the groundwork to fit them to enter into the higher branches of education in the secondary schools. What we shall aim at—and the President has a great opportunity at present, in view of the better spirit in the country towards education—is a really national system. You want to get rid of the idea
        1194
        that used to be described in the old days as the Board school and the Board school was regarded as an inferior kind of education. In France, though there are many defects in French education, they have a truly national system. The child can go to a private or a State school, but he has to go practically through the same course and submit to the same tests and the same examination. Anyone who knows anything about the many hundreds of private schools where parents pay for the education of their children know how inefficient and unsatisfactory these preparatory schools are. I suggest to the President that he should try to get all these private schools into a complete national system—not to stereotype education, not to put them all into one mould, but whether the child is the son of a rich or a poor man there should be a national system of education, no one should be exempt, the poor child should be entitled to the same advantages as the rich, and the child of the rich parent should not be subject to inefficient education because of the idiosyncracies of the parent and the prejudice towards fashionable seminaries which have the appearance of being something superior to the elementary school, but really, on the educational side, are often infinitely inferior, and would never be passed by the proper inspector of the Board of Education or a local authority.
        There has been a little controversy today about the attitude to adopt towards the secondary school. I am inclined to agree that the best system would be that every child that enters a State secondary school should be subject to an examination, and only if a proper standard is reached should any child be permitted to enter. If the parent likes to pay a fee by all means let the parent do so, but do not let the child of the parent who pays have an advantage over the child of the parent who cannot afford to pay a fee.
        There is a branch of education which has not been referred to and which has great possibilities, and in regard to which great strides have been made in London and in other parts of the Country. I refer to the central schools. The central school is organised for children who are prepared to stay and continue their education up to the age

        1195
        of 16. It has to a certain extent a vocational bias, but on the other hand a most generous syllabus is provided. These schools have appealed in a remarkable way to the industrial districts and, what is most significant, children who have had the advantage of a central school education never fail not only to get a good job but also to keep it. Down in the East end of London, and I suppose all over the country, at the present time, there are large numbers of young men and young women, especially between the ages of 20 and 30, who are out of work. These people are constantly coming to me and asking me to help them to find employment. When you ask them what they can do, the answer only too often is, "anything," but when you ask them what they can do in particular, unfortunately, the answer only too often is "nothing."
        It is a very curious thing that of the young men and young women who are out of work hardly one of them have had the advantage of training in a secondary or in a central school. That is a great indication of the advantage of continued education from the industrial point of view. It is a mistake to think that machinery means a less demand for skilled craftsmen. On the contrary, machinery more and more is doing the heavy work and is diminishing the demand for unskilled labour, but the demand for skilled labour when normal times are restored will continue, and the industries will get the advantage of having workers who are well educated and intelligent, and more skilled labour will be employed. At any rate, that is my experience. For that reason and even for that reason only, there is an unanswerable case for very much larger expenditure, of public money in the development both of central schools and secondary schools.
        When you come to the more difficult and controversial question of the raising of the school age as compared with the continuation school system, my view is that local authorities should be encouraged wherever possible to raise the school age. I am sure the President of the Board of Education is on right lines when he offers maintenance grants. With all the present prevalent unemployment the family wage is such that it is impossible to keep a child out of work after
        1196
        the age of 14, but if maintenance grants are given with discrimination I believe that much of that difficulty will be got over. By all means encourage continuation schools to go alongside the raising of the school age, but do not let it be suggested that they are a substitute for the increasing of the school age to 15. I think the recommendation of the Bath Education Authority is significant, and one that might be weighed very seriously by the Board of Education. Here was an authority, not claiming to be very advanced in its views, coming forward to the Board and suggesting that no children should be allowed to leave school unless, they could show that they had some occupation to go to, and that they should be induced to stay on until the age of 15 by the offer of a maintenance grant. I suggest that this should be taken by the Board as a sign of the right lines to be followed.
        With respect to adult education, one of the interesting things that I have noticed amongst young men and young women out of employment is their realisation of the importance of continuing their education. An interesting experiment has been made in three buildings in London in the way of institutes for working men over the age or 1s. In one case in particular, the Bethnal Green Men's Institute, the County Council, three years ago, placed at the disposal of an energetic man an elementary school building. He started with no pupils, he was merely given the fabric of the budding and told to find the men to till it. In the first two months he had only 13 pupils. At the present time he has 800 working men, many of them employed in comparatively unskilled work. He has plumbers, bricklayers, carpenters, tailors and other men earning their living by their hands. It was found that they were rather suspicious at first in going back to school. They did not like the atmosphere of the classroom and it was necessary to create an atmosphere suitable for adults who had left school and had never entered an educational institute for four years. Therefore, he adopted an ingenious device of providing plebs and societies—art societies, dramatic clubs, wireless societies, an economic circle and so on. By these means he has created in this building a real university atmosphere. He has not only provided these working men with intellectual activities, but he has

        1197
        given an entirely new outlook to the neighbourhood and made the men feel that there are opportunities in intellectual life that will make life far more attractive and far more interesting than otherwise would be the case.
        He has done more. He has assisted them indirectly to get back their industrial self respect. Many of these men have been out of work or in casual employment for the last two or three years, and they have found in this building opportunities for intellectual activities which, though they may not directly have brought them employment, have helped them to get back into industry, and have given them that satisfaction that only an intellectual atmosphere of this kind can create. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that experiments of this kind in adult education should be encouraged. I am all for the Workers' Education League. Undoubtedly it has done splendid work in giving lectures to working men on many subjects and dealing with many problems, but something more than that is required. If adult education is really to be successful we want to get buildings of the character to which I have referred, and to get the men into contact with each other and into an atmosphere something like that which men and women in more fortunate circumstances get in the Universities. I believe the Minister has started on the right line, and that if he continues on those lines he will do useful work and will have the full support of the House of Commons on all sides.
        Sir MARTIN CONWAY: It is my good fortune as one of the representatives of the United Universities to have as my colleague the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher), who has already addressed the Committee. He thoroughly understands all the complicated system of the Education Office. He knows all about the 380 local authorities and their relations to the central body. He knows, I will not call it the jargon, but the vocabulary of education and can talk of all the different technical points which, I confess, are so much Greek to me. The result is that he brings heavy guns to bear on these education debates and all that remains to me is a kind of light skirmishing around. If I may change the simile, I would say that when we adventure together on an education debate my right hon. Friend skilfully
        1198
        brings down bird after bird at which he has skilfully aimed and all that I can do is to fire into the brown. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) would almost have tempted me to follow him into his historical disquisition. He ventured upon an historical retrospect which would have been more valuable had he possessed the historic mind. The historic mind is one that essentially concerns itself with considering all the factors of a problem with entire impartiality and without any regard to the result which may be arrived at save what arises out of the factors under consideration. I do not think that the historical part of his speech was marked either by impartiality or with a full regard of all the factors. I am entirely impartial in this matter and I confess to a feeling of some annoyance when hon. Members opposite are criticised for not having fully carried out promises that they have made under other circumstances which are raked up from the past. These backward glances are always a waste of time when our sole business is to consider the conditions of the present day and preparations for the future. We should leave the past to bury itself.
        I am going to represent myself in regard to education as a revolutionary and an anarchist, and I hope that I may draw some sympathy from hon. Members opposite. To me education consists in a child desiring to learn in the presence of the teacher capable and desirous of teaching. In these Debates we hear a great deal about the Departments, inspectors, education authorities, schemes and apparatus of all sorts and kinds. All these organisations form a vague cloud in my mind—vague shapes which I cannot define to myself; but the one thing that I do not see is the child in the school and the master who is teaching him. I have the greatest lack of sympathy for the whole bureaucratic business as applied to education. All this machinery, all these various authorities and their relations; their employés, their apparatus and the whole business is not education at all. It is merely the means of getting a child into the presence of a teacher.
        What does all this educational apparatus mean? If you examine it and look down into the heart of it it means that you do not trust the teacher. The whole of this structure, all these educational authorities exist merely because we do

        1199
        not trust the teacher. The one purpose is to secure that the teacher teaches. You do not always effect that purpose, but that is the purpose. If you had confidence in the teachers all over the country, the same kind of confidence that you have in the headmaster of a big public school, you would not require this system of inspection, examination, and all the rest of it. Now teachers and inspectors ask the children, "Let us see if you can learn as well as we can teach." The child, in fact, knows more about that than any inspector. The best inspector of a teacher is his own class. They can tell more about a teacher than an inspector can find out under any system of inspection.
        The point which I wish to make is that the whole of this elaborate, bureaucratic system has no other purpose except to secure that the teachers teach, and the sole reason of its existence is lack of confidence in the teacher, Why does this lack of confidence exist? Obviously, because we know quite well that we have not made the teaching profession sufficiently attractive to bring into it the best people of the country. If the teaching profession were as attractive as are the other great professions, if it were sufficiently well paid, you would not want all this system of training colleges, examinations, and what-not to produce teachers. You would not want all this examination, inspection, and general looking after everyone to see whether he is doing his job. You would know perfectly well that you had got the kind of men who would do their jobs, and that they would be men whom you could trust, or that if you could not trust them you could not better trust anybody else to look after them.
        What right have we to think that inspectors are any better than teachers? Who is going to inspect the inspector, and who is going to inspect the man who inspects the inspector? You must ultimately come to, bed-rock somewhere and put your trust in somebody. I maintain that the real man to trust is the teacher, and if you cannot trust him the fault is in the system of producing the teaching profession. I should like to see the whole of the money that is spent on this bureaucratic construction spent on the teachers, and I should like to see the teachers left in freedom to teach. No
        1200
        doubt you would have some failures here and there. You have them now. There is no system that can be created that will always work well. You have got to take your chance. You have got to have your failures. But I believe that this country, with the class of people that there are in it who would be wiling to take up the Leaching profession in large numbers, would get fewer failures by entirely trusting the whole of the educated body of teachers than by any other way.
        There has been a great deal said about the age at which children should leave school, whether it should be 14, 15 or 16. A great deal has been said about the necessity of prolonging education. I maintain that that is a matter which depends entirely upon the individual. You cannot go by rigid rules. Many of my friends who sit on the benches opposite, and in other parts of the House, have lamented to me that their education was interrupted at an early age, and I have generally found that those are the very men whose broad common sense and wide understanding view of life has been the thing that has provoked in me real envy. What is the good of talking about the year in which education is to cease? Education continues to the very end of life. We are all being educated, at least all except a wooden-beaded section of us who are past salvation.
        The best education which anyone gets is what he gets immediately after leaving his teachers, the first me of freedom, when you can apply your mind to the things that really interest you and not to the things in which you are told to interest yourself, when you can use the apparatus of thinking, the development of which is the sole end of early education. There is great doubt whether the bulk of people, including myself, who have been to a public school and a university benefited by continuing our formal education as long as we did. It is a matter absolutely foe the individual. Some children can go on learning until they became adults, that is to say, can go on learning profitably from teachers to an advanced stage. But there are plenty of children who cannot learn from teachers at all. They learn practically nothing from the teacher. They can learn only from life.
        Now our system of education is built up on the basis of reading, writing and

        1201
        arithmetic, and abstractions of that sort. There are people with definite concrete minds who cannot profit by any abstract teaching at all, and for whom the only way by which they can learn fractions is by sawing a board into halves and quarters, and then they know what a fraction means. All abstract teaching is wasted on large numbers of children, whom you hold back from the great school of life where they can learn, in order to keep them in a trammeled school where they not only cannot learn but where they will not. I think that the whole of this discussion as to continuing education beyond a certain age, a definite age to which education shall be carried, is beside the mark. I do not believe for one moment in general rules on this matter. You must deal with every case as it arises. There are many children who are far better removed from school at: a very early age, while others are better kept at it.
        A great deal has been said about the establishment of secondary schools, and as to why we do not establish more, and how many we should establish. I wish to suggest that it takes about 100 years to establish a secondary school that is very much good. What you learn at such a school, that is of great advantage, is what you learn from your fellow scholars and not what you learn from your masters. The great merit of our English public schools—and I for one ant a great believer in them, I am not at all one of those people who sneer at our great public schools, which are the wonder and admiration of the world, and which no people criticise but ourselves—is the crowd psychology of them, the esprit de corps that arises in a school, that differentiates one school from another, so that in a given school there is at any given date a certain spirit, a certain moral spirit, which ordains that such-and-such a thing is right, and that such-and-such a thing is not to be done, which particularises often perfectly ridiculous actions as being contrary to the way of the school.
        But such a spirit takes a long time to grow in any school. It cannot he produced except after the passage of many generations of scholars, each of them leaving behind some little effect, some little influence, which is carried on until ultimately the school attains, as I say, a
        1202
        definite character. When once it has attained that character the thing that happens is that any new scholar that comes into the school catches that character just as you catch the measles. It is not a thing acquired by teaching. It is the spirit that is caught, as the esprit de corps in a regiment is caught. It is an emotional effect which the whole organism of a school is capable of producing on the members who form a part of it. That is the most important thing.
        Not what you are taught at a school is most important. The civilising spirit that you acquire by contact with your contemporaries in the school which which possesses a definite esprit de corps and has been long enough in existence to have a certain respectable weight of time behind it, is to be acquired in no other way. The spirit of a school is the most important thing to know about a school. We recognise this fast enough in the case of our public schools. We know that certain public schools have a better spirit than others, and parents, quite rightly, are often guided in the choice of a school for their sons by the knowledge of what the spirit in that school is at a given time.
        I have asked whether the secondary schools of modern growth which have grown up under the Board of Education do possess tins kind of individual spirit, and I am told that it has certainly arisen among some of them, that it tends to arise, and that one may look forward in time to every secondary school in this country having the same kind of definite individual spirit of its own as the old public schools already possess. The old public schools have taken a long time to create that spirit. It cannot be done in a moment. It is a most important factor in any system of education that schools should possess a fine spirit of infectious character which they alone can transfer to young people, and which cannot be given by any amount of teaching or any number of masters or mistresses or examinations, time tables, and all the rest of it.
        7.0 P.M.
        There is only one other subject to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. That is the general state of education throughout the whole country. That is a very large subject, but I shall not treat it in any lengthy way. We have

        1203
        in Great Britain two totally different ways of life. There are people who live in towns and people who live in the country. There is town life and there is country life. Our system of education is the same applied to both. Our town schools and our country schools teach practically the same kind of thing. They are all, in fact, concerned to bring a boy or girl up to a stage at which he or she would make a good post office clerk. That is the kind of ideal that our schools, town and country alike, entertain. Our country schools are educating children to be town children, giving them a taste for town attractions, giving them the kind of knowledge which could be applied to activities and openings in towns. I remember being told about the Orkneys or Shetland that in the old days the normal boy, as he grew up there, looked to become a fisherman or a sailor. Then came our modern system of education, and now the normal boy in those same islands, instead of looking forward to being a sailor, wants to go to town and become a townsman. That is the direct result of our system of education. A great deal of the tendency to leave the country and to go to town is due to the fact that you give a town education to country children. The whole of this country is overburdened by town interests. Legislation is always from the point of view of the town. The country is always being impeded by the dictation of towns, and in nothing more so than in education. Our educational system envisages town life. That is, I think, a most mischievous thing, and the fundamental change I shall always advocate is that town and country education should be absolutely different from the beginning right up. Town education contemplates producing a good townsman; country education should contemplate producing a good countryman. While the townsman takes an interest in all kinds of business and the works of man, the countryman should take an interest in things in nature. His education should be based on the book of nature rather than the actual works of man.
        One of the unfortunate things which arises from our system of education is that our young people are not at all suited to go out into the Colonies. I know that
        1204
        hon. Gentlemen opposite will regard with disfavour the idea of emigration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] No! Well, I have heard expressions of opinion that people like to keep their children with them at home, and very naturally, from the point of view of the older generation. In my time the normal youngster who was of an adventurous disposition, ran away to sea. I do not hear of much running away to sea now. I know one hon. Member opposite gave me a most marvellous description of his life based on that adventurous spirit, which led him to run away to sea. I always regard the boy who runs away to sea as typical of our race. Our modern system of education does not by any means help a boy to look forward to starting in life in the Colonies. Our climate is, in one sense, the finest on the surface of the globe. The nature of our soil, its position on the surface of the globe, and other factors unite to make this country the most perfect breeding place for stock—I do not refer merely to cattle, but to human beings. You cannot breed a finer type of human being than in this country. Just as we export our cattle all over the world, so we ought to export ourselves and "replenish the earth and subdue it."
        Our system of education ought to be a system that favours the adventurous youth who wants to go colonising and to spread himself all over the world. I maintain that our system has exactly the contrary effect. So long as that is the case, you are handicapping your race in the world. I would have the whole of our system of education, so far as it applies to children in the country, revolutionised I would have a totally different kind of system for the country, and not like the other at all. I would have it concerned with the neighbourhood where the children live, with the nature of the soil, the crops which grow there, the geography of the country, of its surroundings and everything to do with nature there. I would make the children trained in the country so utterly useless in the town that they would not want to go there, and I would make the country the one possible arena for their activities I believe if you did that, you would find a very quick response from the people. Further, I would, in the neighbourhod of every large town, have country schools, so that the children living in towns could be

        1205
        sent to the schools and trained for the country life, and thus induce them, if possible, to prefer the country to the town, whether in this land or in the Dominions and Colonies. I hope I have not suggested shocking ideas to hon. Members. I will not enlarge upon them in detail. I am merely talking about the broadest generalities. I seldom inflict my generalisations on the House, and I shall not be doing so again very soon.
        Miss LAWRENCE: It does seem to me that the speeches we have heard, admirable as many of them were, conceal rather than show that something very important has happened, and that there are great possibilities for the future. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E Wood) spoke with considerable courage, and I do not think I could do better than remind him of the dictum of the Geddes Committee with regard to education:
        "We see no way of making the reductions necessary in national expenditure without reducing expenditure on elementary education. This can only be done by reducing the lower age limit, by putting more pupils under one teacher and paying the teachers less."
        That is a downright plan. Ministers since that date have been inspired by the same idea. It is true that they do not speak with that peculiar directness of that Report. That is not the way in which Ministers of any experience in a Department would speak. They use gentle, friendly words about the importance of education. I would quote the words of Mr. Selby Bigge, the Secretary of the Board of Education:
        "The Board rely confidently on local education authorities to co-operate with them in the difficult circumstances of the present time, in devising means for carrying on the public system of education with the strictest economy, and at the same time in such a manner as to protect the vital interests which it serves and to keep open the lines of advance when financial circumstances are more favourable."
        His Report further states:
        "It is obviously undesirable at the present moment that local authorities should embark on or proceed to the erection of large or costly permanent buildings unless the circumstances are extraordinary and such a course is unavoidable. Few proposals of this character have in fact been submitted to the Board within the last 12 months and they cannot now entertain them unless a case is made out for their exceptional consideration. To meet a deficiency of school places, or to remedy con-
        1206
        ditions prejudicial to the health of the scholars, or inconsistent with their efficient instruction, recourse should be had in the first instance to the adaptation and extension of existing school buildings, preferably by means of temporary structures or army huts."
        Well, those temporary structures and Army huts, inconvenient in character and provision, instead of permanent school buildings, have left the buildings of our country in so backward and deplorable a state that many years will have to be spent in making up for it. You cannot have more teachers and you cannot have a thousand and one things you want to do without altering the buildings. The Board of Education can do something. This year, under the auspices of the Board of Education, a claim was made for putting into our schools in London as teachers 600 utterly unqualified young women who had received a perfunctory training. There are schemes for lowering the number of certificated teachers in London. A proposal has been pressed upon the County Council by the Board of Education for the reduction of 325 certificated teachers in addition to the 600 already mentioned. That was the state of affairs in London when the Labour Government came into office. Since then we have seen troubles roll away like clouds at their very first attempts. The county council, to their credit, managed to put back £56,000 on to the reduced Estimate. If we had had another full year of reaction such as we have had during the past three or four years, it would have been very had indeed for education. I speak of London. It is no small thing that has been accomplished in London. The teaching staff is no longer being reduced, and this Government has already remedied much of the mischief done during the last three or four years. That is not all If we go back to 1917–18 and 1919, we of the Labour party have always stood for the extension of the school age with maintenance. To raise the school age without maintenance is doing something which amounts to little more than an empty reform.
        To-day we have been informed by the Minister that educational maintenance is at last to be started on a reasonable scale. We are in future to have maintenance grants representing a very considerable amount from the Board of Edu-

        1207
        cation. There were such maintenance grants a long time ago, but during the past few years they have been hemmed in with so many restrictions and have been of such a small amount that really the local authorities declined to be troubled with them. If there is once the possibility of maintenance on a large scale for children up to 15 years of age—and I do not care how the cost is divided, whether it is fifty-fifty or any other percentage—and it we can get this question made an issue in the coming local elections, I believe we shall make a very great step forward. This year we shall probably see a very large voluntary expansion of the number of children kept at school until 15 years of age. I believe that next year those numbers will be increased, and in a couple of years or so the raising of the school age to 15 will be much easier and systematic, especially when we have swallowed up those parents who are anxious to do this, and are only prevented from doing it by poverty. Such a change in our policy would be one worthy of the nation.
        Mr. ACKROYD: As there are many Members who desire to take part in this Debate, I will only occupy the attention of the Committee for three or four minutes. As one who has taken considerable interest in crippled children, I should like to put in a plea on their behalf. It will be within the knowledge of the Committee that for very many years the care and treatment of this particular class of child was left to voluntary workers and outside organisations, and it is only in recent years that the State has realised its obligations towards physically defective children. Private funds had to be raised for their medical treatment and in order to build voluntary institutions to which the children could be sent, and the nation is greatly indebted to those early pioneers in this special work, and also to the many voluntary organisations who helped them in their efforts on behalf of these children.
        It is a matter of considerable gratification that Parliament has in recent years given to local education authorities considerable powers for dealing with disease and neglect among school children. It has now been discovered that it is possible by proper treatment and education to
        1208
        transform crippled and suffering children, with no outlook for a decent future, into happy, hopeful and self-supporting citizens. The establishment of cripple schools, both day and residential, throughout the country has been of immense benefit, and, as a result of this special treatment, the number of children suffering from tuberculosis and infantile paralysis has greatly diminished during the past two years. Nursery schools, too, have very greatly helped towards this diminution, although I know perfectly well they were only established under the Education Act of 1918. Whilst they are rather costly to maintain, I think all workers among the poor are agreed that they are greatly helping to build up the physical and mental development of the children by very careful feeding, by proper cleansing, and also by the formation of good habits. I find from the returns for 1922 that under 317 local education authorities in England and Wales there were 35,477 crippled children of school age, and out of this number there were 11,717 whose condition was caused by tuberculosis. About 60 per cent. of the crippling of school children at five years of age is due to rickets. It has been established now by medical men that from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of these cases can be cured if the children are dealt with early and efficiently, and if the right individual educational training is given them.
        I am quite aware that a great deal of this particular kind of work, along with other educational services which were included in the Act of 1918, has been retarded through the urgent need for economy, which was felt to be necessary in 1920, but I venture to take this opportunity of asking the Minister of Education if he will not now urge the various education authorities throughout the country to put into operation this Measure under the 1918 Act which aims at the prevention of debility and disease among school children, and which seeks to help the mentally and physically defective boys and girls in the country. I suggest that very much more can be done than is being done at present in the establishment of classes in playgrounds and parks, of holiday and school classes, and by open air treatment. There are only 75 schools in England and for crippled children, and 39 of these are in the London area. It would be very inter-

        1209
        esting and very useful to know how many of the 317 education authorities in the country are now making any provision for special schools for these physically defective children. The State is under a deep debt of gratitude to the large number of voluntary workers all over the, country for their splendid service in this respect, but still there are a great many places where this work is not being done, and it is because of my deep interest in the crippled children of the country that I venture to urge the President of the Board of Education to press upon local authorities the importance and necessity of this particular kind of work.
        Mr. SAVERY: May I ask of the Committee that indulgence which it always so generously extends to those who address it for the first time. No one can deny that our system of education suffers from being subject to Parliamentary majorities. Any change of Government will almost certainly affect the prospects of every child who comes under our national system of education. The lack of continuity in policy is a real danger, and in view of that I was very glad to hear the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to his predecessor at the beginning of his speech. I think his graceful remarks will help to remove and correct some impressions which have got abroad. A great deal has been said lately about "soulless savings" and "stinginess," which has been directed, towards education during the last three years. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself went so far as to say that in the name of economy the whole of our system of education had been starved. With all modesty, I venture to submit that there was a certain amount of exaggeration in that statement. To refer to stinginess and soulless saving is in itself a reflection on those who were in authority at the time, because it is known that the anxiety that was felt for our general financial position made economy necessary. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that in the same speech, and therefore to call that economy parsimony is not, in my opinion, either correct or considerate.
        There has certainly been a cry for economy with regard to education on the part of some people who have doubt whether in return for the expenditure made we are receiving what we are asked to pay for—that is a national system of real education. If the right
        1210
        hon. Gentleman finds himself capable of supplying the genuine article, then he may be assured of the conviction, the consent, and the co-operation of all sections of his countrymen, and if he is to engage in struggles, as he anticipates, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will prophesy that he will always be the more popular of the contestants. The modern conception of education is that our schools should not be cramming institutions, that their aim should be the development of intelligence rather than the acquisition of knowledge. The field of knowledge in these days is far too vast to be covered by any student, and it is extending every hour. Therefore, the instruction given in various subjects must be more for their training merit than for their intrinsic value. I think that two things have operated upon education to hamper this great aim. For the first of those influences, I think, the State must take the blame. It resides in that central and bureaucratic control which is exercised over our schools. Educational conferences are unanimous in declaring that that control results in wastefulness, and in a stranglehold on progress and initiative. Mechanism is the essence of bureaucracy, and that characteristic in education has taken the form of an inspection which is far too elaborate. The teachers have been harassed by that inspection unduly, and they have been faced with the temptation to sacrifice to the demands of inspection what they know are the true interests of the children.
        The other influence which hampers education in its true aim must, I think, be laid to the charge of the parents. They place a very watchful and rather improvident eye upon the future. Anything in the curriculum which does not tend to industrial success they are inclined to resent, and, therefore, education, which has too long been confused with instruction, is left outside the door. So long as self-advancement is regarded as the be-all and the end-all of school training, so long will this country be kept waiting for an educated and a spiritualised generation. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman declare his belief that not one way, and one only, is right in education. There are individual methods of approaching the problem of life and its development. Therefore, encouragement should be given to all those who are engaged in the

        1211
        work of education. They should have a certain amount of scope and liberty in their work, and especially encouragement should be given to those who emphasise the development of intelligence rather than the attainment of mere scholarship. Nothing is more promising for the future of education than the change in public opinion with regard to the work and status of teachers. For far too long their work has been undervalued, and their influence on the community has been almost ignored. It is not many years ago that I heard the teacher's life described as just learning things until you are 23, and then teaching them until you are 63. Can anyone imagine a more depressing prospect? But to-day the view is changed, and I find that teachers are described as the captains and the guides of democracy. Could any vocation be more inspiring than that? Of all the suggestions which may be made to the right hon. Gentleman to-day, I should like to ask him to bear in mind that the development of a scheme for ensuring and regulating a supply of teachers is the crux of the problem of education to-day. Buildings, equipment and modes of administration are all subordinate to that one great factor, the supply of able and faithful teachers.
        Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I would like to congratulate the last speaker on his maiden speech. I think his conception of education expresses the situation very well in most respects. In one or two details I differ from him, but I strongly agree with what he has said as to the teaching profession. They are, indeed, the captains of the industry, and it is most important to have the proper kind of teacher, the properly-trained teacher and the suitable one to take charge of the children in their education to-day. I would also like to congratulate the Minister on the programme that he has been able to carry out since he undertook the office of President, of the Board of Education. He has given us to-day a list of different reforms to which he has been able to give effect, and I am sure those who are interested in the education of our young greatly appreciate the fact that he is going in the right direction. Of course, like Oliver Twist, one wants rather more than one has had, and I do wish to refer to a subject which was just
        1212
        touched on by the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Ackroyd), and that is the question of nursery schools. It is a comparatively new subject, and, because of that, the real value of nursery schools is little known. They were officially brought into being in 1918 by the Fisher Act, but before that there had been very successful voluntary attempts by people to attain that end. They were very successful, but it was not until 1918 that there was official recognition.
        The object of the nursery school is to provide a centre for children between two years and five years of ago, and more particularly should they be established in slum and congested areas, because the children who are to benefit from them ought to benefit both physically and mentally. Their health, nurture and welfare in general are helped. Unfortunately, in 1921, the economy campaign, although it did not entirely do away with the nursery schools, curtailed them, and no new ones were started. But I am glad to say it has given at least satisfaction to those interested in this branch of education that in the last two months the Minister has shown a very favourable attitude, and, indeed, has almost given these schools his blessing. I hope if he going to be a godfather to these schools, he will give a handsome christening present, and, further, encourage the local authorities to provide more of such schools. I am not going to deal with the question this evening from a human aspect—we have heard a good deal of that—but I propose to deal with it from the point of view of common sense, and as a matter of far-reaching economy. The child under five is rather an unknown quantity. No, or very little, recognised place has been given him in the national system of education, and yet we have a quarter of a million children whose home life does not provide for health and education. Sixty per cent. of the children in poor areas, it has been said, suffer from rickets, but I have heard that it is 80 per cent. That leads to the most tragic conditions, and in one of the reports we read that 20 per cent. of children suffer from visual defects, 12 per cent. suffer from nose and throat complaints, 70 per cent. from dental defects, one in six is not able to benefit by the educational facilities provided, and one in 10 is mentally backward. This all means that, instead of getting an A1 population, unless we alter the basis of

        1213
        our education, we are going to have a C3 nation. We look for the remedy in the institution of more nursery schools than there are at present. Sir George Newman, a very great authority on these things, says that
        "One reason for the provision of nursery schools is, indeed, to reduce the number of preventible defects now observed in the entrants to the public elementary schools."
        For these reasons, I wish to press for the nursery schools to be increased, because in all education, it occurs to me, prevention of the ill is far better than trying to cure it. It is better to begin at the bottom rung of the ladder.
        The Minister said it was his desire to have a continuous education policy. It is most important that that continuous education policy should have a good foundation, and this good foundation could be in the nursery school. The method of coping with this problem is that these nursery schools are not just nurseries, but are institutions where children are educated as well as looked after from a physical point of view, where the environment gives sunlight and air, and provides for sleep and feeding, and it is, indeed, the whole conception to provide the child with better surroundings, and so educate him in that manner. We have talked a great deal about housing in the last week. At present it does not seem possible to remove our slums as quickly as some of us would wish. While we cannot do that, why not try to improve the slums by introducing children's gardens and nursery schools in the slum areas? The Government could do that. It has been tried in some cases most successfully. In our London area we have most successful results, and I think if more authorities both in London and the country attempted it, it would have beneficial results. There are certain essentials necessary, one being that the site and buildings should be near the homes of the children. They want to be planted in the middle of these industrial areas, where there is plenty of open air and sunlight, and where the children can easily get to the school, and where, above all, the parents can see the work, the improvement of the children and the school itself. It is the co-operation with parents that is going to make education successful in the future. If parents are interested in what their children are doing at an early age it
        1214
        means they will be interested in the children throughout life, and not alone is a parent's interest good for the child, but it is also good for the parent. As the last speaker said, one of the most important considerations is to have a staff of suitable people fitted to take care of children in nursery schools. The work, in these schools is work for experts, and the key to success is to have the right kind of experts to do the work. They must have special qualifications, a knowledge of child life, a knowledge of psychology, and the ability to awaken in the child the desire for knowledge. The argument of finance is generally used against the proposal for the institution of these schools. That argument seems to be always used against the provision of anything which we want. Financially I submit there is no extravagance involved in this proposal, because if we spend a little more money on these children at present we are going to save it in the future. The larger the school is the less the cost of running and equiping it, and with larger schools we shall find the expense less and the benefits greater. In conclusion may I point out that I ask for no innovation. We have heard about public opinion moving things. I feel sure the President of the Board of Education could arouse public opinion by more propaganda on this matter. We want no serious dislocation of the present system of education for young children. We want no new departure on the Statute Book. We simply want a larger measure of something which has already proved precious to parents and to children. We want to embrace in this work more slum areas, so as to solve the problem of the health of these children at the base. By doing so we will find that in the future these children will be assets, because they will be well-nourished and well-fitted for citizenship instead of being burdens on the community, which there is every tendency for them to become nowadays.
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rawlinson): Mr. A. A. Somerville.
        Mr. NICHOL: I should like to raise a point as to the conduct of the Debate. Up to the present it seems that the speakers have been called in rotation from each of the three parties. I should like to know if there is any rule to that

        1215
        effect, and if that arrangement is to continue?
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: There is no such rule as that, suggested by the hon. Member. The discretion as to calling speakers is in the Chair. As a matter of fact, this Vote had been called for by the Liberal Opposition, and it is customary to give a slight advantage to the Opposition, at whose request a Vote is put dawn. I have here an exact list of the Members who have spoken up to the present, and it does not indicate that the Members of the Opposition—of the Conservative and Liberal parties—who have been called upon far exceed the number of members of the Labour party who have been called upon.
        Mr. NICHOL: As far as opposition is concerned, there has been no opposition either from the Liberals or from the party opposite.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: With reference to the statement that this Vote was called for by the Liberal Opposition, does that mean that because the Liberal party asked for this Debate, members of the Labour party who desire to make protests regarding particular acts of administration are to be delayed in taking part in the discussion or excluded from the Debate altogether.
        Mr. BECKER: With regard to the remark made just now by the hon. Member for Eastern Renfrew (Mr. Nichol) that all the speeches were in favour of this Vote, may I suggest to you, Sir, that there are certain members Who are only too anxious and ready to give very strong opposition to this Vote and to condemn it root and branch.
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: When hon. Members have been longer in the House, they will recognise that this matter is entirely in the discretion of the Chair. The hon. Member who raised the point first was wrong in making the statement that my predecessor in the Chair had called on Members in exact rotation. I find, for instance, that the hon. Member for North East, Ham (Miss Lawrence) was called from the Labour Benches, and that the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Ackroyd) was called from the Liberal Benches—one virtually after the other.
        Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I was not raising any objection to the exercise by the Chair of its discretion. All I wanted to know was whether, because this happened to be a question raised by the Liberal party, Labour Members should be under a disadvantage as to taking part in the Debate.
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, I have counted up the time occupied by Members of the Labour Party in this Debate, and it compares very favourably with the time occupied by the Members of the other parties. Of course, there is no point of Order in the question at all.
        Mr. NICHOL: The time includes the time occupied by the President of the Board of Education.
        Mr. A. A. SOMERVILLE: The sympathy and intimate knowledge of educational matters always shown by the hon. Member for Loath (Mrs. Wintringham) render her speeches on education very attractive. I was rather alarmed to find myself sitting next to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway), who declared himself an educational anarchist, but I was in hearty agreement with his concluding remarks when he expressed a robust belief in the British stock and in the wisdom of peopling as much of the Dominions as possible with that stock. It reminded me of a remark by a well-known Scotsman. I had just been listening to remarks by Sir Halford Mackinder, who said that in times to some New York or Montreal might become the capital of the English-speaking race, and when I repeated this remark to the Scotsman, he said: "It may be so, but they must always come back to these islands for the breed." The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) mentioned the subject of central schools, which is a subject capable of great development, and I desire to offer some remarks upon it. Before doing so, I ask to be allowed to refer to what may seem a comparatively small and matter, but one which is of considerable importance and interest to certain associations of teachers, whose aggregate membership comes to some 15,000. Early in 1921 the Rhondda, Education Authority passed a resolution declaring
        "That no person shall hereafter be employed by this authority who is not a

        1217
        member or does not undertake to become a member of the National Union of Teachers through the local branch."
        I may say I should not bring up this matter here were it not that it is the only opportunity I have of doing so, and the associations are anxious that this matter should be brought to the attention of the Committee. Some of my best friends are members of the National Union of Teachers, and I bring this forward in no spirit of opposition to that great body. There is a body called the Teachers' Registration Council, which is the teachers' parliament, and represents 72,000 teachers. It contains representatives of every section of the teaching profession, 11 from each—elementary, secondary, technical and university—and I very much doubt if any of the wise and able representatives of the National Union of Teachers on that body would get up in the council and defend this Resolution, because,
        Who would train free minds must himself be free
        and it is not right to bind any teacher to belong to any association or organisation. What is necessary for a teacher is that he should have the required qualifications and the necessary training to fit him for teaching the young. The sequel was that in April Lieut.-Colonel Hurst asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), who was then President of the Board of Education, and the answer of the Minister was:
        "I am strongly of opinion that a teacher should have full liberty to join or not to join any union or association of teachers as he thinks best. … The particular resolution of the Rhondda Local Education Authority strikes me as very unfortunate, but I understand that it is to be reconsidered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1921; col. 100, Vol. 140.]
        Apparently it was reconsidered, for in May of that year the authority altered its resolution by adding the words
        "or of some other recognised trade union or association."
        That made it a little better, but still the authority has no right to require the teacher to belong to any association, and I might remark in passing that as far as I know there is no association of teachers that is a trade union in the strict sense of the term. As a matter of fact they take particular care to keep outside trade union law. In January of this year the Rhondda Education Authority went back
        1218
        to their original resolution. I do not know whether or not that was due to the advent to office of the Socialist Government. A question was put in March on the subject by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry), and the answer given by the President of the Board of Education was:
        "The Board have not been asked to sanction this resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1924; col. 642, Vol. 171.]
        With all respect to the Minister, that is a mere evasion of the difficulty. On 1st May I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and received this answer:
        "I am not prepared to intervene in the matter as I have no reason to suppose that the operation of the rule is prejudicing the efficiency of the schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1924; col. 1820, Vol. 172.]
        There again is an evasion of the point. It may be that the efficiency of the schools is not impaired, but if the example of the authority be followed, there will be debarred from employment under the authorities who follow that example a very large number of teachers. Thousands of the best teachers will be deprived of the chance of obtaining employment in such areas. I hold it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to intervene in this matter, and to see that the Resolution is rescinded. If it is not done, we shall have one more reason for believing that Socialism is not consistent with liberty. I hope the Minister will look into this matter and insist—to use his own word—that this Resolution should be rescinded. The other day he told us that the Board could insist, obstruct, forbid and resist as well as stimulate and encourage. I ask him in this case to insist and forbid.
        With regard to central schools the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green referred to their success in London. The crying need of the present day is to provide for the children who leave school at the age of 14. We have 45,000 boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 unemployed. There was a proposal the other day to provide a dole for those children thereby hall-marking the age of 14 as the age at which children should leave school, and it was very surprising that the Socialist party with its professions of belief in education should have been the party to bring forward that proposal. They propose free secondary edu-

        1219
        cation for all, but nothing could be more wasteful. I believe absolutely in secondary and university education for all boys and girls who have the ability to benefit by it, and there should be ample assistance given to boys and girls who have the brains and the power of work to benefit by the highest form of education, in order that they may receive that education. When we have provided for all these, there are many thousands of our boys and girls who leave school and who at present are not provided for, but if the system of central schools were extended we could, very largely, provide for those children.
        8.0 P. M.
        What is the matter with the education of this country? The people do not believe in it. We shall never make a success of our education until we succeed in making the people of the country believe in it. Why do they not believe in it? Between the ages of 11 and 14 there is very little progress in the pupils of our elementary schools. I am speaking now of the average, and what is perhaps below the average, pupil. They go round and round doing the same things, and they do not make progress. Their parents know it and do not believe in the education that their children gain. I am speaking now of what happens often in the case of the average child. Suppose we take the case of the country districts, and in a country town we establish a central school, which would have a vocational bias with regard to rural matters, in addition to teaching in English and elementary mathematics and also training in gardening. Farmers and labourers would come to believe in that training and the central school would be supported in the country. The difficulties of transport for the pupils from the surrounding parishes are much more easily overcome at the present time. The people in the country districts would come to believe in the central school, just as the people in the industrial districts, in the east end of London, are beginning to believe in their central schools. If that system could be gradually extended all over the country we should have gone a long way to solve the problem of education and employment between 11 and 15 or 16 years of age.
        I ask the Minister to bend his energies to the provision of more places in
        1220
        secondary schools. There is undoubtedly a sad lack of such places. I know of one school where there were 18 vacancies for free places, and there were 320 candidates for those places, and of the unsuccessful candidates at least 100 would have benefited thoroughly by secondary education. We want to provide more places for secondary education, and we want also to solve the problem of the general education of children between 11 and 15 years of age. I believe that a system—which would be voluntary to begin with—of central schools would go far to solve the problem.
        Major CHURCH: We have heard a plea from the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir Martin Conway) for a more generous attitude towards the members of the teaching profession from the Board of Education and the Government. He objected to the over-inspection of the teachers in the schools of the country. He stated that it is unnecessary, if you get the right type of teacher, that you should superimpose on the teaching profession this police system of supervision. With many of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman I heartily agree, but I think that he was looking at education and at the system of inspection which existed when I was a child at school, and not at the system which exists at the present time. I believe that the police inspector of schools is a thing of the past, or, if not entirely a thing of the past, that the type is but a relic of a misbegotten age. The function of the Inspector of Schools now is to go from one school to another, taking the best ideas from one school to another. If he is performing his duties properly, the schools should be assisted by the help that he gives to them and to the teachers in them. It is true that occasionally the inspector is apt to be hypercritical, and that that enrages the teachers. It is equally true that if the attitude of the Board of Education to-day were that of the unhappy days of the Holmes-Morant Circular, there would be very little hope of the teaching profession ridding itself of the incubus of the police inspector.
        The hon. Member for the English Universities suggested that the remedy for inspection could be found by producing a better type of teacher. With that one must agree. But I suggest that it is rather difficult to find all the teachers

        1221
        —after all, they are only human beings—superlatively good. In the first place, we pre-determine the teacher in large measure. We take children at the age of 13 years and we say to their parents, "Your child, in return for the money which is spent by the State on its education, shall be a teacher." That is one of the blots on our educational system. It is one of the reasons why an inspectorial system is needed. You cannot hope to have happy, contented, efficient creative minds in the teaching profession while you determine the whole career of a teacher from the age of 13. I plead for the absolute freedom of a boy or girl to determine his or her profession, not at the age of 13, not to have it determined for him or her by parents, but to be given full liberty after they have completed their university course at 19 or 20, to determine whether they enter the teaching profession or not. If you give them that free choice, you will get teachers who will maintain the highest ideals of the profession, who will have the right spirit, the missionary spirit, in education.
        I appeal to hon. Members opposite, many of whom have had the advantage which comes from a public school education, to spread the idea among the public schools that the best place for missionary efforts is not necessarily in the wilds of Africa, but in the schools in our slum areas in the big cities of this country. There is a field for endeavour, and no field will produce finer results than the schools of that type. You have there raw material which, everyone of us who fought side by side with these men during the War knows, is the finest material procurable. We can get the very best out of such children. Some slum children are no whit inferior in intellect to the children of people in much better circumstances and much sweeter environment. There is a field for missionary effort of the very best kind. I suggest also to the teachers themselves that if they wish to raise their status, if they wish to find salaries on the up-grade, if they wish to be treated more as human beings than as mere cogs in the machine, if they want to improve themselves in every possible way and to get the best, not only out of the profession for themselves, but the best out of their own endeavours among the children, they should protest, and their organisations should protest—
        Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, 40 Members being present—
        Major CHURCH: When attention was called to the sparseness of the attendance, I was saying that the organisations which represent the teachers have a great opportunity now, if they will protest in season and out of season against this pre-determination of the whole future of a child. There is no reason whatever why, with the growing demand for universities, with nuclei of new universities all over the country, with the whole machinery ready to absorb large numbers of new teachers, the whole of the present training college system—I refer more particularly to the denominational training colleges, which are not attached to universities—should not be swept away entirely. We could in a very few years increase the number of students at the universities by such numbers that we could supply the whole of the needs of the profession with people trained at the universities.
        If there is anything in a university education it is that it gives people a breadth of mind. They are not for years segregated with people who are to follow the same walk of life as themselves. Give them the freedom of choice when they have finished their university career, and you will give them what everyone desires for a teacher, namely, liberty of entry in to a profession, and that will re-act in the most favourable way upon the profession. In that respect I would draw attention to the poverty of the Universities and to the remarkable fact that the University grant, although it figures in the same class of Estimates as the Board of Education Votes, is a thing apart and has to be brought up on the Treasury Vote. Even under a Labour Government the Treasury does not differ in any marked degree from the Treasury of former Governments. The Treasury attitude of mind with regard to expenditure on all matters is precisely the same at all timed. If they can cut down the expenditure they will cut it down. The tradition of niggardly thinking cannot be overcome in a few years. That is what one feels about the control that the Treasury has over these University Grants. Only two years ago the University Grant was cut down by £300,000. The Royal Commission on Oxford and Cambridge recommended that

        1223
        these two Universities should be given £100,000 a year each. Have they got it? Not at all. In this year's Estimate we are given for the two Universities £60,000 and £68,000 respectively. The attitude of the Treasury towards University education is what might be expected from—
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): On a point of Order. I submit that this particular part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech is not strictly in Order.
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rawlinson): Speaking off hand, I think it is the case that the University Grant is not under the Board of Education Vote, in which case the hon. and gallant Member would not be in order in referring to it.
        Major CHURCH: It was the intimate association of the University Grant with the Board of Education Grant under Class IV of the Estimates, the almost logical sequence of the Votes, that was responsible for my dragging in this question, and I regret to find that I am out of order in so doing. I hope my calling attention to the way in which the Treasury are behaving towards the universities will result in the fault being remedied in future Board of Education Estimates. If we are to have a national educational system, it is obvious that the University Grant should be part and parcel of the Board of Education Vote, and we should be able to consider the universities and the secondary and primary school education as a whole. I should like to ask, while we are dealing with a national system of education, why it is that we have four or five different Departments of State, each with its own system of education. I refer more particularly to the system of education, which is existing side by side with the primary, secondary, and university education, which is under the direct control of the Ministry of Agriculture. There you have agriculture—
        Mr. BECKER: On a point of Order. Surely the hon. and gallant Member is out of order in talking about the Ministry of Agriculture on this Vote?
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member was out of
        1224
        order, in referring to the University Grant, as the University Grants were not included in this Vote. I ruled him out of order then, although I was very grateful to him for assisting the universities. He is quite in order in what he is now saying.
        Major CHURCH: One is allowed to express one's opinions regarding a national system of education on a Vote of this kind, and I think it is perfectly in order, if I may say so, to suggest that we do not need this dual machinery for the control of education in this country. Agricultural education is an essential part of any educational system. We were told by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) that we have at the present time essentially a town system of education, but we have a country system of education being developed under another Department of State, and that, I consider, is dual control of the very worst kind. It is quite true that the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) last year defended the dual control of education on the ground that there was an inter-departmental co-ordinating committee to co-ordinate the efforts of the two Departments, but he might have gone further, and he might have said that the Air Ministry have their own system of education, the War Office their own system of education, and the Admiralty their own system of education My plea is for one system of education in this country, that these various Ministries could very well leave the destinies of future entrants to the Services to the ordinary secondary schools of this country and to the universities, and that the officers would be better if they went straight through. Again, I object to this early determination of a child's career. I think it would make for the efficiency of the agricultural service, the air service, the war service, and the naval service if we had education so linked up and consolidated that we had a free choice on leaving the university.
        I should like to urge upon the Minister of Education to provide the opportunity in next year's Estimates for greater freedom for the teachers with regard to a sabbatical year. I am all in favour of the system, that has been adopted in parts of America, of giving teachers a year free from the humdrum of school

        1225
        life. Anybody who has taught in a school for any length of time will appreciate the arduous nature of the task. I know there are plenty of cheap sneers on this subject, even among, I will not say Members of my own party, but among followers of my own party, against the wonderful holidays that the teachers as a class may get from the State, but it is not realised very often that the holidays are not so much for the teachers as for the children. There is a necessity, I think, apart from holidays, for granting a sabbatical year, at the end of, say, 10 years, or, at the most, 12 years, for teachers who have taught for that time continuously in the schools of this country. It would not cost such a lot, and it would be of great advantage, particularly if the teachers were encouraged to travel and to travel extensively (hiring that sabbatical year. They might even take it at an earlier stage in their career, should it be found possible and practicable, say, at the end of five years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not two years?"] It would be a perfectly sound scheme and would give a wonderful return to the nation. I plead for this sabbatical year seriously, but if we could not give a year, let us give six months, so that a teacher should have a complete change of surroundings and environment. It is only by seeing things that the teachers of this country will get real hold of the creative teaching that is so essential to the people of this country.
        We as a country think we are doing remarkably well in education, and we are extraordinarily complacent about the progress that this country has made in education. Of course, we have progressed, but I think it is not unfair to say that we had a nasty set-back three or four years ago, owing to a right hon. Gentleman who is no longer in the House dabbling in a matter of which he knew nothing, and we have not progressed nearly as rapidly as we should have done. It is obvious to anybody who cares to look that there is far greater progress being made in education on the Continent than there is in this country, and I can attribute a good deal of that progress to the insistence, in many of the countries abroad, on the necessity upon many of their teachers to go to the Universities for their training, and also to their insistence
        1226
        in not making it compulsory for a child who has received any State aid in education up to a University stage to enter the teaching profession whether or not he or she likes it. This matter of the Sabbatical year I do urge the President of the Board of Education to give his earnest attention to, so that he may in the near future bring some proposal before the House.
        Mr. SYDNEY JONES: If I might be allowed to add to the congratulations to the President of the Board of Education, I should like to do so, for his speech which seemed to me both generous in spirit and wide in outlook. I was very glad to hear him express the hope that we might be able to keep our educational system entirely outside party politics. It seems to me it is only by doing so that we shall be able to carry on our work in educational matters in the way in which we ought to do, and to view the matter not in the light of parties, or officials, not even so much from the point of view of the teachers as of the children, with whom we are mainly concerned.
        It is unfortunate that our education is still carried on too much in two water-tight compartments—elementary and higher education. That is due, no doubt, to the fact that our secondary and higher system was put last into the map of education between the elementary and the university system; it is a most unfortunate cleavage; I do hope that we shall get out of this idea that the elementary side of the profession is a self-contained system of complete education with just a few children pouring out of it, a few children who may be more fortunate than the rest, or more abnormal, pouring out of it into the higher schools of this country. I do hope that at any rate, will live to see the day when the whole of our educational system will be one system, beginning in the very early years of child-life and ending, certainly so far as tuition or teaching is concerned, when the boy or girl leaves the school, or the university, but in reality never ending, but going on through the whole of life for which the early days are merely preparation.
        If we had this one system of education recognised, we should be able to look forward with some hope to the teachers being also organised into one system with-

        1227
        out the social distinctions which so often, unfortunately, exist between the elementary teachers and the higher branches of the profession. We should have one system of education, with some teachers teaching the younger children, a work which I admit women are specially fitted to do—though many men feel themselves specially called to it—and others teaching the elder boys and girls who are working up towards higher education and the universities. If we can get this ideal, this one system of education, we should be able to make an endeavour to have all our teachers, so far as possible, trained at the universities. I do appeal to the President of the Board of Education that he should work for this, because I feel that it, is an immense advantage to those entering the teaching profession, not only to have the education which is given at the universities, but also the advantage, during the early years at the university, of working alongside those who are going into other professions and other walks of life; they will not feel, as they do now, that they are kept in a more or less monastic seclusion in the training colleges away and apart from their fellows. If we had one system of education, one system of teacher training, so far as possible, at the universities, then I think it would be possible to reach that ideal which I like to think is aimed at.
        First of all, children should be trained in the junior schools. I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris); I do not like the word "elementary." I would rather call it the preparatory school to which the boys and girls should go to the age of perhaps 11 or 12, and that then they should be diverted to other schools, partly, no doubt, by examination in actual learning and knowledge, and partly chosen by character and personality, and divided up into other types of schools. There would be three types of schools. First of all, what we know as secondary schools, where the more humane studies are taken, where some boys and girls go from into the learned professions, others into the teaching profession, others into commerce, or other similar types and branches of life, and, secondly, alongside these schools, and of equal importance, the technical schools, where the boys may learn the science of
        1228
        engineering or other technical work, which certainly does appeal very largely to a certain type of boy or young man, and where the teaching of the secondary school would make little appeal.
        The technical schools for which I would plead are those like what we have in my own city of Liverpool—junior technical schools where the boys and girls of 14 to 16 get a real education in technical know o ledge which enables them later to take very good positions in the engineering world. If that work began at 12 years of age, then these technical schools would be placed on a parallel with the secondary schools, and you would get those boys who are going into the engineering profession equally trained in the same humane studies that we get at the secondary schools, while, of course, there would be a large number left over who would stay on at the preparatory schools—or the elementary school—I should hope to the age of 15. No doubt a large number of these are going to be what I may call the hewers of wood and drawers of water, but I do not think if we have these three branches that these boys and girls would be in any inferior position, for, after all, the boy or girl who hews wood well and draws water well and does their work well, whatever it may be, is equally as good as any of those who are trained in the other schools and do their work equally well. It is the value of the work that we want, and to see it well done. It does not really matter, I think, what branch of work we actually take up. The position may be no less honourable for the boys and girls under the age of 15 who go out into the world than for those who stay on. But I believe we should have this system, whereby those who are left in the preparatory schools for three years should be trained, not to feel that their education is going to be complete at the age of 15, but that when they go our at 15 they will be able by means of adult education, continuation classes, and other means, to have that self-education which is so possible nowadays; that they should feel just as the other boys and girls, that their education was going on and continuing. If we can have this system we should have the boys and girls who are going into the higher schools having a four years' course and the others having a three years' course, leaving then, to

        1229
        continue some day, if not this year or the next; and that would be a great encouragement to those who are in the teaching profession, who would feel their work was not done when the boy or girl left school, but that they were giving a knowledge to the boys and girls which was merely preparatory to the great work of their life.
        I think in this case there would be much less of this deplorable loss of knowledge which we all know goes on to-day after the boys and girls have left school, that loss of knowledge which makes a great deal of the education which we are giving to-day a sheer waste, and it would enable us, this House of Commons and the country generally, to realise that education is a great tree of which the trunk consists of all the children from their early years until the age of 11 or 12, and that afterwards they grow our into the great branches of that tree, which are always growing and expanding, growing upwards to that light and that knowledge which they have been first taught at school, and which light and knowledge they will seek to use, not selfishly, but for the benefit of the community and of mankind.
        Captain EDEN: I should like to ask questions upon a matter in regard to which I have found the method of question and answer in the House not very satisfactory, and not very successful. What principle is it that the Board adopts with regard to the fees payable in the preparatory department of the secondary schools? I understand that quite recently the fees have been raised. I would point out to the Minister that that has placed a heavy burden upon people who are not in a good position to bear it. I asked a question, and I was told that the principle upon which the Board acted was that of uniformity between the ages of the children so as to avoid any higher fee being charged as the child got older, but I was not very much convinced with the sanctity or inviolability of that principle. The only principle on which I would judge the regulations is whether it produces the standard of education which we require. I suggest that as this principle does not have that result it would be a great advantage if the Minister could reconsider it, and reduce the cost of the preparatory department of the secondary school. On this point I only want to say that those parents who are now handicapped by that
        1230
        increased charge would not in any case send their children to the elementary school if they could possibly avoid it, and the only effect of increasing the charge is that those children are sent to private schools where they get a less satisfactory education. Cannot the Minister reconsider that regulation, or at any rate try to discover from the local authorities what their views are on this matter?
        We were all glad to hear the suggestion which the Minister hinted at of what is apparently a new departure in making part of the education a rather wider knowledge of our art treasures and what art means to us. He spoke very strongly about the work which is being done to prevent some of our greatest art treasures leaving this country, and he made an appeal to private enterprise and those people with means to save these works of art from leaving this country. I suggest that it is possible that we are asking too much in this respect from private enterprise. A great deal has been recently done to save national treasures from leaving this country, and I would suggest that the real action this Committee should take is to do what is done in Italy, that is, make it absolutely illegal for any possessions for the instruction or joy of the people of this country to be sold to another country and to be taken abroad. We want to keep these treasures for the enjoyment of our own people, and we should make it illegal to allow them to pass to other countries. I was wondering what was exactly in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he was talking about art education. I agree that we are extremely backward in that matter, and it might be a great advantage if those children who now come to London to see the attractions at Wembley were given an opportunity annually of seeing something of the kind for educational purposes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not in mind the trying of something like a national art movement, because we have tried it once or twice with calamitous results. The Gothic revival was, I believe, a national movement, and we want no more national disasters of the type of the Albert Memorial. There are methods and means by which we can avoid that result. I hope the President of the Board of Education will not do what we have seen so much of, that is, try to ram down the children's

        1231
        throats that this and that is good for them all of a heap and a muddle.
        I remember once being in Italy in a famous gallery, where I was sitting quietly. I was rather sleepy at the time, and there entered a party who woke me up and disturbed me, and I heard the guide say to the party, "This is the famous Titian room. This is the famous picture of Venus, and the lady was 17 years of age when she was painted. Now we will pass on to the next room." That is not education at all. The only way to pursue that kind of education is to make it as easy as possible for our children to see valuable art treasures and pictures, not too many at a time, and allow them to see them as long as their eyes care to rest upon them.
        Dr. HADEN GUEST: I heard the speech of the Minister of Education this afternoon with the very greatest pleasure, because it indicated the certainty of a real advance on educational lines. The speech of the Minister was devoted entirely to education of an intellectual kind, and did not deal with the health of the children, on which the possibility of their successful education so much depends. I should like to ask one or two questions on that side of the subject as to whether there is going to be a corresponding advance in dealing with the physical side of education and improving the health of the children. Hon. Members generally are no doubt aware that when medical inspections are carried out it is found that about 10 per cent. of the children are below par. With regard to nutrition, the children are usually divided into three groups, those of average nutrition, those of very good nutrition, and those of very poor nutrition. The latter are a very small group, and exist not only in towns but in the country as well, and their condition is generally duo to poverty, bad housing, and bad social conditions.
        The result of those conditions is that in practice the children are very difficult to handle in the school. To begin with, they are generally very small and are not properly physically grown, and the brain and nervous system have not properly grown, and do not react in a proper way to any educational influence brought to bear upon them. The question of feeding is, of course, one of the chief factors which influence the growth of the child,
        1232
        and it seems to me that the question of feeding has never been looked upon from a sufficiently far-seeing point of view. The idea that the feeding of necessitous children is relief is, in words, rejected by the Board of Education. It is stated in the Report that the feeding of neccessitous children is done for educational purposes and not as a matter of relief, but, in fact, the feeding of children in schools has never been done from a really educational point of view, that is to say, the feeding has never bean really adequate to put these children on a par with other children in more fortunate conditions. I do not want to exaggerate the size of this problem, but, supposing that it only affects 1 per cent. of the children in the schools—and that is distinctly an underestimate—it affects, in the aggregate, a very large number of children in this country; and those children, in fact, constitute in our schools a large number of the children who have to be provided for by special means.
        A great many of these children, because of their lack of proper nutrition, develop diseases of the ear, diseases of the throat, and so on, and have to be provided for by an elaborate arrangement of clinics and hospitals. Others of them, because, of their sense defects, are not able to learn, and these children are found in institutions and schools provided for children classed as medically defective. Interesting investigations have been made by medical officers in the past, showing that, of the children grouped together as below the normal in intelligence, quite a large proportion of them were, in fact, not merely below the normal in intelligence, but were below the normal in physical efficiency, and their apparent low level of intelligence was really due to their lack of adequate sense faculties. Their hearing was impaired, their eyesight was impaired, their sense of touch was impaired. I would suggest that, in talking about the feeding of children, it is rather illusory to take any hard-and-fast standard as to the amount of food, weighed in ounces or grammes, that a child requires. In practice every child requires, it appears to me, a surplus of food, that is to say, every child ought to be able to get a little more food than, if you like, is really good for it.
        Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will realise that at every good

        1233
        public school there is an excellent institution, adjacent to it or, sometimes, within its borders, called the "tuck shop." The tuck shop—a place where a child can go and get extra food—is really a necessity of child growth. For many children living in towns, and especially in such poor parts of towns as that which I happen to represent, that kind of extra nourishment is impossible, and not only is it impossible, but they do not get an ordinary adequate amount of nourishment. The difference is a very simple difference. A child which has only just enough food to keep it going is like an engine fed with only just enough food to keep the steam up. It goes rather feebly. If it is sitting down, for instance, it will sit rather stolidly. If it is in a playground, it will stand by the wall holding its hands together, huddling by the wall, and not playing with other children. It has not the surplus energy: I remember, years ago, living in a country village, where I had two children of my own, next door to an agricultural labourer, who was receiving a very inadequate wage, and who also had two children, and I remember noticing the difference between my own children and his when they played together in an adjoining field. My children dashed about from one thing to another the whole time, but the agricultural labourer's children to a large extent remained stolidly looking on. In a large degree that was simply because my children had plenty of food, while the agricultural labourer's children had an inadequate supply of food.
        Mr. HANNON: It is possible that the agricultural labourer's children may have been a little bit shy.
        Dr. GUEST: That is a possibility to be considered, but I think that, if the hon. Member considers the question seriously, and thinks of children of the age of four or five, he will come to the conclusion that social distinctions are not likely to be operative to any large extent at such an early age. I do not think that, in fact, that argument really holds good. The real thing is that, if children get a sufficiently large amount of food—and they really need a large amount—they are active, they are constantly going about the world making new contacts, using their eyes, their ears, their arms and legs, skipping,
        1234
        fighting, shouting, and learning and expanding their lives. If they do not get enough food, none of these things happen and their lives are restricted; and it is in the earlier part of life that what I call the surplus of food is really necessary. I do urge upon the Minister that the whole question of the feeding of school children, and especially the feeding of necessitous children, requires looking into again and considering from the paint of view of bringing these children up to the normal—the normal, that is, of what they might be if they were properly fed.
        There are, of course, hereditary differences between children. There are differences between one family and another in different parts of the country. But, while I do not want to bother the Committee with abstract discussion, I do want to point out that these hereditary differences are not the marks of any particular class—they are spread more or less equally over all classes of the community. Children may be born in a slum, and born of exceedingly poor parents, but may have within themselves the possibility and potentiality of growth into very big, strong, capable beings. If they do not get a proper amount of food, they do not get that opportunity. There are, I believe, something like two per cent. of the children in the country who are so badly underfed that they are not able to be sufficiently responsive to their environment. This matter requires looking into and studying to see whether we cannot do something to improve the condition of these children. I would suggest that it be done in this way, namely, that, instead of the responsibility for asking for assistance to get meals being on the parent of the child, or on the child itself, the responsibility for certifying that all the children in a school are in a proper condition of nourishment to be educated should be placed upon the teacher of the class, or upon the headmaster, that then the question of the child's condition should be referr0ed to the medical officer of the school, and that the medical officer should certify whether the child is in a condition as regards nutrition which makes it fit to be educated. I can assure hon. Members that, if that change were made, it would have a very great effect indeed in improving the nutrition of the school children. It would have the effect of bringing to light a very large number

        1235
        of cases in which children at the present time are not getting an adequate amount of food.
        There is another matter, which may seem to the Committee to be of smaller importance, and that is the medical treatment of school children by the various clinics which are set up now all over the country. Unfortunately, by a Section in the Act of 1921, it is compulsory on the local education authority to make a charge for that treatment. The charge is a small one, and in the area of the London County Council and many other areas it actually costs more money to collect that charge which is levied on the parents than the charge itself brings in; that is to say, the apparatus set up for the purpose of collecting the money causes a loss and is of no advantage. The only reason for keeping up that charge is that it is supposed to be morally goad for the parents—though why it should be I have difficulty in understanding—and also because it is an actual part of the Act of 1921, which incorporates a Section of a previous Act. I suggest that that Section ought to be repealed, because the medical treatment of school children has done an immense amount of good in improving the physical condition of children all over the country. The payment which has to ho imposed is very often collected by the school attendance officer in small instalments in a very vexatious manner, and after a lot of investigation, and the fact that the machinery of collection exists causes many people to refuse to take their children to be medically treated.
        The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member is now proposing would require legislation. I rather gather that he is suggesting that a Section of an Act of Parliament should be repealed. It is not, of course, in order to discuss that on this Vote, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote is not responsible for it.
        Dr. GUEST: A good deal can be done actually by administrative action, but I am afraid I should not be in order in following any further along those lines. Another point I want to mention, one which has been brought very prominently before my attention during the last few days. My mornings are usually occupied in seeing a large number of very small children, and at this time of the year
        1236
        the question of holidays becomes a very serious one. A great many children in the poor districts have never had a holiday at all in the country. I came across a girl of 13 the other day who had never been into any of the London parks. She had never been across the river. She had never been to St. James's Park or Hyde Park. The Board of Education might consider whether they could not take more active steps to promote the giving of holidays on a very much bigger scale to children in the schools. This could be done by helping the Children's Country Holiday Fund and other funds, and it could also be done by kindly disposed people, hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway and in every part of the House and their women folk, helping to get children away into the country for at least one week in the year. I should like the Minister to add to his educational ideals the ideal that no child in the country shall have less than one week's holiday in the country or at the seaside every year. To Members in all parts of the House whose children go away, not for a week or a month, but often for two months and more, and who think very little even of travelling abroad, that may seem to be a very little thing, but I can assure them that for children living in the poorer districts of the big towns, it would be almost like the opening of the gates of Heaven for them to get away into the country. I took down this last week-end a small child into the country who had never been to the country before. I watched her wandering about in a beech wood in Buckinghamshire amongst two or three acres of beautiful flowers—big foxgloves—and to see the child there was a perfect revelation of human happiness. The Minister of Education might add that to his other ideals and try to give the children at least one week in the country each year.
        9.0 P.M.
        I should also like to suggest whether it would not be possible for those on the other side of the House, for instance, or some of their friends, to help people in the poorer parts of London by helping to take children out into the parks during the holidays. It is going rather a long way, but it is a thing which would be of great help and service, to very poor districts. To my thinking, part of education must depend on the different classes of the community getting closer to each

        1237
        other and exchanging the good things they have. I believe many people could do more by kindness and sympathy and help than they could ever do by tons of money, and I hope the suggestion I am throwing out of giving children hop holidays may fructify, not only through action taken by the Government, but by private institutions—it may be through Girl Guides or through Boy Scouts. It has always been one of my ideals to have the whole child population of London camping out in the beautiful country quite near London during the summer holidays. It would make a very great difference in their health, it would make a very great difference in the reduction of the bill you pay for hospitals, it would make a very great improvement in the physique of the children, arid, therefore, in the advantages they get from their education.
        I was for many years a Medical Inspector of Schools, and I got a very definite impression that the standard of physique in the elementary schools was very much lower everywhere in the country than in the secondary schools. I am not quite sure that it will be fair to say that has been statistically substantiated, but should like to ask the Minister whether it would not be a very suitable opportunity at present to institute an inquiry through the medical department with regard to the physical condition of children—a comparative inquiry—as to what was the actual physical condition of children in the elementary schools as compared with the secondary schools. My impression is, age for age, the children in the elementary schools are many pounds lighter and some inches shorter in stature than children in the secondary schools—children, I mean, coming from the same social strata. That may appear, to those who perhaps do not realise the medical importance of it, not exceedingly significant. To the medical mind it is extraordinary significant, because it means that those children who are so much less in weight and height have so much less chance of living and being educated and responding to those fine ideals and those opportunities which the Minister is putting before them. He has suggested that we should take, in the next few years, the ideal of raising the standard of secondary education to at least 20 per cent., instead of the present 10 per cent.
        1238
        I am afraid in some areas it is by no means 10 per cent.
        May I suggest another ideal which will be of great advantage also, that we should attempt to raise the physical standard of child life in the elementary schools to that now prevailing in the secondary schools. That would really make a tremendous difference. It would mean a very great increase in physical and mental efficiency and would wipe out the necessity for a large number of the special schools, which are very expensive and which exist to treat very elaborately deficiencies which ought not to have been allowed to come into existence, and it would give you a very much larger number of capable and efficient people at the end of your educational experiment. I have drawn attention to this aspect of the matter because, although it affects a comparatively small number of children, while that number of children is not dealt with adequately you have, as it were, a hole through which all the educational advantages you are piling up are likely to run away. It is part of the general slum problem, part of the general misery problem, and so long as you are not treating it and stopping up that wastage you are perpetually creating more inefficiency which goes on and on, and a wider spread of inefficiency, and you are preventing the growth of healthy, vigorous childhood such as I hope we shall have in the future. I hope the Minister will add to his ideals the ideal of changing the physical condition of the badly-nourished elementary school children of the present time into one comparable with the condition of nutrition of the secondary school children. I assure him that is a thing that can be done by administrative methods at present under his control, and it can be done without an expenditure of money amounting to more than perhaps a few hundreds of thousands a year.
        Mr. RATHBONE: The Committee has listened with great interest to what the hon. Member has just said. Indeed, we have all listened with interest to the speeches that have been made this afternoon, and I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) that perhaps there has been a little too much harmony. It strikes me, as a new Member taking part for the first time in a debate on education Esti-

        1239
        mates, that it has been a little wanting in sincerity. I make no personal aspersions, but if the whole Committee is, as it appears to be, fully in accord with what the President of the Board of Education has put before us, and the whole Committee is urging my right hon. Friend to go much further, would it not be possible to so support the right hon. Gentleman that even the most inexorable Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to give way and do what he wants. As one hon. Member said, there is a lot of hard thinking to be done, and certainly there is a lot of hard cash wanted.
        If the Committee is, as I believe it is, unanimous in asking for more and more education and better and better education may I as a trader—there are not many real traders in the House—say that as an ordinary commercial man I have found as the years have gone by that there is more and more demand in commercial life for well trained minds. I recollect in my early days, my then senior partner upbraiding a young man, whom he had sent out to a country market, for doing something a little different from that which he was told to do. The young man began his explanation and apology by saying, "Please, Sir, I thought—." My partner interrupted him by saying, "You were not asked to think." Twenty years later, the same gentleman said to me, "Why do you think that that young man in our office is better than an ordinary clerk?" I said that I did not quite know what my partner wanted me to say, and he replied, "I will tell you why he is better. It is because he thinks."
        A leading shipowner told his sons when they left school that they might either go to the university or go into his office, but not both. If they were going to the university he had done with them. Ten years afterwards that great shipowner came to me and said, "How is it we cannot get the bright young men that there are in some offices? I want really intelligent well-trained kinds in our port authority." I reminded him of the change of mind that had come over him. That has been the trend of mind amongst commercial people. All through the business world now we want trained minds. If we are all in unison that we want better education, and if the people who are carrying on the affairs of the nation out-
        1240
        side want well-trained minds, cannot we make our influence felt? I have particularly mentioned traders and commercial people because, hitherto, we have been considered to be outside the pale. Barristers and doctors we have been led to understand are recruited from trained minds, but it has been assumed until comparatively recently that the more stupid a man was in business the more likely was he to get on. One leading shipowner told me, "I do not want my men to be trained, because if they are trained they will be dissatisfied with their position. The less they are educated the more likely they are to stay with me without demur."
        If we are all of one mind that we want more and better education, and that we want trained minds in business, cannot we impress upon the President of the Board of Education that we want next Session a Bill that will go miles further than anything that bas ever been produced before along the educational path? I want to make one plea in respect of the Emmott Report which is being considered. May I make the plea that this Report will not be held up until 1926, but that it will come into force in 1925, and that my friends the teachers will then find that their contributions are protected and not swallowed up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the ordinary expenditure of the nation?
        Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for North Southwark (Dr. Guest) and especially when he mentioned the question of camps for children. I was very disappointed that the President of tits. Board of Education did not touch on the question of physical training. Those of us who served on recruiting committees during the War will remember the terrible distress we had in regard to men who were required for service in 1914. We found that those men could not pass the very low standard that was then demanded for admission into the Services. I, as a member of a recruiting committee, along with other members of the committee, organised physical training for these men, and in two or three weeks many men who were below the standard were brought up to the standard and passed into the service. That shows what physical training can do in a

        1241
        short time for young men. Although the President of the Board of Education did not touch upon that subject to-day, I would remind him that the right hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Fisher), when he was President of the Board of Education, did touch upon that time after time in 1917. I have looked up a speech he made on 10th August of that year, and I should like to call attention to some of his remarks. He said:
        "In the first place, attention has been increasingly directed to the close connection between educational and physical efficiency."
        The right hon. Gentleman will remember the old Latin phrase, Mens Sana in corpore sano. I would pass now to the series of proposals:
        "I pass now to the series of proposals which are designed to improve and strengthen our existing fabric of elementary education so as to secure for every child in the Kingdom a sound physique."
        Those ideas were carried right through the right hon. Gentleman's speech, viz.:
        "I confess that I am a great believer in the value of school camps for boys between the age of 14 and 16."
        I hope that the President of the Board of Education to-day will take into consideration this question of school camps for boys up to the age of 16.
        "I trust that this Bill may pass into law in sufficient time to justify the acquisition by the local education authorities of some of the material and equipment for camp life which the War Office has so plentifully provided us."
        I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is to-day doing anything in that direction Finally, the right hon. Member for the Combined English United Universities said when he was Minister of Education:
        "As I have already explained, the Government is desirous of taking this opportunity of assisting the physical education of the people in every possible way. Physical training is already an element, perhaps not a sufficient element, in our elementary school curriculum, and grants have recently been sanctioned for organisers of physical training in our public elementary schools. The present Bill gives to physical training a place in our continuation schools. Every boy and girl in those schools will receive physical training."
        I would urge my right hon. Friend to carry out all these proposals. I was once told that there were seven inspectors of physical training. I went into the ques-
        1242
        tion and I found that five were women inspectors, and only two were men. How are two men going to inspect the physical training of boys in all our elementary schools? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many inspectors of physical training there are at the present time? What does the right hon. Gentleman know about the physical training of our boys at the present time? There may be five women inspectors but two inspectors for the boys are not sufficient. The physical training of children is just as important as their mental training. Unless we are going to give physical training in our schools we shall remain a C3 population as we were when war first broke out in 1914. I especially recommend this point to the right hon. Gentleman.
        I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he hoped to get a superior class of teachers in our elementary schools, and that we should get university graduates. I would ask him to take into consideration that our public schoolmasters do not go through training colleges. They come straight from the universities. Why should we not have the same system in the case of our elementary schools? A man appointed from a training college is a man who has got only one idea in his head, which he has got in that little college, but he has no knowledge of the world such as the university man has. Instead of having these training colleges, on which an enormous amount of money is spent, we ought to send our teachers to the university. The increased pay which is given now is sufficient to induce men to come in, and we ought to have regular university men. A certain number of training colleges may be necessary, but a considerable amount of what is now spent on them is wasted. It would be far better for us not to have men brought up altogether in that way, but to get men with a wide knowledge of the world, who will make better teachers for the children than men brought up in that narrow sphere. A man with large general knowledge and a knowledge of the world is a better teacher than a man who has merely the knowledge that he has got from a training college.
        With regard to secondary schools, the right hon. Gentleman told us that he was going to increase the number of free places from 25 per cent to 40 per

        1243
        cent. We would all like to see our boys and girls sent on to secondary schools, but before a boy is given a place in a secondary school he should pass a higher test than he passes at present. The master should be able to know what boys are able to profit by a secondary education. The test at present is very low. My experience is that masters of colleges would like to have a higher test than is imposed at present. I hope that this point will be taken into consideration.
        Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: This Debate on education has been a very pleasant change, and I look forward to a time when there will be as many debates on education in this House as there are debates on the Navy. The general feature of the speeches up to now has been a note of thanksgiving to and congratulation of the Minister, and from these benches I can assure him that that note is sounded in all sincerity. Some of us felt during the last few years before the Labour Government came into office that, on this question of education, we were fighting a retreating battle, slowly giving ground all the way. Apart from every other question as to what has been done by the Labour Government, the record of the right hon. Gentleman during the last few months, as revealed in his speech this afternoon, would be sufficient by itself to justify that Government. I hope that the local authorities will follow the excellent lead given by the right hon. Gentleman.
        In that connection it is interesting to note that the London County Council at a special meeting of the Education Committee on last Wednesday decided upon a three years' programme, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do all in his power to see carried through with as little delay as possible. I do not think that there will be the slightest difficulty in getting the larger authorities to follow the right hon. Gentleman's excellent lead, because of the effect of public opinion upon these authorities. Trouble is more likely to come from the smaller authorities. In that connection I may touch, upon the position of special schools, particularly under the smaller authorities. For the benefit of those Members who do not know exactly what a special school is I will give the definition of the Board
        1244
        of Education itself, which is an excellent definition:
        "A special school is an institution which by the provision of a particular system of education, of manual training, of nurture and of medical supervision, seeks to meet the limitations imposed by prolonged serious physical or mental defects."
        In the last Parliament I obtained from the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question, some remarkable figures. In England and Wales there were 28,500 mentally defective children and accommodation for only 16,000. Ten thousand five hundred mentally defective children were in elementary schools, where they ought not to have been, not only for their own sakes but for the sake of the normal children, and 2,500 mentally defective children were not attending school at all. The figures for the physically defective children, or as I might call them the cripple children, were more startling still. Out of 109,000 physically defective children, who in the opinion of the Board's own medical officer would profit by a special school, there was accommodation in this country for only 14,000. Seventy-four thousand physically defective children were attending elementary schools, 7,000 were in institutions, and 14,000 were not attending any school at all.
        The right hon. Gentleman will agree that although these figures were given a year ago they are probably substantially correct to-day, and, to adopt the language of the ex-service man, I would ask, "What about it?" The difficulty of providing accommodation for these special children was dealt with last year by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. The principal reason which he gave was the cost, particularly in small towns and sparsely populated areas. There is a great deal in that, because in small towns and sparsely populated areas the net has to be spread very wide to get enough of these physically or mentally defective children to make a school, or even a class, and the cost of conveying the children to and from school, and other charges, are, of course, correspondingly high. In reply to the Supplementary Question last week the right hon. Gentleman said:
        "We are continually encouraging local authorities to make, provision for these special children."

        1245
        I was very pleased to hear it, because under the last Government a number of local education authorities were actually refused permission to establish special schools.
        Replying to a further question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities, the President said that he was prepared to consider any proposals for encouraging local authorities. May I hope that the President will not wait for the local authorities themselves, but will himself take the initiative in this very important matter. I submit to the President that special schools have now been established sufficiently long to have passed the experimental stage and to have had their value fully realised. I submit the time is ripe for the Board of Education to bring pressure to bear upon the local authorities who have not established these schools and see that they make provision for this very large number of children who have not special schools to go to. I would ask that a special circular be sent out to the local authorities who have not made this provision, directing their attention to the fact that they are not fulfilling their statutory obligations. A circular of that sort would open, the way to a general discussion, and if it is the heavy cost standing in the way of smaller authorities, the President, might find some way to meet them. I do hope that in the coining year the deplorable deficiency of accommodation for these children will receive special attention.
        I would refer to another class of children—the deaf children. As far as approximately can be ascertained there are 5,700 deaf children, and accommodation at the present time is found for 4,500 only. The first point I want to make is that for 20 per cent. of these deaf children there is no provision made at all. I suggest to the Committee that the teaching of the English language to the deaf mutes, whether by the finger alphabet or the superior and far more difficult method of lip reading, is comparable with nothing known in the training of a teacher. To be a teacher of the deaf the qualifications required are an elementary teacher's certificate plus the certificate of the National College of Teachers of the Deaf. There are not enough teachers with these qualifications, so that for teachers who
        1246
        are taking up this work the qualification of the National College is taken in two years after appointment. There are 426 full-time teachers of the deaf in England and Wales just now—206 certificated teachers—and 220 uncertificated, and others. Two-thirds of the 220 are classified as "others"—a very vague and unsatisfactory term. This means that there are classes of deaf children under partially or utterly untrained teachers. Children in those classes cannot make effective progress with such an inadequate knowledge of the English language that cuts them off, from ordinary human intercourse. They suffer the unspeakable loneliness of not understanding a book or a newspaper. Because of the insufficiency of their special education their mistakes are so pitiable that they are always in danger of being taken as people of unsound mind.
        In reply to a question I put, the right hon. Gentleman said the teachers who had not been trained were expected to qualify by passing an examination. Does he believe there is no shortage of fully qualified teachers for this special task, and that any local authority would deliberately appoint people who had no qualifications for this special work? There must be a shortage. The Board should consider first the immediate provision of schools for the 20 per cent. of deaf children for whom at present there is no provision, and take the steps necessary to supply the specially trained teachers. I make these suggestions in the interests of these afflicted children who in a few years will be men and women, and to whom a special education by properly qualified teachers will decide whether they are to take their places as citizens of the country, able to earn their living, or whether, unable to understand or to be understood, they are to go through life dependent upon charity and the Poor Law.
        Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken further than to associate myself with the speech he has made on behalf of these specially unfortunate children. It would be interesting to know what has been done since last year. It would be interesting to know what is the actual position to-day. It will not be satisfactory as long as these children are

        1247
        not receiving adequate teaching. I wish to join in the expressions of congratulation to the President of the Board of Education on the speech which he has made this afternoon. I listened to his speech with particular pleasure, because it was devoid from start to finish of anything in the nature of party politics. I think the sooner we get education free from politics the sooner we shall make progress. We must find the greatest area of common ground. From the point of view of local authorities, I would thank the President for having restored the hopeful atmosphere from the abyssmal depths to which it had almost sunk. He has taken the brakes off the educational machine. The progress has been progressive. Last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon said he did not find it necessary to amputate the estimates of the day. This year my right hon. Friend has said that the Board would reverse their previous practice of considering proposals on their merits. I hope the Board of Education will never depart again from that practice. In this country we have established now a general principle that there shall be continuity in our foreign affairs. It is just as important that we should have continuity in educational policy, whatever Government may happen to be in power. It is because we have to-day a feeling of hope restored that we feel specially grateful to the Minister for what he has said this afternoon.
        I want to take the discussion back to a subject which has not received quite the attention it should have had in the course of this Debate. It is the problem connected with the raising of the school age. To my mind that really is the greatest and most serious problem with which we are confronted now in education, and it ought to be treated as a national emergency. It is impossible to estimate the loss which is being inflicted at the present time on scores of parents of children who are coming out of school at the age of 14, are becoming inefficient, and are forgetting the little knowledge they have acquired. While we may attempt to estimate with some degree of accuracy the cost of raising the school age to 15, it is impossible to estimate the loss we are suffering by not raising it. I am convinced that those who are familiar with the Report of the Poor Law Commission
        1248
        will agree that the expense necessitated by our present policy in regard to Poor Law hospitals and other institutions far outweigh the cost necessitated by raising the school age to 15.
        The special point I want to make at this stage is that it is impossible to say what the actual cost of raising the age would be unless and until an estimate is made by the different local authorities. The fact that two authorities can see their way to do it without incurring an overwhelming increase of cost leads one to suppose that there must be more authorities who are in the same position, and as a practical contribution to thin Debate, I would urge that the local authorities be invited to make an immediate investigation into the cost and the resources available, in order that we may be prepared definitely to raise the school age, if we cannot do it at once, in at least three years' time, I was glad to hear the announcement that the sum of £440,000 is to be devoted to this special object. There are one or two points I would like to mention in connection with that. It is a very desirable improvement on the proposal which emanated from the Minister of Labour and which I am glad to say was turned down by a majority of this House. Under that proposal, £1,500,000 was to be set aside, and £100,000 was to be devoted to educational institutions which no one attempted to define. We are pleased now to know that we have got £440,000 which is to be devoted especially to this problem of leaving school at the age of 14. I think every possible effort should be made to explore the possibilities of establishing vocational classes in our Technical schools. There is a good deal of work that might be clone in that way by setting up day classes, as in many cases teachers are not even fully employed daring the day.
        I am very glad indeed that a grant is to be made—although £20,000 does not seem very much—towards putting into active operation what. I know as Section 17 of the Education Act, 1918, which re-established what we used to know as juvenile organisation committees in our larger industrial towns. There is a great scope of possibilities there. Much excellent work indeed has been done by existing organisations which have buildings available, and that work might be greatly developed. I would like to ask if anything is being done in connection with the

        1249
        education settlement attached to some of our universities, such, for instance, as that in my own town in connection with the Liverpool University? I should like to ask what is the policy of the Board of Education with regard to libraries in elementary schools? Is it their policy to encourage the different schools to set up their own libraries, or is it their policy to establish juvenile libraries in connection with our public libraries which have greater resources and which are available during the holidays as well as during the school term. I would like, in conclusion, to emphasise what I believe to be a direct national emergency. We are piling up trouble for the future by allowing opportunities to go to waste at the present time. We know from bitter experience that we cannot abolish physical and material destitution in a short space of time, but I think we can do much to arrest the manufacture of what are known as mental defectives; and that is what, I submit, we should attempt to do.
        Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish to associate myself with what has been said by several hon. Members in favour of the more generous treatment of our crippled children. It is a fact that owing to improved conditions a large percentage of these crippled children are now curable, and it is for us to avail our selves of the opportunity of curing them. There can be no great general advantage in an improvement of our educational system which leaves those children behind. I desire to congratulate the Minister on his speech. I am glad there is going to be an advance in education, and I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) associate himself with the sentiments of the Minister and promise a benevolent regard for the Government proposals. I am afraid I cannot claim to be an educational expert, neither do I think my brain could stand the hard thinking which the right hon. Member for Ripon deems to be necessary for dealing with our educational problems. But I have long been connected with social work among the people, and I confess I have been at times during the last three Parliaments rendered profoundly unhappy by the thought that we were not, as representatives of the people, fulfilling our duties towards epileptic children. There was a great outburst of idealism and
        1250
        enthusiasm for educational reform after the War, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education at that time was able to place on the Statute Book an excellent Measure. But unfortunately the spirit of idealism lasted only too short a time. A cloud of misled parsimony settled down on the nation, and the "Daily Mail" established the sole right to govern this country. That had a bad effect on our educational and social system. The educational system which was then established has proved not only wasteful, but most unjust. It is wasteful, inasmuch as it enables all the children who leave our schools quickly to forget all the education imparted to them, and it is unjust because it condemns a vast number of our population to the condition of economic under-dogs.
        I do hope we have arrived at a time when all parties in this House will cooperate to stop this waste and injustice by improving our educational system. After all, it ought not to be a party question, and I hope we shall all return to the good spirit which prevailed when the Fisher Act of 1918 was passed, with the general approval of the House, with the exception of a very few reactionary Members. The Minister of Education has said that our educational advance should be in the direction of a great extension of secondary education. I am quite prepared to see a greater extension of secondary education, but I doubt whether he and I in our lifetime will see such a great and quick advance in our secondary education as will embrace the great wage-earning community of our country, and, if we are to leave a great many children untouched, we must either proceed by way of raising the school age or by continuation schools. In this Debate there has been controversy between the merits of raising the school age and the merits of continued education. My right hon. Friend the late Minister of Education, the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Fisher), advocates continuation schools, while the Minister of Education thinks it is quite wrong to try to educate children in industry. I cannot see anything antagonistic between the principle of raising the school age and the principle of continuation schools. Surely one district might have one method, while another district might have the other method. Lancashire, probably, would not prefer to

        1251
        raise the school age, while, on the other hand, Yorkshire might do so.
        Looked at from the point of view of helping to cure unemployment, I cannot help thinking there is a good deal to be said for raising the school age. I believe the question of juvenile unemployment is not quite so acute as it was some time ago. Speaking of that part of the world I know best, the proportion of unemployment among adults is far larger than the proportion of unemployment among juveniles, which shows more and more that industry is organising itself on the basic of juvenile labour, and that when one series of juveniles reaches a certain age, it is replaced by a series of still younger ones. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Combined Universities quoted the Chairman of the West Riding Education Committee, and I saw the other day he stated that we have a million unemployed, and no lees than 41,000 of that million are young people between 16 and 18. Surely, he said, we have no right—and I heartily agree with him—to add to the number of unemployed by letting the labour market be flooded by young people from 14 to 16. But there would be another advantage in raising the school age, and that is that it would facilitate the reorganisation of our educational system.
        I remember the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, in one of his eloquent speeches, saying it was one of the principles of the Labour party that there should be no division in our educational system, and that education should be all one; but we are bound to consider the necessity of raising the school age. If we took, say, 11 years of age as the typical period, we could really organise our elementary education for the children of 11 and under, while we could make the period of 11 and over one of preparation for the secondary education. We could organise our preparatory education, as it were, in three classes. For those who have literary tastes, we might have classes for literature and languages. For those who have scientific and mathematical proclivities, we could have classes in mathematics and science; while for those who have got no peculiar proclivities at all, we could have practical classes, with a proper modicum of scientific and literary education. But we cannot get
        1252
        away from the fact that this raising of the school age would necessitate a very large expenditure. For instance, in London, I believe, it would necessitate an addition of no less than 65 extra school places, and the engagement of no less than 2,500 teachers. That would, of course, necessitate some considerable outlay, and, therefore, some areas in this country might prefer to proceed by the method of continuation schools, as being on the lines of least resistance.
        I cannot help feeling that if continuation schools were established, they would be accepted by both employers and parents, because the obligation would be imposed upon a sufficiently large area. I consider that continued education would be accepted loyally by employers, and would have immense influence upon the children. It would keep the windows of their souls open to educational influence, and the things of the spirit, and we want to get that self-discipline, which is the great barrier to apathy and indifference. I was interested to hear some hon. Members on the Labour beeches denouncing continuation schools. One hon. Member said that they were a misfit nowadays. That, I think, shows a considerable change of opinion in Labour circles as to the proper policy to be pursued. I hold in my hand a Memorandum issued by the Labour party, I think soon after the passing of the Fisher Act in 1918. It was prepared by the Advisory Committee on Education, and in it I read:
        "It is no exaggeration to say that, for good or for evil, it will be—
        that is, the Fisher Act, and the Section which deals with continuation schools—
        "the most powerful educational influence to which the nation has been submitted since the nationalisation of elementary education in the seventies of the last century. Almost the whole youth of the nation will pass, at the most plastic period of their development, through the new continuation schools. They will enter them little more than children they will leave them ultimately as young men and young women. In the interval their character and intelligence will have received a bias which must often be decisive.… Wisely directed continued education may become the greatest training ground of democracy which the world has seen."
        I do not wish to advocate continuation classes as against raising the school age, or raising the school age as against continuation classes. As long as the President of the Board of Education "gets a

        1253
        move on" I shall be quite happy and I shall do my best in my humble way to support him. I think much more is necessary than excellent speeches in this House. We want an active policy. An hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches said what was wanted was for the right hon. Gentleman to issue circulars to the local educational authorities asking them to prepare schemes. I associate myself heartily with that sentiment. It is the duty of the Government to do more than talk. They should get on with their job and ask the local education authorities to prepare schemes either for raising the school age or for the establishment of continuation classes.
        Mr. R. RICHARDSON: After what has been said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, hon. Members will forgive me if I presume to add an expression of my views as one who has taken some share in the work of an education authority for many years. I cannot, help recalling what happened three years ago when progress in education was arrested, and when the order "full steam ahead" in educational matters was reversed. I regretted that very much, and I deeply regretted the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) and of his predecessor in office, in accepting the suggestions of the Geddes Committee in so far as they related to education. There can be no standing still in educational matters. We must either move forward or move backward. Every authority in this country has found to its cost that instead of simply marking time retrogression has set in and much of the leeway will have to be made up under the regime of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. We are now seeking to go forward, and I was glad to hear the speech of the President of the Board of Education and glad to know what he has told us upon this subject. May I be permitted to make one or two suggestions. I want him, if he can, in his administration to go still further, and I am giving him this advice as a result of nearly 30 years' experience in connection with educational work. I say that the sooner he gets the children inside schools of some description the better for the children themselves and for the nation. It is impossible to build up a
        1254
        real educational system on an imperfect foundation, and if we can get these young children into nursery schools or such other schools as can be provided, then we are laying a foundation which will be of real value, and in the end it will cost us very much less than education is costing us to-day. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some consideration to that aspect of the question. I also suggest to him that merely "motherly" people are not the people to teach the younger children. They should have the very best teachers who can be found because upon this early education much will depend. Unless the child of the working man gets a chance from very early days, there is little hope when that child reaches the age of 11 or 12 he or she will succeed in securing a place in a secondary school.
        10.0 P.M.
        I urge these considerations on behalf of the children of the class to which I belong. To know their intense desire for education one has only to go back to the year 1919 and to see the number of applications for secondary education which far and away exceed the number of places available. I trust the right hon. Gentleman is going to help us in this respect. Passing from this matter I would suggest that much more can be done in our elementary schools and I think very much more will have to be done. If we agree to 20 per cent. going from our elementary schools to the secondary schools it means there are still some 60 per cent. fitted for secondary education who can never get it and adequate arrangements should be made for those children who are forced by poverty to leave school and to earn a livelihood in industry. We must have consideration for the children between the age of 14 and 16. If hon. Members had the same work to do every day and the same monotonous routine they would become tired of it and would refuse to go forward and I ask that these children should be given a chance and should be made to feel that there is more in education than they have hitherto appreciated in our elementary schools.
        I should like to see a system under which children leaving the elementary schools would pass into the secondary schools just as to-day they pass from the

        1255
        infant schools into the other schools. I do not see why that ideal should not be achieved. If we extend our secondary school system we are helping to make places in our elementary schools, and I think we should be able to move faster in this direction. My own county of Durham has done very well and is not behind other counties, but I regret to say that its progress does not satisfy the people of Durham, and when we examine the number of children desiring secondary education and the number of places available in the secondary schools in that county it is easy to understand the reason. When we have 250 places and 5,000 children seeking them it indicates the state of affairs which prevails. It is not by such a system that we are going to obtain the benefit of the best brains of this country. This nation must of necessity in the future seek out its best brains for its service if it is going to live. We hope the days of brute force are ended and that only brains will tell in the long run. Let us safeguard the education of the children of our country and we need have no fear as to our future.
        Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The President of the Board of Education began this Debate with a speech, the key-note of which was an appeal for continuity of policy. He represented himself as coming to this Committee and, as it were, testing the Committee to see whether we were prepared to guarantee—as far as anyone can guarantee the future—continuity of policy. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the character of this Debate in all quarters of the Committee has been all he could possibly expect. From all quarters there has come to him a complete assurance that, while we may have minor differences on minor matters of policy, so far as the main lines of policy are concerned, there is no section in the Committee which is not prepared to carry on a policy generally on the lines laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) last year and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite this year. Let the Committee remember this. There is no use in a party in this House, or any individual member of a party in this House, pledging himself or herself to a general acquiescence in continuity of
        1256
        policy unless the past record of the party to which they belong gives a reasonable assurance of that continuity. I am confident in saying that the speech of the Minister to-night represents, so far as I can judge from the short time I was at the Board of Education, a logical development, in the circumstances of the time, of the policy being pursued last year. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would deny that. An hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal Benches admitted it. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would deny that, in fact, we have been for the last year or two gradually getting out of the inevitable financial difficulties in which we were involved as a result of the economic slump following the, War. There has been a steady effort during the last 12 or 18 or 24 months to get nut of that depression and to start again a steady educational development.
        I said just now that the right hon. Gentleman had been met from every quarter of the House in the spirit in which his own speech was couched. I must make one exception. That exception was in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman's own Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), who gave us an electioneering speech which has probably never been equalled in the annals of this House. We had the spectacle of a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister getting up and saying that not enough was being made, particularly by her own chief, of the wonderful advance that had been made. Therefore she desired to underline it. She did so in the following way, and I ask hon. Members to take note of this, because it is the kind of argument on which that type of electioneering speech is based. The hon. Lady quoted the Geddes Report, and quoted three things which the Geddes Report said were absolutely necessary. She then added, "These are the principles on which educational administration have been conducted for the past two or three years."
        HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"
        Lord E. PERCY: Hon. Members, who ought to know better, say "Hear, hear." Let us see what the three points in the Geddes Report were. They were: (1), raising the school age; (2), classes consisting of more children per teacher;

        1257
        and (3), paying teachers less. Let the Committee observe that not one of those points in the Geddes Report has ever been carried out. The school age has not been raised and no legislation has been introduced on the subject. The right hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) did introduce in 1922 a Bill which, I think, never reached its Third Reading in this House. Then there is the size of classes. There are, on an average, fewer children per teacher to-day than there were ever before, and the reduction has been steady and continuous. Nor is the teacher being paid less. The Burnham scales, speaking generally, have not been disturbed. Therefore, the whole basis of the hon. Lady's argument is wiped away. What are the real facts? She conies to this House mid she says in effect, "This is really the dawn of a new era. The Minister has not used sufficiently glowing language about it, and I think it is a matter to be dealt with in glowing language for the purpose of the next municipal election."
        Let us see what the case really is. I am not, desirous of making a party attack; I am replying to the hon. Lady, and not to the Minister. I am not blaming the Minister. I am replying to the hon. Lady, and this is purely personal to her. The present Government came into office as deeply pledged as any party could possibly be to the raising of the school age. They decided immediately that they would not do anything of the kind. They then introduced a provision in the Unemployment Insurance Bill for the purpose of giving uncovenanted benefit to children below the age of 16. That proposal was rejected by the House, and rightly so. Now the President of the Board of Education, who acquiesced in that decision, goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and says, "This is really hopeless. The school age is not being raised. We cannot even say that we are giving what is commonly known as the dole to children between the ages of 14 and 16. What are we to do about it?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer replies: "I will allow you to have £440,000, part of which you can apply to increasing the Exchequer contributions towards maintenance grants from 20 to 50 per cent." That is all that is left of the great policy of raising the school age. The hon. Lady comes down and makes a
        1258
        speech in this House, and says: "Do not let us forget what a great step forward this is. We have not done anything that we promised, but let us tell the people at the next municipal election that this was really the necessary first step towards raising the school age." I would say to the hon. Lady that one dishonesty is not redeemed by another. If the accusation commonly made from the other side, that we were recreant in our education policy last year, were true, there is no good our promising a continuity of policy. But the accusation is not true; the reasoning on which it is based is absolutely fallacious.
        May I now give another instance from the speech of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove), who has the right hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) said, has obviously not got a historical mind. This is important, not at all as a party point, but from the point of view of future policy. The hon. Member for Wellingborough assumes—and he said it in his speech to-day—that Circular 1190 was responsible for the holding up of the building of new schools in this country. That was not the case. He knows a good deal more about the educational history of this country than that. He knows that London, for, instance, had a policy, the 40–48 policy, which it was pursuing steadily before the War, of building schools so as to reduce classes to 40 for ordinary classes and 46 for infant classes. That building programme, which had been laid down before the War, and had started to be carried out before the War, was arrested by the War, and it remained arrested after the War. It was not Circular 1190 that killed it, but what did kill it? What suspended it, or maintained it in suspension, was this, that the Education Act of 1918, quite rightly—I make no complaint of it—threw on the London county many other burdens, and the atmosphere at the time was to subordinate all these questions of classes and so on to the great new advance on continuation schools and so on. That was responsible more than anything else for the holding up of building programmes, and, as a matter of fact., I think the President of the Board of Education will bear me out in this, that more schools actually have been authorised to be built by the Board of Education since the issue of Circular 1190,

        1259
        than was the case before the issue of Circular 1190.
        Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Then can the Noble Lord tell me why it is that Durham are asking the Minister at once to give them leave to build 29 elementary schools to-day? This shortage has not accrued in six months.
        Lord E. PERCY: We have heard to-day about the Northern borough which the Minister has induced to build two new schools, but here, apparently, is the Minister holding up 29 schools in the county of Durham.
        Mr. RICHARDSON: No, we are going to get leave to build.
        Lord E. PERCY: I think the hon. Member will find, if he does not interrupt me, that probably we will get on better. The answer to the hon. Member is this: Why were these 29 schools held up? Because of the Addison building scheme, and because the Ministry of Health put the greatest possible emphasis on the necessity for not building schools, for not taking labour for school building. I venture to say that the Ministry of Health is taking precisely the same line to-day, and that precisely the same conflict is taking place between the Board of Education and the Ministry of Health over the question of building schools as before. However much the hon. Member gets the 29 schools for Durham authorised by the Minister, they will take a very long time to build. That is the history of the building difficulty.
        Mr. TREVELYAN: I think I, perhaps, ought to say that the Minister of Health has made it quite clear that he is not going to hold up schools which are considered to be necessary.
        Lord E. PERCY: The fact is that there is not enough building to go round for the two needs.
        Mr. TREVELYAN: That is another point I should like to make quite clear; so far as the Minister of Health is concerned he is not holding up necessary schools.
        Lord E. PERCY: Really the Minister of Health has no power to stop them. But the effect of the pressure of the two Departments in Whitehall, one telling the
        1260
        local authorities that they must build dwelling-houses, and the other saying to the local authorities: "Well, what about the schools?" is that the schools have got left behind in recent years. I strongly suspect they are getting left behind today. But I must get on. I have been led into some controversial matter by reason of the attacks which have been made from the other side. I would suggest to hon. Members that if we are really interested in education, the less we have of these mutual recriminations the better, because they inevitably disturb what is, after all, our essential harmony on matters of general principle. Apart from these one or two unfortunate matters there is essential harmony on what should be our future policy.
        I want, in conclusion, to say one word about what the Minister said must be the main object of our policy, that is the strengthening of secondary education as a lever of the reform of the whole educational system. He has put forward a rough approximation to the kind of policy which he should like to see carried out over the next decade. I should like to say, following on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon has said, that we feel on this side of the House that while it is true that secondary education is to a large extent the lever of our whole educational system, while we agree that an extension of secondary education, as has been suggested, is immediately and urgently necessary, yet we do also want added to that a conception of union and an integration of the educational system which will enable us to view the system as a whole while allowing for the widest diversity in the methods adopted. I believe unless you have this you will not get the benefit you expect from any extension, even of secondary education.
        After all, what is the great difference between the system of State education we have built up in the last 50 or 60 years, and what I may call the upper-class system which existed before that time, and which has been the fortunate heritage of a privileged class? The difference has been that the earlier system was built, as it were, from the top downwards, that the universities did control the whole nexus of the educational system, whereas we in trying to build up a State system have started from the bottom with a system of elementary education which ends with two or three years of what is almost

        1261
        practically a waste of time. I think that is very largely admitted. At any rate, the last two years at an elementary school is not the kind of way in which you ought to employ the child's time.
        When I hear hon. Members asking whether it is the policy of the Board of Education to do this, that, and the other in the schools, I cannot help feeling that they are expecting from the Board of Education something which no Government Department can give, that is, the fixing and enforcement of an educational standard. That is the work of a teaching body; that is the work of a university, and it is only when you get the whole of our State educational system really connected with the university, and drawing its life and largely its standard from the university teaching body, that you can possibly hope to get an educational system worthy of this country. I think the most remarkable speech we have had this afternoon was that made by the hon. Member for East Leyton (Major Church) with regard to the training of teachers. It is perfectly true that so long as you spoon-feed the teaching profession by a specialised scheme of training, and so long as that profession does not draw its members from the ordinary educated body of men and women in the country, so long you will have an unsatisfactory educational system. That is one instance of the way you must bring the influence of the university to bear on the whole of your educational system. In other words, the secondary school is only the secondary lever, and it is the university which is the real lever in educational matters.
        Let me just mention one thing on that line. While what I have said is true of the country as a whole and of the national system, it is also true of each locality, and what is most needed in localities which are not actual university centres is to encourage the various educational activities to group themselves around some particular educational institution in that area which they can treat as the nucleus of local energy. Very often it will be the local Technical Institute. What you have at the present time is generally a disintegration of educational activities, and you have your secondary school, your technical institute, and your tutorial
        1262
        classes all working very largely without any sort of co-operation whereas, if you can group those activities around your technical school or something that serves the purpose of a local college you will give a greater stimulus to the education of that locality than you could do in any other way.
        Finally, let me just say that, if we are starting out—re-starting out—to build a great educational system in this country, do not let us forget that we are not, building on a clear field, that we are not creating something new, but that we are the trustees of a national culture that already exists, and that no nation in the world has such a strong natural hereditary culture as our people here. It is very easy, by the kind of educational system that you create, to corrupt a national culture; it is much more difficult to improve, it. Our business is to improve what we already have, to see that we do not in any way exercise an influence which might deteriorate the character of our existing national culture. That is a great responsibility. It is not a responsibility which will ever be carried out by debates or controversies or catchwords or party scoring; it is an object which can only be carried out by the very sober and harmonious thought of all parties and all sections of this country.
        Mr. MORGAN JONES: In venturing to bring this discussion to a close, I trust that the Committee will allow me to express, on behalf of my right hon. Friend as well as myself, our very cordial appreciation of the spirit that has animated the discussion during the whole of to-day. If I may venture to say so, I will try to imitate the example set by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in the concluding portion of his speech rather than in the first portion. Indeed, he announced his intention of speaking on this subject in a purely non-party way, and I was wondering, as he proceeded in his earlier remarks, what would have happened to the earlier part of his speech had he not had the good fortune of having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham (Miss S. Lawrence), for be would have had to find some other reason for introducing purely party remarks into a non-party speech.
        Quite a number of questions have been addressed to me this afternoon, which I

        1263
        shall do my best to answer. I should have liked to deal with them all in some detail did time afford the opportunity, but I am afraid I must omit what seem to me to be the less important of them, and apply my mind to one or two of the more important inquiries that have been addressed to me. May I, in the first place, say that one feels gratified that not only is a helpful spirit manifest towards the Board of Education in this particular House, but that the same spirit animates the education authorities and individual educationists throughout the country. Indeed, were it not that that helpful spirit exists throughout the country, many of the proposals which my right hon. Friend has seen fit to make would of necessity fail in their full purpose. We feel, however, especially having regard to the nature of the discussion here this afternoon, that Education Estimates are being discussed in an entirely different atmosphere from that which has prevailed in previous years.
        Like my right hon. Friend, I want to avoid attributing blame either to this party or to that. That belongs to the past, and, perhaps, belongs to another place and another platform. To-night, I think, one may rely upon the cordial agreement of all present when one says that, for reasons which we all appreciate and understand, the gospel of economy has possessed the minds of most people in the last two years during our educational debates, with the consequence that we were hampered in the demands which we felt we were entitled to make, having regard to the serious and prolonged period of stagnation, not to say retrogression, which had prevailed for the last four or five years. Now it seems to me the time has come for us to begin to take long views of this educational problem, and every hon. Member who has taken part in this Debate has in one way or another made some sort of contribution to the discussion of this problem. I wish time afforded me an opportunity of discussing each special contribution, but I am afraid I must be excused.
        I come, therefore, to the first question which was addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Fisher), and I take the Welsh question first, not
        1264
        because I am a Welshman, but because I want to dispose of that subject before coming to the discussion of education generally. The right hon. Gentleman asked me what was the present position of affairs in regard to the inspectorate in Wales, in relation no doubt, in his own mind, to the problem which has arisen as concerning the proposals we have recently made to the Welsh Central Board. I am very sorry I cannot enter as fully as I should like into a discussion of that subject. I am due to meet them again on Friday at Shrewsbury, and it might perhaps be unwise and inappropriate if I entered into a discussion of the subject before I met them at the end of the week, but I will indicate the nature of the proposals. The Welsh Central Board is a statutory body and it relies for its finances upon certain sources. There is a Treasury grant, there is a compulsory levy upon the local authorities in Wales and there is a voluntary levy on the local authorities in Wales. In regard to the voluntary levy there has ken, happily, only a limited degree of objection, but still objection, on the ground that some local authorities cannot as well afford to make this voluntary levy as other authorities can, and in the difficulty which overcame the Welsh Central Board on account of the rise of prices after the War period it felt obliged to bring its troubles to the Board of Education. Suggestions were put forward to the Welsh Central Board by way of seeking to help them over their difficulties, and in making those suggestions the opportunity was taken of proposing to them that the time had come for making an attempt to unify the inspectorate in Wales in accordance with the proposals or recommendations of the Departmental Committee on secondary education. It is true that the proposals for a unified inspectorate in Wales were only part of a much bigger set of recommendations of that Committee.
        Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Can the hon. Member explain to us what was the greater programme? We have not heard of it.
        Mr. JONES: I am afraid that I cannot now give the whole of the proposals. Unification was part of the proposal which we made to the Welsh Central Board. The Welsh Central Board have had these proposals before them for the last six months and they do not find

        1265
        themselves as yet able to agree as to whether they should or should not finally accept the proposals which we have put forward. Whether they will do so as a result of the interview at Shrewsbury I do not know. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to leave that matter?
        Mr. MORRIS: This is a national question. If it had been a question affecting Scotland it would have been discussed, but 'when it is a Welsh question no opportunity has been given in this Debate to discuss the matter at all. It is a proposal to unify the inspectorate now under the Welsh Central Board and to transfer the inspectorate to the Board of Education.
        Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order—
        Mr. JONES: My time is going.
        Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask, on a point of Order, whether special facilities are given for discussing Welsh educational questions, while no Scottish Member has been allowed to take part in the discussion of these Estimates, although this Vote decides absolutely the money that is going to be available for Scottish education.
        The CHAIRMAN: On the Education Vote all hon. Members have an equal right to speak.
        Mr. JONES: I am sorry if none of my Scottish friends were called upon to speak.
        Mr. MAXTON: No Scottish Members have been called upon, but several Welsh Members have.
        Mr. JONES: My right hon. Friend also asked me whether I could inform him how many plans of new schools, special schools, central schools, and clinics had been approved. The answer is, generally, that no reasonable proposal either for the erection of a new clinic or the expansion of a building where medical treatment is provided has been rejected by the Board. The number of new special schools actually certified since the 1st April, 1923, is 13, and since the 1st January four of these 13 have been approved. Of the number of new school places since the 1st April, 1923, 55 have been established, and out of that number 25 have been established since the 1st January of this year. In regard to the central schools, I
        1266
        was asked how many new plans had been approved. The central schools have been established by the redistribution of children in certain schools in certain areas. It has not been altogether a question of new schools, but the redistribution of children in schools already there.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) asked whether I could give any specific information on the problem of adult education. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend took me to task for a speech which I delivered at the Labour Party Conference last year, in which I chided the late Government for its neglect of adult education. I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the announcement to which he referred, as to the prospective alterations in the provision of adult education facilities, was made in March last year. My speech was in June.
        Mr. E. WOOD: What I referred to was the fact that I made a speech in which I made a certain announcement, I think, on the 31st May, and the hon. Member made his speech, which I thought was on the 23rd of June. But we need not quarrel about it.
        Mr. JONES: If my right hon. Friend feels that I have in any way misrepresented him, I will withdraw. With regard to extra mural classes, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the estimates he will find all the information which he requires, and there is an indication that we propose to make a big grant for extra mural classes. I am entirely in agreement with him as to the value of these extra mural studies, and the necessity for their encouragement. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) has raised a question as to the necessity and propriety of encouraging nursery schools. I need not remind my hon. Friend that, as far as the present Government is concerned, we look with very great sympathy indeed on the establishment of nursery schools, and we have already intimated our intention of withdrawing the circular which was a more or less complete barrier to the development of the nursery school system, and any proposals that are made to us that are reasonable in character will receive our sympathetic consideration.
        Now I come to a question which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the raising of the school age of

        1267
        children to 15. He asked particularly in regard to the two places which had accepted in principle the raising of the school age, Bath and East Suffolk. In East Suffolk the Board has approved for publication the bye-law in that area. Any objections, of course, elicited by the publication will have to be considered on their merits by the Board. It is assured by the authority that they intend to administer the bye-law scrupulously, exercising their discretion to grant exemption to individuals only in cases where, after careful inquiry, the circumstances are found to be exceptional, and where they do exempt doing so as a rule only as from the end of the term. In regard to the Bath proposal, the position is not quite so far advanced. We are still negotiating with the people in Bath as to the availability of the present accommodation for the purpose, but I think that I may assure my right hon. Friend that the Government is perfectly willing to consider any proposal put forward by any authority for the purpose of raising the school age of children up to 15, provided that it is clearly understood that we do not want to embark upon a practice of recommending or approving of bye-laws raising the age to 15, and then finding that children are allowed to leave any time as soon as they find employment. We set our teeth against the practice of regarding the schools as a sort of waiting room for employment.
        Now I come to the discussion initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. He opened the discussion by saying that the time had come when the Department should seize the opportunity of encouraging local authorities to put up the schemes that were adumbrated by them under the old 1918 Act. As far as we are concerned, I think I may say we are perfectly willing to encourage the production of programmes by local authorities so that we might know the nature of the work they wish to carry out in their respective areas. In regard to the question of examination and inspection, I would like to direct my hon. Friend's attention to the report on page 43. My hon. Friend is very concerned—and quite rightly—as to whether the old principle of examinations and payment by results is being slowly reintroduced by our inspectors into our
        1268
        educational system. In support of his contention, my hon. Friend quoted a passage from page 16 of the Annual Report of the Board of Education. If my hon. Friend would look at page 43 of the same Report, he will find words which will allay any suspicion he may harbour in his heart. The passage is as follows:
        "Passing to another of the general questions raised by our survey it does not appear that any system of external examinations applied to individual pupils can be in any sense a substitute for inspection. We have seen it amply demonstrated by long experience that the method of periodic individual examination and 'payment by results' was, so far as concerns elementary schools, neither educationally satisfactory nor economical of officials."
        The general tenour of that paragraph shows that there is no ground for the fear which he entertains. He raised another question of some importance—the question of promotion of inspectors. I want to assure him that, in the main, the assistant inspectors of the Board are, with one or two exceptions, at the present moment drawn exclusively from the ranks of elementary school teachers. In regard to the district inspectors no less than 20 per cent. are drawn from the elementary school teacher class, but as the system, of education tends to become unified the necessity for drawing inspectors from any particular part or section of the educational world becomes more and more limited, and I have no doubt that in the course of a short time our inspectorate will be drawn without regard to the particular department of education in which they formerly had served.
        I want to say one or two words on the question of central schools. The Committee will know that for the continuation of elementary education there are three kinds of education provided by various school authorities. Some are keen advocates of continuation schools, others are keen advocates of central schools, and still others are keen advocates of secondary schools. Neither of these systems is exclusive of the others. There is something to be said for each of them. I have no doubt that the experience continuation schools have had in London affords reason for believing that an extension of that system might be appropriate to cities like London, but in regard to central schools, we are at this very

        1269
        moment receiving applications from many parts of the country for the establishment of such schools, and there are cases where central schools are more appropriate than secondary schools. We are heartily in sympathy with all of these schools, and will do our best to promote those most desired in particular districts.
        I pass over the problem of free secondary education, because I want to touch on the question of special schools. So far as the Board of Education is concerned, we are extremely anxious that anything we can do within the limits of the money at our disposal shall be done. Indeed, whatever we can do we have done within the time at our disposal to stimulate the establishment of these special schools. We are encouraging medical services being established on a more efficient footing in various parts of the country. We are considering the issue of a new special circular to local authorities encouraging them to provide special schools for the deaf and blind and for other unfortunate children who need such treatment. May I also include the crippled children in whose behalf such eloquent words have been used this evening. Time will not allow me to traverse the whole of the points covered by hon. Members, and I must conclude with these last words. An appeal has been made by Members of the Committee belonging to all parties that all should rally together in defence of a unified and continued policy in education for the next few years. We all know the various warnings which have been issued by leaders of public opinion in different parts of the country as to the great rivalry likely to exist between nations in the next few years. In that rivalry au efficient system of education is absolutely necessary, and we are confident that the proposals we are putting forward and the work we are trying to do will help us to provide an efficient educational system for the country as a whole.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
        Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY (re-committed) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment on the Order Paper to Clause 1, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Lieut.-Colonel Meyler)—at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words
  "Provided that nothing in this Section shall empower the Board to enforce any particular form of treatment upon any person"—
  is out of order, as it has no relevance to the subject of the Clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I want to take this opportunity to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has made up his mind on what is really the vital point in this Bill. The Bill, as the House knows, is to permit the Secretary for Scotland, by Order, to schedule certain other diseases, and have them treated by local authorities in the same way that diabetes has been treated recently. It is perfectly obvious that local authorities cannot carry out this work unless assisted in some way from central funds. There is ample precedent for it. It has been done in the case of tuberculosis and other diseases. The Under-Secretary, in his speech in Committee, was very helpful on this point, and he did suggest something of this kind would be done. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he could not say, in order to make this Bill a success, which is highly to be wished, that more extensive public assistance could be given to treat these diseases. But that can only be done if the Secretary for Scotland is able to say that the Government will come in and bear its proper share of the burden.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I regret that this Bill was altered in Committee. I think it is to be regretted that the Secretary for Scotland is going to be prevented in the future, if science finds some new method of dealing with disease, in not having that remedy carried to the poor people at the earliest possible moment. I regret that Liberals and Conservatives

  1271
  joined in a new coalition on that occasion to defeat the Secretary for Scotland. I do not exactly share the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). I think if the question of expense is to be raised at all it should not be raised on a Bill of this kind, but on the question that the whole health services of Scotland are out of date and not in keeping with modern requirements. The question should not be raised here of how much or how little the Secretary for Scotland should give to the local authorities, but the whole question should be raised as to how far the health services of Scotland can be guaranteed and helped in a more generous fashion. I regret that this has been made an excuse for weakening what I regard as a very small and meagre step in trying to help comparatively poor people in Scotland. I accept the Bill, but I speak for a large number of people of progressive ideas in Scotland, in regretting the limitation which has been made in the Bill. I hope in a short time the Secretary for Scotland will go into the whole question of co-ordinating health services and helping local authorities in a more generous fashion.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I should not have said anything on this subject had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). As hon. Members from Scotland know, this matter has been fully debated in Grand Committee upstairs. I associate myself with what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) said in regard to the question of assistance from a central fund, but any alterations or amendments which have been made in Committee, have been made at the instance and in the interest of the local authorities in Scotland who are mainly concerned in the question.
  All we have done is to place control in the hands of Parliament, and it is an exaggeration to claim that anything done in that respect will either lessen the chances of any future disease being dealt with, or will in any measure delay the putting into operation of any new discovery which may be made for the effective cure of any of these diseases. I think it right that Parliament should know of any fresh departure which is made, particularly in these grave medical questions, and they should know from the Minister
  1272
  concerned, the head of the Department for the time being, the reason why Orders are sought to be made. Parliament should understand to what the authorities are being committed. If any fresh discovery is made in the possible cure of such a fell disease as cancer in this country the House of Commons, however it may be composed, will give its consent to any Measure if they are satisfied it is a correct one and can be approved by the medical fraternity. On the other hand, the House of Commons has a right to know and the local authorities have a right to know to what such a Measure will commit them. No one looking ahead can say what cost it may not mean to the local authorities, and I think it should be fully considered by Parliament. It was for that reason the Amendment was moved, and I am glad the Government have accepted it.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I have nothing to add to what was said on the Committee stage of this Bill. The last speaker is right in saying that this matter was fully considered in Committee. Even the point that has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) was raised in Committee, and I then said all that I could say on that point. I cannot understand his concern on the point now, in view of the particular provision contained in this Bill. It is quite true that a local authority can schedule a disease. It is also provided that the local authorities have the power to say whether or not they will supply the necessary medicines. In addition to that, as has been said, the House has to give sanction to the scheduling of any new disease. That introduces a limitation that was not in the Bill as it was originally presented. It may not lessen the chances, as the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Sir Gilmour) said, of treatment being given for the disease that may be scheduled, but I think he is wrong in saying that it will not only not delay the chances, but it will not delay the provision for treating the diseases that may be scheduled.
  Mr. STURROCK: Before the Bill goes from the House I think we are entitled to express our great regret that the Secretary for Scotland has not been able to give us some sort of assurance with regard to the financial aspect of the Bill. In Committee he certainly did declare

  1273
  that this point would be carefully considered by him and his colleagues.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I do not want my hon. Friend to put into my mouth words that I did not use. What I said in Committee was that, after we had had experience of the financial liability involved in this Bill, I would be quite willing to look closely into the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith.
  Mr. STURROCK: I do not wish to put into my right hon. Friend's mouth words that he did not utter, but, I submit, with all respect to him, that we did have an understanding that the question of finance was to be considered by him and his colleagues, and that we should hear something further about it. Now he tells us that he wishes to wait for experience of the working of the Bill before he makes any further statement. In any case, it seems to me that on the whole the Bill passes front our consideration not exactly in such a way as we would have wished. Undoubtedly, the Bill is going to turn on this question of finance. It is true that in Committee we did discuss it briefly, but my right hon. Friend was perfectly adamant upon all the Amendments and suggestions that were put forward, until finally an Amendment was carried against the Government. Even now the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that this is going to some extent to damage the Bill. I suggest, however, that he will find that the argument of the Secretary for Scotland that this is going to delay the application of the Measure is a very doubtful point. I hope that there is to be no more talk about an unholy coalition between the parties on this question.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I think it is just as well to emphasise the point that, from the very beginning, it has been the attitude of the Opposition to cut out other diseases entirely from this Bill, and it was only after very emphatic opposition that the Secretary for Scotland found it necessary to accept this particular Amendment, which has weakened the Measure.
  Mr. FALCONER: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is under a complete misapprehension with regard to the spirit in which this Bill was considered Upstairs. It may be that he took one
  1274
  view and that we took another, but he and his friends are not in the least more anxious to do everything that could be done in order to deal effectively with other diseases than we are. What the Secretary for Scotland proposed was to give power for the Board of Health to prescribe any other diseases, and we thought—and I am still of opinion that we rightly thought—and the majority of the Committee thought, that it was not right to introduce a new principle, imposing new responsibilities of that kind, in the Bill without making some provision under which the local authorities would have the right to know what were the conditions as regards the financial obligations imposed upon them. L could not understand the attitude of the Secretary for Scotland, because his argument on the Bill was that it was permissive to the local authorities that they should supply those other medicines. I have not been able to understand, and I do not understand from what he has said to-night, why he should object to the desire we have to make it clear that what he said was the real effect of the Bill. All that we asked was that he should lay on the Table of the House the Order which he proposed to issue bringing in these other diseases, which would necessarily set forth the conditions under which the local authorities would require to provide the medicines. It is not at all the ease, as represented by the Senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), that we opposed the inclusion of other diseases. We are perfectly willing that the Bill should apply to other diseases, provided the conditions under which the local authorities were to supply were set out clearly, and I do not agree that there will be any delay caused by the acceptance of the Amendment.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth

  1275
  Harbour in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May we have some explanation of this Resolution?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): In a word the explanation of the Resolution is in the Bill itself, and in the White Paper which was laid by me on the Second Reading of the Bill itself.
  Sir F. WISE: I want to put a few questions to the Financial Secretary which came up on the Second Reading of this Bill, and especially in regard to Clause 1, as to whether the £25,000,000 was stock or whether it was—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot deal with the matter at this stage.
  Colonel GRETTON. What is the total amount of the sum proposed to be written off and referred to in the Resolution?
  Mr. GRAHAM: £200.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Grants for Public Works.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. WISE: There were one or two definite questions that I put to the Financial Secretary on the Second Reading of this Bill, and especially as to Clause 1. In this it states that the Public Works Loan Commissioners shall issue a sum not exceeding, in the whole, the sum of £25,000,000. I then asked the Financial Secretary whether this was pounds sterling or stock? As he may possibly remember, two or three years ago the Public Works Loan Commissioners' stock had fallen to 50. I think the present price is about 63 or 64. I also made the suggestion to the hon. Gentleman that, while in the old days these loans were tendered for, and while I quite agreed
    1276
    that £25,000,000 was rather a large sum to be tendered for, he might consider that any new loan the Commissioners issued should not be issued at a large discount, which it would have to be at the present time, but nearer par. I should appreciate some reply to my questions.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I shall be delighted, in a few sentences, to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member. What is represented by "twenty-five millions" is pounds, and we believe that this sum, will be sufficient to cover the requirements of the Local Loans Fund for the year that is involved. As regards the points put on the Second Reading, the first turns upon the issue of a new stock. The difficulty, of course, is that if we embark upon a new stock at the present time at, say, 4½ per cent. interest, that would create two classes of local loan stock, and I have not the least doubt that my hon. Friend would agree that the issue of such a stock would depreciate the 3 per cent. stock by which this fund is replenished. That argument, I think, will not be pressed, although I agree at some later date it might he necessary to consider that question. The hon. Member put another point as regards tenders. The short reply is that this is a long-term stock, and it is favoured by the National Debt Commissioners, by trustees, and by others. We have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of issuing stock by tender. In 1912 stock was put out to tender and our experience is, perhaps, in favour of adhering to the present method. On that point, I can say to my hon. Friend that the Treasury and the Government are quite willing to consider, in the near future, whether the system of tenders might not he adopted. Our case now is that it would be better to adhere to the present method.
    Sir F. WISE: It practically means that you have to issue about £40,000,000 worth of stock, and that is a very large sum. It affects all your loans, and you will probably have to make two issues. I see no objection to two issues. I cannot see that it would be any more costly. In fact, I think it would be cheaper from the national point of view because it would support the national War Loan. This is really a national War Loan, although it is not called that, and I wish between now and the Third Reading the

    1277
    hon. Gentleman would seriously consider the possibility of making an entirely new issue of public loans. If he would do that, it would be better from the national point of view and it would also be cheaper.
    Mr. GRAHAM: We propose to take the Third Reading now. It is an annual Measure and it is not controversial. But apart from that, as regards the future, I could not for the moment promise to entertain the idea of issuing a new stock because of the depreciation which would result in regard to the 3 per cent. local loan stock. I think this is a matter which would require some investigation. If the Bill goes through to-night that is a matter which we might profitably consider from another angle, that is the angle we discussed last night of the possibility of utilising these powers to assist the local authorities to raise money for the new housing scheme. I should be out of order in dealing with that point, but it is along those lines that this problem must be considered. I cannot give a promise in regard to the new stock, because of the difficulty I have mentioned.
    Sir F. WISE: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this stock two or three years ago was issued at 50, and now stands at between 63 and 64—a rise of 13 or 14, which has been to the detriment of the nation?
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 2 (Certain debt not to be reckoned as asset of local loans fund), 3 (Remission of arrears of principal and interest in respect of Eyemouth Harbour loan) and 4 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES [REGULATION].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the regulation of wages of workers in
  1278
  agriculture and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act, and any expenses which are sanctioned by him of any agricultural wages board, or agricultural wages committee, or subcommittee established under the said Act, including any expenses incurred with such sanction by members of any such board, committee, or sub-committee in the performance of their duties, and any sums paid with such sanction to any such members by way of compensation for loss of time, in each case up to an amount approved by the Treasury."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I think that this Resolution itself is explanatory of the object in view, and that when it is taken together with the White Paper which has been issued giving further details, there is sufficient information to enable the Committee to pass the Resolution, which it is essential should be done to-night. It is rather difficult to make a definite statement as to the exact amount of money that will be required in any financial year, because, until the Bill is through its final stages, it is impossible to say exactly what the cost will be. In the White Paper the costs under the old Wages Board have been shown, and an indication has also been given of the probable cost under the present Bill. We hope that it will not exceed £40,000, but the Bill will be changed somewhat in passing through Committee, and that sum may have to be varied; but I think I can give an undertaking that the sum in any financial year will not exceed £60,000. I hope the Committee will be able to give me the Resolution.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: I do not offer any Opposition to this Resolution, if it be the wish of the Committee that it should be passed, but I want to utter my personal protest against the principle involved in this Resolution, of paying expenses to individuals who attend these Boards, and so on, of the kind in question. As I understand it, most of those who will be called upon to serve either on the Board or the committees or sub-committees mentioned will be engaged in the industry as employers, and therefore able to stand their own expenses, or they will be representatives of the workmen engaged, that is to say,

  1279
  they will be salaried officials of trade unions or other bodies and therefore they are not in need of expenses of this kind. The principle involved, in my view, is altogether pernicious and I rise in order that a protest may be entered against the payment of expenses of this kind, that amounts to a blank cheque which may be £40,000 or £60,000 a year and in all probability very much more.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words
  "not exceeding sixty thousand pounds in any one year."
  I am not raising the question of the principle involved in this Resolution. I understand certain agreements have been come to which I am not prepared to-night to question. I think there is a good deal in what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I ask the Government to insert in the Resolution a limit to the expenditure they propose to incur. It has often been done in regard to administrative expenses incurred in Acts of Parliament and these financial Resolutions often contain maximum sum. The Parliamentary Secretary says he is not going to spend more than £60,000. Will he agree to put that sum in the Resolution? If he would do that the whole matter might be settled. If not, I am afraid we must take it a little further and request him to state why that sum should not be stated. The Minister ought to have enough confidence in his statement to put it in his Resolution. I agree that the English is not very elegant, but my words make the intention clear.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will you, Sir, read the Resolution as it will stand after the insertion of the Amendment? It seems to me that it does not make sense.
  The CHAIRMAN: It would read:
  "That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, not exceeding sixty thousand pounds in any one year, of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act"—
  It is not necessary to read further.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: That is not sense.
  Mr. E. WOOD: I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested the best place for the insertion of the Amendment. It would read hotter if at the end of the Resolution he added the words
  "but so that the total provision thus made shall not exceed sixty thousand pounds."
  That might be more convenient from the point of view of drafting. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment. I gather that he was anxious to make some sort of compromise between the figures suggested in the White Paper. The estimated total charge in the Bill was £40,000, and a second figure set the full expenditure, under the Corn Production Act, at rather over £60,000. He said that changes made in the course of the Committee might mean that the expenses would be somewhat increased, but I should imagine that £60,000 would be a reasonable figure within which the Minister could undertake to operate the Act, if it is passed. I hope he will accept the Amendment in the form in which I have moved it.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it would be better to insert at the end of the Resolution the word, "not exceeding sixty thousand pounds in any one year."
  Colonel GRETTON: I agree to that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: In line 11, at the end, to add the words
  "but not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of sixty thousand pounds in any one year."—[Mr. E. Wood.]
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: I would much prefer not to have any sum stated in the Resolution, because of the difficulty that may arise in the initial year of working of the Act. The whole thing is largely experimental, and one cannot say exactly what money may be needed in order properly to carry out the work of the Committees. Under the old Wages Board there were 39 district committees. Under the new arrangement it is fair to say that the number will be materially increased, and which procedure being somewhat different it may he that in the carrying out of the work of the committees, at least in the first year, there will be more orders issued. Every committee will have to issue at least one order, and possibly more, because other questions will arise, following upon the fixing of a minimum

  1281
  rate of wages. These have to be advertised. Under the old Board they could be grouped as an advertisement, but under the new procedure, as far as one can judge what the Bill will be when it emerges from Committee, they will have to be separate. Therefore, while it is true that the expenditure under the old Wages Board did not exceed in any one year much more than £62,0000, it is exceedingly difficult to say that at least in the initial year that sum will be sufficient for the purpose. It would be exceedingly regrettable if in the first year of the working of this body, it was handicapped in its work because of circumstances which the Committees themselves might not be able to control. The difficulty would arise merely because of this limitation. The intention is, as far as possible, to keep the size of the Committees down to a number that will lend itself to economic working, consistently with the efficiency of those bodies. While I hesitate to resist the appeal that has been made, and while it may be true that it would be safe to accept it, still the uncertainty of the position, from the standpoint of the changes that are likely to be made, makes it possible that in the initial year, the £60,000 might not be altogether adequate for the purpose. For this reason I would ask that the Amendment should not be pressed.
  Viscount WOLMER: I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will press this Amendment. There is no difficulty in the point which the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned. If he finds that his estimates are not sufficient, and that these Committees are exceeding the sum which he anticipates, all he has to do is to come to Parliament and ask for a financial resolution. The important point, the point of principle for which my hon. Friend is contending, is that Parliamentary Control may be preserved. What is important is that the House of Commons should always preserve its financial control, and that we should not get into the habit of giving Ministers blank cheques to spend the money of the Nation as they please. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite, who profess to believe in popular control of finance, should be opposed to our attitude in this respect. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, and that Members in
  1282
  all parts of the House, irrespective of Party, will insist upon their doing so.
  Captain BENN: I am amazed that hon. Gentlemen opposite can sit there with straight faces while these speeches are being made from their side. I am also in favour of Parliamentary control and finance. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that this is a matter of not knowing exactly what is required. I would remind the Noble Lord that the Estimates would have to come before the Committee, and that this will always have to be discussed in supply, and brought forward by a Government which at present does not command a majority in this House. I would also remind hon. Members opposite that all through the last Parliament and the preceding Parliament, motions of this kind were moved with automatic regularity by hon. Gentlemen who, in the name of Parliamentary control, are resisting this proposal.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Like the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Captain Benn), I am surprised by the desire which animates the party opposite to have a specified sum mentioned in the Financial Resolution.
  Hon. Members below the Gangway and others in this House remember many financial resolutions, brought in by hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, who formed part of the great Coalition in this House, in which no specific sum was named. The hon. and gallant Member who has moved this Resolution has moved it to appear in a certain place, and you, Sir, have suggested by a form of words that it should appear in another place to cover the point he has raised. I have followed both his Amendment in the form which he desired to have it, and also the form of words which you suggested which will come in at the end of the Resolution, and I cannot see that the wording either at the end as suggested by you or the wording as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member who moved it are going to fit in very well. I would rather see the particular Amendment down in black and white upon the Paper, and then the Members of this House will know just exactly what it means. While I am quite at one with the hon. and gallant Member in his desire to have a specified sum placed on

  1283
  the paper it is the form of words that I have my difficulty over. I do not think the words should appear in either of the places mentioned by the Chairman or the hon. and gallant Member, and I would they were placed on the Order Paper rather than have this sprung on us at this hour of the night. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) said there was no difficulty in the way at all if we specified the sum now and that if more money was required all that would be necessary would be to introduce another financial Resolution. Is not that trying to play fast and loose with the House? For the life of me I cannot see why you are going to play fast and loose in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that he does not know, and that the Treasury does not know what the extent of the sum will be at the present time. He himself is not certain that it is going to cost £60,000. He says "If it does not come to this bring in another Resolution." I would suggest the withdrawal of this amendment in the meantime leaving it to the Minister, and the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix a sum and make a statement in the House what, in their opinion, it is likely to cost, and not to rush at the matter in this fashion and to say that in their opinion that £60,000 is going to be ample to meet the cost of these Committees. I would suggest, therefore, that the Amendment be withdrawn, and to leave it to the Minister to keep down the expenses.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: I look upon this question as being of much importance, but I would like to put a point that has, perhaps, not occurred and which perhaps, the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) had in his mind when he spoke. If the Committee do decide to put the £60,000 limit in this resolution, I am advised that that sum will have to go into the Bill in the Committee stage and then, if by any chance the work of the Committee requires another sum beyond that, a further Bill will have to be introduced into the House in order to sanction that demand. My advice is in that direction, and I think, if I may say so, the advice is very sound. I would like to ask my hon. Friends opposite, is it really worth while? Is any advantage
  1284
  gained by putting a limit on the sum? Is it really worth running the risk? I don't want to resist the appeal that has been made from any desire or intention or thought that this amount of money will be exceeded. But, with a thing so experimental, I put it to the Committee, is it worth while insisting on this Amendment which may result in putting us in a difficulty? I quite understand the position of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. There have been consultations in regard to this Bill which have resulted in a large measure of agreement. I should be very sorry to have to press this matter to a division, and I will put it to my right hon. Friend whether in the light of circumstances he will insist on including these words in the resolution, seeing that they will also have to be inserted in the Bill itself, and if by any mischance the limit should be exceeded, then another Bill would have to be brought in. Is it worth while pressing the Amendment at this stage?
  Mr. E. WOOD: I will at once respond to the hon. Gentleman's appeal. I can assure him, that so far as I can speak for my hon. Friends on this side, we have no desire to impose any unreasonable obligations on him by way or complicating the machinery of the Bill or making it obligatory on him to bring in another Bill, should the estimate of cost be accidentally exceeded. My hon. and gallant Friend and I have been making such careful inquiry as we could as to the probable outside figure required to cover the cost, and we have every reason to believe that £60,000 would be sufficient to cover all possible liability under the Bill. If on further consideration, the hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that that is not enough and that he will probably want more, I am sure so long as we secure the main principle we are contending for—control over the expenditure by this House—we shall be willing to agree to the insertion of a higher figure? Does he think that £70,000 would be a sufficiently high figure? The main question with which we are concerned is that we should not give a blank cheque to the Government, but that we should lay down a limit within which economic administration may have reasonable sway and that meantime we should reserve Parliamentary control over this expenditure.
  Mr. BLACK: May I point out that four months of the financial year have already expired and therefore the chances of exceeding the limit are reduced?
  Mr. SMITH: I think perhaps I can accept £70,000 as a reasonable limit.
  12.0 M.
  Colonel GRETTON: I do not want in any way to hamper the administration of this Bill, and I am willing to accept £70,000, instead of £60,000, to be inserted in the Resolution as the limit. We shall have to trust the Treasury and the Department to keep down the expenses of administration within proper limits.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, "In line 11, at the end, to add the words
  "but not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of seventy thousand pounds in any one year."—[Colonel Gretton.]
  Mr. BECKER: Now that the sum inserted is £70,000, is there an undertaking that that sum will not be exceeded and that there will be no Supplementary Estimate required? These are sad days for the taxpayer, but can we understand from the right hon. Gentleman representing the Ministry of Agriculture that this sum of £70,000 is really going to cover the whole amount required, and that there is not going to be any jiggery-pokery and
  1286
  the taxpayer being required to find more than the £70,000?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act, and any expenses which are sanctioned by him of any agricultural wages board, or agricultural wages committee, or sub-committee established under the said Act, including any expenses incurred with such sanction by members of any such board, committee, or sub-committee in the performance of their duties, and any sums paid with such sanction to any such members by way of compensation for loss of time, in each case up to an amount approved by the Treasury, but not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of seventy thousand pounds in any one year."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  PROMOTION.
  PROMOTION.
  "VINDICTIVE" (ZEEBRUGGE MOLE MEMORIAL).
  "VINDICTIVE" (ZEEBRUGGE MOLE MEMORIAL).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "VERNON" (DRAUGHTSMEN).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "VERNON" (DRAUGHTSMEN).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PRE-WAE PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAE PENSIONERS.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (RE-SETTLEMENT GRANTS).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (RE-SETTLEMENT GRANTS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  EXCHANGE FACILITIES, ELTHAM.
  EXCHANGE FACILITIES, ELTHAM.
  BENEFIT (OVERTIME.).
  BENEFIT (OVERTIME.).
  LAND RECLAMATION (WASH).
  LAND RECLAMATION (WASH).
  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (GRANTS).
  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (GRANTS).
  TOBACCO AND CHOCOLATE MANUFACTURERS (PROFITS).
  TOBACCO AND CHOCOLATE MANUFACTURERS (PROFITS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (WRITING ASSISTANTS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (WRITING ASSISTANTS).
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
EDUCATION.
  IMPERIAL EDUCATION (INTERCHANGE OF TEACHERS).
  IMPERIAL EDUCATION (INTERCHANGE OF TEACHERS).
  SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONS (REPAYMENT).
  SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONS (REPAYMENT).
  NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLMASTERS (BURNHAM COMMITTEE).
  NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLMASTERS (BURNHAM COMMITTEE).
  MALE TEACHERS.
  MALE TEACHERS.
  SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTH- SHIRE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTH- SHIRE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM (DIRECTORSHIP).
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM (DIRECTORSHIP).
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  LIFE SAVING AT SEA.
  LIFE SAVING AT SEA.
  CITY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.
  CITY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.
  BAWDSEY (REMOVAL OF SHINGLE).
  BAWDSEY (REMOVAL OF SHINGLE).
  ABYSSINIAN FRONTIER.
  ABYSSINIAN FRONTIER.
  SUDAN (ABYSSINIAN RAIDS).
  SUDAN (ABYSSINIAN RAIDS).
  MUTUAL ASSISTANCE (DRAFT TREATY).
  MUTUAL ASSISTANCE (DRAFT TREATY).
  AFFORESTATION, CUMBERLAND (WAGES).
  AFFORESTATION, CUMBERLAND (WAGES).
  LOST PROPERTY OFFICE, NEW SCOTLAND YARD.
  LOST PROPERTY OFFICE, NEW SCOTLAND YARD.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  POOR LAW (NON-RESIDENT RELIEF).
  POOR LAW (NON-RESIDENT RELIEF).
  SCOTTISH FISHERMEN (LOANS).
  SCOTTISH FISHERMEN (LOANS).
  HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL PARISHES).
  HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL PARISHES).
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD GRANTS, DEVON.
  ROAD GRANTS, DEVON.
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.
  RAILWAY CARRIAGE DOORS (SAFETY CATCH).
  RAILWAY CARRIAGE DOORS (SAFETY CATCH).
  FISH TRAFFIC, HULL.
  FISH TRAFFIC, HULL.
  OMNIBUS SERVICES, BRISTOL.
  OMNIBUS SERVICES, BRISTOL.
POST OFFICE.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  CHRISTMAS CARDS.
  CHRISTMAS CARDS.
  ADVERTISEMENTS IN POST OFFICES.
  ADVERTISEMENTS IN POST OFFICES.
  EXETER AND PLYMOUTH TELEPHONE DISTRICTS (AMALGAMATION).
  EXETER AND PLYMOUTH TELEPHONE DISTRICTS (AMALGAMATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

KEIGHLEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 17th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed for Thursday next.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the chair.]
Clause 1.
Constitution of Advisory Committee.
1.—(1) With a view to facilitating and improving the regulation of traffic in and near London, there shall, for the purpose of giving advice and assistance in manner provided by this Act to the Minister of Transport (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) in connection with the exercise and performance of his powers and duties in relation to traffic within the area described in the First Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as the London Traffic Area) be constituted a committee, to be called the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and hereinafter referred to as the Advisory Committee consisting of a chairman appointed by the Minister and such

781
ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned.
(2) Of the ordinary members:
One shall he appointed by a Secretary of State:
Two shall be appointed by the London County Council:
One shall he appointed by the Corporation of the City of London:
Two shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several metropolitan boroughs:
One shall be appointed by the Minister from among nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto other than the administrative county of London, lying north of the Thames:
One shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto other than the administrative county of London, lying south of the Thames:
One shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several county boroughs within the London Traffic Area:
One shall be a representative of the metropolitan police appointed by a Secretary of State:
One shall he a representative of the City police appointed by the Corporation of the City of London:
One shall be appointed by the Minister, but only if, and shall hold office only so long as, the chairman is not an official of the Ministry of Transport:
Every ordinary member appointed by a local authority other than the representative of the City police and every person selected by a group of authorities shall he a member of the local authority or of one of the grouped authorities, as the case may be.
(3) Of the additional members:—
Three shall be representatives of the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit:
Four shall be representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically-propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think desirable.
(4) The ordinary members shall form part of the committee on all occasions, and the additional members shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising the Minister upon any
782
matter referred to the committee under or by virtue of Section seven or Section ten of this Act, or any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with the matters specified in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act:
Provided that the Minister may if he thinks fit, direct that in any particular case the additional members, or such one or more of them as he may direct, shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising him upon any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with any of the matters mentioned in Part II of the said schedule.
(5) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being an ordinary member of the Advisory Committee if he is a director of a company or a partner in a firm or is in the employment of a company or firm engaged in providing means of transport within the London Traffic Area.
(6) The term of office of the chairman and other members of the Advisory Committee first appointed shall be from the date of appointment, until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-live, and subject to the provisions as to the term of office of persons appointed to fill casual vacancies, the term of office of persons subsequently appointed shall be three years; but a person going out of office may be re-appointed.
(7) If any member of the Advisory Committee without having received leave of absence by a resolution of the committee fails for a period of six months to attend duly summoned meetings of the Committee, or of a sub-committee on which he has been appointed to serve, his seat shall thereupon become vacant, and lie shall not be eligible for reappointment in respect of that vacancy.
(8) On a casual vacancy occurring on the Advisory Committee by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise, the vacancy shall be filled by the appointment of a new member in like manner as the member in whose place he is appointed, and he shall hold office until the time when the member in whose place ho is appointed would have gone out of office, and shall then go out of office.
(9) The Minister may place at the disposal of the Advisory Committee the services of such of the officers and servants of the Ministry of Transport as appear to him to lie required for the purpose of the proper discharge of the duties of the Committee.
(10) The Advisory Committee may subject to the approval of the Minister, make rules for regulating their procedure (including the fixing of a quorum, and the appointment, powers, duties and procedure of sub-committees), and for regulating the procedure at any inquiry held by the Advisory Committee or by any members thereof under this Act; and the additional members shall form part of the. Advisory Committee when considering and making such rules of procedure.
(11) The Advisory Committee shall make an annual report of their proceedings to the Minister, which shall be laid before Parliament.
(12) The proceedings of the Advisory Committee shall not be invalidated by any vacancy in their number or any defect in the appointment of any member.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "and near" ["in and near London"], and after "London" to insert "and the suburbs thereof." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to some extent consequential, but it is introductory because it is an alteration of the words of the first clause to meet the changes which I hope "ill be made at later stages. Possibly it would be more convenient if I did not move it here, and allowed my noble friend Lord Buxton to move the next Amendment, which is really the one on which the discussion will take place.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "described in the First Schedule to this Act" and insert "of the City of London and Metropolitan Police Districts." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have on the Paper describes, I think clearly, the alternatives before your Lordships in considering the extent to which the authority given by this Bill should go. The two alternatives are: The proposal of the Bill, which gives an area of twenty-five miles from Charing Cross, and the one which I propose, called the Metropolitan Police District, which, of course, includes the City Police District, and extends for fifteen miles from Charing Cross. It seems to me that there are very great objections to the twenty-five miles proposed in the Bill. In the first place, it is a purely artificial area, and in the second place, it does not correspond with any existing local area. It includes a large number of rural districts in which there is really no congestion of traffic, and it will undoubtedly lead to a conflict of authority between the Ministry of Transport and the outside county councils and local bodies. On the other hand, the Metropolitan Police area is a well known one, which has been in existence for many years. It is controlled by the Metropolitan Police, and efficiently managed. It is homogenous, and it includes the most congested areas of London, those really with which this Bill has to deal. The alternatives, then, are the twenty-five miles radius mentioned
784
in the Bill, which I consider an artificial circle, and the well known recognised boundary of fifteen miles from Charing Cross.
This is a provisional Bill. It is to last for three years only and, as I pointed out on Second Beading, it was introduced as a matter of urgency without having been properly considered. The Government at that moment had no intention of introducing a traffic Bill, but they brought in this measure because of a strike. Therefore, the matter in regard to the area has not been thoroughly thought out. In those circumstances it would be much better to adopt an area which is well known and easily worked, rather than an artificial area. We shall have plenty of opportunity, during the three years' experimental period, of seeing how this proposal of an area of fifteen miles' radius will deal with the congestion of traffic and how far it may be desirable to extend it. Your Lordships should look at the map which has been issued by one of the various committees which has considered this question. It will show that the real congestion of traffic, which is what we all desire to deal with, is confined to the inner area and not to the outer area. The most congested area of traffic is in the City of London, Oxford-street, Regent-street, Piccadilly, and not in the outskirts
I cannot think that the control of the traffic by the Minister of Transport in such places as Chertsey, Watford and Sevenoaks, which would come within the extended area of a twenty-five mile radius, would have any appreciable effect on the congestion at the centre. No doubt, if the traffic is dealt with well at the centre where it is serious there will be some improvement in the outside districts, but that the handling of the traffic in the narrow streets of Watford, where it is well-managed by the police, will have any effect on traffic in the City and the Strand is an idle idea. If noble Lords will look at the First Schedule they will find that the area includes not only the places I have mentioned but all sorts of small villages and rural areas in which there is no congestion and where the proposals of the Bill are entirely unnecessary.
I should like to ask why it is that this particular area of twenty-five mile radius has been drawn. I live in Sussex, some forty miles from London on the Brighton road, and if there is a road out of London

785
—the same applies to the Portsmouth road—which requires control it is the Brighton road. The Government do not include that area at all, but they do include other districts in which there is no congestion. When the Bill was before the House of Commons the Minister of Transport said that if the larger area was not included then Tilbury, Southend and other dock areas would be excluded, and that there was considerable congestion of traffic at these places. There is, of course, congestion of traffic there, but the simple solution would lie to include these ports in the Bill. The Bill itself admits that there is a difference in regard to the inside and outside areas, because, on the question of licensing, it schedules certain streets and Clause 6 and 7, which are the two most important in the Bill, are confined to the Metropolitan Police area and do not extend to the larger area in the Bill.
It may be said with some truth that the traffic is sufficiently controlled outside the actual London congested area by the various local authorities, and that it is a serious matter for the Minister of Transport to interfere with the traffic control of these authorities in the larger area with the mere idea of drawing an artificial line. It introduces dual control over the police and brings the Minister of Transport as the overriding authority in regard to the control of the traffic in the particular area. I mentioned Watford just now, with its narrow streets and considerable traffic. The traffic there is much better managed by the Corporation of Watford than it could possibly be managed by the Minister of Transport, sitting in Whitehall. Some parts of Berkshire have been omitted from the schedule. It only shows what a purely artificial area is this one of twenty-five miles radius. There is an Amendment on the Paper to exclude Buckinghamshire. That again only shows how very artificial are these boundaries. This particular Amendment was carried in the other House by 29 votes to IT and only reversed on Report stage through Government pressure. This is not a matter of vital importance in regard to the principle of the Bill. The Bill would be just as effective whether the area is one of twenty-five miles radius or fifteen miles, and it seems to me that the balance of advantage is greatly in
786
favour of the more restricted area rather than the larger and more artificial area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("described in the First Schedule to this Act") and insert ("of the City of London and Metropolitan Police Districts").—(Earl Buxton.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): I should like in the first place to dissipate the idea of the noble Earl that the area has not been carefully considered. It is the area suggested by the Committee, over which Viscount Ullswater presided, which was appointed for the purpose of considering the traffic area. And let me say, in addition, that as regards what are called outside areas many of them are situated on the great arterial roads, and many of them are on the ordinary omnibus routes which are in use at the present time. I will give an illustration of what I mean. The noble Earl referred to the County of Buckingham. As a matter of fact, that County was cut out in Committee and restored afterwards in the House of Commons by 238 to 119. I happen to know Buckinghamshire very well and, as I have stated before, I wish that the traffic regulations had been extended even so far as I live in Buckinghamshire, because: we experience both danger and congestion owing to the conditions of traffic.
This is what happened as regards Buckinghamshire at the time when it was cut out of the Bill and before it had been restored in the House itself. The Report of the Highways Committee for Buckinghamshire was in the following terms:—
"It appears, however, that the Bill has been amended in the Committee Stage so that Buckinghamshire is excluded from its operation. In your Committee's view it is important that this Amendment should not be allowed to remain in the Bill and it is proposed to approach Members of Parliament for the County in the matter."
At the same time—and this shows how the case really stood—the Buckinghamshire County Council pointed out that all this traffic was really London traffic of a kind likely to lead to congestion, and they based upon that point the plea that the whole expense should be paid from central sources and not from the local rates. Now, this is either London traffic, or it is not. There can be no doubt in

787
the mind of any one who has travelled along the Bath road as often as I do that there is congestion of a very serious kind consequent upon the London traffic, and I believe that 99 per cent, of the people of Buckinghamshire desire that this traffic congestion should be properly regulated. The Highways Committee brought this very point to the notice of the House of Commons.
The noble Earl has pointed out that Clauses 6 and 7 do not affect this point, but that it is only Section 10 which really applies and deals with the regulation of traffic. I beg the House not to deprive my County of Buckingham at any rate of the enormous advantage that we should derive from the proper regulation of this very heavy London traffic. The noble Earl is presenting an absolute chimera, I can assure him as one who has been for a long time on the Buckinghamshire County Council (though it was years ago), when he suggests that there will be any difficulty in applying this regulation as proposed in the Bill. I must say that I hope very much that this innovation in the Bill, if I may so call it, will not be made. There was only one County that did not like it—Berkshire—and it has been taken out. Watford and these other places are perfectly content. There has not been a single move against it. The same applies in an eastward direction where it is very important that the arterial roads should have the traffic properly regulated. This is a very heretical suggestion of the noble Earl, if he will allow me to say so. The only County where the matter has been really discussed is Buckinghamshire, and they have pointed out how important it is to have this heavy traffic regulated. Why should they not be left in? The Highways Committee have asked for it, the County Council have taken the same view, and, as I say, this matter has been carefully considered. I hope your Lordships will maintain (his area, which we think is very important if we are to have proper regulation.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: As my name has been mentioned in connection with this matter I should like to make a few observations. I was Chairman of the Commission which was appointed to consider questions of London government and the setting up of an area larger than the present one. We had all these
788
matters before us. We sat for a year and a half and, of course, transport was one of the most important matters that we considered. I should like to read to your Lordships one or two extracts from the Report which we presented. On page 67, in paragraph 252 of our Report, we say:—
"There is a further general opinion that any centralised powers in relation to transport should extend to a wider area than that of Greater London."
That is the fact. We had a great deal of evidence, and that evidence was practically unanimous in favour of dealing with this question of traffic over a large area. It was pointed out that the Greater London area merely would really be of no use. A great deal of evidence went very much further, even to suggesting that places such as Brighton and Southend should be included. That, I think, was rather more than we could swallow at the time, but we were practically unanimous in favour of taking a larger area and we took the twenty-five mile radius chiefly for the reason that within that twenty-five mile radius you had a population which sleeps out of London but comes into London for its work and uses whatever means of traffic are open to it.
Here is another extract from our Report. We say, in paragraph 299:—
"The maximum area which the witnesses have had in mind includes at least the whole of the five Home Counties (Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey) as well as the Administrative County of London. Without going so far as that we feel that it is desirable to include a fairly wide circuit of country round the Metropolis. The country within a radius of about 25 miles appears to us to be a suitable area."
It is true that we contemplated handing over to the Advisory Committee, which we suggested, other matters besides traffic, but this does not detract at all from the strength of the argument in favour of including a very considerable area for traffic purposes.
We selected the electricity area because it was a known area and because it was a radius of about twenty-five miles from Charing Cross. The area in the schedule of the Bill is practically the electricity area: I think there is hardly any difference at all, though a small parish or township or two are left out or included. I have been again through the evidence, and I

789
hold in my hand here one volume of it only. In this volume I find that Hertfordshire was in favour of the larger area, that Surrey was in favour of it, that Essex also gave evidence in favour of it, that Kent gave evidence in favour of it, and that Croydon also gave evidence in favour of it. This evidence was not given by a single person who took upon himself to represent a county, but was evidence laid before us by committees which had been specially appointed to consider this matter of the different local authorities.
Here is the reply of Surrey to Question 3,506, which ran as follows:—
"Have you any views as to the extent of the area for which the traffic authority should have control?"
"Answer [from Mr. E. J. Holland]: No except this: that we are quite sure that it ought to he an area larger than the Metropolitan Police Area … Exactly how far it would be desirable to go I would rather leave for, let us say, the experts, but I am quite sure that you could not stop the work of your traffic authority at, let us say, our Metropolitan Police boundary."
That is a very clear pronouncement from the County of Surrey. We had a similar view from Essex, in reply to Question 4,470, which ran:—
"With regard to this Advisory Board, do you share the views of Surrey, and, I think, of Hertfordshire also, that the area over which the consideration ought to extend should be very much larger than London and its immediate surroundings?
"Answer [from Mr. Musgrave]: I do. I think certainly, so far as Essex is concerned, it should take us in up to the coast.
"Question: That it should include the whole of Essex right up to Colchester?
"Answer: Yes … We are having a large amount of growth in traffic, and I see no advantage in cutting it off at Epping Forest."
So it goes on. I will not weary your Lordships by reading a number of these answers, but, I can assure your Lordships that the evidence was practically unanimous that if the traffic Advisory Committee, or whatever the authority was which was to be set up, was to do any good at all it was useless to confine it to a small area and absolutely necessary that it should include a much larger area. For those reasons I hope your Lordships will keep to the proposals which are contained in the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I was very interested to hear from the noble Viscount how they came to the conclusion on the Commission over which he presided that the London area for this purpose should be made as wife as is proposed in this Bill. I think the noble Viscount explained this, but I want your Lordships to realise that this area was not proposed for transport alone but for many other purposes as well, including housing, town planning and many other kinds of purposes. Therefore, I am afraid that, from the point of view of those who think with me, we cannot admit that that is quite a valid argument. On page 40 of the Report they say:
"There were differences of opinion as to the precise limits of the area. Most witnesses would restrict it to Greater London or to London and the Home Counties; others thought that it should extend even beyond the latter limits, at any rate in certain directions."
I would remind the noble Lord also and the. House that the Report in favour of this great area is only signed by four members out of ten and that two members, Mr. Walsh, the present Secretary of State for War, and Mr. Robert Donald held very strong opinions that the Metropolitan Police area should be the area.
Another point which has not been mentioned is that in the Bill you have appointed the Metropolitan Police, as licensing authority in the first place, and if you make your area in the Bill coincident with the area administered by the Metropolitan Police it is obvious that this is the logical thing to do. If you make it wider than that there may be some question in regard to motor licences to Sevenoaks or Guildford where the Metropolitan Police have no authority. If we go back a little further than the Commission we find that the Royal Commission on London traffic reported in 1905 strongly in favour of the Police area and Greater London, as we know it. Again the Advisory Committee on London traffic in 1920 favoured also this smaller area and in the original Bill in the other House, as has been mentioned, the Committee, by a very considerable majority, threw out the larger area and substituted for it the Police or Greater London area.
Having regard to these facts the argument, I think, is in favour of the smaller

791
area rather than the bigger one. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any idea what an enormous area the London Police area is. It extends to Dartford, it goes north and south about fifteen miles from Charing Cross, and it has a population of over seven and a half millions. Surely that is a sufficiently large area to begin with. This Bill is in the nature of an experiment, and if, later on, the experiment is successful, then is the time for the Government to come to Parliament to extend it. That is better than taking a big leap in the dark now. I do not know with what truth, but it has been said that promises have been held out by the Ministry of Transport to the local authorities that if they come in and accept this Bill they will get extra grants for their roads.
LORD PARMOOB: That is not so.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I only know that it was so stated in another place, and there appears to be some reason why these local authorities are willing to come in. But, apart from the suggested reason which I have mentioned, the reason why they are willing to come in is that they do not want to be roped in with Greater London for other purposes. They think that if they get an ad hoc authority they will escape being roped in for drainage, water and other purposes. I think they are mistaken there. If they are roped in for transport they are to be roped in for other purposes as well, and I do not believe they want to be roped in. I suggest to the House that the area of Greater London is quite sufficient for the purposes of this Bill, and that this House would be wise to go back to the position adopted by the Committee in the other House.
EARL RUSSELL: I have an Amendment very late on the Paper dealing with the First Schedule, and it has the same effect as the Amendment before the House. Therefore, I think it would be convenient if I said what I have to say in the discussion on the present Amendment. The arguments which have been presented to us in favour of the larger area seem to me to some extent to contradict themselves. First, we are told that you ought to take a large sweep of twenty-five miles from the centre. That would be a simple thing to put in the schedule, but that is not in
792
the schedule. On the contrary there are a number of places, here, there and everywhere, and some places are left out. Can the Lord President of the Council give to the House any sort of reason why Seven-oaks and Guildford should be put in and Maidenhead be left out?
LORD PARMOOR: Maidenhead is in Berkshire.
EARL RUSSELL: Even so, I am not aware that it has the right to dictate to this or the other House.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord asked me the reason.
EARL RUSSELL: When considering the question of traffic, although, no doubt, due consideration will be given to their wishes, their wishes are not final and are not binding on the House. Maidenhead, it is true, is in Berkshire, but it stands in very much the same position as Guildford. I think I am right in saying that it is a few miles less distant from London, and it stands on a main road. If we take an area let us take an area that we know—namely, the Metropolitan Police area, where they are the only licensing authority and exercise police control, and I would ask the noble Lord, or any of the defenders of the Bill on the Front Bench—I am not aware that there are an friends of the Bill, but I would ask any noble Lord who is going to follow me in defence of the Bill—to say what steps are to be taken, and what direct effect is going to be given to any provision of this Bill which will be of the slightest use to Guildford or Seven-oaks?
One noble Lord talked a good deal about the unanimity of these local authorities. I think my noble friend who has just sat down showed that when they were giving evidence they were not limiting themselves to a mere question of traffic, but were considering a good many other questions. I think the noble Viscount who presided over the Commission proved a little too much, because, in reading out the answer to one question, he somewhat rashly said they wished the area to be extended to Colchester. That shows that there was not that complete unanimity about this exact area that we are given to understand. Do not create a new and unknown area from which we

793
have not been shown any benefit that will follow, but stick to an area which you know and lot this experiment be tried in that area. If it is successful there, nothing could be easier than for the Government of the day to come I o Parliament and ask for the area to be extended, and if the experiment has been proved to be of advantage to outlying districts everything will be in favour of extending the area.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I was very much interested in considering what were the particular reasons why the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, was so anxious to advocate this smaller or Metropolitan area, but he really said very little in favour of it. All he said was that it is a well-known area, and that it has existed since 1847. This area, no doubt, was established then, and I think has not been changed in the intervening period of nearly eighty years. It was established for police purposes. Is it really credible, without a great deal of proof, that an area that was established eighty years ago for the purposes of police, is now the exactly right area for the purposes of transport—transport which has been revolutionised, not once but ten times, during that period? I should have thought that the presumption would have been strongly against an area of that kind, considering that it was established for totally different purposes.
The debate has very largely assumed that the only business of this Advisory Committee is to deal with the control of traffic. Its purpose is much wider than that; it will deal with new roads and development of roads. I understand that some big schemes are in contemplation. They have been in contemplation for some time, but unfortunately these schemes are only carried out twenty-five years after they ought to have been carried out. One scheme is a big tunnel under the Thames, in order to obviate the tremendous congestion of traffic from the docks. If the area was restricted that scheme would be entirely knocked on the head, or, at least, made exceedingly difficult to carry out.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Why?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Because this advisory body will only be able to advise on subjects inside its own area.
EARL RUSSELL: What power is there in the Bill to make or contribute to new roads?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say the Committee could either make or contribute to new roads. I was referring, of course, to the schedules, where it is stated that the authority has the right to deal with the development, improvement, or extension of the existing system of road communication within the London Traffic Area. I pass to another observation of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. He was trying to get over the awkward fact, for those who are opposed to the larger area, that all these local authorities outside London are anxious for the Bill in its present form, in order to get over that my noble friend bad to resort to the device of saying that they were in favour of it, not because they desired to be included in the area, but because they were afraid of some other terrible thing that might happen to them. It is sufficient that you have the decision of the local authorities, without going into the question of their motives.
The noble Earl has referred to this scheme as an experiment. I hope it will last longer than three years, because I do not think you can do anything in three years. I assume that when your Lordships come to a later Amendment you will see that some latitude should be given to the people who are going to work on this advisory body. But is it not a great mistake, if you are dealing with this very old question, which is becoming a larger and larger question every day, to seek to limit the activities of this new body by restricting its area? The noble Earl made a challenge as to what advantage was to be got by some of these outlying towns being included in the area. The advantage is this: that for the purposes of traffic the larger area is a traffic unit. The omnibuses and motor cars run and ply between these places and if you draw a narrow area of fifteen miles you will halve the benefits, perhaps altogether destroy the benefits, that you might be conferring upon London and its surroundings by taking at once the larger area. The fact is that you are faced with a very large problem indeed. You have a system of roads which is utterly unsuitable for the enormous traffic of London, and if you are going again to make your roads fit for the traffic that will go over them you have to take a larger and bolder line.

795
A great point in reference to traffic is that you cannot deal with it where the congestion arises; you have to deal with it at a point perhaps very far away from that point. It seems to me that you have the local authorities with you, while the Report of the Ullswater Commission is in favour of this area; and when you see the very great advantages' to London of dealing with the matter in a large way, I urge your Lordships not to take this narrow area merely because of some interpretation that may be put upon the views of the local authorities and because my noble friend Lord Buxton thinks it is so experimental that the experiment ought not to be allowed to succeed.
EARL STANHOPE: I confess that I am one of those who sleep in the country and work in London and I come within the traffic area defined in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Peel has said that the whole of the local authorities are in favour of this area. I wonder how he knows that. I know that the county council of my county are in favour of it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said so because the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, read out their views in the speech he made the other day.
EARL STANHOPE: He read out the views of the county councils. He did not read out the views of the district councils, the parish councils and the other local authorities. There are many parishes included in the schedule to this Bill that have not a single first-class road running through them—not a single road which comes under the county council. They are kept up by the local authorities who, to the best of my belief, did not give evidence before my noble friend's Commission and know nothing about this Bill. I asked several of them about it and they were amazed to hear that they came within the London Traffic Area. I think the Government have quite rightly kept their Committee for the management of the London Traffic Area small; but the result of making it small is that you have one representative for the whole of the counties south of the river and one representative for the whole of the counties north of the river. I ask how can that single individual have any possible local knowledge of the width of
796
roads, or whether they are possible for one kind of transport or another? If you put a vast area of that kind under a small Committee obviously you will stultify that Committee, because they cannot have the local knowledge of the traffic which is necessary on the by-roads.
When we come to the main roads I admit that we must have them on a large scale but when we come to the local byroads it is an entirely different matter. They will never in our lifetime, or probably for long after, become anything more than local roads and will probably never be used for main line traffic. Therefore, it seems absurd to crowd the work of the Committee to such an extent by putting under its control such a large area. A very large amount of this area is purely rural and agricultural, and to put that area under a Committee which may be a most competent body for the management of traffic in the streets of London, does not seem to be the best plan because, being experts in traffic in crowded districts, they probably know very little about rural areas.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The object of this Bill is the regulation of traffic in the streets of London. That being so it is proposed to deal with the traffic in Eton and to say that you must not deal with it in Windsor. My noble friend Lord Peel tells me that in order to avoid congestion in the streets of London—a subject in which I have taken great interest for many years; I drove about the streets of London for many years—you have to arrange what the traffic is in Eton or places equally distant. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, says that you have to deal with people who come to London daily. People living twenty to twenty-five miles from London come in by train and this Bill does not touch trains. The Lord President talked about the Bath road. I come up on the Bath road.
LORD PARMOOR: And the Bucks road.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It is the same thing. I come up by motor two or three times a year, and I find that there is no congestion whatever. It may be that I have been exceptionally lucky, but I find that there is no congestion

797
until I get to Hounslow. When I reach Hounslow there is a little congestion by the "Bell" Inn, but there is no congestion then until you come to Zion House. After you pass Zion House, which is a long way less than twenty-five miles from London, there is congestion in Brentford. Why? Because of the trams. The trams have been allowed to go down the narrow street. I have not often had the pleasure of agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Buxton. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred I think we have found ourselves in different Lobbies, but I shall have much satisfaction in finding myself in the same Lobby with him in regard to this matter.
VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: I speak to-day on behalf of the local authorities of Hertfordshire. The County Council of Hertfordshire met the other day and this Bill was before them. It was unanimously agreed that every possible support should be given to the schedule as it stands in the Bill. We have heard something about the motives of local authorities. I will not go into that question beyond saying that to us there appears no reason whatever for adopting the Metropolitan Police district as an area and every reason for taking the London omnibus routes from their start to the finish. They ought to be under one control. It is worthy of note also that the advocates of Greater London in another place took the same view as the movers of this Amendment. We have a certain suspicion of that in Hertfordshire. Up to date we have had every success in keeping off and defeating those who are in favour of Greater Loudon. That may have had some weight with us, possibly, but we thought that this Bill would only be an effective Bill if this schedule, remained as it was and we were included.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must admit to your Lordships that I have been very much divided in my mind as to the vote which I ought to give in respect to this Amendment. I am bound to say that I am very much impressed with the evidence in favour of the unanimity of the great local authorities in the neighbourhood of London, of which my noble friend and colleague on the County Council of Hertfordshire has just spoken. I do not think we can ignore
798
the views of those great local authorities. It is their business, after all, to speak in the name of their counties. I am very far from saying that they ought to control the votes of your Lordships' House in the least, but I think their opinion ought to have great weight with you. It is true that great congestion does not exist round about Hatfield, as it does in the City of London. I am also bound to say that the condition of things round about Hatfield on Saturday and Sunday leads residents in that district to wish that there could he greater powers of regulation. That is really the point.
I want your Lordships to realise—it has already been said in the debate but I should like to repeat it—that the very drastic powers contained in Clause 0 and Clause 7 of the Bill do not apply as the Bill stands to anything outside the Metropolitan Police area. That is a very-important matter. The regulations which apply outside the Metropolitan Police area are of a very much slighter kind as the Bill stands. We have to consider whether it is not right that the great County Councils of Hertfordshire, Kent, Essex, and so forth, who ask to be included should be included having regard to the regulations contained in the Third Schedule, the Schedule under Clause 10. May I ask your Lordships to look for a moment at the Third Schedule? Take, for example, paragraph 3 in that Schedule. The Third Schedule prescribes the powers which, under Clause 10 (that is, in the wider area) if your Lordships leave the Bill as it stands, the traffic authorities would have to make regulations. Paragraph 3 says:—
"For regulating the relative position in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds or types.''
Anybody who has come up in the crowded periods of the day from Hatfield to London will realise how important it is that there should foe some power of regulation in that respect, There are these big, comparatively slow-moving lorries which hold up the traffic and interfere with it very greatly. Surely, there ought to be some power to regulate them and to say how they shall go. I think you have not the power without this Bill.
Again, in paragraph 5 the words are:—
"For prescribing the conditions subject to which, and the times at which, articles of exceptionally heavy weight or exceptionally largo dimensions may be carried by road."

799
That appears to be a matter for which the Minister has power to make regulations. Then take paragraph 9, which reads:—
"For prescribing rules as to precedence to be observed as between vehicles proceeding in the same direction, or in opposite directions, or when crossing."
There is nothing more important for the safety of the travelling public than that there should be regulations as to crossing these great main roads. The noble Earl opposite recognises that. There is tremendous traffic up and down our main roads, and there ought to be some means of prescribing regulations so that the parties shall not discharge their unfortunate passengers in such a way that they are swept into eternity by the fast moving traffic on the main roads. There is a minor regulation in paragraph 11—
"For requiring the erection, exhibition, and removal of traffic notices, and as to the form, plan, and character of such notices." There, again, there ought to be greater powers of regulation.
Those are the things which can be done by this Traffic Board, and those are the things which the County Councils of Hertfordshire, Kent, and, as I now understand, Buckinghamshire—I thought that Buckinghamshire might have been different—ask that this traffic authority should be allowed to do. I really think that it is a matter in which the opinion of these County Councils ought to have the greatest weight, though I agree with my noble friend in his desire that this new traffic authority should not be unchecked in its power. I shall have an opportunity of saying something to your Lordships on that aspect of the matter later on. I do not want the traffic authority to act in a tyrannous way, but I do think that in this matter of area it would be wise to support the opinion of the great local authorities.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I wish to say one or two words with reference to this Amendment, which, I am afraid, I cannot support. I have had a little experience of the control of traffic, and if there is one thing which is more essential than another to the efficient control of traffic it is a small authority. The noble Earl who moved this Amendment proposes that the authority for the control of traffic in the Metropolitan area outside London, within a certain area, shall be divided into two. If you
800
do that you must of necessity decrease the efficiency of the control of the traffic in and around London, In these days, with the increase of motor traffic, of charabancs and motor omnibuses, it is becoming the custom of people living a long way from London to concentrate in and near London, especially during the summer season, with the result that the authority which is vested with the control of the traffic has found it almost impossible to deal with that traffic when it arrives at its destination.
There are two instances which I am sure your Lordships will remember. One was the great football match that took place at Wembley last year, and the other was the Derby at Epsom this year. On both those occasions the congestion of traffic was so great that a considerable number of people failed absolutely to arrive either at Wembley or at Epsom. If there had been one single authority to deal with the control of that traffic within, say, twenty or thirty miles of the heart of London, that would never have occurred. Anybody who has had any experience of traffic control knows perfectly well that you must deal with the traffic from its source. There is no use in waiting till it arrives. If you do that you get chaos such as we see now.
There is one other thing which I should like to say, and it is in support of what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said with reference to the Third Schedule. There you will see that paragraph 3 deals with regulating the relative positions in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds and types. That is a question of education. During the war we found that the French nation, so far as military traffic was concerned, were far more able to control the traffic than we were. The reason was that for a long time before-many, many years before—the French military authorities had trained their men, and taught them how to proceed and when to proceed. We had never done that, and the result was that their traffic was far better ordered than ours. One of the things which you require to do to-day in England, so far as the control of traffic is concerned, is to teach the people that it is necessary to keep on one side of the road or the other, and to obey certain rules of traffic, and unless you have one small authority to deal with these matters you will not get any order out of the

801
chaos which exists to-day. The smaller the authority which you appoint to deal with the traffic the better, and if it was my duly to have anything whatever to do with the control of traffic throughout this country I should certainly desire to be an autocrat and not a democrat.
EARL BUXTON: I will only trouble the House with two observations in reply. One is in reference to the speech of my noble friend, Lord Ullswater. A reference has been made to his Report, and to the evidence given before the Commission over which he presided, and a good deal of weight ha" been attached to the fact that the county councils at that time, two years ago, gave evidence before the Commission in favour of this larger area. I think your Lordships ought to remember that that Commission was not set up to deal specially with the traffic question. A very large number of other matters quite as important were dealt with by it. The county councils which gave evidence at that time were not dealing solely with
traffic, but also with other important questions. I think that to a large extent the evidence given at that time may now be discounted, because we have now before us the evidence as to what they would desire if it were solely a question of traffic. The other point on which I would desire to make an observation has relation to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. He seemed to think that the regulations made under (he Third Schedule would be of great advantage to the neighbouring county councils. So far as my knowledge goes—I speak subject to correction—all the particular points to which he referred can already be dealt with by the Police and in other ways by the county councils. Those are the only observations I desire to make.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Cave, V.

Ernle, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Faringdon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hawke, L.

Argyll, D.

Devonport, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Falkland, V.

Jessel, L.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Knutsford, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Salisbury, M.

Novar, V

Monson, L.

Peel, V.

Morris, L.

Ancaster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Younger of Leckie V.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Olivier, L

Clarendon, E.

Auslow, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Drogheda, E.

Ashfield, L.

Kimberley, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Riddell, L.

Lindsey, E.

Askwith, L.

Rowallan, L.

Lovelace, E.

Avebury, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Lucan, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Saltoun, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boston, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Mayo, E.

Brownlow, L.

Southwark, L.

Midleton, E.

Cawley, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Thomson, L.

Selborne, E.

Wharton, L.

Strafford, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Portland, D.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Wellington, D.

Long, V.

Morton, E.

Normanby, M.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Russell, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Stanhope, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Buxton, E. [Teller.]

Carson, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Allendale, V.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Denbigh, E.

Churchill, V.

Charnwood, L.

Lamington, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Clinton, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Sempill, L.

Danesfort, L.

Moston, L

Shandon, L.

de Mauley L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Stanmore, L.

Denman, L.

Monckton, L. (V Galway.)

Strachie, L.

Desborough, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Sydenham, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Terrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Treowen, L.

Erskine, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Hemphill, L.

Redesdale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "appointed by the Minister." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really to give the Advisory Committee more power. As the Bill stands the Committee will be controlled and directed by the Minister and his officials. That may be right up to a certain point, but I think it would be much better to make it more independent. If the Chairman, who is usually the most powerful person on a Committee, is to be appointed by the Minister of Transport he will be nothing more than a gramophone giving expression to the wishes of the Minister. Our experience of these Committees in the past is that they practically do nothing. If the Committee is allowed to appoint its own Chairman, I think we may reasonably hope to have not only an efficient Chairman but an independent Chairman. It has been suggested, I believe, that they could not possibly elect a person so capable as, let us say, Sir Henry May-bury, who might be appointed by the Minister, but I think we ought to trust a Committee of this kind to exercise common sense, and I think it is very likely that Sir Henry Maybury, if he is the person contemplated, would be elected by the Committee. If the Committee is to be really useful and independent it should. I think, have a Chairman elected by itself, and not merely appointed by the Minister.
As regards Committees which have been appointed in the past under the powers given to the Minister in the Ministry of Transport Act which passed through this House in 1919, I may remark that many of these Committees have never been called together at all and that the Roads Committee met only three times in one year. That obviously shows that no use is made of these Committees. I maintain, and many of my friends agree with me, that if we are to make this Committee
804
a strong and useful body it should have the power of appointing it" own Chairman and that the Chairman should not be practically a nominee of the Ministry of Transport. In those circumstances I hope the House will see its way to insert this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("appointed by the Minister").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu)
LORD PARMOOR: I think it might be convenient to state at once the views of the Government. They are in favour of maintaining that the Chairman should be appointed by the Minister, not on any-ground of his competence to take a permanent position, but on the ground that the whole scheme is likely to go more smoothly in that way. I quite agree that it is an arguable matter, but we must also remember the point of view that this Bill, whether rightly or wrongly, is framed on the assumption that the Minister shall be responsible to Parliament. It is not framed along the ordinary lines of local government, but with the idea that the Minister should be given powers, no doubt wide ones, and, as a consequence, should be directly responsible to Parliament. I hope that your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is in this respect.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: As an Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper deals very closely with that of my noble friend, I beg to support his Amendment. I think that all of your Lordships who have had much experience in these matters will admit that, if a Committee is not allowed to elect its own Chairman, the direct result is, as a rule, continued friction between the Chairman and the members of the Committee. The members of the Committee will invariably feel that they are being controlled by the Minister and are not a body that has complete control of its own doings. Those who have had experience

805
of official life know perfectly well that this produces continual friction between the Chairman and the members of the Committee, and in consequence the members of the Committee will not be acting in sympathy with their own Chairman or with the Minister, and inefficiency will be the result.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I would ask the Government to consider (he action which they are taking in this matter. I have been a member of a good many Committees, and I have been in the chair on more than one occasion. I remember a remarkable, instance—I will not quote the particular Committee now—where we had the administration of a very large fund, and the Government of the day decided to appoint the Chairman themselves. There was every desire on the part of the Committee to welcome its Chairman and to accept the decision of the Government, but the early stages of its work under his Chairmanship were marked by the fact that there was a strong feeling that it ought to have been left to the Committee to elect its own Chairman.
A good deal of the work of this new body is going to be of an extremely controversial character. If yen want proof of that yon can find it in the recent Division, when only a majority of 27 of your Lordships marked their approval of the proposal of the Bill. If the Minister happens to appoint a man who is specially remarkable for his views on a particular side of the question, or for his political views, you are making matters difficult for the Committee, and you will' very likely lead to the result that, when the Minister in question ceases to be a Minister and changes his side of the House, a considerable section of the Committee will urge upon the new Minister that he should make a new appointment and supersede the Chairman already chosen. I am certain that if you want this work to proceed harmoniously you ought to allow an important Committee like this to elect its own Chairman, and not to leave it to the Minister. A great deal too much is put in the hands of Ministers in these days, particularly in this Bill, which is one of the worst instances that I have come across of bureaucracy as we now know it. To make it the duty of the Government to appoint the Chairman of a body of this kind is
806
to ask the Government to do a thing which they could not do satisfactorily, even if they were composed of archangels from Heaven. I shall therefore support my noble friend.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: Your Lordships may or may not be guided by that which my Commission reported, but I think it is advisable that I should inform you that, in paragraph 303 of our Report we state as follows.—
"We recommend that the Chairman of the Committee should be elected by the Committee from the r own number or as a supernumerary member from outside."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that the Government will give way on this Amendment. Your Lordships should realise that there is a very considerable feeling, though I believe we are unanimous in favour of the Bill itself, that too much power is left in the hands of the Minister. I think it "should be remembered that the Minister may not always be rightly guided, and that he may get under the influence of a narrow clique of opinion which may gradually guide, the policy in such a way as to throw the power into the hands of a monopoly. This is certainly made possible through the powers given in the Bill. We should all be very glad, I think, if we could minimise that danger by making the Advisory Corn-mil tee a ready independent body. It cannot be so described as it is constituted under the terms of the Bill, for the greater part of it is appointed by the Minister himself. No doubt it is an advisory body and net an executive body, but we may draw all the more courage in proceeding to make it independent from the fact that it is not in possession of executive authority. But although it is not an executive body it is a body of very considerable influence, and I, for my part, should be very glad to see it more independent of the Minister. I think this would reassure, public opinion, and I suggest that the Government should give way on this Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: Having regard to that which has been stated, and very well stated, by noble Lords regarding the appointment of the Chairman by the Committee itself, and particularly to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, I do not think that the Government would desire to stand by the

807
Bill if your Lordships' view generally is in the other direction In that case we would accept the Amendment. We desire to do all that we can to meet your Lordships.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN moved to omit the concluding words in subsection (.1): "such ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned," and from subsection (2) the words: "Of the ordinary" and to insert "the following." The noble Lord said: It is. I may say, something quite exceptional in the way of legislation that in a Bill of this kind you should introduce the representation of special interests when they are already represented by members appointed by the public. You have three members appointed by those engaged in working the various industries concerned, then there are no fewer than four members appointed to represent those who work these industries; in other words, the interests of the public are to be placed in the hands, to a great measure, of a syndicate—the great "Combine" which controls the Metropolitan Railway, the Underground Railways, a certain number of tramways, and the greater number of the omnibuses. Almost the whole of the traffic which affects the travelling population of the area of London is to be placed at the mercy, as it were, of this great syndicate. What would be the result'! In the event of a strike taking place the public would be placed absolutely at the mercy of the strikers, or at the mercy of this "Combine," as the case may be. In those circumstances, I see no reason why the usual course should be departed from and why additional members should be added to a Committee already sufficient and very fairly manned.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out from the first ("and") to ("members") in line 20, and insert ("the following").—(Lord Rathcreedan.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I suggest that in order to save later Amendments I should only put the first two words of the Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): The object of this Amendment is presumably to do away with the additional members, or to alter the composition of the said additional
808
members. The view of the Government is that this Committee is purely advisory, and it is necessary to have on it a certain number of people representing the interests concerned with, transport as expert advisers and a certain number of additional members, including three representing labour. They are merely there to give advice, and they will not interfere with what are more purely municipal matters which are advised upon by the eleven ordinary members referred to in the clause. The real point, I repeat is that this is an advisory committee and you want to introduce into it, as far as possible, an expert element. The four members representing the interests would be the experts. The other three representing labour might be of great use in cases of strikes, or threats of strikes, or labour troubles, because their presence on the Committee would give satisfaction to a great number of workers. That, briefly, is tile Government point of view.
LORD HEMPHILL: As the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, the proposal in the Rill introduces a very unusual principle. There have been several Committees which have considered the question of London traffic—a Royal Commission in 1905 and Committees in 1913, 1919, 1920—and all these Committees more or less recommended a small body of experts. In the case of the last three Committees they recommended three, and I believe the Commission on road traffic recommended five. In any case, they all recommended a small number, and the members were to be experts particularly qualified to deal with the subject. Now this is called an Advisory Committee, but when one looks at it and examines it the one thing one does not find on the Committee is an expert, unless, indeed, the three members who are going to represent labour can be classed as experts. I suppose they would be experts. Otherwise, there is no sign of an expert. Then four members are to represent the interests of those providing transport and users of vehicles. We are not told how those four members are going to be divided, or whose interest they are going to represent, but it is quite obvious that four members cannot represent all the numerous interests that are concerned in the use of the streets.
There is an Amendment a little further down on the Paper in the name of Lord

809
Montagu of Beaulieu dealing with various classes who ought to he represented, such as omnibus proprietors, cab drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. Everyone who uses the streets is entitled to have his interest represented, but apparently, according to this Bill, the only interests that are going to be represented are the financial interests. The noble Karl who opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, Lord Buxton, explained how this Bill originated. It originated in a suggestion that if there was a body appointed to deal with fares, and so on, higher wages would be paid, and this Advisory Committee is constituted so that there will probably be a combination on the Committee to advise the Minister in each other's benefit. I think it is a very new and a very extraordinary proposal.
I have been trying to find out where the idea of this particular Advisory Committee came from, and in this very valuable Report of Lord Ullswater's Commission we find a reference to the Roads Committee which was appointed under Section 22 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and of which the Constitution is prescribed by that Section as follows:
"The Roads Committee shall consist of not less than eleven members, of whom five shall he representative of highway authorities, appointed after consultation "with such authorities, and five shall be representative of the users of horse and mechanical road traffic, appointed after consultation with the interests concerned, and one shall be a representative of Inborn appointed after consultation with the interests concerned."
That seems to me to be the origin of this Committee, but if you examine that particular Committee appointed to advise the Minister of Transport, you will see that there were five representatives of highway authorities for the whole of England, and five representatives of horse and mechanical road traffic, again out of the whole of England. You could hardly get a trust or a combine over the whole of England, and so in that case it was a pretty safe Committee to constitute. It certainly must have given the very minimum of representation to the highway authorities, and it was harmless, but in this case it is different, because you are giving special representation to a very powerful "Combine.''
I would further like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the
810
London County Council, in 1921, passed a resolution, which stated:—
"That the Council earnestly desires the introduction by His Majesty's Government of legislation to make provision for the unified operation of local passenger transport undertakings in Greater London, and for the setting up for such area of a municipal traffic control authority (to be appointed by the local authorities affected), it being understood that the establishment of such an authority shall be regarded as a temporary expedient;, pending the settlement of the question of the reorganisation of local government u Greater London, and that in the event of a new governing authority being set up for the area, with the requisite powers, such authority shall take the place of the municipal traffic authority herein referred to."
So clearly the London County Council, which, probably more than any other body in England, had considered the question of traffic for many years, was of opinion that the authority which should be set up should he, not an authority of the London County Council, but a joint authority of the municipal authorities in the area, which seems to be a perfectly reasonable proposition. That being so, it seems to me that your Lordships will be very well advised to accept this Amendment, and allow the Committee to be composed of the representatives of the municipal authorities.
I might point out one reason why it is extremely desirable that municipal and county authorities should be strongly represented on the body. Though this Bill makes no immediate demand for money, of course it is money that is wanted. You will never get traffic regulated through the centre of London without the expenditure of money. How-many millions will be needed? I do not think a hundred millions will even be very near what will be required. In order to get public support you will have to have the public, authorities behind you, and, if they are the actual people responsible, they are much more likely to help than if they are not. I may say that I should like to see the Committee made slightly larger, and greater representation given both to the London Borough Councils and to the county councils outside. I do not see any reason why this Committee should not consist of twenty members, if it had strong support behind it.
EARL BUXTON: I seems to me that the proposal for appointing additional

811
members on this Advisory Committee is an entirely new precedent in matters of local government. It is admitted that traffic is largely a municipal question. Under this Bill the Minister has too autocratic powers, but at least he has an Advisory Committee to assist him. The basis of that Committee is municipal representation, and it seems to me a new-principle that members should be appointed to such a Committee dealing with local government questions, who have a direct pecuniary interest in the policy which the Advisory Committee may recommend to the Minister. It is that to which we object. A noble Lord who supported this Amendment said that it was an advantage in a matter of this kind to have experts on the Committee. That is quite possible, but surely these three representatives of labour and four representatives of the omnibuses and other means of transport can hardly be called experts.
As I pointed out on the Second Reading, the origin of this Bill was a strike of omnibus and tramway men, and in the Inquiry which took place it was suggested that if those who were interested in running the omnibuses and the tramways had a larger monopoly they would get greater profits, and higher wages would be paid. The two contending sections made it a condition that the Government should give an undertaking to that effect. I am not blaming the Government, but this Bill was introduced with that purpose in view. Since the Bill was introduced in another place I am glad to think that certain safeguards have been put in to prevent what we feared—namely, a pure monopoly by the omnibus proprietors in London, to the detriment of the public. All these safeguards were inserted in the other House against the will of the Government. In the first place, there was nothing in the original Bill dealing with the question of fares, or with the question of an appeal by the City Corporation and the County Council if the fares were too high. That provision was put in, though opposed by the Government, as a safeguard against an undue raising of the fares. There was another safeguard inserted against the will of the Government in the interests of the small proprietors, and the provision for the control of Parliament was also put in against the will of the Government as the Bill went
812
through Committee. Therefore, as the Bill was introduced, it could only be called a "Combine" Bill, introduced because of the dispute to which I have referred.
The Bill, especially in Clauses 6 and 7, gives the Minister full power to determine what facilities for transport shall be given, and power to grant or withhold them from certain persons and in certain streets. Thus, it enables him, at his own sweet will, to grant a franchise to any monopoly or any person running omnibuses. That being so—and I am afraid that these great powers possessed by the Minister will all tend towards a monopoly it is too much to place also on the Advisory Committee these representatives of the interests of labour on the one hand and of the "Combine" on the other. The representatives of labour do not profess to have any particular knowledge of the way in which the traffic should be conducted. Their interest is solely that of wages and of continuous employment, and, as for the "Combine," their knowledge, no doubt, will be great, but their interests—and I do not blame them—obviously will be mainly in regard to the questions of fares and profits.
The noble Lord referred to the constitution of the Committee. If the Bill goes through as it stands the Committee will consist of eight members representing more or less the municipal interests. Against those it is proposed to put on the Committee seven to represent the public, three representing labour and three representing the "Combine," who will directly represent those whose interests are, in a sense, opposed to the interests of the public. Is it not certain that those seven will form what is called abroad a bloc which will have all their interests in common? They are seven as against eight who, in my opinion, are not direct representatives of the municipalities as they ought to be. Those eight persons represent no fewer than forty different authorities without any unanimity among them at all. Therefore, on the one hand, there would be the seven combined in one direction and, on the other hand, the eight combined in the interest of the public. I think that is a very dangerous position to take up in regard to the Advisory Committee and I trust that your Lordships will see well to drop out the additional members.

813
In this matter none of us desires to go in for giving unrestricted power to any one to run trams or omnibuses, or anything else. Indeed, licences ought to be more restricted than they are at present, and I am sure that we are all in favour of such a policy. But we desire to protect ourselves, the smaller men and the public against the monopoly which I fear this Bill will bring into existence. I hope the noble Lord, the Lord President, will reconsider this matter as, in my opinion, it goes to the root of the whole principle of the Advisory Committee and introduces very dangerous elements into local government of this sort.
LORD PARMOOR: It is impossible for the Government to make any alteration in the composition of the proposed Advisory Committee. It is what I may call a balanced Committee, which has been constituted after the consideration of a very large number of interests. When similar arguments were addressed in another place to those which have been addressed to your Lordships there were, 293 to 90 in favour of the Bill as it stands. The noble Earl, Lord Buxton. I think has not really appreciated what is meant by the additional members, and I will ask hi" very careful attention to this. The object of having additional members is that they shall have only limited power in particular cases. They are "additional" members in order to prevent them having the same powers as those possessed by the other twelve members. As a matter of fact, there are twelve other members. The distinction is made in order that the additional members shall not have the same full powers as are possessed by the ordinary members.
This matter has been, very carefully thought out, and if your Lordships will look at subsection (4) of Clause I you will see that the additional members can only advise the Minister upon any matter referred to the Committee under or by virtue of Clause 7 or Clause 10 of the Bill or any matter or question referred to them as specified in Part I of the Second Schedule. If these proposed members were all brought in as ordinary members there would be something to be said for the argument which the noble Earl addressed to your Lordships that they might have too much power on matters which, in my opinion,
814
certainly ought to be settled by the ordinary members of the Advisory Committee.
EARL BUXTON: I am very loath to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I would draw his attention to this. There are certain things in which the additional members are not to be brought in. That we know.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
EARL BUXTON: The matters in respect of which they are to be brought in are stated in Part II of the Second Schedule to be among other things:
"The exercise of any of the powers of the Minister from whatsoever source derived in relation to traffic on streets in the London Traffic Area."
The whole point o' Clause 6 and Clause 7 fits in with the suggestion of a possible monopoly.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is not that they are to bo, but that they may be.
LORD PARMOOR: There is somewhat of a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Earl. It is a rather difficult Bill, and you have to take into consideration the safeguard which is included. If the noble Earl wants any special words inserted in the Bill to make clearer the powers of the additional members I am perfectly prepared to do that; but it is clear and the intention of the Bill is—and the Bill is so drafted—that the additional members shall not have the same powers as the ordinary members but shall only have powers for special purposes. Whether, when we come to the details, those special powers ought to be further curtailed is a different matter altogether, but I suggest to your Lordships that a distinction in a ease of this kind between the ordinary members of the Advisory Committee who shall have full powers and the additional members who have only limited powers for certain purposes, is quite in a proper direction.
When the noble Earl talks about a monopoly, they are only additional members in order not to constitute any element towards a monopoly on the part of what he is pleased to call the "Combine." I may point out to him that as regards the representatives in subsection (3), four of the seven representatives are

815
representatives of a very wide body, as has been pointed out more than once. They are the representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think desirable. I am not sure, but I think there is an Amendment on the Paper to increase the number because four are considered hardly sufficient to cover the interests of the persons named. They cover all the interests for which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, stands. It is one of his own Amendments further on.
All these matters of detail have been thrashed out, but I hardly think that the noble Earl has had time to thrash them out. When we come to the real details of the Bill, as I tried to point out on Second Reading his complaint is a complaint in the wrong direction. It is that at the present time those additional members ought to be ordinary members, and the very distinction which is sound and right—that these particular members should only have limited powers—would be excluded if this Amendment were carried. That seems to me to be a contradiction, if one may say so, of the whole of the argument he addressed to your Lordships. He wants them not to have these wider powers, and yet the first step he takes is to suggest that all members shall be ordinary members, and that proposal excludes the idea of special members with limited powers. That would be the result if his Amendment was carried.
EARL BUXTON: No.
LORD PARMOOR: That is the consequence of it. The noble Earl is complaining of the powers of these additional members. If they were brought in as ordinary members they would have the powers of which he is complaining and which they have not at the moment.
EARL BUXTON: That is a consequential Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I am dealing with the Amendment as it stands at this stage. I beg your Lordships not to alter this carefully balanced constitution. It is
816
open to criticism. There is no constitution which could not be criticised in the terms that the noble Earl has used. One can always say: "Why do you not do this or that?" Here, as I say, is a balanced Committee which has been agreed to by a large number of people and has been thoroughly considered and thrashed out. It was finally adopted in another place by 293 votes to 90, which shows that all Parties were in its favour, because we cannot command 293 votes there. Mr. Harris raided this point in another place and it was dealt with there. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to permit those who are trying to make better arrangements for London traffic to preserve the form for the Advisory Committee which, after careful and detailed inquiry, they consider to be the best. As for this particular Amendment. I say it would have the very contrary effect to what the noble Earl has suggested.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in the amazing special pleading which he used towards the end of his speech, when he suggested that this Amendment was designed to give additional powers to the additional members. That, it is obvious, is not the effect of the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I must ask the noble Earl not to misrepresent me. I said "not to diminish the powers."
EARL RUSSELL: I understood the noble Lord to say that the effect of turning them all into ordinary members would be to give these men powers to deal with everything. That is what I understood, and that, I am pointing out, is special pleading, because that is neither the effect nor the intention of the series of Amendments which has been put down. The object at which we are aiming is a simple one. It is to remove the seven additional members altogether from the Committee. The noble Earl tells your Lordships that the Government cannot accept that. I sincerely hope that this House will impose that upon the Government, whether they will accept it or not. He also tells your Lordships that this is a very carefully balanced and very carefully thought out thing, and that it is the result of a discussion and a scheme. And so it is, and it, is precisely the murky origin of this scheme in the confusion and welter of a

817
strike that makes one rather suspect it. It is not a matter upon which it is in the least necessary to split hairs. The noble Lord also pointed out that these additional members do not take part in all the deliberations. I will ask your Lordships to look at the Second Schedule. In that Schedule certain matters are set out under letters from (a) to (j), and the only one of those matters in which any additional members cannot form part is under the last one (j). In regard to the whole of the first six matters they are to form part of the Committee; in regard to the next three they, or some of them, may form part. In regard to only one are they not to form part, so that it is not enough to tell your Lordships that they are debarred by this Schedule from taking part.
The issue is a much more simple one than that. The issue is whether we are going to start a precedent—a precedent which I confess I am astonished to find a Labour Government starting—of setting up a Committee which professes to be a Committee representing the public and representing municipal interests, and to man that Committee as to something like one half its personnel with people who have a direct financial interest in its decisions. Both labour and the "Combine" have a direct financial interest in the decisions to which this Committee comes, as to how traffic shall be conducted, by what means it shall be conducted, and along what streets it shall be conducted. I submit to your Lordships that that is a very undesirable precedent. I hope this House will show the courage which it generally shows in these matters, and will insist that this precedent shall not here be made.
The noble Lord says: "Give us the Advisory Committee we ask for and that we think will work." Who does he think is going to complain because these financially interested persons are not on the Committee? Are the other councils going to complain? Is the London County Council to complain because the financially interested persons are not to be on the Committee? The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, spoke about experts. This is not a Committee of experts. If it were a Committee of experts it is obvious that you would appoint and pay your experts, and you would not have people financially interested in the matters upon which they give their advice. It is primarily a
818
municipal Committee. The proper place for experts is in the witness chair, from which they could tell the Committee their expert opinion, and give their expert advice about things which the Committee wished to know. I can only say that if the noble Lord was sitting, as he used to sit, on the Bench opposite, and if this proposal had been brought in by a Liberal Government, he would, I am convinced, have been one of the first to take the same line that I am taking to-day, and to say that we ought not to start this precedent.
I hope the House will keep him to what I think would be his better mind, and that we shall not allow this Committee to be imposed upon us. Nothing can be gained by it, except a continual block, for all these people must act together now and again to get things done which are not in the public interest but are in the private financial interest of these parties. That cannot help the deliberations of the Committee. But for this bargain of which we have heard, and as to which I do not know who were the parties or what were the objects, we should never have heard of this proposal. I hope your Lordships will make a short end of it.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I cannot help thinking that we should make a great mistake if we made any alteration in the Committee as proposed. The object of the Committee is to get together those who are best qualified to deal with this very difficult subject. You bring into the Committee representatives of the police because they control the traffic, you bring in the representatives of the different-municipalities and county councils because they are the local authorities in whose hands these matters rest, and you surely cannot leave out the representatives of those who own the omnibuses and the other vehicles which ply about the streets. You have to get them to work with you. If you are going to have the best results from this Committee you must get ail parties together who are concerned in this gigantic business.
Surely you are not going, at this time of day, to leave out the representatives of labour? The thing is unthinkable when you have this mass of labour employed in various capacities in connection with the traffic of London. You at once arouse a grievance in their minds, or you are likely to arouse a grievance, if you are going to leave them out. I cannot help thinking

819
that this is really a very fairly balanced Committee, and one which has been selected for the purpose of arriving at the best possible result. Incidentally, I may say, although I am afraid your Lordships may be getting bored with the Report which I have on previous occasions quoted to you, that the Commission on London Government specially recommended that "there should be representatives on this Committee of the users of horse and mechanical road traffic within the area, and of all labour organisations operating within the area.''
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not know if it would be for the convenience of the House that I should on this Amendment discuss other Amendments that I have on the Paper which deal with the same subject. I would rather postpone anything that I have to say until this question is decided. I should like to explain, however, that I share the opinion of the last speaker entirely. You cannot in these days deny that labour has a right to be represented on an Advisory Committee of this kind. On the other hand, I take the view that you should make this Committee really representative instead of being partly so, and that you should add to it certain members. I have an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. If you are to make this Committee respected and really useful you must not leave people outside with a sense of grievance, and when the time comes I shall ask the House to agree to an Amendment which will enlarge the constitution of this Committee.
I hope the Lord President will not lay it down as a law of the Medes and Persians that this Advisory Committee must be limited in its constitution, because I think everything is capable of improvement. If I demonstrate that this Committee is not really representative, I hope the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, will see his way to give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment which I shall move later. I shall reserve my further remarks until then.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess that the debate which has taken place upon this Amendment has made a considerable impression on my mind. I think there is a great deal to be said for the contention of the noble Earl opposite,
820
Lord Russell, that the interested parties ought not to be represented on this authority, but, on the other hand, it is important to consider the position of labour. I think it would be a very serious step to take if your Lordships resolved to exclude from the Advisory Committee the representatives of labour. I am afraid that would be misinterpreted outside and the effect would be rather disastrous. I need not assure you that I do not suspect your Lordships of any sinister purpose. I do not suspect the noble Earl opposite, who might have been expected to speak more for labour than for anything else in this House, but I do think very strong arguments indeed are required for your Lordships to strike out the representation of labour from the Advisory Committee. I should be sorry to do it.
The powers left in the hands of the additional members, as the Bill is drawn, are very extensive, so far as any advisory body has any powers, which is always a doubtful matter. I observe, in reading the clause with perhaps greater care than I have done before, that the provisions in Clause 7 with regard to the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district are included amongst those things of which the additional members on the Advisory Committee are to have cognisance. Clause 7 is the most important in the Bill. It is the clause under which a monopoly can be granted to a particular combination, and I should like to reserve my opinion as to whether interested parties ought to have a vote, in so far as the Advisory Committee is authoritative, on a question as to whether there should be a monopoly or not. That appears to me to be a matter of considerable importance. My conclusion is that I am not prepared to vote for this Amendment; I am not prepared to vote against labour having representation on the Advisory Committee. I should like to reserve my judgment to a later stage on the question as to whether it would be right to reconsider the powers granted to the additional members.
EARL BUXTON: There is one point on which I should like further information from the Lord President of the Council. He said that the additional members had practically no control over matters in

821
which they are personally interested, and he specifically referred to Clauses 6 and 7, which relate to the power to attach conditions to a grant of omnibus licences in the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district and the power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district, under which the question of a monopoly may arise. I understood him to say that if it was not clear that these two clauses were withdrawn from the purview of the additional members he was prepared to reconsider lie matter.
LORD PARMOOR: I said I would do so if there was any doubt with regard to Clause 6. I said nothing about Clause 7.
EARL BUXTON: Perhaps he will consider Clause 7.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. I will do so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not sure whether there is a cross division or not—whether, for instance, matters included under Parts I, II and III, of the Second Schedule are really exclusive of those under this particular clause, and whether, if these particular people are excluded from dealing under subsection (4) of this clause with matters under Clause 6, they come in again under any of the other clauses.
LORD PARMOOR: In my opinion it is certainly exclusive. They do not come in under any clause of the Bill; they have only these powers.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: In view of the statements made by the noble Marquees and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the fact that the noble Lord has another Amendment later on which will probably meet my point, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved in subsection (1) to leave out "ordinary and additional." The noble Lord said: Perhaps the House has no idea how the representation given to this Advisory Committee will work. I have worked out exactly how it will be constituted. The Advisory Committee will consist of nineteen members. Local
822
authorities will be represented by eight, labour by three, transport owners and users by four, the Home Office and Police-by three, and the Ministry of Transport by one. As the Bill stands there is only one subject, and that is mentioned in the Second Schedule, on which the additional members cannot take any part. If you are to have an Advisory Committee of this sort you had better, I think, trust all the members, those who are interested as well, and make it one Committee. I propose to balance the Committee by adding certain extra members representing local authorities and county councils, and certain other representatives of transport, who in my view have a larger claim to representation than some of those mentioned in the Bill.
The distinction Between additional and ordinary members is a distinction without a difference. For instance, the four transport representatives proposed in the Bill are insufficient, for the adequate representation of the, traffic which moves along our streets. Think how that will work. Lord Ashfield and his men might rightly claim one representative, the independent omnibus people might claim one, and there would be only two members left to represent all the other interests—taxicabs, which number 8,000 as against 4,000 omnibuses, private motors which number 150,000 as against 4,000, motor lorries which are not represented at all, including the railway companies who have a very large number of lorries operating from their depots, cyclists, who are by far the biggest portion numerically of the traffic in the area, horse vehicles, tramway authorities and the travelling public. You cannot possibly represent all these important, interests by giving them two members, and I suggest that the Lord President should think very carefully as to whether he ought not to enlarge this representation and double it by giving eight representatives instead of four. Whatever the labour representatives might do, whatever Lord Ashfield and his friends might do, you would then have a sufficient majority on the Advisory Committee to prevent anything in the nature of a monopoly being granted.
That is the right way to tackle this problem. It would increase the members of this Committee from 19 to 25 or 26, but nobody pretends that a Committee of 19 can really do the work they are asked to

823
do, and there is really not much difference between a Committee of 19 and one of 25 or 26 members. The work will be done by sub-committees. I suggest that this is the best way of meeting this admitted difficulty of putting on this Committee people who have direct financial interest in its decisions. I hope that this suggestion will commend itself to the House as the best way out of the difficulty. The words "ordinary" and "additional" are quite uncommon, and are not met with in other measures of this kind. My suggestion does away with the fear that a certain number of representatives might unduly influence the decision of this body, and, as has been shown already by Lord Russell and confirmed by Lord Salisbury, they really would be voting on matters with which their pockets are concerned, and that, I think, is a wrong thing to allow.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("ordinary and additional").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord has really dealt with two matters which, I think, are somewhat inconsistent. I thought it was practically decided, when the last Amendment was withdrawn, that we should have a distinction between ordinary and additional members. The question of the increase of the additional members will have to be argued when the time comes, and I say nothing about it now. But I think it has been already agreed that the additional members should be included only for certain purposes. I hope that your Lordships will not go against that principle. The question will arise when we come to the question of the number of additional members, though I do not give any kind of undertaking to meet the ideas of the noble Lord upon that point. It does not really arise now, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I will not trouble the House to go to a Division, because I think it is much more important that we should have the increase in the additional members referred to in a subsequent Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HEMPHILL LORD HEMPHILL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Two" ["Two shall
824
be appointed by the London County Council"] and to insert "Four." The noble Lord said: The reason of this Amendment to increase the representation of the London County Council from two members to four members is pretty obvious. The London County Council controls the most important and the most valuable part of the area. In the County of London there is a population of 4,500,000, and a rateable value of £50,000,000. It is decidedly the most important part of the area, and it seems only fair that it should have greater representation. For my part, I think that the proper way to represent all these outside interests that have been mentioned by Lord Montagu, and also the additional members, is through a directly elected body like the County Council. If you want interests represented, a body like the London County Council, or any other county council, represents all the interests in their area.
There does not always seem to me to be a very friendly atmosphere in this House towards the London County Council, though, after all, the majority on the London County Council has for a very long time been of the same political opinion as the majority of your Lordships. The same is true of the majority of the other county councils in England, which remain of a Conservative tendency. Consequently, I think your Lordships should be inclined to have a sympathetic feeling towards county councils, and to support municipal authority. It is very necessary that municipal authority should be supported, because it is important to have these bodies efficient and highly thought of in order to secure good members for them. There are so many Amendments on the Paper that I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer on this point. I only hope that you may give this Amendment your favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("Two") and insert ("Four").—(Lord Hemphill.)
LORD THOMSON: If the representation of the London County Council is increased from two to four, there will undoubtedly be a demand from other local authorities for a corresponding increase, and the number of people on

825
this Advisory Committee will be unduly swollen. There is this other point, that the inhabitants of London have more representation than is shown by the two members of the London County Council. There are three other members, one appointed by the Corporation of the City of London and two nominated by the Minister upon the selection of the Borough Councils. This surely should be sufficient for the representation of the people of London in regard to traffic. The Government are strongly opposed, for the reasons which I have given, to the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. He knows, I am sure, that as a member of the London County Council for many years I should have every sympathy with an Amendment for giving more representation to that body. One reason why I oppose it is that I understand that the London County Council itself is satisfied with the representation which it has, and I do not know why the noble Lord wishes to press upon it more representation than I desires. It is obvious that, if you increase the number of members of the London County Council along with the other representation which it has, it will be quite impossible to refuse representations from other bodies, and the size of this Advisory Committee will become absolutely unmanageable. As a friend of the London County Council, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD HEMPHILL: In view of that which the noble Viscount has said, I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I still think that it is very desirable that the representation of local authorities on the Advisory Committee should be strengthened.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), in the paragraph beginning "Two shall be appointed by the Minister," to leave out "Minister" and insert "councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs." The noble Lord said: This proposal is to allow Metropolitan Boroughs, or councils of other boroughs, according to a subsequent Amendment of the same character, to choose their own representatives,
826
instead of the Minister selecting from their nominees the man whom he chooses. I am sure that the Minister will before long find himself in considerable trouble. If he selects men, say, from one particular Metropolitan Council over and over again, or if he selects people in a particular district, he will be accused of favouritism. If he chooses people of one political colour he will again be accused of favouritism. Surely these groups of Boroughs should be trusted to select their own representatives. It may be said that machinery does not exist within the Bill, but if machinery needs to be set up it could be done by a Joint Committee. If a group of authorities failed to appoint the appropriate number of members, then, in the terms of an Amendment which I shall move later, the Minister could choose a man from among the nominees selected.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("councils of the Metropolitan Borough").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think I can answer this point very shortly. The noble Lord says that this would mean a change in the framework of the Bill, and that there is no provision for it at the present time, but it goes a little beyond that. You have a number of nominees selected by the councils of the administrative comities. Each council can put forward the nominee whom it desires. There are a largo number of these councils—I am not sure of the exact number.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Twenty-nine.
LORD PARMOOR: There are twenty-nine councils, and surely it is the fairest way that each should put forward its nominee, and then the Minister should select two. I thought that the only way in which it ought to be done is the way in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that the Government take this view, because I think the Amendment is a good one. It may be that it requires to be supplemented by some machinery, and I think I could suggest, if necessary, that which would be requisite. Do let us, in the interest of the Government themselves, and in the interest of the Bill, got out of the public mind the idea that this is going to be a hole-and-corner affair,

827
in which the Minister is all powerful and appoints the members of the Advisory Committee. I have not very great confidence in this Advisory Committee, but do give it the best chance and let the public really believe that they have got an independent body of men who will speak their minds to the Minister. If the Minister has the right to select whom he likes people will say: "Of course, it is a packed affair." Therefore, I suggest to the Government that as far as possible they should agree to any of these Amendments which take the power out of the hands of the Minister and leave it to the constituent bodies to appoint the Advisory Committee.
If the noble and learned Lord asks how it can be done, I would reply that I have been in communication with a very important municipal body and with its clerk, in whom I have great confidence, and I have seen words drafted by the latter which will make the matter perfectly simple. The method is that the constituent bodies should appoint a Joint Committee of their number and that Joint Committee should have the right of appointment. If it be necessary to bring up words to provide machinery of that kind, I will engage, to do it on the Report stage, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I would like to say to the noble Marquess that if we were to see a suggestion as to how this proposal could be carried out we would willingly consider it on the Report stage, but I do not take the view that he does with regard to the ease with which these matters can be carried out. I have had some experience of these matters and in my experience these Joint Committees have not been satisfactory. I do not, however, want to go into that now, and if the noble Marquess will make some suggestion before Report, I will undertake to consider it.
LORD ASKWITH: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to dictate to my noble friend, but I should have been inclined to pass his Amendment, and then bring the matter up on Report.
LORD PARMOOR: May I point out that the Amendment has been withdrawn, and I think most rightly, by the noble Lord.
LORD ASKWITH: I thought the noble Marquess was advising that it should be withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If there is one dissentient voice the withdrawal is not permitted. I do not know if I should take the noble Marquess as having dissented?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: You said the Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: But that was before the noble Marquess had indicated dissent. There was apparently some misunderstanding.
LORD PARMOOR: I have stated my view, but if this Amendment is carried I give no undertaking that here, or in another place, it will be maintained. I made a Very fair offer, I thought—namely, that if an Amendment were put down on the Report stage showing how this proposal could be carried out it would have every consideration. I think that is a much more likely way in which to come to an arrangement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to be polemical with my noble friend, or with anybody else, but I think that if we put the Amendment in the Bill now he will see the words which I shall propose and if the House finds those words are not workable then, on the Report stage, we shall have to reconsider the Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("by the Minister").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the paragraphs relating to representatives selected by the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule other than the administrative county of London,

829
and to insert: "Five shall be appointed by the Councils of the Administrative Counties of Middlesex, Hertford, Essex, Kent, and Surrey, each Council appointing one member." The noble Lord said: The five great Counties mentioned in my Amendment deserve every consideration because they are very much affected by London traffic, and it seems to me that they are not sufficiently represented. As the Bill stands, one representative would be selected from nominees from the counties on the north side of the Thames, and one from nominees from the counties on the south side. I think this would put the Minister in a very difficult position. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is not very much in favour of this proposal, but I am quite prepared to press it if I set support.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 6 to 16 and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: This proposal really means four additional members of the Committee. I think it is very unwise to increase the Committee in that way. It is quite large enough.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We shall get into great difficulties if we begin to tear this Committee to pieces, and to have a totally different set of members. I do not share with the Lord President the view that everything that has been done in the House of Commons is necessarily right, but I do think that when matters have been settled in consultation with the various local authorities (which I imagine has been the case) and have all been submitted to them, it is rather a pity to upset the balance that has been come to.
EARL BUXTON: A little while ago a noble Lord proposed to increase the representation of the London County Council from two to four and I thought that reasonable, but once you start doing that you disturb the whole foundation of the Committee. Clearly if you are going to have five representatives of the county councils outside London you ought to have six representatives of London.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH: I have a number of consequential Amendments on the Paper.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("By the Minister")
Page 2,line 10, after ("Thames") insert ("by those councils")
Page 2,line 11 leave out ("by the Minister")
Page 2,line 16, after ("Thames") insert ("by those councils")
Page 2,line 17, leave out ("by the Minister")
Page 2,line 20, after ("area") insert ("by those councils").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "but only if, and shall hold office only so long as, the Chairman is not an official of the Ministry of Transport." The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the Amendment which the House accepted that the Chairman was to be selected by the Committee, and not by the Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("Minister") to the end of line 29.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "If any group of authorities fail to appoint the appropriate number of members of the Advisory Committee the appointment of a member representing such group shall be made by the Minister from amongst the nominees selected by that group of authorities." The noble Lord said: Amendments which have been previously moved are complete without mine, and as my noble friend suggested a form of words to meet the difficulty, it would be better for me not to move this Amendment now, but to bring up a more considered Amendment on the Report stage.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, perhaps this Amendment might stand over for consideration.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit the second paragraph of subsection (3), and to insert
"The following shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the undermentioned interests on the nomination of the

831
bodies representative of those interests respectively—
"Two to represent omnibus proprietor":
"One to represent tramway proprietors:
"One to represent cab proprietors:
"One to represent the owners of commercial goods vehicles:
"Two to represent the owners of private motor cars:
"One to represent railway companies:
"One to represent the owners of horse-drawn vehicles:
"One to represent cyclists:
"One to represent motor car manufacturers and traders:
"One to represent undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets."
The noble Lord said: In the "Report of the Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, there are set out certain interests which should be represented, and it is suggested that they should not exceed twenty in number. The Committee as it stands numbers nineteen. The Report suggests that there should be representation of all the interests affected by the traffic on the roads. At present there are four members to be appointed by the Minister, though I would rather have it by the constituent representative bodies. It is impossible within those limits to get sufficient representation for these large interests. For instance, I suggest that it would be fair that the omnibus proprietors should be represented by two members—one to represent my noble friend Lord Ashfield's companies and the other to represent what are called the "pirate" omnibuses. It is obvious that if we include at a later stage the tramways, they should have representation Then there are 8,000 taxi-cabs, and I think they certainly ought to have representation.
The heading "commercial goods vehicles" embraces all those belonging to the railway companies and all the private lorries which move on the roads, and that is a very big and increasing interest. As regards private motor cars, they are the largest section of the traffic of London to-day. They number well over 150,000 vehicles, and at present they are not represented at all. The next interests on my list are the railway companies, the horse-drawn vehicles and the cyclists. With regard to motor manufacturers
832
and traders, if the Government would concede something of this point the representation could be arranged with those previously mentioned. The last in the list are the undertakers with statutory powers to break up streets. My noble friend, Lord Gainford, asked me to say that as the interests of the Water Board are very much affected by this Bill they should have representation.
I agree that the Government cannot concede all the new representatives that I wish to have appointed, but I think they might increase the representation of the street-using public by another four, making eight in all. That would enable us to have represented the majority of the interests affected, and it would tend to make the Bill work more smoothly. You must remember that unless you carry with you the good will of the chief users of the streets you will have constant criticism and constant opposition in Parliament. You ought, at any rate, to give the impression to the chief people affected that they are being treated fairly. I suggest that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill cannot give me all the representatives that I desire he should undertake to give this matter serious consideration on the Report Stage and let us have four more representatives who will represent practically all the interests that I have mentioned. This is a very important point and I hope that your Lordships' House will agree to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: All the different interests which would be represented under the noble Lord's Amendment are all capable of being represented under the Bill as it stands, because subsection (3) of Clause I provides that four shall be representatives of the interests of persons providing mean" of transport and users of mechanically-propelled and horse-drawn vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister, and so on. Therefore, all these omnibus proprietors, tramway proprietors, cab proprietors owners of commercial vehicles and private motor cars, railway companies, and so on, are capable of being given full representation. They all

833
come within the general terms. I am afraid that I cannot give any hope that, putting on one side general terms, we should specify in any way and probably leave out some very important interest which ought to be represented. I think the words are wide enough as they stand. The noble Lord considers that four are too few and that the number ought to he increased. It is almost impossible to increase the representation of one body without having to go back and reconstitute the whole Committee. He proposes that there shall be twelve instead of four.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Eight; I ask for four additional.
LORD PARMOOR: Whether it is twelve as they stand on the Paper or even eight, we could not assent to increase this representation. We should have to meet again the objection of the noble Lord who argued that these bodies were given too much representation. He wanted none at all. I think we must say that this balanced representation must remain as it is.
EARL BUXTON: Many of your Lordships would not agree with this proposal of my noble friend Lord Mantagu because we have objected already to the number of the original members—namely, seven as against eight representing the municipalities. If there are to be twelve to eight the numbers will be overwhelming. I am surprised at what fell from the Lord President in regard to the representation. My noble friend Lord Montagu specifically stated (and I agree with him) that eight different sections ought to be represented by additional members, if we are going to have the additional members as well. My noble friend the Lord President says that the clause is so drawn that the four mentioned in subsection (3) of Clause I will represent the twelve. These twelve have different interests, and I do not see bow you are going to manage that four shall represent those twelve different interests. It is one of the real difficulties of this Bill that the number of representatives is so small that it is almost impossible for the representatives to be really representative. When the Ministry of Transport comes to work them out I think it will be found that the four cannot possibly give adequate representation. At the same time, I must confess
834
that I do not want the number to be increased.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: Whether yon are going to control omnibuses, cabs or motor cars, I cannot see why there should be any necessity for all these representatives on the Committee. I presume that the unfortunate Minister is to have this great crowd of representatives on his Advisory Committee, all giving different advice—one with a horse and cart which must go along the. Strand, another with a bicycle which must go along the Strand, and so on. Why should there be all these representatives? You have to control the traffic of London as a whole and not piecemeal, as one would imagine from the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, which seeks to bring in every conceivable representative one can think of. If you wish to help the Minister who is to be in charge of this Department and of the traffic of London, you must reduce the size of the Committee to the smallest possible limits. If you do not, the Minister will be interfered with and stopped at every conceivable point and will not be able to carry out what he deems to be the; right policy at any moment because he, will be hampered by representations of all sorts and kinds. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to call the attention of your Lordships to the words of the subsection we are now discussing, which state that these four are to be representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of vehicles. This seems to me the only chance for the straphanger to be represented, and I should be glad to know whether there is any idea in the mind of the Ministry of Transport as to how many of these four places are to be given to real members of the public as against representatives of transport interests. I do not know whether there is to be one. I need hardly say I am unable, objecting as I do altogether to these people being on the Committee, to support the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Montagu. I would point out that although he has considered a good many interests there is one which seems never to have occurred to him and which he has left out—that is, the pedestrian.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am willing to withdraw this Amendment, but I should like the noble and learned Lord to understand that I want to bring up words on Report with the object of increasing the number of representatives who can be appointed to represent these interests. That is probably the better way of doing it. These interests are represented, and I only want to widen the representation in order to give larger interests a chance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My noble friend, Lord Gainford, has asked me to move his Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (3): "One shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the electricity supply companies within the London Traffic Area on the nomination of the companies concerned." Ho represents an electricity supply company and is of opinion that such bodies should be represented on the Committee After what has been said by the noble and learned Lord I think, on Lord Gainford's behalf, I should state that the Amendment is not now moved.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not moved.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (5), after "firm" where that word first occurs, to insert "or holds any beneficial interest in a company or firm." The noble Lord said: My object in placing this Amendment on the Paper was to emphasise my opinion, which is shared by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that members of these Committees should not vote on matters which affect their own pockets. They should be excluded, as far as possible, from petitions which affect them beneficially or affect their financial interest. I want rather to extend the words in the Bill because people may hold beneficial interests in the firm which may not be partnerships, and so on. If the recasting Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is brought forward, my Amendment will fall because such members would not then be called upon to decide matters in which they were beneficially or financially interested. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is going to move an Amendment later on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will consider it.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If the noble Marquess does not put it down I think I should like to put it down oh Report stage. On this occasion I will not press it. I only want to state now that I think it is inadvisable that people having a financial interest should vote on this matter.
LORD PARMOOR: I believe it is universally the case in regard to local authorities that directors are not allowed to take part in matters in which they are interested, but the ordinary shareholder is allowed to do so. He is in a different position altogether.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (6) to substitute "thirty-first" for "first." The noble Lord said: The Bill gives the date of the termination of the appointment of members of the Committee as December 1, 1925. It seems to me that it would be better that the date should be December 31, making it the end of the year. I suggest that the end of the year is the proper time.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("first") and insert ("thirty-first").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: This date has beer, fixed after careful consideration One of the reasons for fixing the first was that it was the earliest convenient date following the municipal elections. Another reason is that the Act terminates on December 1, 1927. Therefore, it is convenient that the date should coincide with, the term of the appointment of this Advisory Committee. It is not a very vital point, but it is one that has been fully considered, and I suggest that it would be rather inconvenient to alter it now.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Lord has said I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (6), to substitute "one year" for "three years." The

837
noble Lord said: I think it would be advisable to have these persons nominated for one year and not for three years. There may be very strong public feeling in regard to some things that the Advisory Committee may do, and if we want to get real representation I submit that the period of three years is a wrong one.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: The proposal made by the noble Lord would involve annual appointments. The Ministry of Transport advises that just as the members were becoming useful they would disappear from the scene. I do not know that I need say anything further, but there are other arguments.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I can quite see the point made by the noble Lord, but my contention is that if you are to make the Advisory Committee representative, and to ensure that it shall really be in touch with public opinion they should be elected every year and not every three years. I do not, however, press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (10), to leave out "subject to the approval of the Minister.'' The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment. Pursuing the policy which the House has already endorsed of making this Advisory Committee a real body with a certain amount of power, I think that it would be only right and proper to give them the power of making their own rules and of regulating their own procedure. As the matter stands it savours somewhat of dictation, in that they are only to make rules subject to the approval of the Minister. If it is to be an important and representative body surely it will be quite capable of making its own regulations and rules. The House has already eliminated the Minister in several respects, and I think it should do so in this one, and permit the Advisory Committee to make their own rules.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("subject to the approval of the Minister").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am told, and it is certainly my experience, that these rules are always made subject to approval by the Minister. In this case it would be the Minister of Transport. I do not think it is the least likely that there will be any difficulty. I think the Committee would be only too glad to have the assistance and approval of the Minister in making rules of procedure. This is quite a common thing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The matter is not of great importance, but on the whole I should be inclined to advise the Government to accept the Amendment. There is no reason why the Advisory Committee should not make their own rules. The policy of your Lordships' House, as displayed this afternoon, has been to give as much autonomy as possible to the Advisory Committee, and it would be thoroughly in harmony with the decisions of your Lordships' House if this Amendment were accepted.
LORD PARMOOR: I would certainly prefer that it should be left as it is. It is not a very important point, but I think it is for the benefit of the Committee itself. When you have a Committee of this kind you must have some administrative body to refer to in order to have rules drawn up and approved. I am told this is always done. I do not wish, however, to keep up the controversy about it, as it is a small point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Duties of Advisory Committee.
2. It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to report to and advise the Minister upon such matters and questions as may be referred to them under this Act, or as the Minister may from time to time refer to them in connection with any of the matters mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON moved, after "It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to ", to insert "consider and report to the Minister on any matters within the scope of the provisions of this Act, and to." The noble Earl said: This is rather an important point. I think the House generally appreciates that it is the desire of your Lordships to strengthen the

839
powers of the Advisory Committee, to give them greater powers of initiating matters in which they are interested, and to diminish the power which the Bill gives the Minister over them. I have put down this Amendment in order to enable the member" of the Committee not merely to consider and report on matters referred to them, but themselves to initiate any matters that they themselves desire should be considered. This would give them the opportunity of considering and reporting to the Minister on any matters coming within the scope of the Bill. I think this is not an unreasonable proposal.
The general opinion of the House seems to be that the Minister has too great powers over the Advisory Committee, and that as it is the Advisory Committee which represents the municipalities, it should have greater powers of control and initiative. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment. I would point out to your Lordships that this Amendment, or one similar to it, was voted upon in Grand Committee, and the vote was even—fourteen to fourteen, the Chairman giving his casting vote against. If the Lord President of the Council can see his way to accept the Amendment, it will give considerable satisfaction to all who desire the Bill to be a success.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, after the first ("to") insert ("consider and report to the Minister on any matters within the scope of the provisions of this Act, and to").—(Earl Buxton.)
LORD THOMSON: This Amendment is intended to give the Committee a power of initiation and, therefore, it introduces a change of principle. The Bill is based on the principle that this is an Advisory Committee to advise the Minister, who is responsible, and not to initiate. In fact, the Minister has to consult the Committee before exercising any of his powers under the Bill except his power to hear appeals under Clause 6. The Government are opposed to this Amendment for the reason that the Committee will have enough to do as it is, and if any member of the Committee, or any group of members, can go round and discover and initiate fresh work, they will not get through their work.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have listened to the speech of the Secretary of
840
State for Air with attention, but I think he has confused the meaning of the words "advisory" and "initiate." It is true that the Committee is only advisory, but it does not follow that the Committee may not initiate advice. I think the noble Lord will see that there is a logical lacuna in his argument. I should have thought it was wise to allow the Committee to give advice if they thought fit. It seems a reasonable thing to do. After all, the question is whether your Advisory Committee is going to be a real thing or not, and the Government, who mean to make their Bill a success, will be wise to show that they intend this Committee to be a real Committee and give them this power of initiation, which is only a very natural thing to do. It is a method by which the Government will be able to reassure the general public.
LORD PARMOOR: I am always most anxious to accept the advice of the noble Marquess. He always means it kindly, and I think we can accept this Amendment on his recommendation.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power of Advisory Committee to hold inquiries.
3.—(1) In any case where the Advisory Committee think it desirable or expedient so to do, the Committee may, before advising and reporting to the Minister on any matter referred to them in pursuance of this Act, appoint one or more of their number to hold, or may if they think it advisable, themselves hold such public inquiry into the matter as they may think fit, and when one or more members of the Advisory Committee are appointed to hold the inquiry they shall make a report thereon to the Committee.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "one or more," where that phrase first occurs, and insert "not less than three." The noble Lord said: This is rather an important, though small, point. The clause says that the Committee may appoint one or more of their number to hold an inquiry. It will therefore be in their power to appoint one person or even two. I suggest that the words "not less than three" would be more satisfactory, because an important inquiry should be held by at least three members of the Advisory Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("one or more") and insert ("not less than three").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: Some of these so-called inquiries will be very small matters and it is valuable that the Committee should have the power to hold them with one person. You do not want to burden the Committee with work that is unnecessary. I have no doubt that in any important inquiry there will be at least three members. It is a matter of convenience and utilising the power of the Committee.
EARL RUSSELL: I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. There are really very small matters on which they may want to send one member of the Committee to come back and tell them what the position is.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAUL1EU: I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Closing of streets for works.
4.—(1) With a view that the times for the execution of works of road maintenance and improvement by various road authorities within the London Traffic Area may be so arranged as to mitigate as far as possible the congestion of traffic duo to the closing of streets for the purposes of the execution of such works, it shall be the duty of every road authority within that area to submit to the Minister, on or before such half-yearly dates in each year as the Minister may fix, a statement in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may require of all work" of road maintenance and improvement proposed to be commenced and carried out by the authority during the periods of six months commencing at the expiration of such interval, not being less than two months, after the said half-yearly dates as the Minister may fix, being works of such a nature as will involve the closing to vehicular traffic of any part of any street to which this section applies either absolutely or to the extent of one-third or more of the width of the carriageway.
(3) With a view to securing that, so far as possible, all works involving the breaking up of streets by any undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets (including any Government Department) shall be carried out at the same time as or in connection with works of road maintenance and improvements, the Minister shall send to all such undertakers copies
842
of the proposals of the road authorities when received by him under this section so far as they relate to streets to which the powers of the undertakers extend and shall consider any representations made to him by such undertakers; and where works ot road maintenance and improvement involving the closing of a street to such extent as aforesaid have be3n executed in accordance with any such scheme, it shall not be lawful for any such undertakers within twelve months of completion of those works to break up the street or part of the street so closed unless they prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that there were reasonable grounds for their failure or omission to execute whilst the street or part thereof was closed the works for the execution of which they require to break up the street, and that it is essential that the works should be executed or commenced within the said twelve months.
LORD PARMOOR: My Amendment is simply drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out ("and carried out") and insert ("or continued").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
"Provided that the breaking up of the streets, the execution of the last-mentioned works, and the repair of the streets rendered necessary thereby shall, except by leave of the Minister previously obtained, be carried out at night by commencing the same alter the hour of eight in the evening and completing the same by the hour of eight in the morning, and if not then completed, by carrying on the same continuously by day and night."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment really explains itself. We have all suffered the inconvenience when, in the middle of the morning, men appear in our public streets to put the gas or water supply right, or do something with some services under the street. They work all day, but about five o'clock in the afternoon disappear. Ai; night they do no repairs. I suggest that this obstruction to the traffic on our streets should not be carried out in bits, as it is at present, and just within the ordinary working hours. When the tramways or railways repair their permanent ways they do so with the least inconvenience to traffic—that is, at night time—and with the utmost expedition. I asked a friend of mine to tell mo exactly what had been done in regard to taking up the streets in London, and he has made a census of the number

843
of times which the road between Piccadilly and Hammersmith has been up. There have never been less than eleven breaks in that particular line, and the average time taken has been about eight days. At one time there were sixteen breaks in the road between Hammersmith and Piccadilly, and in every one of these cases work was stopped by five o'clock in the afternoon. This is, of course, a route which carries the whole of the great traffic to the West of England, and yet no effort is made after five o'clock in the afternoon to carry on the work. Common sense would dictate that these repairs should be carried out continuously, and, if possible, by night. That is when Lord Ashfield's concern and the tramways carry out their repairs, and the same policy should operate in the case of the roads. This is an important Amendment, and I hope I shall find some support.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: This Amendment has the appearance of penalising the undertakers—namely, that as a condition precedent to be allowed to execute works they should satisfy the Minister that they deserve no penalty. The actual work by undertakers on the streets, within twelve months of previous repairs, is dealt with in another clause of the Bill, and the Minister is advised that, however desirable it may be that work should be completed as quickly as possible, there are strong objections to passing legislation which will require men to work at night. That is the reason for the opposition to this Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: I always think we deal too leniently with these statutory undertakings. On the Second Reading of this Bill I brought before your Lordships' notice the extraordinary leniency shown to them. Where there is a conduit put under the road to take pipes and wires, they can continue to pull up the roads if they like. I think that Parliament has been a great deal too tender with them. There is substance in this Amendment, and merit in it as well, though whether it is a wise thing to introduce what might be called pretty heavy control of statutory undertakings into this Bill by a side wind is another matter. If the noble Lord presses this Amendment to a Division, I
844
should certainly vote for it, because I think, and have thought for a very long time, that these undertakings ought to work at night in busy streets, although people may reasonably be asked to find alternative routes where there is little traffic. If the middle of Whitehall or Piccadilly is broken up and traffic is interfered with for twelve or fifteen hours out of the twenty-four, I certainly think that something should be done to hasten the work. I believe that the undertakers, though no doubt they would complain very loudly, would have no legitimate cause for complaint if they were obliged to work at night. I wish that Parliament would take its courage in both hands and do this, though I do not expect that it will.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say one word in answer to the noble Earl? I think he forgets the very stringent regulations under which undertakers are put under the terms of the Bill as it stands. They can interfere with the streets only at the same time as a, local authority which is carrying out repairs or improvements, unless there is a particular emergency. All the matters to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord have referred are already dealt with in the Bill. The only question is whether, in addition, we should impose an obligation only to work at night. It may be a very difficult matter indeed to oblige workmen in all circumstances to work at night. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: They are not to be obliged to work only at night, but to work day and night, and power is given to the Minister, if he thinks that the work should not be carried out continuously day and night, to order it otherwise. I am sorry to see a difference, I think for the second or third time, between the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, and his supporter. On this particular occasion I agree with the supporter and not with the noble Lord. Why on earth, in these days of unemployment, should not men be given a chance to work at night in order to do away with the congestion of traffic which is caused by the roads being up? We see every day that a million people are unemployed. Why should they not come and work at night? If we are going to do anything to restore the prosperity of this country,

845
we have all got to work, not only at night, but whenever we get the chance, and I shall certainly support my noble friend if he goes to a Division.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I almost dislike cooling down the enthusiasm of my noble friend's eloquence by saying a word upon this subject, but while I agree that in many eases it might be quite useful that work in the streets should be done at night, even though, of course, it would be much more costly, I cannot help thinking that to put a matter of this kind into the Statute, and to lay this as an obligation upon undertakers in addition to the very strict regulations under which they come in different parts of the Bill, would be to do more than ought to be done in an Act of Parliament. I submit that it should be left to arrangement rather than to direct orders in the Statute itself.
LORD SANDHURST: This is a, traffic Bill, and I think perhaps we are a little in danger of forgetting that there are other interests to be considered besides those of the people who use the roads. It may be important to get work done quickly, and it may be necessary to work at night, but a very large number of people have to sleep over the streets, and the noises at night in London are such that it is not always easy to do so. I should therefore deprecate anything which compelled working at night in a manner which is certainly calculated to disturb the citizens of London.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not sure whether I might suggest to my noble friend that there is a little difficulty about this Amendment. It is not that I do not agree with the Amendment. I agree that this work ought, if possible, to be carried out at night, subject to that which the noble Lord who has just sat down has said. I must say that I think the interests of the peaceful inhabitants of London in their warm beds ought to be considered also, but it is a great thing if you can get rid of obstructions at night, and so free the traffic in the daytime. The question is whether we ought to make it an absolute obligation upon the undertakers to work at night. I think there might be a little difficulty in that respect. It would seem to me to be wiser that we should obtain an assurance from the noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Transport Minister, that he would
846
insist to the utmost of his power and so far as his influence extends, that it should be done at night. If the Government would give that assurance, I think it would be a better way of treating the difficulty than to make it an absolute statutory obligation.
I should like to point out to my noble friend a further little difficulty. So far as I understand the matter, this clause applies only to the undertakers, but the local authority is, of course, very often a great sinner in breaking up the roads, and I think my noble friend ought to reconsider his Amendment from that point of view, ever if he desire" to press it. I think it really wants a little more consideration, if my noble friend will allow me to say so. Are we going to say that the local authority is never to break up the road except at night?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then you make a distinction between the local authority and the undertakers, and that is difficult to defend. Altogether, I would rather ask the Government if they would not either now or, if the noble Lord wishes to consider the point, between now and the Report stage assure your Lordships that to the utmost extent of his Tower the Minister of Transport, working under this Bill, will use his authority to get this work done at night. If he will do so, I should prefer that course to inserting a statutory obligation.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to point out to the noble Marquess the difficulty that would arise. It is true that we are dealing here with undertakers and not with road authorities, but in the Bill itself there is a provision that they shall work together, and that the undertakers shall take advantage of the improvements or alterations made by the road authority to carry out any work mat is necessary in connection with their pipes. That is to prevent the road being broken up, first by the local authority and then by various undertakers. The noble Lord will agree that there is no suggestion here that the local authority should work at night, and I do not know exactly what the position would be, since the undertakers are to do their work only whilst the local authority are at work in the same place.
THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose the undertakers would work by night and the local authority by day.
LORD PARMOOR: But you must have them working together, because they are very often breaking up the streets for a common purpose.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I should like to make one small suggestion which I hope the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, will be good enough to consider before we come to the Report stage. My suggestion will be in the direction of giving more power to the Minister. What I would venture to suggest is that this Amendment should be so turned round that, if the Minister to desires and issues orders to that effect, the work should be begun in the evening and carried on throughout the night. This would not be the normal procedure, but power would be given to the Minister to issue orders if he thought desirable in certain cases. With regard to the position of those people who may be disturbed while lying in their beds, I venture to think that most probably the Minister would use his powers rather in main thoroughfares, consisting of shops and business premises, than in residential quarters. Apart from that point, I would venture to make an appeal to His Majesty's Government to consider the suggestion which I have made, and, if they think that there is any usefulness in it, they might perhaps put down an Amendment to that effect on the Report stage.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Before the noble Lord replies, may I point out that I have not overlooked the safeguards in this matter? I have expressly put in the words "except by leave of the Minister previously obtained." Then the clause itself says, in subsection (4):
"Nothing in this section shall prevent any road authority or any such undertakers as aforesaid from carrying out works in any streets in cases of emergency."
That also limits the effect of my Amendment. Then, in subsection (5), it says:
"The streets to which this section applies are such streets or streets of such classes within the London Traffic Area as may be prescribed by an order made by the Minister."
848
That means ho can order the repair to go on continuously night and day in Piccadilly, Oxford-street, St. James's-street and Regent-street, where there is no residential population, but prevent it being done opposite the house of the noble Lord on the Front Bench.
LORD PARMOOR: I cannot give any undertaking except this, that I will consult with the Minister of Transport and his advisers, and if the views expressed here can be carried out, I will try to do it. I could not accept the Amendment in its present form, and I cannot give any other undertaking without first consulting the Ministry.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I am not certain that he has not misapprehended what the clause applies to. Subsection (3) provides that:—
"With a view to securing that, so far as possible, all works involving the breaking up of streets by any undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets (including any Government Department) shall be carried out at the same time as or in connection with works of road maintenance and improvements, the Minister shall send to all such undertakers' copies of the proposals of the road authorities";
and towards the end of the subsection it says that it shall not be lawful for them to break up the street or part of the street so closed unless they prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that there were reasonable grounds for their failure or omission to execute, whilst the street or part thereof was closed, the works for the execution of which they require to break up the street. And this Amendment your Lordships will notice only applies to the execution of the last mentioned works—that is, the works which normally ought to have been done when the street was up. Therefore, it is a bit limited in its scope
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and I will bring up the matter again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I think probably that this will be a convenient time to adjourn, and I suggest that we adjourn proceedings on this Bill until a quarter past nine o'clock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, before your Lordships separate, it is, I think, desirable to say a word about our future course of business. As matters at present stand it is contemplated that we should take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill at 12 o'clock on Friday. At the same time I think your Lordships will be desirous of avoiding a sitting on that day if we can conveniently do so, and a suggestion has been made, and I have had the pleasure of discussing it with the Lord President. On Thursday, at the present moment, there are a number of Bills on the Order Paper at the commencement of the proceedings, none of which, I understand, will take very long. In fact, the whole of them should be dismissed in a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. Then there comes a very important discussion initiated by Viscount Grey of Fallodon, dealing with the question of the League of Nations, which it is very desirable should not be deprived of its priority of place.
In view of the fact that the preliminary-proceedings will be short, the suggestion is that we should meet on Thursday, say, at a quarter past three, get rid of the preliminary business, have the discussion on the League of Nations, and then, a Motion having been put down for leave, take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill after the debate on the League of Nations is over. Such a plan would have this treble advantage. In the first place, if it be accepted, it will save us from a Friday sitting. In the second place, it will enable my noble and learned friend, Viscount Cave, who is anxious to speak on the Second Reading, to be in his place for the purpose on Thursday, whereas on Friday he is presiding over the Privy Council and cannot attend. Thirdly, if we lake and get the Second Reading of the Insurance Bill on Thursday, we shall be in a position to take the Committee stage on Monday,
850
which would be unusual and difficult if we only got the Second Reading on Friday. I therefore make this suggestion to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: I am entirely in agreement with the suggestion, and I think it would be for the convenience of everyone. I should certainly desire to meet the convenience of Lord Cave in every possible manner, and, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, there are other directions in which I think the change would be satisfactory to your Lordships. I entirely assent to the suggestion of the noble Marquess.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 6:
Power to attack conditions to grant of omnibus licences plying in the city of London and the metropolitan police district.
6.—(1) As respects the area consisting of the city of London and the metropolitan police district, any licensing authority may, with the view to securing the public safety and the convenience of traffic, define, by reference to terminal points and to the course to be followed between those points, the routes (hereinafter called "approved routes") within the area of its licensing jurisdiction upon which regular services of omnibuses may be established. Any person who proposes to establish a regular service of omnibuses within the area of the licensing jurisdiction of any such licensing authority upon a route which is not an approved route may apply to the licensing authority to define that route as an approved route, and in the event of the licensing authority refusing so to define such route an appeal shall lie to the Minister, who may, if he thinks fit, define the route, either as originally proposed, or subject to such alterations as he thinks proper, and any route so defined by the Minister shall be deemed to be an approved route.
(2) When licensing an omnibus to ply for hire within the area aforesaid, the licensing authority may, subject to the right of appeal to the Minister given by subsection (3) of section fourteen of the Roads Act, 1920, attach to any such licence all or any of the following conditions, that is to say:—

851

(a) a condition that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon specified approved routes or any specified parts thereof, but such condition shall be imposed only on the ground that the omnibus is by reason of its construction or equipment unsuitable for use on such routes or parts thereof;

(b) a condition that the omnibus shall not, without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of general application, and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions, ply for hire except upon approved routes;

(c) a condition that the omnibus shall not without such consent as aforesaid ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service;

and if any person to whom a licence is granted subject to any such condition fails to comply with the condition, he shall be liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and if a person is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection the licensing authority may, if they think fit, revoke or suspend the licence for the omnibus in respect of which the second or subsequent offence was committed.
(3) Where a licensing authority have defined approved routes, the authority may with a view to attaching such conditions as aforesaid to licences require in writing that all or any licences for omnibuses to ply for hire within the area aforesaid issued by them shall within fourteen days of such requirement be surrendered to them, and may issue in substitution for the licences so surrendered licences expiring on the same date as the licences so surrendered, and attach to any such substituted licences all or any of such conditions as aforesaid, and any licence, so required to be surrendered shall, if not surrendered in accordance with the requirement, cease to have effect at the expiration of the said fourteen days, and if so surrendered shall cease to have effect on the issue of such substituted licence.
(4) A person to whom a licence for an omnibus has been granted subject to the condition that it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining such a regular service as aforesaid shall, within seven days or such other period as the Minister may fix after such condition has been first imposed, deposit with the licensing authority a schedule in such form and identified in such manner as the licensing authority may require, showing—

(a) the approved routes upon which he intends to establish a regular service of omnibuses;

(b) the time at which the service on each route is to commence and end on each day;

(c) the service to be maintained on each such route, distinguishing,
852
if the service to be maintained on different days or at different hours is to vary, the service to he maintained on the several days or at the several hours;

(d) the maximum number of omnibuses to be used to maintain such service on each such route distinguishing, if the service is to vary on different days, the maximum number to be so used on the several days;

(e) the stages into which he intends to divide each route and the fares which he intends to charge in respect of such stages, distinguishing, if the stages and fares are to vary on different days or at different hours, the stages and fares on the several days and at the several hours;

and shall supply to the licensing authority such number of copies of the deposited schedule as the authority may require.
(5) On any such schedule being deposited with the licensing authority in accordance with the foregoing provisions, the same shall come into force, but the licensing authority shall send copies thereof to every person who is providing a regular service of omnibuses upon any route or any substantial portion of any route included in the schedule, and any such person shall have the right within seven days, or such other period as the Minister may fix, of receiving such copy to appeal to the Minister on the ground—

(a) that having regard to the number of omnibuses to be used for maintaining the service on any route, an increase in the service on that route specified in the schedule may reasonably be required either generally or during particular hours; or

(b) that having regard to the service to be maintained on any such route the maximum number of omnibuses to be used in maintaining the service is excessive;

and the Minister on such appeal, after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard, may make such order amending the schedule as he may think fit.
The Corporation of the City of Loudon and the council of any county, or borough, or district wholly or partly within the area aforesaid, shall have the right at any time of appealing to the Minister against any schedule for the time being in force on the ground that any of the stages specified therein are unreasonably short or inconvenient or that any of the fares so specified are unreasonably high, and the Minister on such appeal, after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard, may make such order amending the schedule as he may think fit.
When an order amending a schedule has been made under this subsection the schedule shall have effect subject to the amendments made in the order.
(6) The holder of such a licence may at any time, but, subject as in the next following section provided, only at intervals of not less than four weeks, amend any such schedule or substitute a new schedule therefor by depositing with the licensing authority the proposed amendment or new schedule in such form and identified in such manner as the licensing authority may require, and shall send to the licensing authority such, number of copies of the proposed amendment or new schedule as the licensing authority may require; and on the deposit of the amendment or new schedule the schedule proposed to be amended shall have effect subject to the amendment or, as the case may be, the new schedule shall be substituted for the schedule previously in force, subject in either case to the like right of appeal to the Minister as in the case of the original schedule:
Provided that where a schedule has been amended on appeal to the Minister, no amendment to the schedule, nor any schedule to be substituted therefor, shall be so deposited within four weeks after the schedule as amended by the Minister came into force.
(7) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the procedure on appeals under this section, and those regulations may provide for the appointment of a person or two or more persons to hold an inquiry into the subject matter of the appeal and for enabling the person or persons so appointed—

(a) to determine by whom and in what manner the costs of the appeal (including the remuneration of the person or persons appointed to hold the inquiry and any other expenses of the Minister) are to be borne:

(b) to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer oaths

(c) by order to require any person subject to the payment or tender of the reasonable expenses of attendance to attend as a witness and give evidence or produce any documents in his possession or under his control which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry and are such as would be subject to production in a court of law.

If any person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement contained in any such order he shad on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(8) Where a person deposits a schedule (whether original or substituted) or an amendment to a schedule under this section he shall send to the Minister such number of copies thereof as the Minister may require, and the copies so sent to the Minister shall he open to inspection by any person at all reasonable hours, and any person shall be entitled to make copies thereof or extracts therefrom
(9) If a person to whom a licence for an omnibus has been granted subject to the condition that it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service, fails to deposit a schedule as required by this section, or, except when prevented by accident or other unavoidable cause, or when otherwise authorised by the licensing authority, fails to establish or maintain a service in accordance with the schedule for the time being in force with respect to Ins omnibuses, or uses for the maintenance of any service a greater number of omnibuses than the maximum specified in such schedule or charges different fares or fares with respect to different stages from those specified in such schedule, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and if a person is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection the licensing authority may, if they think fit, but subject to a right of appeal to the Minister, revoke or suspend all or any of the licences granted to the offender.
(10) Proceedings or an offence under this section shall not h instituted except by or on behalf of a licensing or police authority.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "regular services of omnibuses may be established", and insert: "services of omnibuses may be maintained by plying for hire at the times specified by the person making application for the licence in the Schedule for the approved route to he deposited by him in pursuance of this section (hereinafter called ' a regular service of omnibuses'".
The noble Lord said: My Amendment, which is somewhat complicated, should be read in connection with the next Amendment appearing n my name on the Paper, to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert a new paragraph. To start with, however, I am only attacking the question which is raised in the first Amendment. It is rather curious but while the expression "regular service" is used many times in this Bill no definition is given of it. A regular service may be a service run daily, hourly or weekly, and the word "regular" does not apply, for example, to traffic which is peculiar to Saturday and Sunday. There are many routes, such as Fleet-street, which are more or less abandoned on Saturday afternoon, the omnibuses which usually work on that particular route being probably diverted to South London or elsewhere. My Amendment seeks to cure this curious omission and to provide that a regular service is such as may be proposed by an omnibus proprietor to suit his own business and

855
not one proposed by a rival omnibus proprietor with the intention of killing his business off.
If the Amendment is not made there is a real danger that subsection (8) may be used by a powerful combine to crush competitive omnibus companies out of their trade and to get even a larger monopoly than they have to-day. In the first three lines of Clause 6 it will be seen that it only deals with the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district, and outside the Greater London area the county authority or any other authority may proscribe what is to be done, and there must be, to a certain extent, unrestricted competition. The whole of this clause is really directed to the point that the Minister will have power to regulate the omnibus services on approved routes. There has been a good deal of objection in another place to the clause, and the Government were unable to give a satisfactory explanation of its operation. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Lord President, will be able to give us an explanation that will be satisfactory.
There is another important point which is, as those who have studied the Bill know, that the police are to be the licensing authority. There is an appeal to the Minister. But I suggest to the House that it is very inadvisable to bring in the police in this case to discriminate between various and rival interests. One of the reasons why we all pay such great attention to the orders of the police and admit the impartiality of their treatment of London traffic is that they do not have to discriminate between different classes of traffic in giving licences. I hold very firmly that if you once destroy that impartiality which the police possess beyond all question to-day, and make them the arbiters as to who shall and who shall not have licences, you will destroy the faith that people have in their impartiality in directing the traffic without fear or favour.
In regard to the words "a regular service of omnibuses" which appear in my Amendment, I do not want that expression to be used as an engine of oppression. If it means that a man must run on a particular route all day long, I think it might be used as such an engine. An omnibus may come in the
856
morning from the Crystal Palace full and return full in the evening, but it-would be very hard on the person running that service if he were compelled to run during the hours when there is no traffic at all. Many of the omnibus services are excellent, and we all admit that they run them where there is a thin traffic as well as where there is a good deal. At the same time, the object of my Amendment is to prevent a monopoly being set up, and I suggest to the Government that it is a reasonable Amendment for them to consider. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("regular services of omnibuses may be established") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: It must be recollected that we are dealing here with licences. When we come to the next clause we shall be dealing with a different matter—the traffic question. I can understand, and I appreciate, what the noble Lord has said. This Amendment with which we are now dealing does nothing more really than give what he thinks is needed—a definition of the words in the Bill "a regular service." I do not think there is any question as to the meaning of "a regular service." It does not mean that all through the day, for twenty-four hours, omnibuses are to run every three minutes. It is like the regular service of trains that you find in Bradshaw. When this matter was in the other House an eminent lawyer, Sir Thomas Inskip, said that it was better not to try to define it as it would only make the matter obscure. I should have thought that the words "regular service" spoke clearly enough for themselves. I ask the noble Lord to leave the Bill as it is in this respect. It is a matter of the definition of wording and not a matter of substance beyond that. I think it is in the best form as it stands.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not know that I can leave it there. If the noble Lord tells me that on the Report Stage, or later, there may be a possibility of avoiding the risk which I am anxious to avoid—namely, that by means of the enforcement of regular services the smaller competitor is to be practically eliminated—that is the risk I

857
wish to avoid. As the words stand now I am afraid they will be used to eliminate the small competitor; you cannot run what is called a small service, and I think, it is most important that there should be some provision to prevent the risk I fear.
LORD PARMOOR: I say at once that anything the noble Lord puts down on Report will be carefully considered, but I cannot say more than that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Could there be a definition put in on Report defining a regular service as one running two or three times, or something of that sort?
LORD PARMOOR: The only answer to that, I think, is that you often become more obscure through attempting to define than by taking the words in their ordinary natural meaning. The matter will be considered. When it came on in the other House Sir Thomas Inskip, who represented the Party opposite, advocated that there should be no definition. Ho thought it was much clearer as it is.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Probably the most convenient course would be that my noble friend, who has an immense knowledge of this subject, should put upon the Paper exactly what he does mean by a regular service. No one in your Lordships' House is more qualified than the noble Lord to do that and the Government might consider it and possibly might meet my noble friend. At any rate, we shall be able to deal with it on the next stage of the Bill. I am impressed to some extent with his observations.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I should suggest to my noble friend that the definition might be "omnibus plying regularly on the route" just as a railway company plies regularly on its own route. The hours need not be specified to a point of ten minutes or fifteen minutes.
LORD PARMOOR: Whatever the noble Lord puts down for the Report stage will be carefully considered. Of course, I cannot go beyond that.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I understand the noble Lord will give very
858
careful and, if possible, sympathetic consideration to the matter, and I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment and put something down for the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert the following new paragraph:—
"(b) a condition that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon a specified approved route except in maintaining the regular service of omnibuses proposed by the applicant for the licence on that approved route, but with liberty to the proprietor of the omnibus to discontinue or vary the regular service on Sundays, holidays, and other occasions when a less or more frequent service is required."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with conditions in relation to a regular omnibus service. I have looked at the reports of the debates in the House of Commons on a similar stage, and I find that the Minister of Transport was unable to satisfy the House of Commons as to the effect of the paragraphs (b) and (c). He promised to reconsider the matter later, but apparently he did not do so. I submit that the only conditions required will be found in the new paragraph. In my opinion this clause: as it stands might operate somewhat hardly against the smaller and independent proprietors. I object to the police being a licensing authority, although I admit there is an appeal to the Minister. Still, the police ought not to be brought into this. I think it is a serious departure from our present procedure.
I do not know any case in which the police are asked to discriminate between A and B in the grant of a licence. In the case of a licence for a public-house the police produce a report, and the Bench decide upon the renewal or otherwise of the licence, but in this case the police are actually to give the licence. I do not believe Scotland Yard wants this power: in fact, I am informed that they would sooner not have it, because, they think, and quite rightly, too, in my opinion, they should be independent people in this matter. I am also informed that the Minister promised to reconsider the matter of imposing these conditions. I do not know whether the Lord President has any further information for the House on that point, but the Minister of Transport promised in another place to reconsider it.
Put broadly, the point really is this, that conditions which are fair to the bigger omnibus companies are not fair to the smaller man. We must be careful in dealing with this matter to see if we can put in words—it may be difficult to do so—which will give some safeguard to the smaller people that they will not be asked to do impossible things. A man may own only two or three omnibuses and he may be called upon to do a thing which Lord Ashfield may be able to do with his magnificent fleet. I desire to guard the smaller man against being squeezed out by the large and important companies, and if the Lord President will allow me to bring the question up again on Report, and in the meantime give it his sympathetic consideration, I will withdraw the Amendment. It is one of sub-Stance, and it is not hostile in any way to the Bill. All it does is to protect the smaller man to whom great injustice might possibly be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 12 to 20, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think great care has been taken, and is being taken, in the Bill to protect the smaller man. That is a matter of great importance, and if the noble Lord will put down an Amendment on Report it will be carefully considered.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I accept that suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of paragraph (c), of subsection (2), to insert: "Provided that the right to ply for hire on an approved route shall not be limited to the omnibuses of any proprietor or combination of proprietors so as to restrict competition." The noble Lord said: This is more or less the same idea, but much more specific. I propose that the fact that a person or combine has established a regular service shall not be taken as pegging out a claim against other people. A company owning 4,000 or 5,000 omnibuses has an enormous advantage. The Amendment is a fair attempt to prevent this overwhelming advantage having a serious effect on the
860
smaller man. However, if the noble Lord will give me the same undertaking, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: It is all part of the one subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after paragraph (c) of subsection (2), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) it shall be a condition attached to every such licence that the same shall be held and (shall be valid only so long as the persons on behalf of whom the licence is held shall not either by themselves or by others manufacture motor vehicles, or parts thereof, or apply their funds to the manufacture of such vehicles, or parts thereof, except for use on approved routes."
The noble Lord said: This is quite a different subject. At the present moment there is a company called the Associated Equipment Company, of which Lord Ashfield is chairman, which is a part of the business of the great "Combine." I am not saying that it is not an excellent firm. They certainly make good vehicles. I have tested them and driven them, but that is not the real point. The point is this. Take an analogy from the railways. You do not allow the Great Western Railway at Swindon, or the South Western Railway at Eastleigh, to make engines for export; you allow them to make locomotives for their own use. But Lord Ashfield, in the Associated Equipment Company, makes not only for his own consumption, but for export and for other people. It follows that in a good year when he makes a good profit on the omnibuses and railways, he can afford to undersell other manufacturers who are making lorries. The result is that we have world-renowned firms like Leyland, Thorneycroft, and so on, utterly crushed out because my noble friend can tender for competition at very much lower prices than any isolated manufacturer. That has never been allowed to our railway companies, and I do not think it should be allowed to these great omnibus concerns.
At one stage I believe my noble friend Lord Ashfield was willing to give up this power, but I understand he is no longer willing to do so, because, as many of your Lordships know, some of these companies who are hard hit have helped to finance ex-Service men and ex-officers to start smaller ventures. The noble Lord said, therefore—and I think it is quite a fail-debating retort, though I do not admit that there is much force in it—that, as they are helping what he calls the "pirates," there is no reason why he should not attack them in the export market. Personally I do not agree. I do not think that you ought to allow a great carrying company like the "Combine" to make vehicles and to bid against already existing manufacturers. It is most important for our foreign trade that firms like Thorneycroft, Leyland and the Daimler Companies should not be driven out of foreign markets in what I consider a rather unfair manner. Nobody would object to the noble Lord making vehicles for himself, or for any of his allies, but to make them for the whole world in competition with these firms does. I think, savour of injustice, and I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that some words such as I have suggested might well be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that this is a matter which can find its place in a Bill like this. The effect would be to alter either the statutory or the Common Law rights which these bodies now have. I know of oases, such as those to which the noble Lord drew attention, in which it has been held that railway companies have not an independent power to manufacture locomotives except for their own purposes, but this matter still has to be decided as regards particular statutory or Common Law rights, and I think it would be a very wrong principle, in a Bill of this kind, to attempt to interfere with those rights, statutory or otherwise, which companies now possess. It really would be, if I may so put it, an extremely radical suggestion,
862
and I hope that your Lordships will nut entertain it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am glad that my noble friend is coming back to Conservative ideas and dislikes radical suggestions.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I should have thought that, being a radical suggestion, it might have found favour on those Benches. It is really a very-important point, and I do ask the Government to consider it carefully. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ashfield would like to say something about it.
LORD PARMOOR: On behalf of the Government, I can give no hope whatever of this Amendment being accepted We think it wrong in a Bill of this kind.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment to insert in subsection (5), immediately before the paragraph beginning "The Corporation of the City of London," "Provided that the Minister shall not give any advantage to any person who is providing a regular service of omnibuses as aforesaid over any other such person." The noble Lord said: If I might say one word or two this is more or less the same point that I have raised be fore, but it puts in specific words what I wish to see incorporated in the Bill in some form In other words, I want free trade to continue, and competition. Otherwise, we shall get back into the state in which there will be an absolute monopoly of the "Combine." I will not, however, move the Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Amendment not moved.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (9), after "cause" ["by accident or other unavoidable cause"] to insert "or by a stoppage of work caused by an industrial dispute." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I think will be agreed to. This particular subsection declares that—
"If a person to whom a licence for an omnibus has been granted subject to the condition

863
that it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service, fails to deposit a schedule as required by this section, or, except when prevented by accident or other unavoidable cause, or when otherwise authorised by the licensing authority, fails to establish or maintain a service in accordance with the schedule"…
those are reasons why the person to whom the licence is granted shall be penalised.
I suggest to the House that this may happen and, in fact, has happened lately—that there was a stoppage of work caused by a strike in a particular branch of the transport trade which affected that particular branch. Other men came out in sympathy and the result was that every form of that transport was stopped. Omnibuses were stopped, tube trains were stopped and certain tramways also. A man ought not to be penalised on that account. A union interested in the bigger companies might engineer a strike of the smaller omnibuses and prevent them running This Amendment is only to give the Minister power to consider a stoppage of work caused by an industrial dispute as one of the excuses which may be taken for not continuing the service. I suggest this is reasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 42, after ("cause") insert ("or by a stoppage of work caused by an industrial dispute").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: This Amendment, if followed to its logical conclusion, would give protection to the owner even if he was the sole cause of the industrial dispute. The clause contains a proviso in regard to industrial disputes, because any dispute which is a genuine dispute comes under the words "unavoidable cause." It is better to leave the construction of the question of fact in each case, rather than endeavour to draw a hard and fast line as to what constitutes an industrial dispute.
NOBLE LORD: What is a genuine dispute?
LORD THOMSON: A dispute in which both parties think they are in the right.
864
This Amendment would give protection to the employer who had been the sole cause of the industrial dispute. On that ground the Amendment is opposed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I follow the reasoning of the noble Lord, but I am not quite happy about these words, for the reason that the noble Lord says the fact that possibly a man or firm may be prevented from running his omnibuses by an industrial dispute is covered by the words "unavoidable cause." It may be so, and if the Government are advised by their legal advisers that it is so it would have great weight with me. I should have thought that the word "unavoidable" was not a very apt word in the circumstances, because it is clear that the employer could avoid a strike by giving way. The natural significance of the word "unavoidable" is what is sometimes called, I believe, an "act of God"—such a case, for example, as a fire in the owner's premises in which all his omnibuses have been destroyed. A strike is not exactly unavoidable in that sense. I suggest that the Government should reconsider the word. I can see that their intention is exactly the same as that of my noble friend, but, if they have any doubt about it, I suggest that some such words as these of my noble friend should be inserted.
LORD PARMOOR: As was staled by my noble friend Lord Thomson, the Government have been advised that the words "other unavoidable cause" do meet the difficulty. All words, of course, when you come to analyse them, may give rise to difficulty. The matter, however, will be further considered.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would point out that this matter is not in the discretion of the Government. This is a penal clause. The magistrate before whom the matter came would have to, find whether in point of law it was avoidable or not.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If there is a strike the strike leaders might contend before the magistrates that all that the omnibus proprietors had to do in order to maintain a regular service

865
would be to concede their demands, which were very reasonable. The magistrates would then have to consider whether the demands were reasonable, and, if, so, whether the dispute could be called an unavoidable one. I hope my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble Lord will accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess. I have stated that we will consider the question before the Report stage.
LORD RIDDELL: May I suggest that it would be better to substitute the word "reasonable" for "unavoidable"?
EARL BUXTON: It seems to me that the best course would be to put in these
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the city of London and the metropolitan police district.
7.—(1) Where as respect any street or part, of a street within the area consisting of the city of London and the metropolitan police district, the Minister is of opinion that by reason—

(a) of the width of the street or part of the street or the density of traffic thereon; or

words, and then we shall have them before us on Report. If the Government, after consideration with their legal advisers, find that the words include too much we could then have them amended on Report. We are all in agreement with regard to the object we have in view, and I suggest that the, Government should accept the words.
LORD PARMOOR: No, really, I am unable to accept the words now. I cannot go further. I think far the more reasonable way would be to leave it over till the Report stage.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 14.

(b) of the existence of alternative facilities for the conveyance of passengers along the street or part of the street or in proximity thereto, or of the omnibus accommodation on the street or part of the street being excessive;

it is desirable that an order under this section shall be made, he may by order declare the street or part of the street to be a street in which the plying for hire by omnibuses ought to be prohibited or restricted either generally or during particular hours, and a street or part of a street with respect to which such an order is made is hereinafter referred to as a "restricted street."

CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Stanhope, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Salisbury, M.

Allendale, V.

Dynevor, L.

Ancaster, E.

Falmouth, V.

Erskine, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)

Jessel, L.

Buxton, E.

Kylsant, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Doncastster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E,

Shandon, L.

Strachie, L.

Terrington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Arnold, L.

Olivier, L.

Ashfield, L.

Riddell, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Meston, L.

Thomson, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Knuteford, V.

Newton, L.

(2) Where the Minister has so declared any street or part of a street to be a

867
restricted street, the Minister may make regulations—

(a) prohibiting or restricting the plying for hire by omnibuses in the street either generally or during particular hours, or limiting the aggregate number of journeys which may be made in either direction along the street during particular hours by omnibuses plying for hire;

(b) determining the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire on the street and apportioning amongst those proprietors such aggregate number of journeys as aforesaid; but so, nevertheless, that the right so to ply shall not be limited to the omnibuses of one proprietor in any case where it appears to the Minister to be reasonable and practicable that the right should be exercised by other omnibuses also; and

(c) conferring on a licensing authority such powers as he may deem necessary to enable them to secure the observance of the regulations;

and the regulations may provide for dispensing with or relaxing the restrictions imposed thereby in such circumstances and in such manner as may be provided in the regulations.
(3) Where in consequence of any such regulations it is necessary for any proprietor to amend the schedule of services for the time being in force with respect to his omnibuses, he may do so notwithstanding that such an interval of four weeks as is mentioned in the last preceding section has not elapsed.
(4) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any such regulations, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and on the conviction of a person for a second or subsequent offence under this subsection, the licensing authority shall notify the Minister of the conviction, and the licensing authority, if so directed by the Minister, shall thereupon revoke or suspend all or any licences to ply for hire in the area aforesaid which they may have granted to the offender in respect of omnibuses:
Provided that proceedings for any such offence shall not ho instituted except by or on behalf of a licensing or police authority.
(5) Before making an order declaring any street or part of a street to be a restricted street, or making any regulations under this section, the Minister shall give such notice of his intention to make the order or regulations, as the case may be, as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected and shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "in proximity thereto" and insert "along adjacent streets." The
868
noble Lord said: This might appear at first sight to be rather an insignificant Amendment, but as a matter of fact it is rather an important one. I will give the House an instance of what might occur. Up the Fulham-road, between the Brompton Oratory and Hyde Park Corner, or round towards Bond-street there are excellent underground services, but there is also a service of omnibuses, and if a passenger wanted to go from Kensington to the North of London he would have to go underground to Hyde Park Corner, get out there, and then get on one of the omnibus services which ply up Park-lane.
I do not think we ought to force people to go underground if they do not want to do so, and my Amendment seeks to substitute the words "in proximity thereto" by the words "along adjacent streets." I do not think you ought to deprive the Londoner of the opportunity of going above ground if he wants to do so, and before, you interfere with him you should consider the facilities "along adjacent streets.'' If a man wants to go overground from his place of residence to his business he should be allowed to do so. There are a great many people who do not like going underground, preferring to travel on the surface, and I am one of them. I think it a hardship to compel a person to travel underground, and I hope your Lordships will give careful consideration to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 24, leave out ("in proximity thereto") and insert ("along adjacent streets").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Lord overlooks the fact that one of the difficulties we are dealing with here is the congestion of traffic in the streets, and what this clause really does is to have regard to the congestion of traffic in the streets when you are considering the alternative facilities for the conveyance of passengers along the street or part of a street or in proximity to it. It seems to me that that is a fair thing to consider, and I would point out that it is only a matter for consideration. The noble Lord would be justified in what he said if we were not dealing with congestion of traffic, but as that is what we are dealing with, we cannot accept his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: This might help the Government airships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (i), after "omnibus" to insert "or tramway ear.'' The noble Lord said: This is rather a big subject. I feel very strongly that the tramway car should be brought within the purview of the Bill; it should be regulated like other vehicles. It is to-day one of the most obstructive, and when the Minister is considering the question of congestion it should be taken into account. If we are not to take into consideration the tram ears then it reduces the lull to a futility. Take Vauxhall Bridge-road. Do you mean to say that the Minister is not to take the tramway car traffic on that road into consideration? Obviously, he ought to do so. The London County Council, I know, provide a magnificent service of tram cars, but is that not to be taken into consideration when you are considering whether such a service is excessive or not? There are times when a, stationary or stopping car causes far more obstruction than any other kind of vehicle, but under the Bill the Minister will have no power to deal with if.
The Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area, which reported in 1919, selected the taxi-cab as the unit, it being very mobile and the cause of the least amount of obstruction. From that the Committee produced a table of trade vehicles and passenger vehicles. Amongst the trade vehicles the light motor was given as one point of obstruction, and the slow two-horse vehicle as ten points of obstruction. The slow two-horse vehicle was considered the most obstructive in the streets and that is probably the view of most of your Lordships. When they came to the passenger vehicles the Select Committee put the electric tramway car at the head of the list with nine points of obstruction as against one point by the private motor. This is a comparatively recent Report and this Committee, therefore, considered that the tramway car was eminently a subject for regulation and that it was one of the vehicles which needed more regulation than others. I entirely agree with that view, and it would be perfectly futile to attempt to regulate the traffic of London unless you take the tramway car into consideration.
870
Last Wednesday, on Westminster Bridge, there were no fewer than 26 tramway ears standing in a line and it was only with the greatest difficulty that the policeman on point duty at St. Thomas's Hospital got the traffic through to the South of London. Under this Bill the Minister and the Advisory Committee will have no power whatever to deal with the tramway car which, I think, should be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line, 25, after ("omnibus") insert ("or tramway car").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I should like to support what Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has said. When you have any fixtures such as tramway lines and refuges they interfere very considerably with the efficient control of traffic. If your Lordships were to take the time to watch the traffic over Westminster Bridge in the middle of the season, when a vast amount of traffic is collected both in this square and across the, bridge, you would see that the mere existence of tramlines carrying tramcars makes it almost impossible to control the traffic with any degree of despatch. You have a fixed object which it is quite impossible for a man to divert and the policeman, or whoever it is who has to control the traffic, cannot divert it or keep the traffic flowing so that he cannot prevent blocks occurring. I know of nothing in the traffic of London which causes so many block" as a tramline. I would support the Amendment of my noble friend because I am quite sure that anybody who has in the future the duty of controlling the traffic will find that the tram is the greatest obstacle with which he has to contend.
LORD PARMOOR: Again I think that there has been a misunderstanding about this matter. I do not deny for a moment that it would be a good thing for traffic if we could regulate the tramway cars, but the tramways have certain statutory rights as great within their limitations as those of the railways. It was settled long ago, by judicial decisions in this House when the tramways were taken over by the local authorities both here and in Scotland, that they had what is called a monopoly right of using tram-way lines on flanged wheels as no other

871
vehicle has the right to do. I admit that it astonishes me to find that noble Lords opposite are in favour of interfering, in a Bill of this kind, with the statutory rights now existing. It would be exactly as if we were to deprive railway companies and other companies of statutory rights in the same way. I say quite frankly that this Bill was framed in order not to interfere with statutory rights of this kind, and I do not know any Bill that seeks to interfere with statutory rights of this quality and character. If your Lordships wish to interfere with statutory rights which are considered to be amongst the most solemn forms of proprietary rights, it is in your Lordships' hands. I only want to protest against the entirely novel doctrine concerning the statutory rights of a company being included in a Bill of this sort.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: There would be a precedent for this in the case of Westminster Bridge. I myself sat on the Committee in another place which allowed the tramways to cross Westminster Bridge in order to link up the tramway systems north and south of the Thames, and we were faced with this troublesome statutory privilege. We were desirous that the lines should be joined together for the convenience of the travelling public and we made certain regulations which were, I think, inserted in the Bill—namely, that the tramway cars must be bunched on each side, that they must not stop on the bridge unless held up by traffic, that they must not pick up or set down on the bridge, and that they must begin their bunching at a particular point on the south side and end it at a particular point on the north side. These were inserted in the Bill in order to get over particular statutory advantages which tramways have, and if it is done in one ease I suppose it can be done in another.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that exactly meets the point I have raised. Of course, when statutory powers are conferred and you get over Westminster Bridge for the purpose of joining up then Parliament can do as is suggested. That is part of the statutory powers which Parliament has conferred, but the question here is quite different. You are interfering with existing statutory rights, which is a different matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might I ask this question: Ave not some statutory companies interfered with already by this Bill, as to their rights of disturbing streets, and so on?
LORD PARMOOR: If I might answer the noble Viscount I think that here again there is a difference. The business is not interfered with at all. You might perfectly well, if you like, say that a statutory tramway company should be restricted as regards interfering with streets and matters of that sort, but there is no interference with any of its business. That is very carefully provided for in the Bill. The only matter in which there is interference is in regard to taking up the streets, and, even there, a provision is introduced to meet the case of emergency and it can always do it if it is for the purpose of carrying on its business. That is an entirely different thing from interfering with a business which is created by statutory rights.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Is it not strictly a limitation of their statutory rights I Those limitations may be introduced into the Bill, but they are strictly an interference with statutory rights.
LORD PARMOOR: Speaking in one sense, yes; but in another sense it is entirely different. We are placing regulations on interfering with and taking up streets, which is entirely a different thing from interfering with the actual business which the company is carrying on under its statutory rights. For instance, with regard to electric mains. If you were to say that the electric mains were to stop for two or three days that would be an interference with the business, but interfering with the taking up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes is quite a distinct thing. However, I have made my point.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Before the noble Marquess answers, may I read to the House an opinion which I got from a very high authority as to the legal position in regard to this matter? If I were to mention the name to the noble and learned Lord, I am sure he would treat it with respect:—
"The legal position of a tramway authority under Clause 7 is that it would be required to submit to an order of the Minister limiting the number of tramway

873
cars per minute or per hour which it may send along a ' restricted street ' in which the tramway is laid. In this respect the tramway authority's rights to use the streets do not differ from the rights of any other vehicle owner. The only difference between the tramway authority and the owner of other vehicles is that the tramway authority has obtained under its Act of Parliament the exclusive right to run tramway care or flange wheel vehicles along the tramway track which it has laid down. The tramway authority has no greater legal right to overcrowd or obstruct the streets with vehicles than any oilier user of the road. Physically it does cause obstruction because the vehicles cannot draw to one side of the road. Power to the local authority and the police to regulate the tramway traffic is expressly reserved under Section 61 of the Tramways Act, 1870; and the rights of the public to pass along and across every part of the road where the tramway is laid are also reserved by Section 62 of the Act of 1870 and by-laws have been made which require a minimum space between successive tramway cars. The police to-day in London have the right to regulate the tramway traffic at crossings just as they regulate the other street traffic, By this Bill further powers of regulation are to be given and orders are now to be made under Clause 7 for the purpose of relieving congestion. Suppose it be found that at some crowded point, such as Westminster Bridge-road or Vauxhall, congestion of the general traffic is caused at certain times of the day by a procession of half empty tramway cars, would it not be well to give the Minister power under this clause to make an order dealing with such an evil? He is to have the power over omnibuses; why not tramway cars also?"
If you cut tramways out of this Bill you will not clear London of congestion in many of its main thoroughfares, but the traffic will be still obstructed worse than ever by tramway cars.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I admit that this is an important matter, but I would recall your Lordships' attention to what the object of the Bill really is. The object is to relieve the congestion of London. We are no longer dealing with the outside districts: we are now at the very heart of the question, the thing which has made this London Traffic Bill absolutely essential—namely, the gross overcrowding and congestion of the streets, and the Government is given power under this Bill to control this traffic. What does the traffic consist of? It consists of a great number of different classes of vehicles—carts, lorries, taxi-cabs, omnibuses and tramways. One of the worst offenders in the matter of congestion, as everybody knows who drives about London, is the tramway car. Yet
874
what the Government suggest is that this traffic authority should have power to control all traffic which runs on wheels in London, with the exception of the tramways. Why are the tramways to be excepted? If they are not only an integral part but, in many parts of London, the principal part of the congestion, how shall we have solved the problem if we have left the tramways out? We shall be left with the very difficulty that we seek to remove.
Then comes the Lord President, who says: "Oh, but they have statutory rights," and he seems to think that that is an absolute answer. Why, we spend our time in modifying statutory rights; that is what we are here for. Is the noble and learned Lord never a party to Bills which modify she statutory rights of the railways? We do it every day. There is no statutory right belonging to the tramways which is more sacred than the statutory rights belonging to the railways They are exactly on the same footing, so far as I know, except that the railways have spent a great deal more capital. And yet, by private Acts of Parliament and public Acts of Parliament, we have modified, almost every year, the statutory rights of railways. Of course, there is no objection from that point of view at all. The tramways exist in order to serve the public, and the fact that they enjoy a certain monopoly by reason of their having statutory rights is no reason why they should be exempt from regulation, but rather a reason why they should be subject to it, because they have received what ordinary users of the highway have not received—special advantages from the Legislature. We have, of course, always reserved to ourselves the right in Parliament to modify those conditions where it is necessary in the interests of the public. This is an essential matter for the interests of the public. Unless you regulate the tramways you will not have solved the problem. Therefore, there seems to me a clear case for the inclusion of the tramways in the scope of the Bill. This is the first occasion on which the matter arises, and if my noble friend goes to a Division I shall be glad to support him.
EARL BUXTON: Your Lordships agree that similar regulations to those which apply to omnibuses and other vehicles ought to be put on to tramways as well.

875
If the noble and learned Lord has some other alternative in another part of the Bill to offer that is one thing. I have no particular desire to insert it in this or in another clause so long as the Minister, the Advisory Committee and the public have some security that the tramways shall not add, as they do now, to the difficulties and congestion of the traffic. The Lord President made a great point of the statutory rights of tramways, but I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury has disposed of that altogether. What are their statutory rights? The statutory right they have is to put down rails in a certain street and to run along those rails. Nobody wishes to dispose of that statutory right because the tramways are a great, if subsidiary, addition to our method of transport. What we desire, and what the public desire, is that they should be placed under such control as will prevent what my noble friend described as the scandal of eight or ten empty tramcars standing in a street obstructing the traffic and being of no assistance to the public. Some regulations are wanted which will not interfere with their real statutory rights but will make those rights subject to the public convenience.
What is this clause to which my noble friend desires to add the words "tramway car"? It deals with the question of the congestion of traffic in certain streets. It says that where
"it is desirable that an order under this section shall be made, he may by order declare the street or part of the street to ho a street in which the plying for hire by omnibuses ought to be prohibited or restricted either generally or during particular hours."
Nobody wishes to prohibit tramways; that would not arise. But we should all desire that they should be restricted. I cannot see for a moment that their statutory rights are interfered with, and I think that in some way or other, in some part of the Bill, the word "tramway" ought to be put in so as to make sure that tramcars will come under the strict regulations to which omnibuses are subjected.
LORD PARMOOR: I have done what I could to protect a very important proprietary right—a statutory right. If your Lordships think that it should be dealt with in the way suggested I am glad to hear it in one sense, although I think it is extremely unsound as regards any real
876
question of what is meant by proprietary rights. I think nothing could be more unsound. I have done my best, on behalf of the Government, to preserve those rights, and if your Lordships wish to include tramcars it must be done. I maintained before that we were not going to interfere with statutory rights; that was the basis of the Bill. If your Lordships think that in a case of this kind private rights have to give way, well and good.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The next three Amendments are purely consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 30, after ("omnibuses") insert ("or tramway cars")
Page 13, line 39, after ("omnibuses") insert ("or tramway cars")
Page 13, line 43, after ("omnibuses") insert ("or tramway cars").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD NEWTON,LORD NEWTON, in whose name there appeared upon the Paper an Amendment to omit all words in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) after "proprietor" and to insert "or combination of proprietors," said: I repudiate any responsibility for this Amendment. I did not place it on the Paper, and I do not know how it got there. I presume that somebody has been using my name in vain.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Lord Newton have the same Amendment standing in their names.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Mine is a little different. There must be some mistake in putting down the name of Lord Newton. I beg to move to omit all words in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) after "proprietor." This is another Amendment intended to prevent the Minister favouring one omnibus proprietor and excluding others. I see no reason for giving the Minister discretion. I think it ought to be laid down that he cannot favour one set of proprietors against another.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 7, leave out from ("proprietor") to ("and") in line 10.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: The effect of this Amendment would be that the Minister would be unable to make regulations in the case of Bond-street where only one company has plied, or proposes to ply. It is not possible to fetter the Minister in this way. His decision is liable to most acute attacks in the House of Commons, or in this House, if he happens to be a member of it. That ensures that his decisions will be equitable. You must give him a certain amount of discretion. This Amendment will make it impossible to regulate omnibuses in Bond-street where only one company plies. There is no one more closely controlled than the Minister in a matter of this kind, and if he were suspected of unfair decisions he would be open to attack in the House. Whereas this Amendment suffers from the defect I have mentioned, it gives him no power of making regulations in a case where only one proprietor runs omnibuses in a, certain street, as is the ease in Bond-street.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (5), after "Committee," to insert "and load authority." The noble Earl said: I trust the Government will accept this Amendment. Before making an order the Minister should consult not only the Advisory Committee but also the road authority—that is to say, the local authority concerned. Your Lordships will see that under this clause the Minister has power to make, orders declaring a street a restricted street for certain periods and for various kinds of traffic. My noble friend Lord Montagu told the House that the Metropolitan district is 697 square miles in extent. It is obvious that no Committee, unless it had a horde of officials serving it, could possibly report as to what should be a restricted street for the various types of traffic during all hours of the day. I suggest also to your Lordships that when a Minister makes orders under this clause he would be very greatly strengthened if he could report to Parliament that he had consulted the local authority concerned, and had received their approval of the orders which he proposed to make. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 43, after ("Committee") insert ("and road authority").—Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think the Advisory Committee ought to be taken as a safe authority to consult. To a very great extent it is a representative authority, although no doubt it has other members upon it. This matter has been carefully considered, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: After all there is only one representative each for the districts south and north of the River, and that is a wide area. I do not suggest that local authorities should have a power of veto, but that the Minister should obtain their opinion.
LORD PARMOOR: The area is certainly very large, and even the largo Advisory Committee can only be partially representative, but at the same time it is inadvisable to introduce further authorities whom a Minister ought to consult in matters of this kind. We want the thing done, we do not want it complicated.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert "and after receiving such advice and report the Minister shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the proposed order or regulations, and the order or regulations, as the case may be, shall not be made unless and until a Resolution is passed by both Houses approving of the draft."
The noble Lord said: This is in order to make the advice of the Committee an important factor in settling this question. The subsection reads as follows:—
"Before making an order declaring any street or part of a street to be a restricted street, or making any regulations under this section, the Milliliter shall give such notice of his intention to make the order or regulations, as the case may be, as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected, and shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report."
I desire to add the words of the Amendment which will give the Committee much more power and make it a really responsible body. If you do not put in some such words it will have no power at all. It will also mean that this House, and the other House will have an opportunity of putting in a word when some important question is under consideration, such as the diversion of traffic, a question upon which noble Lords have opinions

879
well worth hearing. Members representing places like Islington, Fulham, and Balham in the other place would be able to make their voices beard. I hope the Government will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 43, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I cannot support this Amendment. After the essence of the Bill, which is control of the traffic, the great point is time. If this Amendment is accepted it would cause considerable delay. Imagine what might happen when Parliament was not sitting. If this Advisory Committee recommended that some street should be restricted the opinion of Parliament might be delayed for months, certainly for weeks. Meanwhile, the necessary regulations would be hung up; and I cannot see that the representative of Balham would be able to give a better opinion as to whether a street should be restricted than the Advisory Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: In a subsequent clause which deals with real Regulations these have to be submitted to Parliament. These are very small matters. You are really trying to make Parliament the controlling authority. It is reducing the Bill to an absurdity to say that all these little matters at Balham shall be discussed in Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will not support it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I point out the exact situation under this Bill? There are two important clauses, Clause 7 and Clause 10. Under the latter, as the Government introduced the Bill, there was a power that the orders and regulations should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and be subject to objection. That protection was not considered sufficiently drastic in the House of Commons, and a very much stronger form of safeguard was inserted. It is a remarkable circumstance that the orders that can be made under Clause 10 are far less important than those which can be made under Clause 7. I am not saying that the Amendment, is exactly right in the form in which it stands, but I should like your Lordships to realise what can be done under Clause 7. If you will be good enough to turn to page 14,
880
you will see that the Minister may make regulations—
"determining the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire on the street and apportioning amongst those proprietors such aggregate number of journeys as aforesaid."
In other words, it is possible for the Minister to give an absolute monopoly to a particular firm. This power is complete, and though there are subsequent words in the paragraph, yet, when they are analysed, they do not amount to much. The clause continues—
"but so, nevertheless, that the right so to ply shall not be limited to the omnibuses of one proprietor in any case where it appears to the Minister to be reasonable and practicable that the right should be exercised by other omnibuses also."
This too, it will be seen, is subject to the Ministerial decision as to what is "reasonable and practicable." In other words, all the fears expressed in this House, I think with some justice, that too autocratic powers are entrusted to the Minister, even to establishing an absolute monopoly, and their kernel and complete embodiment in this paragraph. This is the very centre of the Bill.
It is a remarkable circumstance that, as the Bill is presented to us, there is no Parliamentary control of the powers here conferred. The moment the Bill is passed, your Lordships, and the other House, will have parted with all power. And yet, under Clause 10, by which regulations of a comparatively trivial character are made, full Parliamentary powers are maintained, even under the Government's version, while under the House of Commons' version the most extreme Parliamentary control is imposed. But under Clause 7 far greater powers are given than under Clause 10. Even if it be held, therefore, that my noble friend's wording may require consideration, I would suggest to your Lordships that something ought to be done to limit this clause. I think it would be wise to insert words by which Parliamentary control could be maintained. Otherwise, you may find that, once you have parted with this Bill, there is no power left to you to prevent the Minister giving an absolute monopoly.
And, after all, do not let us be personal in this matter. I am not making criticism of the present Minister of Transport, who, so far as I know, would be

881
a most admirable judge in matters of this kind. You cannot tell, however, what Minister there may be in the future. There may be another next year. I think that is very probable. In those circumstances he might be a man who had a great belief in monopolies, and a determination to confine his patronage to a very limited number of omnibus proprietors or only one. The point is that once you have passed this Bill, unless some provision is introduced Parliament will be absolutely powerless to check it, beyond the ordinary power of the House of Commons to question Ministers. This House will have no power to check it at all. Therefore I think some provision is necessary.
The question is whether my noble friend's proposal is the right one. It has been pointed out that it would have this effect, that when Parliament was not sitting no order or regulation could be passed. I am sure that is going too far. I am sure we do not mean that or intend that, and therefore it might be necessary to modify the words to meet that particular case. I may say I am familiar with this particular provision in an Act of Parliament. I have seen it in a great many, and have been instrumental in inserting it in others, and it is easy to cover the point that Parliament is not sitting. You merely have a provision by which the thing operates until Parliament does sit. I do, however, think I should be wanting in my duty if I did not warn your Lordships that this is an important matter, and that if you allow Clause 7 to go through without any Parliamentary check you may live to regret it.
EARL BUXTON: I think, if noble Lords will really consider Clause 7 and the schedule, they will see that although the regulations deal with some things which are of a trivial description there are other things which need to come before Parliament. There is no triviality about them at all. They affect the whole question whether particular streets shall be allowed for particular traffic. They raise the whole question of the franchise of streets, whether there shall be a monopoly of omnibuses, and so on. The whole of these questions are left to the control of the Minister and I am sure it is not too much to ask when dealing with these big questions that they shall also
882
come within the purview of Parliament. I am sure that my noble friend will agree with the view of the noble Marquess that his Amendment as drafted will not do, simply for this reason, that he deals with the question when Parliament is sitting, and they are not to come into force if Parliament is not sitting. I am sure he will see, on reflection, that they must come into force, but they can be reviewed by Parliament at an early date.
LORD JESSEL: I am sorry that on the first occasion that I address this House I find myself in disagreement with my leader. I think that if Lord Montagu's Amendment were carried it would lead to a considerable amount of delay, and you would prevent the very thing which this Bill is intended to do—namely, to relieve the congestion of London traffic. You provide elaborate machinery for the laying of orders before Parliament, and there would be great delay. If you want to lay it down that omnibuses are to go only one way down Bond-street you would have to get the consent of both Houses of Parliament and you would have a debate on every trivial little subject in both Houses. So far from this power that we ask for being autocratic, every authority—for instance, Liverpool and Manchester—can do exactly as they please. They can prescribe the streets which are to be used by motor omnibuses, and they have absolute power to do what they like. Here in London this Advisory Committee, which is representative not only of London itself but of many places round it, is not allowed to do anything without an elaborate form of procedure before both Houses of Parliament. I do not think that is fair to the Advisory Committee, or to the Minister.
If you are going to limit the powers, I suggest that you should take Lord Newton's Amendment to Clause 10. It states:—
"(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may he after it is made, and it an address is presented to His Majesty within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation has been laid before it, praying that the regulation may he annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."

883
If you insert that subsection you give Parliament a certain power over these big questions. The provision would work much better, it would save delay, and it would safeguard rights, which might or might not be attacked.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I should be quite willing to follow out the suggestions which have been made, and to bring up an amended clause on Report more or less in the same words as appear in Clause 10. Subsection (7) of Clause 10 is more or less the same as this. I think that might work very well, but, after what the noble Marquess has said about the powers in Clause 10, I warn the House that if we once give up our control under Clause 7, Parliamentary control over all these things will practically vanish. With regard to Parliament not being in Session, there are only two months this year, for instance, when Parliament will not be sitting. Therefore, there cannot be any great interval of time, which is important. If the Minister knew there was something important coming on he would not be such a fool, if I may be permitted the expression, as to bring it forward in the first days of August; he would do so at the beginning, or at any rate in she middle, of the Session. I ask the Lord President to give the matter his consideration, and I will put down on Report a similar provision to that to which I referred in subsection (7) of Clause 10, which has been accepted by the Government already, as a suitable means of dealing with the matter.
LORD PARMOOR: So far as direct Parliamentary intervention is concerned, I regard these as small, though important, matters with which the Minister has to deal from day to day in order to carry out his duties under the Bill; such, for instance, as the determination of an omnibus route. Are you going to bring that up to Parliament and prevent a determination of it by the Minister for some months? Every other administrator has powers of this kind. By-laws do not come to Parliament. They may be important, but are mere administrative work. Administration cannot be carried on under such a condition. It would be only fair to say, therefore, that in my view it would make the Bill almost unworkable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord must not confuse Clause 6 and Clause 7.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not confusing them at all—
"determining the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire …"
You determine who they are, and rightly so if you are to have the power. It is absolutely ridiculous, I think, to suggest that these are matters which ought to come before Parliament. I only want to make my view clear. I do not want it to be said hereafter that I encouraged this matter in any way, because I really think that it is not appropriate.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I only told the noble and learned Lord what I intended to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power to make Regulations.
(4) Before making any regulations under this section, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report.
(5) Before making any regulations under this section which will impose new or additional duties on the police the Minister shall consult the Secretary of State.
(6) The making of any regulations under this section shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with.
(7) If at the time when it is proposed to make any such regulations the Commons House of parliament is sitting or is separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will expire within one month, the drafts of the proposed regulations shall be laid before that House, and the regulations shall not he made unless and until a resolution is passed by that House approving of the drafts either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the resolution, and upon such approval being given the regulations may be made in the form in which the drafts have been approved. In any other case regulations may be made forthwith, but all regulations so made shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after its next meeting, and shall not continue in force for one month after such meeting unless a resolution is passed by that House declaring that the regulations shall continue in force, either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the resolution; and, if any modifications are so made as respects any regulation, the regulations shall thenceforth have effect subject to such

885
modification, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (4), after "Committee," to insert "and road authority." The noble Earl said: This is not quite the same point as has been already discussed, because these are orders which have to come before Parliament; whereas under Clause 7 as it now stands they have not to do so. I submit to the noble and learned Lord that the Minister should consult the local authority before making these regulations They are, I agree, smaller orders and regulations than those under Clause 7, but they are of considerable importance in rural localities. The Third Schedule provides that the Minister may make regulations in regard to driving horses, cattle, sheep and other animals along streets in the Metropolitan, Police district. Being a Conservative I am more of a democrat than the noble and learned Lord, and I am prepared to consult the local authorities, "who are properly elected by the people of the locality. I do not press the Amendment if the noble and learned Lord cannot accept it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not moved.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert the following new subsection:—
"(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation has been laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment restores the form of the Bill as I believe it was originally drafted by a Conservative Government, and as it was adopted by the present Government. I understand that this Amendment appeared in the original Bill. It survived Committee and, so far as I can ascertain, was upset on Report in another place on a snap vote. I listened with some surprise to the various speeches of my noble friend Lord
886
Salisbury in the course of these discussions, in which he has continually expressed the hope that the control of Parliament will not be lost. I say it surprises me because we are always hearing about the congestion of business in another place. Yet here is my noble friend and other noble Lords solemnly proposing that every trumpery regulation and rule that is made under this Bill should go through the ordeal of both Houses.
I may be mistaken, but so far as I read the Bill if a regulation is to be made regarding a costermonger's cart or an organ grinder's pitch it will have to be solemnly discussed and passed through both Houses of Parliament. It is no use disguising the fact that this Bill is intensely disliked by a certain set of politicians whom I will not particularise. What will happen when all these trumpery regulations come up is that you will have art acrimonious discussion in all probability upon the question of Greater London. It must be obvious to everyone that it can only lead to intolerable delay. This contingency has been pointed out by the present Minister of Transport. It really would be an encouragement to block all regulations. I submit that the public interests are already sufficiently protected. Parliamentary control can be secured easily in this House because you can ask a question upon any subject that you choose, and express an opinion upon any subject that occurs to you. There is no difficulty whatever in bringing the matter up in this House, and I do not imagine that there would be much difficulty in another place. Put quite shortly, what this subsection does is to make Parliament the traffic authority instead of the authority that is proposed under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 32, to page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD PARMOOR: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. It is not necessary to add anything to what the noble Lord has said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not understand on what ground my noble friend behind me delivered a considered attack upon myself. I will not defend this particular provision in the Bill. The noble Lord always thinks it is necessary

887
to attack the Front Bench. He exists for that purpose. He does it extremely well and generally amuses the House. So far as this particular provision is concerned. I think the Government are right to accept it. I do not think the clause as it reached us would be, apt to deal with the Third Schedule. The matters in the Third Schedule, unlike those in Clause 7, are trivial. I doubt even if my noble, friend has read the Bill.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, I have.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no doubt that in respect of these matters the provision as it reached us is impracticable. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, called attention on Second Beading to certain discrimination as between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and I am glad that by the efforts of my noble friend and of the Government that matter will be put right.
LORD STRACHIE: May I point out something which, I think, has escaped the noble Marquess"? This is not the usual form which your Lordships generally insist upon, which safeguards your Lordships' rights. This differs very much from the provision which is designed to protect the rights of the House of Commons. There it is mandatory. In this particular case it is not mandatory. It is that "His Majesty in Council may if he thinks fit." That is all very well as regards the House of Commons when the majority there support the Government. There is naturally a Minister advising His Majesty. But if your Lordships pass anything of this sort when you are a majority here but in a minority in another place, then all that happens is that the Minister does not advise His Majesty.
The noble Lord knows perfectly well that when the Government were in a majority in another place and in a minority in this House a Resolution passed by your Lordships was treated with contempt by the Government of the day. That is exactly what would happen in this case, and the right way is to ask the Government to accept my Amendment, which is to leave out "the Commons" in subsection (7) and insert "either." That would retain the power of your Lordships to annul any of these regulations. This is only permissive; it
888
should be mandatory. Resolutions passed in this House are constantly ignored by the Government of the day when it happens that they have a majority in the House of Commons. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The Amendment will do no good because it is merely permissive. It must be mandatory to be of any use. Good will be done, not harm, if such matters as this are discussed in the other House, because it will prevent hasty and bad legislation being introduced. The only reason for the congestion of business in another place is that they try to do foolish things. If they would content themselves with administering the affairs of the country there would be no congestion whatever. I hope the Amendment will not be accepted or, if it is, that it will be made mandatory.
EARL BUXTON: I regret that the Government have acceded to this Amendment so quickly, unless we are told that later on the matter is to be brought under Parliamentary control. This proposal was in the original Bill, and the House of Commons by a large majority defeated the Government on the matter and put in the present clause. If the Lord President accepts the Amendment I am afraid he will bring himself into conflict with the other House. I am sorry he accepted it with such alacrity, although I admit there is much to be said for it. Some of the regulations are trivial but there are some of considerable importance, and the House of Commons I know—I cannot speak for the House of Lords—is jealous of the power which this Bill gives to the Minister to issue regulations without any sort of control.
It is no use disguising the fact that unless the House of Commons has an opportunity of considering these regulations they will go through automatically; that is the effect of the Amendment. Practically, unless there is some scandal in connection with any of these regulations, the Amendment withdraws all control over them from the House of Commons. They come on late at night, and though members have an opportunity of raising the question, the Government do not want their regulations

889
annulled or even criticised, and the Whips take care that the House is counted out, or whatever it may be. The House of Commons has no real control over these regulations, whereas, if they have to he assented to by both Houses, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they will be proper and legitimate regulations and will not be objected to except in very exceptional cases. If there is an objection, your Lordships ought to have an opportunity of considering it. I regret that the Lord President accepted this Amendment. I think he will get into trouble in the other House, but that is his affair, not mine. It seems to me that it deprives Parliament of power which it ought to have, and I should be more satisfied, I am bound to say, if the withdrawal of this Amendment were to lead, as I understand that Lord Salisbury will press, to full control under Clause 7
LORD PARMOOR: On the Second Heading I indicated my view that both Houses should be put on the same footing, and that this form, which is a common form, would be accepted for that purpose. I cannot accept any other form as regards control by both Houses, because difficulty and friction would arise. I think it is rather hard that, because I accepted Lord Newton's Amendment, the statement which I made on the Second Heading should not satisfy your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise to your Lordships for not mentioning that, as Lord Strachie has said, this is not a mandatory provision. I agree with all his criticisms. It ought to be mandatory in form. His Amendment is not quite the same, because it would leave it in the affirmative form instead of its lying on the Table. It would be quite easy to put Lord Newton's proposal in a mandatory form, and if Lord Strachie applied his mind to this and conferred with me, we could between now and Report put it in a mandatory form, if your Lordships were willing that we should take this course. It cannot be done simply by striking out "may" and inserting "shall," because you cannot apply the word "shall" to His Majesty, and it therefore has to be put in a different form. If your Lordships care to leave it to us, between now and
890
Report Lord Strachie and I could construct an Amendment in a proper shape and submit it to Lord Newton.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not feel sure that the noble Marquess quite appreciates the point r used by Lord Strachie. We all agree that both Houses should be on an equal fooling. As the Bill was introduced into this House, no regulation was to be effective until a Resolution had been passed. That is perfectly simple. Hut under the Amendment which the Government are anxious to accept, it is not a question of "may" and "shall." The point is that everything shall be legal unless a Resolution is passed against it. I confess I very much prefer the original draft of the Bill as introduced by the Government. I think what they originally proposed was very much the best form, and as it is common ground that both Houses should be put upon the same footing I hope they will agree that this House shall be placed upon the same footing as they suggested with regard to the House of Commons in the original draft of the Bill. Lord Newton's Amendment goes to the other extreme, and says that everything shall become law unless we pass a Resolution against it. We want that nothing shall become law unless a Resolution is passed by both Houses. That was in the original draft of the Bill and that is what we want. Perhaps the noble Marquess, if he agrees with me, will, before the Report stage, endeavour with Lord Newton and Lord Strachie to find some form of words which may be satisfactory.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not sure that your Lordships would be quite willing that we should arrange all these things privately. I am not certain whether Lord Beauchamp has been present since dinner, but I may perhaps give a résumé. I agree with him, that the positive or affirmative form of Resolution is a much more effective Parliamentary weapon than one worded in what I may call Lord Newton's form, but it was contended on behalf of the Government that under Clause 10 the regulations are so trivial that they do not deserve the honour of an affirmative Resolution. Whereas they would be sufficiently protected by a negative Resolution, provided it was in a mandatory and not permissive form, I may

891
say that I contended a short time ago, with regard to Clause 7, that there an affirmative Resolution was required, and that is a matter left over for further consideration on Report. Under those circumstances I can only, with great respect, recommend your Lordships to allow Lord Newton's Amendment to go through as it stands. It ought to be turned into a mandatory form on the Report stage, and then, as you wish, your Lordships can deal with Clause 7 when the time comes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 (Notice of and Inquiries into Accidents):
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("mechanically propelled").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendments to this clause standing in my name are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 27, leave out ("such") and insert ("the")
Page 17, line 27, at end insert ("of the road or of the vehicle")
Page 17, line 33, leave out from ("the") to ("vehicle") in line 34, and insert ("accident was due to the nature or character of any road or road surface or to a defect in the design or construction of any vehicle or in the materials used in the construction of any road or")
Page 17, line 36, leave out ("Minister as may be prescribed") and insert ("Ministry of Transport as the Minister may direct").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Protection of Public Interests.
13.—(1) It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act is to be treated as conferring on any omnibus proprietor any right to the continuance of any benefits arising from the grant of licences, or from any conditions attached to licences, or from any orders, schedules or regulations for the time being in force under this Act.
(2) In the event of any undertaking providing means of transport within the London Traffic Area being purchased compulsorily by any local or public authority, any enhancement in the value of the undertaking
892
attributable directly or indirectly to this Act, or to any orders, schedules or regulations made thereunder, shall not be taken into account.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "any enhancement in" and to insert "that part of." The noble Lord said: This is a question which affects the value of a transport undertaking.
LORD PARMOOR: I look upon this as merely drafting, and I will accept the words.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 15, leave out ("any enhancement in") and insert ("that part of").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Expenses.
15. All expenses incurred in connection with the execution of powers and duties under this Act by the Minister or the Advisory Committee or the members thereof (including the remuneration of any officers and servants of the Ministry of Transport placed at the disposal of the Committee by the Minister, or such apportioned part of such remuneration as the Treasury may determine to be proper) shall, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, be defrayed out of the Road Fund.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to leave out the clause. The noble Lord said: I wish to raise a protest. In 1908 and since then every successive Government has given an undertaking that the money raised by Motor Taxes shall be used for road repairs and bridge maintenance. This is a very serious infraction of that Parliamentary undertaking, and I have put down this Amendment in order to call attention to it. No previous Government has broken its word in this respect. I believe that the Minister has given some undertaking that it shall not be used as a precedent, and I shall be rather glad to hear what the representative of the Government will say.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 15.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: This Amendment attacks the putting of the charge for the

893
financial provisions of the Bill on to the Road Fund. In a sense it is a choice of evils. What Lord Montagu has pointed out is, in a sense, true; there is no desire to establish a precedent. The alternative was to put the charge either on to the taxpayers as a whole, or on the local authorities. To put it on to the taxpayers would have been about as open to attack as to put it on to the Road Fund. To put it on to the local authorities was impracticable, because it was clearly ascertained that the local authorities would not pay.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Could it not be put on the traffic authority? Ships pay for the lighting of the coast. It is only fair that the charge should be levied on the various kinds of traffic in London.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Definitions.
16. For the purposes of this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "omnibus" includes every omnibus, char-a-banc, wagonette, brake, stage-coach, or other carriage (not being a tram car or trolley vehicle) plying for hire by, or used to carry, passengers at separate fares;
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in the definition of "omnibus," after "stage-coach," to insert "tramcar, trolley vehicle." The noble Lord said: It is necessary to put "trolley vehicle" in, because that is a vehicle which runs on the road and requires looking after just as much as an omnibus, or anything else.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 17, after ("stage-coach") insert ("tramcar, trolley vehicle").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think this is consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("(not being a tramway or trolley vehicle)").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Short title and commencement.
17.—(1) This Act may be cited as the London Traffic Act, 1924, and shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day not being later than tin: first Cay of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, as the Minister may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act.
(2) This Act shall continue in force until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven:
Provided that the expiration of this Act shall not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment previously incurred under this Act or under any regulations made under tins Act, or affect any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, and any such legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, or Continued, or enforced, and such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not expired.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I have had an explanation from the noble and learned Lord as to the dates, and I do not move (he next three Amendments which stand in my name for their alteration.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty" for "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven." The noble Lord said: I hope the Government will see their way to accept this extremely modest suggestion to prolong the Act for another three years. When this question was raised the Minister of Transport (whom I take to be a convinced democrat) observed that he thought it was much better to leave it without any positive date for its termination. I think that almost everybody who has spoken has expressed the opinion that three years is too short a time. I venture, therefore, to hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 0, leave out ("nineteen hundred and twenty-seven") and insert ("nineteen hundred and thirty").—(Lord Newton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, that it really is absurd to give a life of only three years to this Bill. If you give it such a life hardly anything will be done under it, because all these schemes, of

895
roads, developments, tunnels and what not, take a considerable amount of time first of all for negotiation with and apportionment among the local authorities. Ii those who go upon this Advisory Committee feel that their life is limited to three years, I do not believe that anybody of any standing or force will serve upon it, and that the work of the Committee will be entirely nugatory. I had hoped that my noble friend would put down an Amendment that the Bill should be permanent, because it is a very good Bill. It is a Conservative Bill, and the fact that it is brought in by the Labour party does not make it an entirely bad Bill in my view, considering its origin. If Parliament finds that the Bill is being badly worked it is perfectly easy to bring in another Bill to amend it, or to substitute another in its place. What happens is that Parliament is forced in three or six years to introduce new legislation on the subject. It is almost certain when the time arrives that Parliament will he congested with work, us it always is, and that no new legislation will be possible. It will be placed, I suppose, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and will be carried from year to year under it.
Those who deal with it and work under it will not know from year to year what is going to happen. They cannot bring great schemes into operation. Great schemes of road development take many years to bring to fruition, and the mere fact of giving this temporary nature to the Bill will be a blow to any development under it. I think that my noble friend is too modest, and I would urge him to extend it to nine years because
the people who will go on this Committee will feel then that they are able to demonstrate their value and usefulness, and will be able to show some schemes which will convince the public that they are really capable of doing what they set out to do.
LORD NEWTON: I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Seeing that the noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment, I will move that the Bill shall have a life of nine years.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("nineteen hundred and twenty-seven") and insert (nineteen hundred and thirty-three").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment,. There is much to be said in its favour; but the Bill throughout its passage in another place was referred to as a "stop gap" Bill; at any rate, as a temporary measure. I have no doubt that it will be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act as all these laws are. But I could not accept a different date at this stage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It would be quite futile then.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Banbury of Southam, L.

Erskine, L.

Bathurst, E.

Morton, E.

Lamington, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Meston, L.

Buxton, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Churchill, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Stanmore, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Knutsford, V.

Faringdon, L.

Ancaster, E. [Teller.]

Peel, V. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Clarendon, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Newton, L.

Lucan, E.

Redesdale, L.

Ashfield, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed with accordingly.
Clause 17 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Particular matters which may be referred to the Advisory Committee.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in the heading of the Schedule, to leave out "may" and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: May I ask for some information on this point? At the beginning of this Schedule are the words "Particular matters which may be referred to the Advisory Committee," but in Clause 10 subsection (4) you have the words "Before making any regulations under the section, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report", I suggest that, to make the two agree, the word "may" should be substituted by "shall".
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I do not object to that. It seems to have the same meaning.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Purposes or matters for or with respect to which Regulations may be made by the Minister.
(22) For enabling any police, local or other public authority, in the event of any person failing to do anything which under the regulations he ought to have done, to: do such act, and to recover the expenses thereof from the person so in default summarily as a civil debt.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, at the end of the Schedule, to insert: "(23) For prescribing rules with regard to pedestrians". The noble Lord said: During this discussion we have heard a great deal about Parliamentary control, democratic control and the powers of local authorities, but not a single allusion has been made to pedestrians, and I put this Amendment on the Paper to ensure that their
898
case should not be forgotten. There is nothing in the Bill which protects them. If I am mistaken, then there is no need to move the Amendment; but if I am right, then I think the Amendment should be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 11, at end insert: ("(23) For prescribing rides with regard to pedestrians".)—(Lord Newton.)
LORD THOMSON: There is nothing in the Bill which deals with pedestrians and I doubt whether anybody could devise anything which would make pedestrians keep to the right or left. The difficulty of enforcing any such regulation is very great
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Is it in order to introduce a proposal dealing with pedestrians in a London Traffic Bill? Pedestrians are not traffic.
LORD NEWTON: Oh, yes they are.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, no they are not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My impression is that the gentleman who wanted pedestrians to walk on the right—or was it left?—and chalked the advice on the pavement got severely snubbed for his pains. Nobody paid the slightest attention to his chalk marks. I do not know whether Lord Thomson wants them to go to the right or left——
LORD THOMSON: I do not mind which.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that pedestrians, whatever your Lordships may say, will go exactly as they please.
LORD NEWTON: What is the harm in ensuring that this question shall be considered? I am not asking that pedestrians shall be made to keep to the left of the road. I am merely asking that the Minister, assisted by the Committee, shall prescribe rules for them.
LORD PARMOOR: I sympathise with the noble Lord. I know what care he has taken in the matter. But really the Bill has nothing to do with pedestrians at all. It deals with road traffic and I do not think it can be inserted in this Bill.
LORD NEW'TON: May I remind the noble and learned Lord that the late

899
Minister of Transport and his predecessor were insistent that this was a necessary protection. They were strongly in favour of it, and if the Lord President will refer to the proceedings in Committee in another place he will sec that when the question arose a vague assurance was given that it would not be lost sight of.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (MEASURING INSTRUMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this is a small Departmental Bill to bring measuring instruments under the same regulations as apply to weights and measures. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I was not quite able to catch what the noble Lord said, as there was a good deal of talking going on, but I notice that under this Bill certain Regulations can be made. I should be very much obliged if the noble Lord would tell me if the Bill permits Regulations such as those which we have been discussing, and whether these Regulations are to be laid upon the Table and passed unless a Resolution of both Houses is passed against them, or whether they will not come into force unless a Resolution in their favour has been agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us that.
LORD PARMOOR: These Regulations are made from time to time by the Board of Trade. They have never been submitted to either House, so that neither form mentioned by the noble Earl is applicable, as he will see if he looks at the Bill. This would be an innovation which is certainly not contemplated.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Arnold, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time. It is certified as a Money Bill coming up from the other House. Il is in a common form, and is presented, I think, every year.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

ST. HELENS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.
MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported without Amendment.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES- HEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL.
The Order made on Wednesday the 9th instant appointing certain Lords the

901
Select Committee to consider the Bill discharged.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

E. Malmesbury,

V. Allendale,

L. Teynham,

L. Armstrong,

L. Meston (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Monday next at twelve o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing
902
Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Keighley Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF PEERESSES) BILL. [H.L.]
Adjourned debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, namely: That the Bill be read a Second Time this day six months (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off sine die.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock midnight.