Sitting of 20 November 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    WOMEN.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour if she will state the estimated number of women who have been given direct employment by emergency schemes initiated by the present Government?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Lanark North (Miss Lee) on 6th November.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is it quite clear that the claim is made by the Government that women obtained direct employment as a result of schemes initiated by them?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I ask the right hon. Member to look at the reply referred to.
    Sir K. WOOD: Then exactly what is the Government's position?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Has anything come of the Committee that was to look into the question of finding employment and training for women over 33?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. ROBERT WILSONasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made to provide new premises for the Jarrow and Hebburn Employment Exchange?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The site which the Department had in view for the Hebburn and Jarrow Employment Exchange at the beginning of the year proved, upon examination, to be unsatisfactory. Further search is being made and will be continued until a suitable site has been obtained.
    Mr. MANSFIELDasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware of the lack of proper Employment Exchange accommodation at Eston and Marske; and if she will take the necessary steps in order to provide better facilities for those who are unemployed and reside in those districts, and who have to sign the unemployed register from time to time?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have already explained to my hon. Friend in letters written to him in Au mist, why the circumstances at Eston and Marske do not justify the opening of separate offices. There has been no change in the situation since that time.
    Mr. MANSFIELD: Is the Minister not aware that when the unemployment figures in these districts were less than now, better accommodation was provided?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will certainly look into the question again.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Labour if her Department has made any estimates of the vacancies available in private service for domestic servants, and if she will give the number?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No such estimate has been made.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the Minister considered the enormous number of applications there have been for private domestic servants, and is she going to do something in order to find out how many are required and to arrange for a supply?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The Employment Exchanges are taking up this work very energetically. It is understood, of course, among domestic servants that the great majority of places are places for trained women. We have no means at present of knowing the number of vacancies.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Labour whether she can say how many women have actually been placed in the last year in domestic service through Employment Exchanges; and if she can show cooks and kitchen-maids separately?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Between 23rd September, 1929, and 6th October, 1930, 81,064 vacancies for women in domestic service were filled by Employment Exchanges in Great Britain. Of these, 38,082 were in resident domestic service and 42,982 in non-resident service. Separate figures for cooks and kitchen-maids are not available.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of foreign girls who have been permitted to enter this country and take up domestic situations; and what is the number of women of British nationality qualified for domestic service who are in receipt of unemployment benefit?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As regards the first part of the question the number of permits issued this year up to 31st October was 4,475. I have no statistics enabling me to answer the second part of the question.
    Sir F. HALL: Are the same steps taken with regard to girls coming over here, as with regard to the waiters referred to in a previous question, in order that they may be more or less kept out of the country?
    Miss BONDFIELD: We make the most careful investigation as to whether the mistresses requiring this foreign labour would be satisfied with English labour.
    Sir F. HALL: Is consideration given to the number of women in this country eligible for domestic service who are being paid the dole; and will the right hon. Lady take steps to keep out as many as possible of these foreign girls?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that if girls do take employment in domestic service they immediately transfer themselves out of insurable employment?
    Miss LEE: Is it not the ease that domestic service is not an insurable occupation and therefore that the last question of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) does not arise; and does not the right hon. Lady agree that women corning under the unemployment insurance scheme must not be shoved out into domestic service, whether they are British or not?
    Mr. McSHANE: In cases where these girls enter into service, does any supervision of any kind follow them, as to the conditions of service under which they work?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I believe that in the case of Finnish, Swedish, and Danish Girls there are associations in London which take that matter into account.
    HON. MEMBERS: Who employs these foreigners?
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Graham White.
    Mr. BROWN: This point is important.
    Mr. SPEAKER: All these questions are, no doubt, important.

    TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Minister of Labour what is the liability in the present financial year of the Treasury for the payment of benefit under the transitional benefit arrangements, and what is the present weekly increase in liability?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It is estimated that the cost of transitional benefit, including administration, during the financial year 1930–1931 will be £22,000,000. The weekly increase in liability is at present about £4,000.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Can the Minister say on what figure of unemployment that is based?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I require notice of that question. Broadly speaking, it is between 400,000 and 450,000.

    WAITERS.
    Mr. HANBURYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the grave state of unemployment and of the number of foreign waiters employed by the large hotels and restaurants in this country, she will consider starting training centres for men of British nationality to become waiters so as to provide entirely British staffs for large restaurants?
    Miss BONDFIELD: In addition to the training afforded in the catering industry itself, the London County Council conduct a school for waiters and there are some other establishments of a similar kind. My Department have arranged specially with the London County Council school for the training of a number of men and the possibility of some further extension of the training of waiters or other catering trade workers is under consideration. As regards the possibility of displacing foreign waiters, it is important to bear in mind that they have for the most part been resident here for many years. New entrants are not admitted to this country except under strict limitations both as to number and period of stay which fully safeguard the position of persons already resident here. Those who are admitted, with very few exceptions, come in either under Agreements for Exchange, or for the admission of student employés for a period not exceeding 12 months.
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Minister of Labour how many foreign waiters are in employment in this country; and how many British waiters are out of employment here?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that I have no information as to the number of foreign waiters employed in this country. At 27th October, 1930, there were on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain 8,571 applicants of all nationalities classified as waiters. Separate figures for waiters of British nationality are not available. This figure includes barmen, canteen workers and restaurant counter hands.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Does the Minister not have to grant permission to foreign waiters to come here, and how is it that she has not the information asked for?
    Miss BONDFIELD: On a previous question I replied to that point. We do not, as a matter of fact, admit foreigners just now, but, as I have said, a large number of foreigners have been in this country for many years, and they do not come under my Department.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the position the same with regard to foreign girls coming here?
    Miss BONDFIELD: There is another question on the Paper about that.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: Will the Minister take steps to see that a census is taken next spring of foreign waiters?

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour whether the figures given by her Department of the weekly amount by which the outgoings of the Unemployment Fund exceed the revenue do, in fact, include proper allowance for interest on the loan; whether the interest is being paid or added to the debt of the fund; and what the weekly deficit of the fund is, allowing for the proper proportion of interest on the debt?
    Miss BONDFIELD: If the hon. arid gallant Member will refer to my reply to him of 6th November, he will see that I stated explicitly that the figure of £606,000 was exclusive of a half-yearly payment of interest on 30th September amounting to £1,066,625. This interest averaged £40,000 a week over the 26 weeks in the half year.
    Captain MACDONALD: Am I to take it that the figure given by the Minister's Department is inaccurate, and that the interest in added to the debt?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. I said it was as stated in my reply to his question.
    Captain MACDONALD: Why, then, should the figure be altered?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Because I understood the hon. and gallant Member to use the word "exclusive." If he had used the word "inclusive," I would have replied.
    Captain MACDONALD: I used the word "inclusive" twice.
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am sorry. I misunderstood.

    GOVERNMENT RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Minister of Labour if she will state the average length of time during which the 72,000 persons directly employed under schemes promoted by the Government will continue in such employment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that owing to the variation in the duration of the schemes, no such calculation is possible.

    ROADS AND BRIDGES SCHEMES.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons included in the estimates of persons employed under schemes initiated by the present Government who are engaged on works of improvement and new construction on classified roads and bridges?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare).
    Sir K. WOOD: Do I understand that the Government are claiming with respect to persons who have been put on road work? Is that supposed to have been initiated by the present Government?

    DEVON.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Labour if she will, as an experiment, place such sums as would be involved, assuming the present payments of unemployment pay continue for six months, at the disposal of the local authorities in Devon and enable those authorities to execute needful work instead of, as now, making payments with no resultant work being done?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid I have no power to do what is suggested.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot the Minister take the necessary powers? They would be very valuable.
    Miss BONDFIELD: Special legislation of a very fundamental character would be required.

    TRANSFERRED WORKERS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN - DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken in connection
    588
    with transferred workers to ascertain that they continue to be employed as the result of their transference?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Workpeople are transferred only if there is employment for them. If that employment comes to an end, they are advised to call at the Employment Exchange and, so far as is practicable, they are assisted to find other employment.

    INSURED PERSONS (BIRTH CERTIFICATES).
    Mr. SORENSENasked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that managers of Employment Exchanges are in the habit of demanding birth certificates from insured persons; if she vii say who meets the expense; and whether more than one certificate is demanded?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The Department do not insist on production of evidence of age unless this is necessary in connection with a claim to benefit or some point of doubt with regard to contributions; but as such evidence when once supplied is noted in the records and is not normally required again from the insured person, it is obviously convenient and it should be given on entry into insurance or other early date, thus avoiding the possibility of delay in dealing with a claim made by him later on. It is, therefore, the practice to ask for a birth certificate on entry into insurance. The other occasion on which a birth certificate is commonly asked for is when the claimant is apparently approaching the age of 65 and has not previously supplied evidence of age. The cost of a birth certificate for this purpose is 6d., and is borne by the insured persons.
    Mr. SORENSEN: Cannot the right hon. Lady take steps to see that where the applicant is a poor person the cost is borne by the Employment Exchange?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I very much doubt whether I can do anything in that matter. It is a matter which affects not only my own Department, but other insurance as well.

    DOCK LABOURERS, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. SANDHAMasked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware of the inconvenience caused to dock labourers at the Liverpool docks having to report morning and afternoon each working

    589
    day, when unemployed, at the various clearing houses; that many of the men, particularly those from the new housing areas (the omnibus fare from which is 3d.), have to remain in the vicinity of the docks (after being unable to obtain work on the 8 a.m. stand, and knowing there is no prospect of work at 1 p.m.) for no other reason than to report their unemployment in the afternoon; and whether she will make regulations to make it sufficient for an unemployed docker to report after the 8 a.m. stand only?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Inquiries show that engagements do in fact take place at both the morning and the afternoon calls and, in order to secure employment, it is necessary for these men to attend at one or other of the call places on both occasions; therefore, there is no special inconvenience in their having to attend a clearing house to sign the unemployed register if not engaged. Under the present system, therefore, my hon. Friend's suggestion cannot be adopted.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that these conditions do not only apply to Liverpool, but to every other port; and is the right hon. Lady aware of the fact that shipyard workers, whose employment is equally casual, have only to sign on twice a week, instead of twice a day?
    Mr. TOOLE: Is the right hon. Lady aware that these conditions exist in Salford docks with the same general resentment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware that this is a general condition at the docks, but, as long as this system obtains, I cannot see a better method for signing on. The clearing house is the most convenient for this purpose.
    Mr. SANDHAM: Would the right hon. Lady's Department not, object if any change in this direction were proposed? If the unions arrange a different system so as to reduce the number of visits, would the right hon. Lady be opposed to that change?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly not.

    SCOTLAND.
    Major COLVILLEasked the Minister of Labour the number of per-
    590
    sons registered as unemployed in. Scot land on 1st June, 1929, and at the latest available date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 10th November, 1930, there were 290,897 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland as compared with 144,243 at 3rd June, 1929.
    Major COLVILLEasked the Minister of Labour the number of men directly employed on unemployment relief schemes in Scotland at the latest available date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of men directly employed in Scotland on 26th September on schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee, Ministry of Transport and Department of Agriculture for Scotland was 9,502.
    Major COLVILLE: Does that answer indicate that the Government's relict schemes have only been capable of absorbing a very small proportion of the increased number of unemployed in Scotland?
    Mr. TRAINasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the complaints made by employers in Glasgow regarding their difficulty in engaging workers through the Employment Exchanges, whether she intends to take any steps to assist employers to get labour through the Exchanges?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not aware that employers in Glasgow have had any difficulty in obtaining labour through the Employment Exchanges except in the case of certain classes of skilled work-people of whom there is a known shortage. I should be glad to have any particulars which the hon. Member can give me.
    Mr. TRAIN: Will the right hon. Lady look into a case, if I supply her with the name of a firm at Maryhill, Glasgow, who have been advertising and who put a letter in the "Glasgow Herald" on 11th November, but who cannot get labour, although they are appealing for unskilled labour—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the complaint in Glasgow is on the part of the workers, that they cannot get, jobs, either from the employers or the Employment. Exchanges?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I shall most certainly go into the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train), and I shall be glad to have particulars of it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The "Glasgow Herald" letter was unsigned—no name attached. It was anonymous, like all these other complaints. They had not the courage to sign it.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member entitled to quote from an anonymous letter which is a slander against working-class people in the City of Glasgow?
    Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. Have you not called my question, Sir?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it all right to slander workers with an anonymous document?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the question is put in that way, the hon. Member who puts it is responsible.

    UNITED STATES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether she has any information as to the present extent of unemployment in the United States of America and as to the measures which are being taken there to cope with it?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The exact extent of unemployment at the present time in the United States of America is not known, since there are no official statistics showing the numbers unemployed; but there can be no doubt that there is a large amount of unemployment in that country. The official index of employment in manufacturing industries was 79.7 for September, 1930, as compared with 100, the average index for the year 1926. The American Federation of Labour reported that according to returns received from trade unions in a number of cities, 21 per cent. of the membership were unemployed at the beginning of October, 1930. I understand that an Emergency Committee for Employment was set up by the President last month to organise, in co-operation with State and local authorities and charity organisations, measures for the relief of the needy unemployed, and that schemes of public works are in hand or in contemplation.
    Mr. PYBUS: In view of the fact that one Member on the Treasury Bench has taken a figure of 5,000,000 unemployed in America, and another has reported it to be 10,000,000, would it not be advisable to secure some information as to whether it is 5,000,000 or 10,000,000?

    ROYAL COMMISSION.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make with reference to the proposed Royal Commission of Inquiry into Unemployment Insurance; and, if so, whether he can state the terms of reference, together with the proposed membership and the date on which it is proposed it shall commence its labours?
    Mr. BEAUMONTasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a further announcement concerning the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I have been asked to answer this question. It is not yet possible to add anything to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) on the 6th November.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall be able to have that reply?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot say that definitely, but I know that fairly rapid progress is being made in setting up the membership of the Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that it always takes a considerable amount of time.
    Mr. BROWN: If I repeat the question this day week, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting a woman on this Commission?

  RAILWAYS (WAGES AGREEMENTS).
  Sir R. GOWERasked the Minister of Labour whether she has any statement to make with regard to the progress of the negotiations pending between the railway companies of this country and the

  593
  trade unions concerned relative to the remuneration to be paid in future to railway employés?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given regarding this matter on Monday last, of which I am sending him a copy.

  SAFEGUARDED INDUSTRIES (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour if she will cause inquiries to be made and issue a report on the movements and changes which may have taken place in the wages and conditions of the workpeople in those industries covered by the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act for the period which those provisions have been in operation?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I doubt whether it would now be practicable to obtain, by special inquiries, particulars for past years which would provide a satisfactory basis for a comprehensive report on this subject. Some information, however, is available as to such general changes in rates of wages as have taken place and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement summarising this information.
  Following is the statement:
  No general change in rates of wages or normal weekly hours of labour has been reported since the imposition of the Duties now in operation under the Safeguarding of Industries Act in any of the industries to which these Duties apply, except fabric glove making and paper manufacture.
  In the case of fabric gloves a reduction of 12½ per cent. in rates of wages which had been made in April, 1923, was restored in 1928.
  In the paper-making industry agreed reductions in rates of wages amounting to seven-eighths of a penny or one penny per hour for men and three-eighths of a penny for women, came into operation in August, 1930. These reductions applied to the whole of the paper-making industry irrespective of any distinction between safeguarded and non-safeguarded sections.
  It is possible that apart from general changes in rates of wages or hours of labour, changes may have occurred affect-
  594
  ing workpeople employed by individual firms. Moreover, actual earnings may have altered as a result of changes in the state of trade and employment. Statistics as to such changes are not, however, available.

  COST OF LIVING.
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Labour what was the average over-all index figure of the general purchasing value level of money (retail prices) in the United Kingdom for the period covered by the years 1914 to 1917, inclusive; and similarly for the month of October, 1930, using 1913 equal 100?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The Ministry of Labour index-number relating to changes in working-class cost-of-living showed average increases, as compared with July, 1914, of 23 per cent. in 1915, 46 per cent, in 1916, 76 per cent, in 1917, and 56 per cent, at 1st October, 1930. Comparable figures are not available for dates prior to July, 1914.

  ARREST (PLAISTOW).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the wrongful arrest and imprisonment of Mr. William Henry Fisher, of Plaistow, London, E., and whether it is proposed to make any grant to him on that account; and will he give the House particulars?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The attention of my right hon. Friend was called to this case by my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne). My right hon. Friend has made inquiry and is satisfied that this is not a case in which he would be justified in entertaining any application for payment, by way of compensation from public funds.

  WHITE LEAD POISONING.
  Mr. WHITEasked the Home Secretary the number of cases of lead poisoning notified, and the number of deaths which have occurred since the imposition of the new regulations dealing with the use of white lead?
  Mr. SHORT: The Regulations under the Lead Paint Act came into force on the 1st October, 1927. During 1928, 87 cases were reported, including 20 deaths; during 1929, there were 75 cases including 10 deaths; and during the nine months ending the 30th September last, there were 43 cases including 9 deaths.
  Mr. WHITE: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied that these regulations are sufficient to meet the needs of the case?
  Mr. SHORT: I may say that they are constantly under review, having regard to the facts in cases that are brought to our notice.

  POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE ACT.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Home Secretary whether regulations have yet been drawn up with regard to the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1930?
  Mr. SHORT: Regulations are in course of preparation, and it is expected that they will be published before the Act comes into operation on the 1st January, 1931.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that these regulations fulfil the pledge given by the Government during the progress of this Bill, that King's Counsel should be provided in cases of exceptional difficulty?
  Mr. SHORT: I am sure that any pledge of that kind will not be overlooked by my right hon. Friend, and I can assure the House that all relevant facts will be taken into consideration.
  Mr. McSHANE: With respect to a poor prisoner having the choice of his own solicitor, will the regulation which the Government promised be incorporated in the body of regulations?
  Mr. SHORT: I cannot answer the latter part of the question, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that all relevant facts will be taken into consideration.
  Mr. McSHANE: But is it not true that the hon. Gentleman himself gave an explicit promise on the Committee stage of the Bill that such would be done?
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my anxiety is caused by the fact that the Government opposed at every stage of the Bill an Amendment which contained the provision of King's Counsel?

  TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (PROCESSIONS).
  Mr. MARLEYasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirabiilty of making regulations for the better organisation of traffic upon special occasions which would lessen the dislocation and congestion which cause business and financial loss, especially with a view of arranging for processions, such as the Lord Mayor's show, to take place at such times and by such routes as would cause least obstruction to traffic?
  Mr. SHORT: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has power to make regulations for preventing obstruction of the streets within the Metropolitan Police District in all times of public processions, and did in fact make such regulations on the occasion of the recent Lord Mayor's Show. In framing regulations, every effort is made to reduce to a minimum the inevitable interference with traffic.
  Mr. MARLEY: Could it be suggested that this Show should take place at a time when there is not so much traffic about, like a Saturday afternoon, or that it should take place at Olympia or the Stadium at Wembley or somewhere like that?

  ALIENS.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary how many persons of foreign nationality have been admitted into Great Britain since 1st January, 1930, for the purpose of taking up residence in this country; and what principal nationalities such persons claim?
  Mr. SHORT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statistics published quarterly and yearly. The latest return (Cmd. Paper 3576 II) shows that during the nine months ended the 30th September, 1930, 385,112 alien passengers landed in the United King-

  597
  dom. I cannot say how many intended to take up residence here, but experience shows that a great proportion of the persons were here for visits or other temporary reasons, and I may perhaps draw attention to the footnotes to Table I of the return mentioned, and to Table II of the Annual Return.
  Captain MACDONALD: Do I understand that no record is kept of what these people come over here for and whether they are remaining or getting other occupations?
  Mr. SHORT: I think not, but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the papers that I am sending him, and then requires further information, I shall be glad to give it.
  Captain MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether steps are taken by his Department to see that foreign persons admitted to this country, ostensibly to attend schools and colleges, do not, in fact, enter any gainful occupations in Great Britain?
  Mr. SHORT: The Home Office is regularly engaged in preventing evasion of the law which requires that an alien shall not enter this country for employment except in pursuance of a permit issued by the Minister of Labour, and in proper cases my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary requires an alien guilty of such evasion to leave the country.
  Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to communicate with the Ministry of Labour and draw their attention to the fact that they are allowing an enormous number of foreign girls to come into this country and get work in theatres, to the detriment of our own working class?
  Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Gentleman say if there have been any deportations recently?
  Mr. SHORT: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Sir GEORGE PENNYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of unemployed, he will take steps to prevent Frenchmen coming over to this country to sell onions?
  Mr. SHORT: No, Sir.
  Sir G. PENNY: Will the hon. Member approach the Minister of Agriculture to give his sympathetic consideration to this matter, in the same way as he is doing in regard to fruit?
  Mr. SHORT: I do not think that it is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these picturesque immigrants are very popular in the countryside, and will help to popularise the French nation among our people?

  ABSINTHE.
  Major OWENasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to introduce legislation forbidding the manufacture, sale, and use of absinthe in this country?
  Mr. SHORT: No, Sir.
  Major OWEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that legislation has already been passed by France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany, forbidding the sale and manufacture of this drink, and is this country going to lag behind those Continental countries in this matter?
  Mr. SHORT: I am aware of the facts as stated by the hon. and gallant Member, hut so far as I am aware there is no ground for taking action in this country.

  LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES (IRISH FREE STATE).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider introducing legislation to provide that all persons passing to and fro between this country and the Irish Free State may be asked to declare whether they carry cash or correspondence in relation to lotteries or sweepstakes and, if so, may be forbidden entrance or exit on the ground that they are engaged in an illegal enterprise?
  Mr. SHORT: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think that such legislation is either necessary or desirable.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making representations to the Government in order to legalise lotteries for charitable purposes?

  COASTGUARD SERVICE.
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to say whether it is his intention to set up a Parliamentary committee to make comprehensive inquiry into the whole question of the coastguard service?
  Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to answer this question. As the hon. and gallant Member has already been informed, there will be an inquiry into the general questions raised by the report on the "Islander" case, and an announcement as to the form which the inquiry will take will be made at the earliest possible moment.
  Commander SOUTHBY: In view of the urgency of this important matter, cannot the hon. Gentleman say when this inquiry will actually take place?
  Mr. GILLETT: The matter is before my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Commander SOUTHBY: If I put a question down in a week's time, will the hon. Gentleman be able then to give me a reply?
  Mr. GILLETT: I cannot promise that on behalf of my right hon. Friend, but I should think it is quite possible.

  RUSSIA (SUGAR).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the results of the inquiry which he promised should be instituted with respect to the arrangements which have been made by the Soviet Government for the purchase and disposal of sugar?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have been asked to answer this question. Under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme guarantees have been given in connection with the export to Russia of cane sugar refined in this country. While I have no official information on the subject, I understand that Russia has also bought raw sugar direct from Cuba. No guarantees have been given in connection with these latter transactions, which would not fall within the scope of
  600
  the scheme. Latvia normally imports considerable quantities of sugar from Russia, but, although official statistics for the current year are not yet available, private inquiries which I have made suggest that the amount of sugar entering Latvia during 1930 from Russia has so far been considerably less than in 1928 and 1929.
  Sir F. HALL: Is there any truth in the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech on the 4th of this month, about which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said he would pledge himself to set down a departmental minute to inquire as to the authenticity of the point raised by my right hon. Friend?
  HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
  Sir F. HALL: Is it true or not?

  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Prime Minister whether the undertaking given by the Government to the Imperial Conference to continue the existing imperial preferences for three years includes both the McKenna and Safeguarding Duties?
  Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether the pledge given at the Imperial Conference to maintain all existing preferences intact for three years applies to the preferences enjoyed by other parts of the Empire in respect of the McKenna and Safeguarding Duties, the Silk Duty, and Key Industries Duties?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have been asked to reply. Paragraph 3 of the Declaration made by the United Kingdom Government at the Imperial Conference applies to all existing duties. This application is, of course, governed by any provisions, e.g. as to duration, in the existing law relating to those duties, and is subject to the rights of the United Kingdom Parliament to fix the Budget from year to year.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up this point in regard to the McKenna Duties: seeing that the margin of preference at present is 11 per cent., if he decided to reduce

  601
  the McKenna Duties, would he be precluded by his pledge from reducing them below 10 per cent.?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly not. It will work out like this. Take the case of the McKenna Duties. If we reduced a duty upon foreign imports from 33½ per cent. to 11 per cent. and brought in imports from the Empire free, the existing margin would still be maintained.
  Mr. AMERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider himself entitled to reduce the McKenna Duties altogether?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not see how that arises out of the question.
  Mr. AMERY: Does not the pledge to maintain the existing preferential margin mean a pledge so far as the Government are concerned, unless it is over-ridden by Parliament, to maintain every duty that carries preference with it at the present moment?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: As the right hon. Gentleman knows if he has read it carefully—there is snore than one condition—this Declaration to maintain the existing preferential margins is subject to what may be done at the Conference at Ottawa, and it is governed by the maintenance of the right of Parliament to deal with these duties; but apart from that, there is, of course, an obligation that the existing duties—using the word existing in the sense I explained in reply to the question—would maintain the preference.
  Mr. AMERY: I want to ask, apart from any equivocation about the rights of Parliament—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order! and Withdraw!
  Mr. SPEAKER: That shows how unsuitable it is to try to debate this kind of subject at Question Time.

  CONVICTS (TRANSPORT).
  Mr. MORLEYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a fight between five convicts and warders in a railway train near Romsey; whether it is usual for a party of convicts sentenced separately to be taken together to their destination; whether in this case the strength of the escort was in accordance with Regulations; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. SHORT: A full inquiry is being made into this case, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

  EDUCATION.

    CONVEYANCE OF CHILDREN.
    Mr. BLINDELLasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the additional expenditure involved and of the representations made to him respecting the increased expenditure by local education authorities in connection with the conveyance of children to senior schools consequent upon the adoption of reorganisation schemes, he proposes materially to increase the present grant of 20 per cent.?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave, a fortnight ago, to the Noble Lord the Member for Dorset South (Viscount Cranborne), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. BLINDELL: Is it the policy of the Board of Education to make an extra grant to rural authorities, in view of the fact that they are called upon to spend large sums of money that the urban authorities are not called upon to spend?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The reply deals with that point.

    UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS AND EXHIBITIONS.
    Mr. PHILIP OLIVERasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any information as to the proportion of scholarships and exhibitions secured in open competition by children whose education began in the primary schools at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I regret that I have no information as to open scholarships awarded at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

    SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL.
    Mr. P. OLIVERasked the President of the Board of Education how the estimated figure of £5 per head or thereabouts mentioned in the White Paper as likely to be incurred under the

    603
    Education (School Attendance) Bill upon the education of children aged 14 to 15 years, is allocated as between teachers' salaries, loan charges, administrative expenses, and other items of expenditure?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the estimate of £2,500,000, given in the Financial Memorandum of the Bill, for the extra provision for educating the additional age group. This sum is allocated as follows:

    £

    Salaries of teachers

    1,800,000

    Loan charges, maintenance of buildings, provision of books, and allowance for overhead charges

    700,000

    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Education which education authorities within the boundaries of Greater London have notified him that they will be ready to deal with the increased number of children necessitated by the Education Bill by the date mentioned therein, and which have failed to do so up to the present date?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Local education authorities have not been asked to notify the Board whether they will be ready to deal with the additional children to be retained in the schools under the Bill now before the House. All the authorities in Greater London, except the London County Council, Hornsey, and Wimbledon, have submitted complete or partial programmes for the three years 1930–33, which take account of the provision necessary for the additional children. These programmes suggest that, generally speaking, the necessary accommodation will be available, though it may not be possible to avoid temporary pressure in a few districts, particularly where extensive housing developments are taking place. It cannot be assumed that the authorities which have not submitted programmes making the necessary provision will, in fact, be unable to do so if the Bill become law.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it still the intention of the Government to launch this Bill when they know that numerous
    604
    authorities are not ready with the accommodation required or with the teachers?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: That matter was discussed on Second Reading?
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the greater part of the County of London has ample accommodation?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon) in Which he said that only 50 local authorities, which included none of the large authorities and no county authorities, will be ready or have said that they will be ready by 1st April next—
    HON. MEMBERSSpeech!
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that I do not recall exactly the figures.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the President of the Board of Education the estimated amount of the burden falling upon the rates in England to meet the expenditure which would be incurred through the raising of the school age and in the provision of maintenance grants on the scale proposed; and whether he can supply the estimated figures for each county and city area in England?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: In the Financial Memorandum on the Education (School Attendance) Bill I have given an estimate of the eventual additional charge on the rates in England and Wales. I am unable, however, to supply separate figures for England or for individual areas.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the President of the Board of Education the substance of any representations made to him by the County Councils' Association in regard to the date of operation of the Education (School Attendance) Bill and any other provisions of the Bill?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have been informed by the Education Committee of the County Councils' Association that the earliest date for raising the school age should be 1st September, 1933, and that, in regard to maintenance allowances, they see no reason for a departure from the recommendations of the committee representing the local authorities.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless pressure comes from above some of the county councils referred to in this question will not be ready by 1973?

    COMMERCIAL TRAINING.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Education in how many elementary day schools special commercial training over a period of more than one year is given; and whether he will consider making arrangements which will enable suitable scholars to obtain at least two years' commercial instruction prior to reaching the age of 14?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I regret that I have not the necessary information to enable me to answer the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part of the question, the type of instruction to be provided for older children is, generally speaking, left to the discretion of the local education authorities. I have, however, already drawn the attention of the authorities to the importance of providing facilities for varying types of instruction for these older children, and, as one of the results of reorganisation now going on, there is a continued increase in the number of schools in which such facilities are, in fact, provided.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman drawn the attention of the local authorities to the necessity of providing special instruction in rural areas?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education how many secondary schools which are both rate-and grant-aided have equipment enabling them to give mechanical and practical courses at least the equivalent of the courses provided in junior technical schools?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I regret that 1 am unable to give the desired information. A certain number of secondary schools include engineering courses in their curriculum and possess the necessary equipment for this purpose, and if my hon. Friend so desires, I shall be glad to give him any information I can
    606
    in regard to them. But I am afraid that I have not found it possible to apply the standards obtaining in junior technical schools so as to make the comparison suggested in the question.
    Mr. EDE: In considering the plans of new secondary schools, will the right hon. Gentleman try to see that provision is made for adequate courses of practical instruction suitable to the ages of the boys and girls there?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, without that, the extra year will be a waste of time?

    MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the President of the Board of Education the name of any county in which children are obliged to attend school beyond the age of 14 where maintenance allowances are granted to such children to enable them to attend school after that age?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: The education authority for the County of Carnarvonshire has adopted a byelaw requiring attendance at school up to the age of 15, and has also in operation a scheme of maintenance allowances for children over the age of 14.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that the question was meant to refer to "country" and not "county"?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am sorry. I will give the Noble Lady a reply in that sense.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are all the maintenance allowances given by Carnarvonshire on a flat rate?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not quite sure.
    Major OWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a flat rate in Carnarvonshire of 3s. a week?

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the President of the Board of Education what Foreign States or provinces of the Dominions have raised the school-leaving age above 14 years; and which of these states or provinces, if any, have both a school year consisting of as many hours'

    607
    attendance as are required in this country, and a system under which no exemptions are permitted below the school-leaving age?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: As regard the first part of the question, the countries concerned are:
    Norway;
    Fourteen of the cantons of Switzerland;
    Forty-three of the 48 States of the United States of America and the District of Columbia;
    The provinces of Nova. Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta in Canada;
    All four provinces of the Union of South Africa (as regards children of European descent).
    As regards the second part of the question, the only country which appears both to require as much attendance per annum as is required in this country and to make no provision for exemption is Norway, as regards its urban schools.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not a fact that in Norway a very short school year is required in the rural schools?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: That may be so, but I hope that we shall do better here.

  HOUSING.

    REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to appoint an advisory committee, consisting of experts in town-planning, representatives of the local authorities, and civil servants, to consider the present schemes of the regional town-planning committees and select those which can be put into immediate operation?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Many reports have been issued by Advisory Regional Committees, but these are far from being approved schemes. No regional schemes have been approved, though many proposals of a regional character are embodied in approved town plans or pre-
    608
    liminary statements, and several have been or are being carried out by Local Authorities. I am not at present satisfied that any useful purpose would be served by such a committee as that suggested, but the matter is being further considered.
    Sir K. WOOD: Did the right hon. Gentleman, in turning down this scheme, overlook the fact that this is a proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)?

    RURAL WORKERS ACT (CARMARTHENSHIRE).
    Mr. HOPKINasked the Minister of Health the number of applications received by the Carmarthenshire County Council for grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926; the number of successful applications; the amount of money granted under this Act; and if he is satisfied with the results of the working of this Act in the county of Carmarthen?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Applications have been made in respect of 83 dwellings, and assistance amounting to £2,084 has been promised in respect of 22. These results are not very great, but I have at present no reason to suppose that the Council are not endeavouring to make a proper use of their powers under the Act.
    Mr. HOPKIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 90 per cent. of the applicants in Scotland were successful?

    COTTAGE TENANTS, PASTON, NORFOLK.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a London company of property owners are purchasing property in the village of Paston, Norfolk, and forcing cottage holders, under the threat of losing their employment, to become tied tenants, with restrictions on chicken keeping and liable to eviction on change of employment; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of agricultural workers in these cases?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no information on the matter, which does not appear to be one in which I am empowered to take any action, but perhaps my hon. Friend will send me particulars in regard to it.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    TUBERCULOSIS, SOUTH SHIELDS.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Health if he has yet received a report from his representative who recently investigated the prevalence of tuberculosis in the county borough of South Shields; if so, what action he proposes taking; and if he will consider at an early date calling a conference of the authorities for dealing with tuberculosis on the Tyneside, with a view to securing the inauguration of a centralised and comprehensive scheme at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have already communicated with the town council and have made certain suggestions for increasing the hospital provision available for the treatment of this disease in South Shields. As regards the last part of the question', if the local authorities concerned consider that a conference would be desirable, I shall be glad to do anything in my power to facilitate it.
    Mr. EDE: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to call such a conference if requested, and arrange for one of his officers to attend?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Oh, most certainly.

    MEDICAL JOURNALS (ADVERTISED DRUGS).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of amending the Medical Act of 1886 with a view to controlling advertisements of drugs in medical papers?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not aware that there is any ground for proposing to extend the control which I understand is already exercised over advertisements of this character by the proprietors of the medical journals concerned.

    DEATH CERTIFICATION.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by Dr. F. J. Waldo, the Southwark coroner, at recent inquest, to the effect that there are thousands of doctors who certify death without seeing the body of the deceased, and that it should be made
    610
    compulsory that all bodies should be examined; and will he consider the appointment of a departmental committee to consider this subject with the object of introducing legislation which will make it imperative for doctors to see the deceased persons before death certificates are issued?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My attention has not previously been drawn to the statement referred to. This subject was, however, fully discussed during the passage through this House of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1926; and I do not see sufficient reason for any further action in present circumstances.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into this matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid I cannot make inquiries of corpses.
    Mr. DAY: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the experience of these coroners?

    ANATOMICAL EXAMINATION (PAUPERS' BODIES).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the public assistance committees of several counties have decided that in future bodies of friendless paupers are to be available for dissection at medical schools; can he say whether any regulations exist by which a friendless pauper, who is dying in a hospital, is notified of the fact that his body-will be handed over for the purpose of dissection unless he protests; and are any arrangements made by the authorities to satisfy themselves that when the dissected body is buried the correct remains of the body are properly interred?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, any inmate of an institution may express a desire that his body shall be interred without anatomical examination, and Section 7 of the Anatomy Act, 1832. provides that such a wish shall be respected.
    Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any intimation is given to these inmates, and whether it is not the fact that many inmates have no relatives?

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the Minister of Health if he will take the necessary steps to ascertain the cost involved if the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, were amended to provide that a wife, on attaining the age of 65, could be granted an old age contributory pension in respect of her husband's insurance, notwithstanding the fact that the husband had not attained the age of 65, but was of the age of 60 or upwards?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that I could not, in present conditions, justify the expense which would be incurred in making the extensive research and calculations necessary to obtain the information desired by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of persons employed in an excepted employment by virtue of a certificate given under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of Part II of the First Schedule to the National Insurance Act who have become voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that this information is not available and could only be obtained by inquiry from the 7,000 approved societies and branches.
  Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that about 5,500 employés of the late Poor Law authorities in London who were formerly insured for full pension benefits under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age (Contributory) Pensions Act, 1925, are liable to be deprived of their old age pension benefits for which they have paid contributions except they become voluntary contributors; and whether, in view of the hardship to many of these persons involved, he will say what action the Government proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to those employés who on transfer to the London County Council are no longer compulsorily insured for old age pensions because they, in common with other employés of the council, are covered by the exception provided for in Section 9, pro-
  612
  viso (c) of the Act. As the ground for this exception is that the terms of employment secure superannuation rights equivalent to those conferred by the Act by way of old age pensions, and as an old age pension in addition can normally be secured by voluntary insurance, I cannot agree that there is any hardship as suggested in the question. In any event, the position could not be altered without legislation.
  Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further into this matter, because if he does I think he will find that there is considerable hardship?
  Mr. BARRasked the Minister of Health whether he is giving consideration to the fact that many old age and widows' contributory pensions will be in jeopardy owing to the period of the prolongation of insurance coming to an end on 31st December next; and whether he will take steps to meet the situation?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply given on 30th October to the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) and Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) on the same subject.
  Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health whether, when consideration is being given to the more aged claimants whose insurance will lapse consequent upon prolonged unemployment, he will take into account those younger in years at the same time?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply given on 30th October to the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) and Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) on the same subject.

  CENSUS RETURNS.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether, in the coming Census Return for Wales, he will make adequate provision, in addition to the present information, for indicating whether the usual language spoken is Welsh or English, as the headings on previous occasions provide no indication in this direction?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: After careful consideration it has been decided to repeat substantially the 1921 form of the inquiry in question, as the hon. Member

  613
  will see on inspection of the draft Census Order in Council which has been laid before the House.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not more important to know what language is usually spoken than what language they may happen to know?
  Major GEORGE DAVIES: Is it correct to describe Welsh as a usual language?
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention in the coming Census forms to limit the examples given of cases where a person is referred to as head of a household to male parents, as was done in the case of the last Census?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: It does not appear to be the case that the examples contained in the 1921 Census Schedules were limited in the manner suggested by the hon. Member; and it is not proposed that they should be so limited in the 1931 Schedules.

  POOR LAW.

    STONE-BREAKING.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health the conditions under which stone-breaking is carried on in the casual wards at Frome, Somerset and Leighton Buzzard?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Casuals in these wards may be required to perform a task of stone-breaking in small work cells which open out of their sleeping cells. At Frome the task is by time. I understand that the Somersetshire County Council have the question of discontinuing this task under consideration. At Leighton Buzzard only selected men are required to perform the stone-breaking. The task is by quantity, and the casual is required to break into smaller pieces about 2 cwt. of stone which has already been broken into lumps varying from 1 lb. to 2 lbs. in weight.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Did I understand the Minister to say that stone-breaking was done in locked-up cells, and, if so, can he take steps to have it prohibited there or elsewhere?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No; there are small work cells which open out from
    614
    sleeping cells. As regards the last part of the question, I hope very shortly to submit an Order to the House which wilt assure that stone-breaking will no longer be one of the prescribed tasks.
    Sir K. WOOD: Inasmuch as stone-breaking has been going on for the last 15 or 16 months, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman who it is that he now describes as "callous and inhuman"?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the answer is that it has been going on for the last 15 or 16 years.
    HON. MEMBERS: What about your speeches in the past?

    PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY'S INVESTIGATIONS.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health whether it is intended to issue a report as a result of the Parliamentary Secretary's recent visits and investigations in certain Poor Law areas?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. GOULD: In the light of the answer given, in view of the lack of publicity under which the public assistance committee now carry on their work, and the lack of uniformity in the administration of the Poor Law, would it not be helpful to get first-hand knowledge from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health after the experience which she has had?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Has the Parliamentary Secretary been to see the stone-breaking?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: On the general question I should be very unwilling to establish a new precedent that our official visits should be the subject of reports to Parliament.
    Sir K. WOOD: May we be told how this distress has been abolished in three days by the present Government?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

  PRIVATE STREET WORKS.
  Mr. P. OLIVERasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes this Session to introduce the legislation dealing with private street works foreshadowed on page 125 of his 11th Annual Report?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The passage in the Annual Report to which the hon. Member refers comments on the fact that in the urban areas of England and Wales there are two alternative codes of law relating to private street works, differing in matters of substance. Legislation is not practicable at the present time. I may point out, however, that the Private Street Works Act, 1892, which is the later code, can be adopted by resolution of the urban authority.

  WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH.
  Major OWENasked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for a representative of the Welsh Board of Health to be present at all deliberations of the Minister regarding national health insurance?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The arrangements for discussion of matters relative to the work of my Department must clearly be a matter for me to determine from time to time according to the exigencies of the work, and I therefore cannot give any such undertaking as the hon. Member suggests.

  ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Health on what date it was decided to set up an actuarial investigation into the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act of 1909; at what date this investigation actually commenced and by what date he expects it to be finished; and if he is aware that the great bulk of asylum workers cannot take any action to rectify the many superannuation anomalies under which they suffer until this investigation is complete?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: A decision to set up this investigation was taken in September, 1929, and the intervening period has been occupied by the collection of the necessary data from the institutions concerned. The returns received are before the Government Actuary who will carry out the investigation as quickly as possible. It will necessarily occupy a considerable period, and it is not practicable to fix a date for1 its completion.
  Commander SOUTHBY: In view of the injustice which has been occasioned to asylum workers by the present condition of affairs, can the right hon. Gentleman not do something to speed up this inquiry?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am prepared to do all that I can, but, as hon. Members know, an actuarial investigation of this kind into a number of societies must take some time.

  OIL STORAGE DEPOT, CANVEY ISLAND.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health what were the circumstances under which. he gave permission for the erection of an oil storage depot and refinery on Canvey Island in connection with the distribution of Russian petrol in Great Britain; whether any protest in this matter has been received from the local authority of the area affected; and, if so, will he state what action has been taken as the result of such protest?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The site of the oil storage depot is in an area for which the local council are preparing a town planning scheme. An appeal was made to me, as was permissible under town planning procedure, against the refusal of the local council to allow the proposed development, and a public local inquiry was held. I considered carefully all the representations in the matter, and came to the conclusion that I could not uphold the local council and granted permission for the development subject to conditions designed to obviate any detriment to the area. No question of Russian petrol entered into the decision. The local Council have protested but I cannot now reopen the case.

  TAXATION (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
  Mr. R. A. TAYLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he can give the comparative taxation burdens borne by a family of husband, wife, and. two children in England, France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway, in respect of unearned incomes of £500, £1,500, and £3,000 per annum;
  (2) if he can give the comparative taxation burdens borne by a family of husband and wife and two children in

  617
  England, France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway in respect of earned incomes of £500, £1,500, and £3,000 per annum?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to Income Tax. If so, he will find in the Financial Statement (1930/31) information illustrating the Income Tax payable by certain incomes. I am not able to make the desired comparison with other countries.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a study of comparative tax burdens recently published by Unilever, which shows that this country, in regard to incomes up to £3,000 a year, is the lightest taxed among the countries named?

  STAMP DUTY (CHEQUES).
  Mr. MORLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the reduction of the Stamp Duty upon cheques drawn for small sums?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: My hon. Friend will not expect me to deal fully with this matter in reply to a question. I do not think, however, that it would be practicable to graduate this duty by reference to the amount of the cheque.

  BANK STATUTES.
  Mr. MORLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to secure international agreement for the amendment of the bank statutes of gold standard countries with a view to reducing gold cover?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question put to me on the 4th November by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East. (Mr. Mander), to which I cannot at present add anything.

  GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  Mr. O. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the direct financial burden on the Exchequer as a result of the new arrangements for the conduct of opera at Covent Garden?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: His Majesty's Government have agreed, subject to the voting by Parliament of the necessary funds, to make a grant of £5,000 for the last quarter of the current calendar year and a grant of £17,500 a year for five years beginning on 1st January, 1931, towards the expense of presentation of grand opera not merely at Covent Garden but also in the provinces. The remaining necessary funds will be provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation and by private subscriptions. The Government grant will actually be paid through the British Broadcasting Corporation, a special addition to their normal income being made for that purpose, and a revised agreement 'between the Postmaster-General and the Corporation will be laid before Parliament in due course.
  Mr. LEWIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lease of the Covent Garden Theatre falls in in a few months' time, and that then the rent will be enormously increased; and that therefore the larger part of the Government subsidy will go to the landlords of Covent Garden?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I believe he has been altogether misinformed.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that this very generous offer is money from the Treasury, and not from the British Broadcasting Corporation, and that that corporation is only the medium for distributing?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It is money, of course, which will come from the Treasury by an addition to the income of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
  Mr. BEN RILEY: Will any conditions be attached to the grant by the Government as to the price to be charged for the opera?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There is a good deal that may be said by way of explanation of this, as I think, very laudable scheme. The idea is that there shall be certain performances at Covent Garden something on the lines of those which have been given hitherto; and then at Covent Garden it has been arranged that there shall be a repetition of those perform-

  619
  ances at very popular prices. There will also be popular prices for opera performances in the provinces. One of the purposes of this grant is to try to encourage and stimulate British opera production.
  Mr. TOOLE: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a position to say how many performances are to be given in Manchester, where opera is much more appreciated than in London?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the Business for next week?
Mr. P. SNOWDEN: On Monday, the Motion conferring on the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill the power to select Amendments; and, after that, the Committee stage of the Education (School Attendance) Bill.
Tuesday: The Education (School Attendance) Bill, Committee.
Wednesday: Private Members' day.
Thursday: Education (School Attendance) Bill, Committee; Cunard (Insurance) Agreement Bill, Committee.
Friday: Private Members' day.
On any day, if time permits, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. BALDWIN: I notice on the Order Paper a Motion by which it is proposed that we should sit after Eleven o'clock to-night. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what business he proposes to take after Eleven?
Mr. SNOWDEN: We do not wish to continue the Committee stage of the Education (School Attendance) Bill beyond about Eleven o'clock, but we want to get the Money Resolution for the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, and the Second Reading of the Cunard (Insurance) Agreement Bill. The latter Measure is very urgent in view of the employment that it will provide.
Sir K. WOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the Trade Disputes Bill?
Mr. SNOWDEN: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having forgotten to anticipate his usual request.
Sir K. WOOD: What is the answer?
Mr. BALDWIN: With reference to the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister, may I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is in two parts, and ask you to put the two parts separately?
Mr. SPEAKER: I will put the Motion in two parts.
Ordered,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
Motion made, and Question put,
"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. P. Snowden.]
The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 121.

Division No. 13.]

AYES

[3.50 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Bllndell, James

Compton, Joseph

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Cove, William G.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Bowen, J. W.

Cowan, D. M.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Daggar, George

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Brockway, A. Fenner

Dallas, George

Alpass, J. H.

Bromfield, William

Dalton, Hugh

Ammon, Charles George

Bromley, J.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Angell, Norman

Brooke, W.

Day, Harry

Arnott, John

Brothers, M.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Asks, Sir Robert

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Dukes, C.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Duncan, Charles

Ayles, Walter

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Ede, James Chuter

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Buchanan, G.

Edge, Sir William

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Burgess, F. G.

Edmunds, J. E.

Barr, James

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

Egan, W. H.

Batey, Joseph

Cameron, A. G.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Bellamy, Albert

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Freeman, Peter

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Charleton, H. C.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Chater, Daniel

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Benson, G.

Clarke, J. S.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Cluse W. S.

Gibbins, Joseph

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Gill, T. H.

Longbottom, A. W.

Sexton, James

Gillett, George M.

Longden, F.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Glassey, A. E.

Lowth, Thomas

Shaw, Rt. Hon Thomas (Preston)

Gossling, A. G.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Gould, F.

McElwee, A.

Sherwood, G. H.

Gray, Milner

McKinlay, A.

Shield, George William

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

MacLaren, Andrew

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Shillaker, J F.

Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Shinwell, E.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

McShane, John James

Simmons, C. J

Groves, Thomas E.

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mansfield, W.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Hall. F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

March, S.

Sinkinson, George

Half, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Marcus, M.

Sitch, Charles H.

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Markham, S. F.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Marley, J.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Harbord, A.

Marshall, Fred

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Hardie, George D.

Mathers, George

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Harris, Percy A.

Matters, L. W.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Messer, Fred

Snell, Harry

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Millar, J. D.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Haycock, A. W.

Mills, J. E.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Heyday, Arthur

Milner, Major J.

Sorensen, R.

Hayes, John Henry

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Morley, Ralph

Stephen, Campbell

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Strauss, G. R.

Herrlotts, J.

Mort, D. L.

Sutton, J. E.

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Moses, J. J. H.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)

Muff, G.

Taylor, R. A, (Lincoln)

Hoffman, P. C.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Hollins, A.

Murnin, Hugh

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hopkin, Daniel

Naylor, T. E.

Thurtro, Ernest

Horrabin, J. F.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Tillett, Ben

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Noel Baker, P.J.

Toole, Joseph

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Oldfield, J. R.

Tout, W. J.

Isaacs, George

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Turner, B.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Vaughan, D. J.

Johnston, Thomas

Polio, John Henry.

Viant, S. P.

Jones, F. Liewellyn (Flint)

Paling, Wilfrid

Walkden, A. G.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Walker, J.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Perry, S. F.

Wallace, H. W.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Wallhead, Richard C.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Watkins, F. C.

Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Pole, Major D. G.

Wellock, Wilfred

Kelly, W. T.

Potts. John S.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Kennedy, Thomas

Price, M. P.

West, F. R.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Pybus. Percy John

Westwood, Joseph

Kirkwood, D.

Quibell, D. J. K.

White, H. G.

Knight, Holford

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Lang, Cordon

Reynes, W. R.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Richards, R.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Lathan, G.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Riley. F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Lawrence, Susan

Ritson, J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Romeril. H. G.

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

Lawson, John James

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Wise, E. F.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Rothschild, J. de

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Leach, W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Sanders. W. S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lindley, Fred W.

Sandham, E.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sawyer, G. F.

William Whiteley.

Logan, David Gilbert

Scrymgeour, E.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

Boyce, H. L.

Colville, Major D. J.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Briscoe, Richard George

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Albery, Irving James

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Butler, R. A.

Crookshank, Cpt.H (Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Cadoqan, Major Hon. Edward

Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Astor, Viscountess

Campbell, E. T.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Atholl, Duchess of

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Beaumont, M. W.

Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Berry, Sir George

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

Eden, Captain Anthony

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Colfox, Major William Philip

Edmondson, Major A. J.

622

623

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Smith-Carington, Neville W

Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Smithers, Waldron

Everard, W. Lindsay

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Fermoy, Lord

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Flson, F. G. Clovering

Meller, R. J.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Steel-Maitland, RI. Hon. Sir Arthur

Ganzoni, Sir John

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Tinne, J. A.

Gower, Sir Robert

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Muirhead, A. J.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Fin. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Train, J.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Turton, Robert Hugh

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Peaks, Capt. Osbert

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Hanbury, C.

Penny, Sir George

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Ramsbotham, H.

Wells, Sydney R.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hurd, Percy A.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Withers, Sir John James

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Fennell

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. D. D.

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Sir Frederick Thomson.

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

FAIRS BILL,
"to amend the Law with respect to games and competitions at fairs and other places," presented by Mr. Groves; supported by Sir Walter de Frece, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. Tillett, Mr. Clarke, Mr. George Hirst, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Haycock, and Mr. Bowerman; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had agreed to the following Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the House:

1. That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may and is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity.

2. That, in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel.

3. That where, on two successive sittings of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill, the Committee has to be adjourned by reason of the absence of a quorum within the first twenty minutes of the time for which the said Committee was summoned, the Chairman do instruct the Clerk to place the particular Bill at the bottom of the list of Bills then
624
waiting consideration of that Committee, and that the Committee shall forthwith be convened to consider the other Bill or Bills then waiting.

4. That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Rabbits Bill and the Architects (Registration) Bill); Mr. Leif Jones to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill); and Mr. James Brown to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill).
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent the constitution of new local education authorities by reason only of the creation of new boroughs or other urban districts, or the extension of the boundaries of existing boroughs or urban districts." [Education (Local Authorities) Bill [Lords].
EAST AFRICA.— That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Ten Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa, etc., and to report thereon, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with said Lords.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Chater, Sir Assheton Pownall, and Mr. Charles Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Major Llewellin, Mr. Mansfield, and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Rabbits Bill): Mr. William Adamson, Dr. Addison, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Attlee, Colonel Clifton Brown, Mr. Christie, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, and Mr. Turton.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Architects (Registration) Bill): the Lord Advocate, Mr. Broad, Mr. Butler, Sir Martin Conway, Colonel Sir George Courthope, Sir Philip Dawson, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Longbottom, Mr. McElwee, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Shakespeare, Mr. Short, and Colonel Sinclair.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Captain Sir William Brass, Mr. Cadogan, Earl of Dalkeith, Captain Eden, and Mr. Ebenezer Edwards; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Major Colville, Captain Crook-shank, Mr. Herbert Gibson, and Mr. R. W. Smith.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had
  626
  added the following Thirty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill: Mr. William Adamson, Dr. Addison, the Lord Advocate, Colonel Ashley, Mr. Attlee, the Attorney-General, Mr. Benson, Captain Bourne, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Cameron, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Chater, Mr. Dickson, Major Elliot, Miss Lloyd George, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Guinness, Mr. Johnston, Colonel Lane Fox, Mr. Arthur Law, Major Milner, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Reid, Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Richard Russell, Mr. Shepherd, Sir Ernest Shepperson, Mr. Charles Williams, Mr. Wise, and Viscount Wolmer.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill): Lord Balniel, Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Albert Law, Major Milner, Mr. Philip Oliver, Mr. West Russell, Mr. Shield, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart and Mr. Charles Williams.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Raising of compulsory school age and provision of maintenance allowances.)
  Mr. BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
  "It shall be the duty of every local education authority to make a by-law under the Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act '), extending to fifteen years."
  4.0 p.m.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: On a point of Order. I venture to ask you, Mr. Dunnico, whether you are also selecting the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) and those of other hon. Members—in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
  "The Board of Education shall require all local education authorities for elementary education in the manner provided in section twelve of the Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act'), to submit schemes for the provision of advanced instruction sufficient and suitable for all children between the ages of eleven and fifteen in their respective areas, such provision to be completed by the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and on and after that day."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not my intention to select the second Amendment on the Paper, because it raises the question of date and is anticipatory of other Amendments on the Order Paper raising that question.
  Lord E. PERCY: May I point out to you that, so far as the date in the second Amendment is concerned, it might be regarded as anticipatory, but that is not really what is intended in the subsequent Amendment. What the subsequent Amendment really intends is that, if compulsion is to be put upon parents, some compulsion shall be put on the local authorities to prepare the schools in order that they may be ready for the children. Therefore, I would ask you whether, if you do not propose to select
  654
  that Amendment itself, you would be prepared to allow the scope of the discussion on the first Amendment to include the proposal that local authorities, before they pass by-laws, should have carried out a statutory scheme?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I allow the discussion on the first Amendment to be broadened so as to include that principle raised in the first part of the second Amendment. It certainly has some bearing on the first Amendment.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: The object of this Amendment is to introduce into this Bill what is known as the by-law procedure, that is to say, to give the local education authority some discretion as to how and when this increased age limit shall commence, and also to ensure that it shall, in fact, be done not directly by Act of Parliament but by the by-law of the local education authority. I do not wish to weary the Committee with precedents, but I may say that there are almost universal precedents do the compulsory raising of the school age for this course. In 1870, the school boards, who were then the local education authorities, were empowered to make by-laws enforcing attendance. In 1880, the school authorities were again required to make bylaws, and so on through the Acts of 1892, 1899 and 1902, down to the last time when the school age was compulsorily raised by the Act of 1918, when again the local education authorities were required to make by-laws compelling children to attend school up to the age of 14, and the local education authorities' own powers of exemption were limited to exemption above that age.
  It is not our intention at this stage to go into the question of the actual date when this shall come into operation. That question will be properly raised at a later stage, right at the end of the Bill. It is, perhaps, fortunate that it is so, because this Bill undoubtedly is going to be subjected to many changes before reaching the Statute Book, and we do not wish to press the point of the actual date now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has on the Paper an Amendment which mentions a specific date, but that is to deal with entirely different procedure, and is put there because that is

  655
  the only place where it could come in for discussion, and I do want the Committee, in approaching this Amendment, as far as possible to keep their minds off the actual date. There is nothing in this Amendment to prevent the date from being 1st April. It is only a question of procedure, although we do postulate that in certain areas some form of delay in this Bill will be necessary. After all, the Hadow Report laid down a period of five years for preparation for this school age. I do not say we ought not to have started before, but the fact remains that many local authorities have not, and the present Government propose to give them only a period of three months, and I think that discrepancy too big. I know that the President of the Board of Education has frequently said that many local education authorities are ready, and that a great many more are practically ready. The fact is that a great many, and amongst them some of the biggest county authorities, are not ready, and have not started.
  There is a disposition on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to treat those authorities who are not ready, who have made no effort to get ready, as purely recalcitrant. As a matter of fact, they are nothing of the sort. They are opposed, rightly or wrongly, to this Measure at this time, and they would have been wrong to expend public money in preparing for it, unless they were absolutely certain that it was coming into law. It may be argued that they were wrong-headed in imagining that this best of all possible Governments was not going on indefinitely. That is an arguable point, but the fact remains that it is so, and until this Bill is actually an Act on the Statute Book, they will not feel justified in spending the necessary public money, because they feel that the money can be better spent in other ways.
  I make no apology to the Committee for stressing once again the rural point of view. As a matter of fact, unless the President of the Board of Education gives us considerable concessions, I am afraid I shall have to do it many times in the course of these debates; in fact, it may become one of the minor horrors of this Bill. But the situation if this Bill is passed into law without any
  656
  broadening of the time limit, without any elasticity of administration, is going to be very serious indeed. The President of the Board of Education has said frequently that he believes that it is a matter of comparative unimportance whether the local authorities are ready or whether they are not, and that the first thing to do is to get the children into the schools. That may be so as far as the towns are concerned. It is emphatically not so as far as county children are concerned. I am very much concerned to find that the right hon. Gentleman still approaches this matter with what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) once referred to as "the town mind." know it is not his intention to penalise the rural children, but it is the fact that he is doing it. All the money that we want for the rural areas to develop proper schools to give these children extra education has got to be spent in hurried ill-considered expenditure—fresh teachers, unsuitable teachers, fresh accommodation, such minor matters as fresh desks and things of that kind—to crowd these children into schools which are not ready for them.
  The first time I heard the right hon. Gentleman speak in this House, about a year ago, he used a phrase which struck me very forcibly. He said that the worst day school is better than the best mine or factory. With that I am entirely in accord, but I do not agree when he says it is better than the best field or the best cottage kitchen. If you take these children into school now without giving the local education authorities a chance to be ready, you are sending boys and girls between 14 and 15 years of age in these little village schools where they will increase the size of the classes, where they will be under the care of school masters or mistresses—more often school mistresses—who are teaching children from five to 15 right through the whole age group. Any hon. Members opposite who have been teachers know how difficult that is. You are keeping them in what you yourselves say are the most impressionable years of their life under insufficient discipline and with in-sufficient teachers. They will learn nothing more in the extra year, and we contend that it is better for these children to be out in the field learning

  657
  what life in the country is, and what nature can teach them, than studying in schools doing raffia work. That is the form of instruction the boys and the girls get.
  Mr. SHEPHERD: Has the hon. Member ever heard of school gardens?
  Mr. BEAUMONT: I understand that the hon. Member was a school teacher himself, and if he really believes the amount of time and knowledge that is given to school gardens in the village schools of this country is enough to substitute for what a boy will learn outside in the farm or woods, I am very sorry for his ideas of education. A school garden in a town school is a very different thing.
  Mr. SHEPHERD: The hon. Member said that raffia work was the only occupation. I say that there are many more occupations than raffia work.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: What I said was that that was the form of practical instruction in village schools to-day. I did not say it was the only form, but the hon. Member should know that it looms very largely, and I contend that leaf raffia work for boys of 14 and 15 is a waste of time. You are keeping these children in the schools giving them no extra education. It is better for the boys to be out in the country learning their jobs, and for the girls to be at home learning housekeeping and cookery and helping their mothers. There are practically no domestic centres in the rural areas. In the towns you wish to give them domestic instruction, but that is not practicable in the rural areas. Therefore we say, give the local education authorities a chance to get ready. Fix a day which shall be the very last day on which the by-laws have to be made. Give them a chance to wait until they are ready to make the by-laws and let the thing come in when there is a reasonable chance of the children having a fair education when it does come in.
  One of the objections that may be raised is that this means that it will not come in in all areas at the same time. There is one perfectly rational objection to that, that children between 14 and 15, in an area where a by-law has not been made, may come into an area where it has been made and take
  658
  the work from the children who ought to get it. That has been foreseen and guarded against by a later Amendment which will make it impossible. I am not quite certain whether the Amendment is actually on the Paper. If it is not now, it will be to-morrow. If it is not, I apologise to the Committee for an oversight. Finally I ask the Government to give the rural areas a chance of getting the best of this. I do not believe you can ever make it as good as if you postponed it until there was a reasonable chance of carrying out the reorganisation, but if we have to have it now, give the rural areas a chance of getting education and not a waste of time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I wish to refer more especially to the local education authorities in London, where I have had a good deal of experience of this work. To my mind, the Bill in its present state will merely bring chaos and no benefit whatever and, for that reason, we wish the matter left as far-as possible in the hands of the local education authorities, who are the only people who know how far this scheme can be brought into being and how soon. There are several things that have to be taken into consideration. First of all, there is the question of accommodation. In a report of the London County Council Education Committee I read:
  "1931 is at the beginning of a bulge period during which, owing to the higher birth rate of the years immediately following the War, the roll of senior children is abnormally larger, even with the present leaving age of 14 plus. The bulge twill remain for about three years, but in 1935 the total roll, with a statutory leaving age of 15 plus, will be 11,000 less than in April, 1929, when the statutory leaving age was 14 plus."
  Those figures are illustrative of the point I am raising.
  "A preliminary estimate of the necessary additional accommodation shows that from 5,000 to 10,000 additional school places will be required, at a cost of between £250,000 and £500,000. It will be necessary to give prolonged consideration to the adequate equipment of the schools to meet the educational needs of the new age group. Our conclusion, therefore, is that fixing the appointed day before the period of the bulge will undoubtedly result either in considerable expenditure on accommodation not ultimately necessary or in serious handicap to effective instruction owing to overcrowding.

  659
  I asked this question the other day of the President of the Board of Education, and two days later I asked the Under-Secretary. On neither day did I get any reply. I have had the experience of going through the great majority of London schools and knowing a good deal about the accommodation and of the building plans. I have not been on the Education Committee recently, but I have kept as far as possible up-to-date with the problem. It is a very terrible problem indeed, and I am informed that the case in London is practically the same throughout the country.
  The President of the Board of Education intimated a year or more ago that in view of the possibility, or as he would say, the probability, of this Bill becoming law, the education authorities were to get on with their preparation. That is all very well, but they have to get on with so many things which are already law that they have not time to speculate on things that may or may not become law. You might just as well ask the Customs authorities to-day to get ready for the safeguarding that we are going to bring in in another six months. The analogy is similar. We know, and you know, that that is coming into force in six months or so, and we might ask the authorities to get the machinery ready, so that when the Bill comes in they can start straight away. I realise that that is perhaps not quite in order but I had to give a simile, because instructions have been issued by the Board of Education on the assumption that the Bill will go through, and we never know. It may not, especially when our friends the Liberals come and join us and do what it is their duty to do.
  Then we have the question of teachers. At present there are insufficient teachers for our present needs and it is impossible to turn out men and women by a sort of machine so as to be prepared for the task of teaching, not the children they have been accustomed to teach, but children a year older, who will need very special tuition indeed. That is a point that has not been fully realised in trying to push the Bill forward in the course of a few months. It is necessary, before the scheme comes into force, that there should be not only an adequate number of teachers for present conditions, but teachers who are used to and capable
  660
  of teaching older children. There is talk, I understand, of bringing back old teachers, or putting on uncertificated teachers, and those who I am sure are not going to be really capable of doing the job for which we have already voted many millions of pounds.
  One of the most important points is the reaction on other branches of education. I cannot do better than read from this report:
  "The possible reactions on other branches of education cannot be considered adequately in the short interval allowed. London has probably the most comprehensive system of technical education in the country. Certain sections of this work will need considerable re-adjustment if the school leaving age is raised to 15 plus. The junior evening institutes will have no recruits for a year and, at the end of that period, will have to re-arrange their courses. The day continuation schools, which embody an important principle of part-time education during working hours, may be seriously affected. These are but two instances of the possible effect on continued education. It is clear, however, that the complicated question of the adjustment to the new conditions of an elaborate scheme of continued education which has been systematically developed on the basis of a leaving age of 14 plus will require much more exploration than can be carried out in the meagre time limit permitted. Hastily and ill-prepared changes may seriously injure the fabric of further education and its link with industry."
  Later they say:
  "The time at our disposal for examining the Bill has been very limited, but from a preliminary consideration of its general tenour we see no reason to depart from our previously expressed opinions in regard to the raising of the school leaving age and the awarding of maintenance allowances. We would emphasise that the withdrawal of the two previous Bills has further reduced the time available for preparation between the passing of the Act and its coming into operation on 1st April, 1931."
  Mr. KELLY: Was that unanimous?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not know if it was unanimous, and I do not know if it is absolutely accurate, but I can assure the Committee that these are the facts of the case in London and, generally speaking, throughout the country, and that any rush would only cause chaos. We have agreed in principle to the raising of the school age to 15, we have agreed in principle to the spending of this money, but it is our duty, when spending the money of the taxpayers, to see that we get the best possible value for it and, in getting that, we have also to consider

  661
  getting the best possible education for the children. If this Bill is rushed into law before everything is prepared, the education of the country will be chaos, and even the children who are at school at present who are not 14 plus will suffer owing to the rest of the school being filled by older children. I, therefore, sincerely hope the Amendment will have the very serious consideration of the Minister. I cannot see that there is one link that is ready at present for the age to be increased. If it must be done, let us for goodness sake arrange the date so that, the education, the accommodation, the teachers, and the whole scheme may come into force at such a time that the money will not be wasted and the children will get the best out of the money that is spent on them.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): The object of the Amendment is to require local authorities to make new bylaws before they bring in this new age. It differs from the existing proposals of the Bill in that the Bill adopts the simplest possible procedure by allowing the existing by-laws to be altered in the matter of the age. There will be no confusion and no varying date of commencing and there will be one simple national change. As a matter of fact, this discussion has covered more than the mere subject of the Amendment. I will say a word or two with regard to that before I come to the actual Amendment. One thing that the discussions on the Bill have already brought out that is of a very satisfactory character is the deep and genuine anxiety on both sides of the House to get real education for the older children. I do not mean to say that that was not to some extent appreciated before what I may call the Hadow period, hut it is a peculiarity of the Hadow period that the whole of the country is thinking about getting real education for the older children. On this side of the House we welcome the anxiety of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to be assured that the education which is given to children when they are kept at school for the extra year shall really be of a kind that will make it worth while. I must repeat that I have never maintained that when this Act was brought into operation you would have, throughout the country, the best system of education, the system of education which we are ex-
  662
  pecting to get within a few years for all the older children. I have never said that. I have never pretended that all the areas in this country were going to be ready with a reorganised system of education. What I have said is, that there are at least 140 authorities who will really be ready, and that there are many others who are preparing very rapidly. I have also said that I have made extremely careful inquiries from my inspectors and that they say that, except in a very few cases, there will be accommodation for the older children even if the Act comes into operation in the spring of next year.
  Are we going to wait for perfection? That is the real question. If we are going to wait for perfection, I say, frankly, that I think there are going to be a certain number of authorities who will not be ready for five and perhaps six years in the way that we all want them to be. We cannot ask the nation to wait for the laggards. We must go forward, provided that we are confident that comparatively soon all over the country we are going to get the system that we want. I say that within two or three years most of the authorities of the country will be reorganised, though I do not say that in all cases there will be senior schools in all parts of the rural districts. There will be many rural counties which will be thoroughly reorganised. There are some now.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Within three years?
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I said within three years. I will come to the Noble Lady's point in a moment. I say that within three years it is reasonable to suppose that most counties of good will will be thoroughly reorganised. What is in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that there will be many places which will not be fully reorganised next year. That is true. Then you have to choose between letting the children stay out of school, as now, and enter industry, and their coming into school and getting, not the education which we are expecting eventually to be able to give them, but education as efficient as—and in many cases rapidly becoming mare efficient than—the education with which we have been satisfied up to this day. Our argument is that while we are determined to get within a few

  663
  years a first-class education for all children, in many cases of an improved kind, and in many cases in fresh schools, even now it is better, where the reorganisation is not fully accomplished, to get the children into schools where, in most cases, they will be treated better than they will be treated outside. It is there that we differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite. We do not think, even where the schools are impaired, that it is better for children to be out in the fields than in schools, many of which, even in their present condition, are giving extremely good education. It is an absolute libel on the schools of the rural districts of England. A very large number of them are giving a most efficient education in the higher classes at the present time, and, that being so, we say that even if the reorganisation is not complete it is better to have the children in the schools now.
  This Amendment proposes that there shall be new by-laws for bringing in the new age. First of all, I think that the proposal is unnecessary. The by-laws are already there, and all that is wanted is the proposal of the Bill that the age shall be 15 instead of 14 as now. Secondly, if new by-laws are to be required in every case it must mean delay in the process of making and presenting the by-laws. That fact was practically stated by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He said that it was a question how and when the by-laws should be made. That is to say, he contemplated that a fair number of the bylaws would be some time in the making and that therefore there would be a different time for the commencement of this Act in different parts of the country. What would be the effect of that?
  We know that there are a certain number of local authorities who are not very keen about this change. [Interruption.] There is London. If they know that they will have a chance of postponing the date, however easily they might be ready for it if only they had the intention, it will give them an opportunity for delay. But in any case the intention of the hon. Gentleman is that there should be different dates. That means that you may have a couple of areas adjacent to one another, one of them having raised the school age and the
  664
  other not having raised the school age and the children from the area which has not raised the school age flocking into the area which has raised the school age—exactly the same state of affairs as that which occurred in London a few years ago. Therefore, I very much hope that the Committee are not going to adopt this proposal, because I think it is unnecessary and administratively exceedingly clumsy.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I think all of us on this side of the Committee will have welcomed very warmly the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman opened his speech in recognising the fact that we on this side of the House are every bit as anxious as he and his friends to see that the education which is given to the children in the grant-aided schools of this country, and particularly to the elder children in the elementary schools, is as good as it can be made. If I may say so, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman quite conveyed the sense of that recognition in his speeches either on the Second Reading of the Bill or on the Financial Resolution. If we could have frank recognition of the fact that we all want to give a really good education to these children, an education which will develop them to the utmost extent possible in the years that they are at school, I think that we should get on much quicker and more harmoniously in these discussions than we have managed to do on former occasions.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if interest in the education of the older children in the elementary schools largely dated from the issue of the Hadow Report in 1926. I should like to remind him and hon. Members behind him that a policy for the improvement of the education of the older children, whether by the provision of more secondary schools, of more central schools or of more "higher tops" was put forward by the Unionist party at the General Election in 1924. We had not been in office six months before my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), early in 1925, issued a circular asking local authorities all over the country to reorganise their schools, making a break at 11 plus and providing for education above that age in exactly the same way as the Hadow Committee some 18 months later reported. Therefore, hon. Members

  665
  will understand that the Hadow Report received a warm reception, as a whole, from my right hon. Friend and myself, because it emphasised the all-important matter of reorganisation to which we had already set our hands.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us to-day that he never said that all local authorities would be ready by April of next year. Of that we readily acquit him, but he did say—I think it was in the summer—that 140 out of 317 authorities would be substantially ready. He said the other day that he held to that statement, and to-day the adverb he has used is that he thinks they will be "nearly" ready. Even if we let him fall back on the rather less definite adverb he used in the summer, "substantially" ready, I submit that that statement gives a very inadequate view of the picture. I wish to make clear what I tried to bring out in supplementary questions which I asked the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago, some figures which he gave in reply to a question put to him about a week ago by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon). My right hon. Friend asked him how many local education authorities said that they would be completely ready for the change by April, 1931, and how many local authorities said that they would be ready in a majority of their schools. The reply was that 50 education authorities said that they would be completely ready and that 39 said they would he ready in a majority of their schools. That gives you, not 140 who will be ready in the majority of their schools, hut, with 50 education authorities completely ready and not more than 39 who will be ready in the majority of their schools, a total of only 89 schools of which you can say of all of them that they will be ready in a majority of their schools. That gives us a very different picture from that which we have expected until now.
  There is a further point. When you come to examine the 89 authorities who will he mainly ready you find that they do not include London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull or Bristol. There is hardly a big county borough among the whole of the 89 authorities, and there is no county whatever among the 50 who say
  666
  that they will be completely ready. There are only two counties among the 39 who will be ready in the majority of their schools. Broadly speaking, it may be said that those 89 authorities mainly consist of authorities dealing with elementary education only, that is to say the smaller boroughs and the urban district councils.
  Mr. COVE: There is more accommodation in London than there will be children for the places. May I call the attention of the Noble Lady to the presidential address of Mr. Gater, Director of Education for the London County Council, in which he states that in London there are at present 80,000 empty places in the schools, and the new age group of children is estimated to number 50,000. He goes on to say that there will be particular difficulties in particular areas, and adds:
  "I imagine that the London situation is typical of that of several areas, and it is perhaps reasonable to assume that the provision of accommodation will not be amongst our greatest difficulties."
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I hardly expected to hear a representative in the House of Commons of the National Union of Teachers speak as if the raising of the school age was merely a matter of accommodation.
  Mr. COVE: I understood that that was the point which the Noble Lady was discussing.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: If the hon. Member will give me his attention, or if he will look at my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that the question asked of the right hon. Gentleman was, what local authorities will be ready for the raising of the school age. That includes a great deal snore than accommodation. Very much more important matters than the question of how many empty places there are in the schools, are raised. The figures show that only a minority, and that minority consisting in the main of small authorities, have said to the Board of Education that they can be ready, even in a majority of their schools, by the 1st April, 1931. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman asks us whether we are to wait for the laggards by putting off the date, I would ask him: "Are all these large authorities to be dragged along and their administration

  667
  put into confusion because a minority will be ready"? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we have to choose in those areas where the accommodation will not be ready between letting the children go into industry or retaining them in the schools and giving them the same education as now. He expressed himself in favour of the latter course. He says: "We think our education is fairly good. Let us, therefore, give the children another year of what they are getting now. That will be better for them than their going out into industry." Has the right hon. Gentleman remembered that if children are kept an additional year in school without proper accommodation being there to give them separate classes, or the teachers being there to teach them, or special curricula being ready for them, it will prejudice the younger children, because they will have the older children being educated along with them. Classes of two or more age groups will have to be taught together, and that will act to the detriment of the younger children.
  Further, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the detrimental effect that there will be on the, older children if you keep them in the same classroom with the younger children and have them going over very much the same ground that they have covered in the previous year? Surely, he must remember that the main point of the Hadow Report was its insistence on the need for variety of curricula at the adolescent stage. The main point of that report was the variety of ability that you must expect in children of about the age of 11 to 12; that if they are all put through one course, and that largely an academic course, they will not get a chance of developing their own special autitudes. A large proportion of children, the Hadow Report tells us, needs something less academic than the ordinary secondary course. They need a curriculum with a large place in it given up to practical instruction. They think that the adolescent stage is one at which children begin to awake to new interests. Sound teaching, they say—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that I can allow a detailed discussion on this Amendment. Obviously, it would be out of order on this Amendment to go into details.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not wish to detain the Committee with unnecessary details, but I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that it was the very essence of the Hadow Report that you must have special curricula for children at the adolescent stage. That is why they want reorganisation. There is no meaning in reorganisation without alternative curricula. We need that in order to arrest the interests of the older children. We must remember that we are not dealing here simply with clever children but with the average or even the sub-average child, and unless we can arouse the interests of these children by giving them some practical instruction in which they feel at home and in which they can have a new confidence, we run the risk of not developing some latent capacity in that child and of discouraging and disappointing him, because we shall be keeping him toiling away for a further year at books in which so far he has done very little good. There are many boys, particularly when they get to the age of 14, who begin to feel very restive—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must not pursue this detailed line of argument on this Amendment. We are dealing with the question that schemes should be provided. Arguments in support of that matter are in order, but she is obviously covering a wider field in entering into details as to the nature of the schemes.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I was only trying to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of realising that it must be an advantage to a child to give him an education that will arrest his interest. I remain of the opinion that not only would it prejudice the development of the younger children, but also the chances of the older children if you keep the older children for another year at school without providing the special material, the special teacher and the separate class for which the Hadow Report asks. I submit that to impose a uniform date upon the whole country for the starting of this scheme, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, is something which may not only strain educational machinery and educational finance but which may seriously prejudice the intellectual development of the children. And where a young woman teacher or any woman teacher is teaching

  669
  children at various stages in a small school she will find her difficulties very largely increased if she has to deal with girls and boys, particularly boys, over 14, boys of the type who have not had the ability to win scholarships and who become very restive about the age of 14. In spite of what may be the views of the organisation represented by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), I believe that there are many women teachers in rural districts who dread the coming into operation of this Bill before there has been further reorganisation in those areas. That is why we urge that local authorities should not be rushed into the raising of the school-leaving age uniformly, but that they should do it by by-laws.
  The by-law procedure has been in operation for 12 years in regard to the raising of the age to 15, and only five local authorities have availed themselves of this power. Let the 50 authorities who are completely ready raise the age by by-law as from 1st April next, and let the 39 who will have the majority of their schools ready do it perhaps a year later or when they will have a substantial majority of their schools ready, but do not force the whole of the educational authorities in the country to bring into operation on one date art Act for which they are not prepared. Although they may have the places they may not have the teachers. The right hon. Gentleman has not been able to show more than some 1,800 additional teachers in training towards the 13,000 that he says will be needed in two or three years' time. Therefore, if he forces this Act upon all local authorities at the given date it will be to the disadvantage and the prejudice of education.
  In regard to the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman raised as to children coming into an area and taking away work from children who are obliged to remain at school until the age of 15 in that particular area, I would remind him that there is an area in this country, Rugby town, in which there is a system of compulsory part-time day classes. The authority there have made a bye-law by which it is impossible for children outside Rugby to come into Rugby and take up employment without the requirement of attending these classes. We have
  670
  there a practical example of how it is possible to protect children within an area from the unfair competition of other children. The bye-law procedure has been the recognised procedure by which the school age has been raised in past days. It has been the one used in regard to the raising of the age to 15, and it seems to us to be the only one that is consistent with the present stage of reorganisation in this country, and as such we are strongly in favour of the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced me that this Amendment is not necessary. Although he told us that certain local authorities will he ready by the specified date, he said that there will be other local authorities who perhaps will not he able to put the scheme into operation for five or six years. What is going to happen in the meantime in regard to the children in those schools? Surely they are going to waste their time. I know that in certain areas with which I am acquainted it will be impossible to find accommodation for a very considerable period. Surely, it would be better instead of forcing the local authorities in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that he should allow the local authorities to insist on the older children going to continuation classes or to technical schools in the evening, where they could receive valuable instruction, instead of wasting their time in schools where they could not receive proper instruction.
  5.0 p.m.
  I understood him to say that there were 140 local authorities who were ready. What did he mean by 140 local authorities being ready? Did he mean that they have actually anticipated the passing of this Bill and have erected new schools? There may be 140 local authorities which have purchased sites and prepared plans, and to that extent the right hon. Gentleman may be right, but I cannot believe that there are 140 local authorities who have anticipated the passing of this Bill and have started the building of new schools.
  The Government have gone the wrong way to work. They should have decided first the boundaries between local authorities. In the second place, they should have completed the reorganisation of the

  671
  secondary schools. In my part of the country the scheme of reorganisation will be gravely affected by the raising of the school age, in fact, the whole scheme will be impossible. New cities are springing up in neighbourhoods like Sidcup and the colliery districts of Kent, and in these districts the reorganisation scheme is not nearly completed yet. Some of the schools which have recently been erected in the southern parts of London are already more than full, and the county council is to put into operation in a short time a scheme which will bring in more children to these schools. If the Government persist in resisting this Amendment the effect will be that these reorganisation schemes and secondary schools will get a very bad start from which it will be very difficult for them to recover. It will prevent them becoming efficient, the cost will be too much, the teachers will riot be suitable, and the accommodation will be inadequate. It will be a waste of time for children of the older age group and they would be far better learning a trade than doing nothing at school.
  If local authorities are not to be allowed to fix the date it will necessitate in certain areas the erection of temporary buildings at a very heavy expense. Simultaneously with the erection of these temporary buildings they will have to carry on an intensive building programme. In the county of Kent it is quite impossible to get sufficient bricklayers and plasterers to erect the schools in the time given. We hear a lot about unemployment, but I am told that it will be impossible to get a sufficient number of workmen to erect the new accommodation which will be necessary, especially in the new areas near London and in the mining areas of Kent. The new schools will probably be completed in three or four years' time. Then the temporary buildings will be pulled down. But by that time the child population in the country will have decreased, and the new schools will not be wanted. Surely, there is a strong case here for local authorities having the power to fix the date. It would be in the best interests of education and of the children.
  Mr. BLINDELL: I am very concerned as to whether this Amendment is the best
  672
  way in which to approach this matter. I was amazed at sonic of the statements made by the President of the Board of Education in defending the raising of the school age. He says that it is to be done immediately. Whether the better method is for local authorities to retain the power they have to-day and fix the date, or whether the actual date should be stated in the Bill, I am not sure, but it would help our discussion if we knew whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to adhere to the date stated in the Bill.
  Mr. COVE: Certainly.
  Mr. BLINDELL: The President of the Board of Education will give his reply when he likes, not the hon. Member behind him. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it would be much better if these children were in school now. I am not so sure about that. What sort of a school are you going to put them in; especially in the rural areas? Where are the schools into which they can go? Where are the teachers, and what subjects are they going to be taught? It is not a good argument to say that the children would be much better in school now. Unless they are going to be taught something which is worth while they would be much better outside; and their parents think so, too. If they were actually going to receive education which will be worth while then they would be much better in school now. But in spite of the fact that some county councils may be laggards in the matter of reorganisation, the fact remains that local authorities have not made preparations; and is it fair to the child to push him into school under conditions which will not give him the education he ought to receive.
  There is another matter upon which, in regard to the rural areas, I desire to have some information. It will cost a tremendous lot of money, and local rates have to he considered. I should like to know whether we are going to get assistance in the rural areas for carrying these children to school. The President of the Board of Education should, I think, tell us whether he is going to alter the date at which the Bill is to come into operation. If he did it

  673
  would shorten the discussion and help some of us to give a more hearty support to the Bill.
  Sir HILTON YOUNG: I do not think the opening discussion in Committee on this Bill has really been very auspicious. Rightly regarded, the Amendment should have been looked upon by the President of the Board of Education as an olive branch, but, instead of welcoming this attempt at reconciling views at the outset of the discussion, he has met it with an emphatic negative. It is much to be regretted. This is not the occasion, as has been pointed out from the Chair, to raise the general question of the date of the Bill. All that is necessary for the present discussion is that there should be a prima facie case for supposing that there is a doubt as to whether local education authorities can possibly be ready. Can any Member of the Committee have any reasonable doubt that there is a grave possibility that a very large number of local authorities will not be ready to put the provisions of the Bill into effect on the date decided by the fiat of the right hon. Gentleman? Indeed, I need not ask that question, because the President has admitted it. It is now part of the case of the Government that, as a matter of fact, all local education authorities cannot be expected to be ready, and we live in hope that the President of the Board of Education, when we come to consider further Amendments, will withdraw the date in the Bill. But it is now the common assumption of all responsible Members of the Committee that there is very grave doubt as to whether many local education authorities will he ready.
  That being so, let me refer for a moment to the different attitudes with which this matter is approached by the Government and the Opposition. We look upon the contingency that local education authorities cannot possibly be ready as due to the facts of nature. Time enough has not been given them, and we do not think that any local education authority, however willing, however able, however efficient and however much their backs may be in the work of education, can be ready in the time. Then there is the question of confidence in the local education authorities. Some hon. Members opposite, indeed a good many of them judging by their interrup-
  674
  tions, seem to take a hostile attitude towards local education authorities. [interruption.] Oh, yes, it is quite unmistakeable. They look upon them as recalcitrant, as not doing their best for education. I detect this attitude in the President of the Board of Education himself towards the London County Council, which is the most unfortunate thing of all. If the right hon. Gentleman has considered the consequences of a conflict with the metropolis it might be of interest to him to make one of his many re-perusals into history, and read what Charles James Fox learned about caution, and the consequences of such an attack.
  It is most unfortunate that this attitude of hostility towards those who are to be responsible for the administration of this Bill should make its appearance on the benches opposite. For my part, and I am sure that I speak for every hon. Member on this side of the house, we should like to avoid every possibility of conflict between the Executive Government and local education authorities and to do all in our power to prevent such conflict arising. We desire to smooth this matter over. Does not this Amendment provide the most convenient and appropriate means for that purpose? It. postpones a difficult question of time, involving the amour propre of the Government as to the date in the Bill, and provides a method by which all that is required to be done may be done without raising an issue of that kind. It will enable the Government by consultation with local education authorities to find a reasonable date and fix it. If it be the case that there are local education authorities which require, in the old phrase, ginger, this Amendment will enable the Government to apply the ginger and bring them up to date—in this case, however, it is really the facts of the case which prevent local education authorities being ready—and will enable the Board of Education to inform themselves on this matter on which they seem to be ignorant, and adapt their policy to the actual facts of the case.
  We do not shirk the deeper question of principle involved in this Bill. It is contained in a passage from a speech by the President of the Board of Education, which I have to paraphrase from memory. He maintained, I understand,

  675
  that it was better to keep the children in the schools under any conditions than to leave them in the present state in which they leave school at 14 years of age. On that 1 am prepared to join issue. I do not think it is possible for anyone who has the true interests of education at heart to think that it is better, rather than to allow children to leave school as they do now in the towns, to drive them for another year into schools with inadequate accommodation, in big classes of 50, to he taught by elderly and inexperienced teachers, and to give them a course of education which will be of no use to them. In the coup try districts it must he even worse to leave the children during the further growing year, the most susceptible of all years, marking time, continuing to be herded with younger children and receiving a course of instruction which they have already received. That is a course which must bring education into contempt. At the present time there is a ferment in the mind of the country as to the standard of value of our educational system. Those of us who believe more strongly than many in the benefits and value of education must be deeply concerned to see that the further strain which we put on the nation to accept sacrifices for education shall be made in favour of a service that, can be approved by the common sense of the people.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am afraid that I differ from every speaker who has addressed the House up to now. That is not at all surprising. I do not want to get out of order, but there are two things that I wish to say. The Minister of Education is a year and a-half late in bringing in his Bill, and now it is not an education Measure at all but an unemployment Measure. That is what is really distressing many of us who are deeply concerned about education and are not averse to the raising of the school-leaving age—in fact we have fought for it ever since we have been in public life. I wish that the Minister would accept the Amendment. I doubt if the local education authorities can he ready before 1936. Some of them, of course, will never be ready. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do that if they had brought a Bill in as an educational measure and
  676
  had followed on the lines laid down by the late Government, we would have had—[Interruption.] The late Minister of Education was too slow, and the present Minister is too fast, but on the whole the late Minister did far more for education than will be clone by trying to force on the country something that will make education even more unpopular than it is at the present time. It is no good our saying that education is popular. Had education been popular the Government would have brought in their Bill during the first Session of this Parliament. They brought forward two Bills which they had to withdraw.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must confine her remarks to the precise Amendment that is under discussion the precise purpose of which is clear.
  Viscountess ASTOR: The Minister knows that there is real dismay throughout the country among all the education authorities. I have heard of it this summer up and clown the country. A former lady Member of this House has been travelling over England and Scotland and she says that never in her life did she know more dismay among education authorities than there is at the present time, because of the lack of purpose of the present Minister. Hon. Members opposite come to the House with a Measure which they admit will not provide a perfect education, or even a good education, and they know that not a quarter of the education authorities will he ready for it. We all know the difficulties of the years between 14 and 16. It is the most difficult age fur children. We know how hard it is to maintain their interest in school work. I agree with the Noble Lady who has spoken, that this extra year in the crowded rooms which will be inevitable until the schools are reorganised, will be a real injustice to education.
  I ask the Minister to show a little more courage, to accept the Amendment for the sake of education, to forget that this is an unemployment Measure and to think of the children. The most discouraging thing is that the Minister is trying to make us think that in bringing forward this Bill he is thinkng of the children. He knows perfectly well that if he were thinking of the children he would consider first the kind of education that they were to get. In Plymouth we have raised

  677
  the school-leaving age. It took a long time and a great deal of trouble to get the scheme to work. It is not perfected yet, but it will be within five years of the time of the scheme having been started. We have had some experience of the difficulties. Mothers were very averse to the scheme at first, but as we gradually provided a better kind of education there grew up a real enthusiasm for education. If the Government go on in this way and try to force their schemes on the local authorities and on the parents, even with the bribes—if they get them through, and I hope they will not—they will be doing a disservice to education. The whole purpose of education should be the formation of character and putting into the minds of children a love of learning. Very few people have it; very few Members of the House have it. The proof of that statement is that if hon. Members had it they would be chastising the Minister at the present time. But they are not thinking of learning; they are thinking of paltry party promises.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady knows perfectly well that she is now out of order.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Quite honestly I did not know.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady knows quite well that I defined clearly the limits within which she must confine her remarks on this Amendment.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am very sorry if I have offended the Rules. I ask the Minister to take the point of view of learning, to think of the future and not to think that he is yielding to reaction by accepting the Amendment. Many of us are longing to help with this Bill. The House has accepted the principle of the raising of the school-leaving age to 15. I beg the Minister, then, to accept the Amendment and to give the local authorities a chance, to make up for all the shilly-shallying of the last 18 months, to stand forward as a great Minister by showing that he is big enough to consider the welfare of the children rather than the promises which were made by his party.
  Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I have a good deal of sympathy with many of the things said by some of those who have spoken in support of the Amendment, and in
  678
  particular I share fully the opinion emphasised by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) that the number of local education authorities which will be ready in 1931 to put this Bill into operation is comparatively small. But I am not at all satisfied that this Amendment is the correct way of dealing with the situation. The real remedy is to postpone the date of the Bill coming into operation, but with that we cannot deal at the moment, as the Amendment does not propose to proceed in that way. The Amendment says that every local authority shall be the judge of the date on which the Bill is to be brought into operation. I believe that to be a thoroughly reactionary method. It may be suited to a system of voluntarily raising the school age that the local authority should decide, but this Bill is to make the raising of the age compulsory. It is to be the law of the land that every child shall remain in school until the age of 15 is reached.
  The only logical course consistent with that principle is that the thing shall be done on a national basis and not left to each local authority. I believe that if the Amendment were incorporated in the Bill it would be interpreted by all the authorities that do not like the policy as an invitation to postpone it, perhaps indefinitely. My right hon. Friend deplored the possibility of a conflict between the executive and the local authorities. I think the conflict is much more likely to be invited than delayed by this Amendment. The day will come when the right hon. Gentleman will go out of office, and he may be succeeded by another Minister who is entirely out of sympathy with the proposals of this Bill. That again would be accepted by all these local authorities that do net like the policy as a reason for postponing the raising of the school age in their areas. There is another consideration: From the educational and administrative point of view it would be purely reactionary to do anything which would give the impression of departing from that national basis on which we are trying to build our educational system.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I congratulate the last speaker on having produced the only valid argument so far against this particular Amendment, for as we have listened to the arguments of the Minister

  679
  and others we have arrived at a definite cleavage on matters of principle, and that cleavage we shall find throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister regarded his own argument as really candid? We know that there is more than one reason for our opposing this Bill and supporting the Amendment, and that there is more than one reason for the right hon. Gentleman bringing forward the Bill and opposing the Amendment. We know that the right hon. Gentleman has other considerations in mind besides the mere welfare of the children. Yet from his speech one might have thought that every consideration except the welfare of the children was ruled completely out of his mind.
  There is another consideration. There is another great national problem behind this Measure which prevents the Minister accepting the Amendment. We know that the question of unemployment is the real reason why he cannot accept the Amendment and we absolutely reject anti oppose the idea of any subservience of the needs of education to the general unemployment problem. We say that every advance in education should be accompanied by proper financial arrangements, should be properly thought-out and should be in the interests of education itself, quite apart from the general problem of unemployment, terrible as that problem is. To propose the solution of the unemployment problem by a crude Measure like this, under the guise of assisting education, is really a fraud upon the House of Commons. We say that every step in education should be taken with due regard to the principles, not only of economy but of efficiency, and there cannot be efficiency, if it is proposed, suddenly, to keep these children in school for another year. That has been proved beyond all shadow of doubt.
  I think that every intelligent and reasonable member of the Committee is in favour of higher education or technical education for the children for another year. In principle we cannot oppose that idea, but I have advisedly used the terms "technical education" and "higher education." Merely to keep children in school for another year means that they will only he marking time, and the best that can be said of such a proposal is that it will keep them out of the labour market and out of the battle of life for
  680
  one more year. Is that a good thing in itself? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Hon. Members opposite seem to have no doubt about it whatever, but I speak very diffidently upon the matter. Owing perhaps, to a happy knack of being able to write Greek and Latin composition, I have had advantages of education which otherwise would not have been available to me and which carried me on to a fairly ripe age still receiving education. There are some hon. Members opposite whose friendship I have the privilege of possessing and who have told me that their first step in life was for them a great adventure and that they gladly left the classroom where they had unwillingly stayed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know that such is the case. Charles Dickens has taught us that there may be a world of education even in such a. menial task as that of sticking labels on to bottles of blacking.
  I speak very diffidently, having regard to my own experience, but I tell hon. Members opposite though they may find it difficult to believe—that many people—who like myself, have had the privilege of a sheltered education up to the age of 22, have been impatient of that education and have wished to go out into the world or at any rate to go into some more practical form of education. There are many Members on the other side who are just as well educated in a liberal way as I am myself, and who have a deeper and greater experience of life because they entered life at a much earlier age. I am of course an extreme case, but I came into the battle of life at the age of 22, a learned child, with very little experience of the world. I am only putting forward the point of view that there may be more real educational value in entering the battle of life at an early age, than in sitting on at school with younger children, going through a schedule which has been cone through before, under teachers who may be superannuated or dug up or entirely inexperienced.
  Mr. ARNOTT: Does the hon. Member suggest himself as an awful example?
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: My hon. Friend may object to my argument, but—
  Mr. ARNOTT: The point which I raised was as to whether the hon. Member was holding himself up to us as an awful example.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: My hon. Friend may hold any opinion he likes me or of the point of view which I am trying to express, but, however much he disagrees with me, I am an example of the higher education to the standard of which he wishes to raise every child in this country. Hon. Members must at least acknowledge that fact. There is absolutely no argument against the increase of higher education and technical education in this country. Technical education may save time and give a child a short cut to a career in life. Higher education will give an attitude of philosophy towards life which may be valuable in the crises of life whether small or great. Those forms of education are of great value to children, but I cannot see that mere attendance at school has any real value except to keep children out of the labour market. There is an idea on the other side that education is a purely passive arrangement and that by merely staying in school instead of going out into life, a child will absorb learning and have the benefit of education.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is embarking upon a general discussion of education, but he must confine himself to the purpose of the Amendment before the committee. The Amendment proposes to empower local authorities within limits to decide the period when the Bill is to become operative. Some discussion has been allowed to take place upon the submission of schemes by local authorities, but obviously we cannot have a general discussion on the details and character of those schemes.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am sorry if I have transgressed any ruling of the Chair, but I should have thought that the Amendment was wide enough to cover the argument which I was presenting to the committee. With great respect, I submit that it would be useless to propose a change of this kind unless there has been proper preparation which means preparation for higher education and technical education and the organisation of central schools. Any immediate step such as the raising of the school leaving
  682
  age without any kind of preparation, only means that the interests of education as a whole will be prejudiced and mortgaged in advance. We know that the Minister has another object in view, namely, the relief of unemployment, and if I can do so within the rules of order, I would ask him if he thinks that this proposal will have a very beneficial effect, even in that respect. We know that there is this paradox in the unemployment problem—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of unemployment does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I must ask for your indulgence in this matter. I have said that the real argument against the Amendment was the argument as to unemployment and I thought it would be in order to introduce it here. If I am wrong, I shall abandon that line of argument.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: If I allowed a discussion of that kind to take place upon this Amendment, there would be no end to it. We must keep the discussion within reasonable limits in relation to the substance of the Amendment.
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is it not the case that a slight reference to the relief of unemployment as one of the objects of the Bill has been allowed?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not remember having allowed even a slight reference, but as I have often said, I cannot be expected to know what a hon. Member is going to say until he says it. The only thing that I can do is to prevent him transgressing too far after he has said it.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I know, Mr. Dunnico, that you will be very kind to me and perhaps I need kindness as one of the terrible examples of higher education—rather difficult sometimes to control. If this scheme were to be postponed in accordance with the terms of the Amendment, then of course it would have very little bearing on the unemployment problem, and I submit that it is only because of the unemployment problem that the Minister cannot accept the Amendment.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I wish to try to bring this debate back to the point from which it constantly tends to stray—a point which has not yet been met from the Government benches. It is this. Granted that you have decided to raise the school-leaving age, ought you not, within limits, to leave local authorities a discretion as to the date upon which that change should actually be brought into force. I emphasise the words "within limits," because if you simply said that it was to be the duty of every local education authority to pass a by-law without giving them a maximum limit, of time, then, of course, the Amenmdent would be nugatory. I think it is the general desire that we should postpone the general question of the date of bringing the Act into operation until we come to deal with it on the last line of the Bill. Supposing that you are going to fix a time-limit, the Amendment proposes that you should leave local authorities, within that limit, free. In other words, 50 or perhaps 80 authorities would be enabled to raise the school age actually earlier than they would under the proposal of the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. Evans) to fix a universal date for the whole country.
  There are two arguments against that suggestion. One is the argument that you would have ail the trouble which we experienced in London when they tried to start continuation schools and children from other areas came in to work in London. As regards continuation schools, I think my noble Friend the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Board has given a complete answer. I grant that the question of controlling entrance into an area where the school age has been raised, from areas where it has not been raised, is a more difficult question, because you cannot simply pass a by-law forcing an employer to send a child to continuation classes. You have to get some means by which the employer shall not be able to employ a child of that age, from whatever area the child comes. I maintain that that is a perfectly easy thing to do. There is no reason except a reason of precedent why you should not give local education authorities control, not only over all children residing in the area, but over all children working in the area. I know that there is no precedent for it.
  684
  I raised this question with the Ministry of Labour during my term of office. I was considering how to facilitate local authorities and enable them to have greater freedom to raise the school age, or to go in for continuation schools, without being interfered with by children coming in from areas outside. I remember discussing it. One was told, as every Minister is told in these days, that this would be a terrible departure from precedent, that it would be a terrible thing to extend the control of the local authority to include children working in its area as well as to those residing there. But surely, if you are going in for a Measure of this kind, you ought to be prepared to dismiss old precedents and deal with the new situation as it is presented to you, and that is a perfectly easy thing to do, if you are going to raise the school leaving age. That, I submit, is what we ought to do. The second argument against this proposal is that if you do this, you are allowing laggard authorities—
  Viscountess ASTOR: What?
  Lord E. PERCY: Laggard authorities. My Noble Friend cannot get hold of that word. She could not get it when ray right hon. Friend was using it. The second argument is, that if you do this, you are allowing the slow local authorities not to come up to the scratch. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman really to consider this point. He has always been inclined to divide local education authorities into laggards and others, into backward authorities and others. I confess that my experience of local education authorities does not enable me to divide them into those two categories. I should find it very difficult, for instance, to say in what category, if I had to put it in one of the two, such an authority as Plymouth, which has actually raised the school leaving age, belongs, My complaint about Plymouth in my time was that they were very progressive in wanting to apply compulsion and in the schemes that they produced, but not extremely progressive in the rapidity or the practical genius with which they carried out those schemes.
  Mr. MOSES: Was it not because of the delay in getting you to sanction them?
  Lord E. PERCY: That is what the Plymouth authority thought, from their point of view, but from my point of view I took the line, whether I agreed or not with the raising of the school leaving age, that I had the duty under the Act to approve or disapprove, not according to my personal views, the proposals of an authority like Plymouth, and I had to say, "From my point of view, I will by all means approve of your raising the school leaving age within your area if you will only get on with the job and prepare the schools," and the trouble was that they were so full of ideas that they did not do the work.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!
  Lord E. PERCY: I am not asking the Committee to accept my views of the Plymouth local authority, but I do not know, practically, a single local education authority in the country which is not in some respects, in perhaps one little respect, better and more progressive than any of the other local education authorities in the country, and this attempt to divide them into categories and to say you have backward and progressive authorities is utterly wrong. It is utterly unreal, and it bears no relation to the facts whatever. What is making some of the most progressive authorities in the country laggards in this particular business of reorganisation? All the time that I was at the Board of Education every teacher would always say to me, "It would be all very well if every local authority in the country was like the London County Council. Then we should all be in clover, but, of course, you have authorities which are not progressive like the London County Council."
  Mr. EDE: Did every teacher say that?
  Lord E. PERCY: I think hon. Members opposite will agree that, generally speaking, the London County Council for the last 20 years has done its job extraordinarily well, and with very great efficiency. Why, then, has it always been hesitating on this subject? Why has Manchester always been hesitating on this subject? I might even say, "Why have even the hon. Member for
  686
  Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson), such a progressive educationist as himself, and so many of his colleagues been so strongly against the whole idea of central schools right up to about 1927 or 1928? Why are there all these difficulties? Why have people been laggard?
  It is that question which you have reminded us, Mr. Dunnico, we must touch on with some caution—this question of curriculum. What has troubled the London County Council and other individual local education authorities is that they say, "It is fairly simple in our case to bring all these children together between 11 and 14 or 15 into one building; it is even comparatively easy to see that those premises contain accommodation for a carpentry shop, but is that enough? What sort of curriculum, what sort of education, are you going to give?" I hope, Mr. Dunnico, you will let me go so far as to say just this, that one of the main difficulties about practical instruction to growing boys to-day is this: Twenty-five or 30 years ago our practical sense and our love of mechanics and so on used to reveal itself in taking the family bicycle to pieces—and great nuisances we were when we did it—but now it is revealed in a passion for internal combustion engines. You can satisfy the mind of the first kind of boy within the walls of a central school with a carpentry bench and a lathe or two, but how will you satisfy there that passion for handling mechanical power and seeing wheels go round?
  I think the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) realises that particularly, because I noticed that he had a question put down to the right hon. Gentleman to-day as to the mechanical equipment of secondary schools. You want, for a vast number of these boys, something far more like a junior technical school than any central school that you have got in existence to-day. Those are the problems which really make many local education authorities lag. I remember the right hon. Gentleman himself telling the House about five years ago that, though it was a Tory authority and the hon. Members behind him might not believe it, Kent was a very progressive authority. What happened in Kent? My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge

  687
  (Lieut. - Colonel Spender - Clay) has already mentioned it. They have got thrown on to them all the problems of the new coal area. They have the problem of the extension of London's suburbs, they have to a terrible degree the problem of the rearrangement of local areas for which, I grant, we in our Local Government Act were responsible, and which the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to remedy by a Bill which has been introduced into the House of Lords, but his remedy will not meet Kent's case, because it does not meet the question of the areas. That is purely the difficulty of producing a plan for reorganisation and getting bricks and mortar work done.
  Then you have the problem of the rural area, the appallingly difficult problem of educating, in a rural school, boys of that age, not all of whom are going there to be workers on the land. That is the real difficulty. You cannot, with your school garden and so on, keep the rural school as an isolated thing where everyone will be a rural worker, and so you get this enormous variety of problems in different areas of the country. I will mention an authority like Westmorland where perforce, because of the distances, the whole of the education of the older children in the county has been built up, and extraordinarily efficiently built up, on something like the old Highland dominie system, with one or two teachers having to deal with children of all ages, right up from five to 14, and doing it with extraordinary efficiency, by a technique which has been developed over years. It formed the beginnings of what we now proudly call the Dalton plan.
  Under this proposal you will wipe out the whole of that technique and make a complete change-over to central schools. The difficulty of mere conveyance and transport will be enormous, but, quite apart from that, it will mean a difference in the whole handling of your curriculum. Surely, if you look at local authorities like that, not merely on a map divided into squares and circles, but as representing entities, with a living local spirit and, on the whole, composed of men and women who are doing their best according to their lights to meet the needs of the children in their area—when you look at this problem and this
  688
  Amendment like that, surely you might trust the local authorities.
  May I, in conclusion, ask hon. Members opposite to cast their minds back. When the Hadow Report came out, they said it was essential to reorganisation, according to the Hadow recommendations, that we should pass an Act by anticipation raising the school leaving age as from five years hence, and they said, "If you do not do that, the local authorities will not get on with the job." My reply was, "Well, I think I have done a bit of mobilising local authorities while I have been in office, and I think they will do the job. I think they ought to do the job as volunteers, and you ought to be able, if you are going to raise the school leaving age, to come to Parliament and say, "The job has been done or nearly done." You ought not to come to Parliament and say, "You must put pressure on recalcitrant authorities in order to force them to do the job."
  6.0 p.m
  Hon. Members opposite accused us Conservatives of all sorts of crimes against education, and their handbooks at the last election were full of the most violent accusations against us. This Parliament began, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite—and I am very much touched by it—has never ceased to say that after all t he last. Government did an extraordinarily good job, and that the schools are very, very efficient; and the Parliamentary Secretary has made speeches extolling us in this House and extolling the complete and balanced system of education which the Conservative party succeeded in sketching out. Does any hon. Member opposite really believe—I know that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) believes—that if one had passed a mere Act of Parliament—a hit of paper—in 1927, that reorganisation would have been further to-day than it is? I do not think that anyone who knows the work of local authorities really believes it. I say, with all due submission, that I was right in trying to mobilise local authorities in the work of reorganisation on a voluntary basis, and that you can trust the education authorities, as you ought to trust them, by accepting the Amendment.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): The Noble Lord, in the opening passages of his speech, brought the Committee back to the fundamental point which we are supposed to be discussing at this juncture, namely, the problem as to whether we ought to give a sort of local option to local authorities to raise the school age by the method of a by-law. The first part of the second Amendment suggests that local authorities should have imposed upon them the duty of presenting to the Board schemes in connection with advanced instruction. These are the two points with which we are essentially concerned at this juncture. The Noble Lord quite fairly faced up to the objections which are advanced to this proposal. The first is that if we give local education authorities this form of local option, we shall be up against a position where children from one area where there is no by-law, will migrate into an area where there is a by-law, and take the jobs of children who are at school. The Noble Lord suggested that that difficulty could be met by something on the lines of what was done in Rugby, and that we might even empower local authorities to veto this migration of children from one area to another. That, of course, is quite a logical proposition, but as compared with the proposal in the Bill, it is far more complicated.
  Our proposal is that throughout the country simultaneously there shall be a raising of the school age for all children. I want to advance this argument in support of that proposal. When we have a series of local authorities, some ready to enforce a by-law and others unwilling, whatever method we may adopt to overcome the difficulties thereby created, there will be left in the minds of the parents a substantial measure of opposition and resentment against unequal treatment between the area in which they happen to be living and another. Therefore, on the ground of sheer simplicity, it is far better to have one general raising of the school age throughout the country, all areas being similarly involved. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) put up a subtle argument when he said, "Why do you not take this olive branch? We are anxious to help you out of your diffi-
  690
  culty, and why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it in good faith?" My right hon. Friend comes from a family of historians, and he has heard of the wooden horse of Troy, whereby that famous city fell through the innocence of the besieged people. We are not going to have this wooden horse introduced into our citadel. We propose to maintain our citadel intact, and our proposal is that the school age shall be raised simultaneously throughout the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] We have already been told by the Chair that the question of date will be the subject of further discussion.
  Various arguments are advanced why we should entertain this proposal on other grounds. May I correct an impression which the Noble Lady made in her speech? I am sure that she did not intentionally try to mislead the Committee; it arises from a misunderstanding between us. She made great play with the figures relating to certain local authorities, which she said would not be ready, or she deemed would not be ready. The figures related to two sets of authorities. We were asked on one occasion what authorities would be ready by the summer of 1932, when the full effect of the Bill would be in operation. It was in answer to that question that the figure of 142 was given. The figure was not given in respect of 1st April, 1931. There is not the slightest reason, from the point of view of this Bill, why on 1st April next year they should be actually ready, because the full effect of the Bill will not be felt until at least nine months after it comes into effect. We should not, therefore, be alarmed if none were ready on 1st April next year.
  It is suggested in the first part of the second Amendment that the best procedure would be by means of schemes. Curiously enough, nobody has made any speech in support of that proposal this afternoon.
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: We were not allowed by the Chair to do so.
  Mr. JONES: I understood the Deputy-Chairman to rule that we are entitled to debate the first Amendment dealing with the Bill, and also the first part of the second Amendment in relation to schemes.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My Ruling was that it would be quite in order to use

  691
  as an argument that schemes must be provided, but that it would be out of order to discuss the details of those schemes.
  Mr. JONES: The only point I was making was this: We prefer to proceed by the method which the Noble Lord adopted in the matter of programmes.
  Lord E. PERCY: I proceeded by way of the voluntary mobilisation of local authorities. I prefer it, but in this Bill the Government are doing what I did not do, and refused to do; they are putting compulsion on the parents, and I say that if you are going to compel the parents, you must put a compulsory duty upon the local authority.
  Mr. JONES: That does not alter the point that I am making—
  Lord E. PERCY: It makes my view clear.
  Mr. JONES: The difference between us is that hon. Members opposite believe that the best way to deal with it is by schemes, and we believe that the best way is to follow previous administrations by asking for definite programmes for a period of years. The other thing I want to emphasise is this: My right hon. Friend does not try to draw a line of demarcation between authorities, such as calling some laggards and others non-laggards. That is not his idea, but there is no disputing that there are differences between local authorities, and that there are individual authorities who are not unwilling to raise the Tory "Jolly Roger." Taking local authorities in the main throughout the country, however, we have no complaint to make. They are responding in a very remarkable way, but there are authorities under the leadership of people who are not convinced of the efficacy of this proposal, and they may tend, if they have local option, to postpone the duty of introducing laws until the last moment. The result inevitably will be that the children in their areas will not be able to avail themselves of the same measure of advanced educational provision as the children in other areas where by-laws are in operation. We have experience of by-laws in operation. Plymouth and three other places give us substantial experience to go by, and the plain truth is that in
  692
  those areas the by-law procedure has not proved to be as satisfactory as many of its authors anticipated. I believe that the whole balance of argument is in favour of making this one procedure throughout the country. We have had a fairly good, full and frank expression of opinion upon the point, and I hope that the Committee will feel disposed to come to a decision.
  Miss RATHBONE: If the final decision of the Committee is that some postponement is necessary, I hope that it will take the form of a postponement of the date rather than the form of this Amendment. The very document that has been circulated to the House by the Association of Education Authorities indicates the danger of leaving the matter to the decision of the local authorities. They claim that it cannot be said that any of the larger authorities have to any substantial degree made any provision for the senior work of the elementary schools. That is a poor argument for the principle of local option. The question of reorganisation has been before the country for a considerable number of years, and, as the Noble Lady said, even before the date of the Hadow Report; and if the larger authorities have not got on effectively with the work of reorganisation—although that may be an exaggeration—surely it is an illustration of the fact that they have the temperament of the unwise virgins, who always leave the trimming of their lamps until the bright moment of the dawn. That is likely to be the case with the local authorities. Therefore, if there must be postponement, I hope it wilt take the shape of a delay in the date; but I hope the Government may still find it possible to stick to the appointed day. One of the strongest reasons for doing so is that which has again and again been thrown in the teeth of the Government as though it were a reproach, and that is that they are connecting this question with unemployment.
  We have to face the fact that one of the strongest arguments for immediate action is the abnormality of the times in the matter of employment. If these were normal times and it were a question of postponing the Measure for a year or two in order to give those authorities which are behind an opportunity to get

  693
  ahead with their preparations, there might be a very strong case for delay; but we have to consider what will happen to the children who will not be kept at school if the date be delayed. A child of 14 who is not kept at school either gets a job on leaving or he does not. I have in my mind a recent visit to a small industrial town, one of those mushroom towns which have grown up mainly in the years since the War, and is in a part of the country not well provided with technical schools or secondary schools, with no museum or picture gallery and no public library, though there is, I think, one municipal park. It is in one of the depressed areas. On the day of my visit, a cold day in autumn, I discovered, not a large proportion of boys and girls between 14 and 15, because most of them seemed to have got fairly easily into a neighbouring factory, but hundreds and hundreds of their immediate seniors, boys and girls of 15 to 17, standing about at the corners of those muddy streets with nothing to do from morning to night but read the football and betting news in the papers.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady must limit her attention to children under the age of 15.
  Miss RATHBONE: The point of my argument is that if the children of 14 to 15 are kept in school, we make an opportunity for a considerable proportion of their seniors to find employment, and we cannot lose sight of that face.
  The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: This raises the question of unemployment which I have distinctly ruled to be out of order on this Amendment. We must keep to the subject-matter of this Amendment.
  Miss RATHBONE: I obey your Ruling, but I plead that there should be no postponement of the date, because we have before us the dilemma of what is to happen to the children if they are not kept at school.
  Sir JOHN WITHERS: I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary should have banged the door on this rather important matter. This Amendment is not a Trojan horse. There is no trickery.
  Viscountess ASTOR: We cannot hear.
  Sir J. WITHERS: I am sorry, but I was saying that there is no trick in this Amendment. It is a serious matter to admit that out of 317 authorities 228 will not be ready when the Measure is to come into operation. But in the words of the Minister, which I took down, in two or three years most of the authorities will be ready. It is clear that we cannot possibly leave these authorities to make by-laws as and when they like, but why not put in a time limit? Why should we postpone the Bill altogether? Why should we not say that the 89 authorities which are ready should put their work into operation at once and let the others make their by-laws, but with a strict limit as to time? Let the limit be put at five years, if you like. I fail to see why it should not be done. Personally, I have great confidence in these authorities, and I see no reason why this suggestion should not be adopted.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN Sir C. TREVELYAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 151.

  Division No. 14.]

  AYES.

  [6.22 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Benson, G.

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Cameron, A. G.

  Addison, Rt Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Cape, Thomas

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Blindell, James

  Charleton, H. C.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Chater, Daniel

  Angell, Norman

  Bowen, J. W.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Arnott, John

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Close, W. S.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Bromfield, William

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Ayles, Walter

  Bromley, J.

  Compton, Joseph

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)

  Brooke, W.

  Cove, William G.

  Baldwin. Oliver (Dudley)

  Brothers. M.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Daggar, George

  Barr, James

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Dallas, George

  Betey, Joseph

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Bellamy, Albert

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Buchanan. G.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Day, Harry

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.

  Rowson, Guy

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dukes, C.

  Lees, J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Duncan, Charles

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Sandham, E.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Scurr, John

  Egan, W. H.

  Longden, F.

  Sexton, James

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Forgan. Dr. Robert

  Lunn, William

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Freeman, Peter

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Sherwood, G. H

  Gardner. J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Shield, George William

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Gibbins, Joseph

  McElwee, A.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Shinwell, E.

  Gill, T. H.

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Gillett, George M.

  McKinlay. A.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Glassey, A. E.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Sinkinson, George

  Gould, F.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Gray, Milner

  McShane, John James

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Grenfell, D. R (Glamorgan)

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Smith, H. B. Lees.-(Keighley)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro W.)

  Mansfield, W.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  March, S.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Marcus, M.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Markham, S. F.

  Snell, Harry

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Marley, J.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Marshall, Fred

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mathers, George

  Sorensen, R.

  Harbord, A.

  Matters, L. W.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Hardie, George D.

  Messer, Fred

  Stephen, Campbell

  Harris, Percy A.

  Middleton, G.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Millar, J. D.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Haycock, A. W.

  Milner, Major J.

  Strauss, C. R.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Sullivan, J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Morley, Ralph

  Sutton, J. E.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Henderson, Arthur, junr (Cardiff, S.)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Mort, D. L.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Herriotts, J.

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Tillett, Ben

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R, Wentworth)

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Toole, Joseph

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Muff, G.

  Tout, W. J.

  Hollins. A.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Murnin, Hugh

  Turner, B.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Viant, S. P.

  Isaacs, George

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Walker, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Johnston, Thomas

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Wellhead, Richard C.

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Owen, H. F, (Hereford)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Palin, John Henry.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  West, F. R.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Perry, S. F.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  White, H. G.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Phillips. Dr. Marion

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Price, M. P.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Knight, Holford

  Quibell, D J. K.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Lang, Gordon

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Lansbury, Rt. Han. George

  Raynes, W. R.

  Wise, E. F.

  Lathan, G.

  Richards, R.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wright, W. (Ruthergien)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lawson, John James

  Romeril, H. G.

  Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Thurtle.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Leach, W.

  Rothschild, J. de

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l. W.)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Berry, Sir George

  696

  697

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Pliditch, Sir Philip

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Remer, John R.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Revcoids, Col. Sir James

  Bracken, B.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Roes, Major Ronald D.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Hanbury, C.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Butler, R. A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Harlington, Marquess of

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Campbell, E. T.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Cazalet, Gaptain Victor A.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Colfax, Major William Philip

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Liewellin, Major J. J.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Titchfield. Major the Marquess of

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Train. J.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Meller, R. J.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt Hon. Sir B.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn W. G. (PtrsPid)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Peaks, Capt. Osbert

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Penny, Sir George

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 295.

  Division No. 15.]

  AYES.

  [6.34 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

  Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Berry, Sir George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)

  Hanbury, C.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Bracken, B.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Butler, R. A.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Flelden, E. B.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Pllditch, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Liewellin, Major J. J.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Remer, John R.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Tinne, J. A.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Train, J.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Salmon, Major I.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col- Sir A. Lambert

  Meller, R. J.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Shepperson, sir Ernest Whittome

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Mitchell-Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr).

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Smith-Carlngton, Neville W.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Somervlile, A. A. (Windsor)

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)

  Somervlile, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Percy, Lord Eustace Hastings

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Day, Harry

  Johnston, Thomas

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, F. Liewellyn- (Flint)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Dukes, C.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Duncan, Charles

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Ede, James Chuter

  Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Angell, Norman

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Arnott, John

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Egan, W. H.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Ayles, Walter

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Freeman. Peter

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon, Joseph M.

  Barnes. Alfred John

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Barr, James

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Knight, Holford

  Batey, Joseph

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lang, Gordon

  Bellamy, Albert

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lathan, G.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

  Law. Albert (Bolton)

  Benson, G.

  Gill, T. H.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Gillett, George M.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Blindell, James

  Gould, F.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Leach, W.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Gray, Milner

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Bowerman Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lees, J.

  Bromfield, William

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Bromley, J.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Brooke, W.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Brothers, M.

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Longden, F.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Harbord, A.

  Lunn, William

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hardie, George D.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Buchanan, G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

  Haycock, A. W.

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Heyday, Arthur

  McElwee, A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hayes, John Henry

  McEntee, V. L.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  McKinlay, A.

  Chater, Daniel

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Church, Major A. G.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Herrlotts, J.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  McShane, John James

  Compton, Joseph

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Cove, William G.

  Hollins, A.

  Mansfield, W.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  March, S.

  Dagger, George

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Marcus, M.

  Dallas, George

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Markham, S. F,

  Dalton, Hugh

  Isaacs, George

  Marley, J.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Marshall, Fred

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Mathers, George

  700

  701

  Matters, L. W.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Sullivan, J.

  Messer, Fred

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Middleton, G.

  Ritson, J.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Millar, J. D.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Milner, Major J.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Rothschild, J. de

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Morley, Ralph

  Rowson, Guy

  Tillett, Ben

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Samuel, Rt. Han. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Toole, Joseph

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Tout, W. J.

  Mort, D. L

  Sanders, W. S.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Sandham, E.

  Turner, B.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Muff, G.

  Scurr, John

  Walkden, A. G.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Sexton, James

  Walker, J.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Wallace, H. w.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Watkins, F. C.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Sherwood. G. H

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Shield, George William

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Shinwell, E.

  West, F. R.

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Simmons, C. J.

  White, H. G.

  Palin, John Henry

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Sinkinson, George

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Perry, S. F.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

  Potts, John S.

  Snell, Harry

  Wise, E. F.

  Price, M. P.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Wright, W. (Ruthergien)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Sorensen, R.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Stephen, Campbell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Raynes, W. R.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Thurtle.

  Richards, R.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "be," to insert the words:
  "for the first period specified in sub-section (5) of section two the end of the first complete term after the child shall have attained the age of fourteen years, for the second period specified in that sub-section the end of the second complete term after the child shall have attained the age of fourteen years and thereafter."
  This Amendment should be read in connection with a later Amendment of mine to Clause 2—in Clause 2, page 3, line 29, to leave out Sub-section (5), and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "(5) The first period mentioned in subsection (1) of section one shall be from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, and the second period mentioned in that sub-section shall be from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight."
  Its effect is to raise the school-leaving age by one term a year, beginning in April, 1936, and providing that in the first year the leaving age shall be the end of
  702
  the second term after the 14th birthday of the child, instead of the end of the first term as at present; that from 1937 to 1938 it shall be the end of the third term after the 14th birthday of the child; and that from then onwards it shall be 15 years. I suppose that this proposal is not unfamiliar to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are interested in education or industry, because it was a recommendation made, by Sir Arthur Balfour's Committee on Trade and Industry, and that is the proposal which I desire to argue.
  The reason for this Amendment is, of course, our old friend the "bulge," but I do not think that the Committee has ever had accurately before it that the "bulge" means, (a), from the point of view of juvenile employment, and, (b), from the point of view of the number of children in the schools. It is particularly about the employment position that I want to speak, although I want to touch afterwards on the position in the schools. The employment position is this: If nothing is done—if this Bill is not passed

  703
  and no measures are taken—there will be seeking employment between the ages of 14 and 17 inclusive, at the present day, in 1930, an estimated number of 2,110,000 young persons, and that number will fail by 1933 to 1,756,000; that is to say, there will be a drop in the number of juveniles in the labour market of some 350,000. The number will then rise, from 1933 to 1937, to about 2,200,000, or an increase of 450,000 juveniles in the labour market. It will then fall away again until, in 1940, it will be about 1,920,000, or a decrease of 280,000. That is the course of the supply of juvenile labour to the labour market if nothing is done, and, clearly, the fluctuations in the supply are going to make it very difficult for industry to absorb that labour. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) shakes his head, but is industry quite able to absorb a fluctuating supply of labour?
  Mr. KELLY: Is not the Noble Lord taking into consideration the alterations that are now being made to cope with the position at the moment and for the next two years?
  Lord E. PERCY: For the next two years there will be a, declining labour supply, and then it will be necessary to deal with a tremendously increasing labour supply. The hon. Member says that measures are being taken to deal with that, and I am very glad to hear it, but we have not heard anything of them in the House—
  Mr. KELLY: They are being taken in industry.
  Lord E. PERCY: I hope we shall hear something about them. What will happen if this Bill is passed? I can only give, as I have already given, the calculations of the Ministry of Labour itself, and the calculations of the Ministry of Labour is that, instead of a drop of 350,000 between 1930 and 1933 in the supply of labour to the juvenile labour market, there will be a drop of 780,000 between 1930 and 1934. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), on the Second Reading, said that surely I must realise that there would only be a drop in one year. I think he will see that that is arithmetically wrong. In each year of that period there will be about 400,000 fewer juveniles coming into the
  704
  labour market than there otherwise would be, and then there will be the same rise and the same fall which I have indicated. Therefore, while this Bill will accentuate the sudden cutting off of the supply of juvenile labour, it will do nothing to correct the increase in the supply of labour, and, by so much as it forces industry to cut down its demand for juvenile labour, so much the more difficult will it be for industry to absorb the increased supply of juvenile labour when the rise comes. It was for these reasons that the Balfour Committee proposed that, if the school-leaving age was raised, it should be raised gradually in such a way as to even out as far as possible the supply of juvenile labour, and get a gradual reduction as far as possible instead of violent fluctuations.
  Here I have only my own calculations to go upon, but my calculation on the other two points, as to what will happen if nothing is done and if the school-leaving age be raised, agree so closely with the Government figures that I think my calculations are probably accurate. If the school-leaving age be raised gradually, as I propose, between 1936 and 1938, the position will be roughly this: There will be 1,750,000 juveniles seeking employment in 1933. That figure will rise to 1,830,000 in 1934, it will fall again to 1,720,000 in 1935, and the figures for the succeeding years will be:

  1936

  …

  …

  …

  1,770,000

  1937

  …

  …

  …

  1,790,000

  1938

  …

  …

  …

  1,690,000

  1939

  …

  …

  …

  1,620,000

  1940

  …

  …

  …

  1,540,000

  Therefore, while there will be some minor fluctuations, there will be on the whole a steady decline, and the biggest decline in any one year will be 100,000. I do not think there can be any doubt that, from the point of view of juvenile unemployment, that would be very much the best thing that could be done. You would reach the position that the Bill seeks to reach by 1938, but you would not run the risk of sudden fluctuations in the supply of juvenile labour, which must be accompanied by a considerable amount of juvenile unemployment.
  At this point I should like to remind hon. Members of a very interesting observation made by Sir William Beveridge in his recent book on unem-

  705
  ployment, where he argued, as I understand it, that one of the influences which caused the arrest in the increase in real wages in this country between 1900 and 1910—one of the causes of the worker being in a bad bargaining position with the employer—was that successive raisings of the school leaving age had dammed back the supply of juvenile labour to the labour market, and that, when the influence of that damming back had disappeared, there was released upon the labour market a large over-supply of juvenile labour. [Interruption.] That is not my argument—
  Mr. KELLY: I am rather glad that it is not.
  Lord E. PERCY: That is obviously a very serious matter, and, when hon. Members suggest that we should do in this Bill as has always been done in this country before, the answer, from the point of view of employment as well as of education, is that these rather blind raisings of the school-leaving age in the past have produced very serious repercussions on the employment market and on the interests of workers in this country, and it surely is obvious that, if it can be done, it is desirable to even out as far as possible the supply of juvenile labour. I have given the figures which represent the contrast between the method which I propose and the method which the Government propose. If nothing is done at all, the number of juveniles seeking employment in 1940 will still be 230,000 more than in 1933. If this Bill be passed, the excess will be about the same; but, if my proposal be adopted, the number of juveniles seeking employment in 1940 will be 210,000 less than in 1933—that is to say, there will be a steady decline instead of violent fluctuations.
  7.0 p.m
  Let me now turn to the position in the schools. There again, if nothing is done, the number of senior children over 11 in the schools is going to jump up from 1,850,000 in 1929 to 2,100,000 in 1933. If this Bill be passed, the number is going to rise from 1,850,000 in 1929 to 2,050,000 in 1931, to 2,450,000 in 1933, and to 2,540,000 in 1934. You will get a rise of 690,000 children in the schools and then, from 1934 on, you will get a drop again to about 2,200,000 in 1938, that is to say,
  706
  about 690,000 more senior children in the schools, followed by a decline of 340,000. What is that going to mean? We know what it means in accommodation. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) mentioned on a previous occasion that there were 80,000 excess places in London. What does that mean even on the ground of accommodation? There are 80,000 places in junior and senior schools, and the whole basis of this proposal is that you are going to have separate schools for the seniors. You cannot shuffle them about between senior schools and junior schools, and you have got to take this increase in senior scholars by itself. There may be certain exceptions but generally you cannot utilise your excess junior accommodation for senior scholars.
  You will have terrible difficulty. It will make the development of the new curriculum in the new schools extraordinarily difficult, just at the time when they are in the experimental stage. It will prejudice the whole success of what is known as the Hadow period. It will reduce teachers and administrators to despair and exasperation. The administrators are unanimously against the proposals in this Bill as from the date on which it was proposed to introduce it. I have not seen a single association of local education authorities which is prepared to agree with the Bill as it stands. They do not agree, it is true, with my dates either; they have not tabled a proposal. When you come to teachers, they, of course, desire the raising of the school leaving age in principle. But it is quite obvious that they are also anxious—I am not saying anything offensive or suggesting that it is their main reason—for the raising of the school leaving age from a professional point of view. There are unemployed teachers and they consider very naturally that to have unemployed teachers, when you need so much more education, is a scandal. On that ground they press very strongly for having more children in order that you may have more teachers.
  Mr. McSHANE: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that they have pressed for the raising of the school leaving age when there were no unemployed teachers.
  Lord E. PERCY: I am surprised at anyone who has been a teacher saying there was a time when there were no un-

  707
  employed teachers—at any rate, during the last 30 years. I should have thought that complaints of unemployment were endemic in the teaching profession for the last 30 years. Certainly, in my time there was no period without strong complaints of serious unemployment.
  Viscountess ASTOR: It is not the main reason.
  Lord E. PERCY: I have said it is not the only reason, but that professional question was undoubtedly in the teachers' minds. It is worth while pointing out to the teaching profession what a very serious position they will he in professionally. The raising of the school leaving age at this moment will mean that you will need extra teachers between 1929 and 1934 for the purpose of teaching 690,000 additional children, and you will then have a reduction in the number of those senior children by 340,000. Although the right hon. Gentleman opposite and many of his supporters have often talked very much as if they were going to deal with the problem of schools by bringing along any old teacher from the junior schools, by teaching boys by retired old ladies, young married women and so on, I acquit them of really meaning to do that. They realise that the senior schools have got to be staffed with a different type of teachers with a different type of qualifications from those in the junior schools. Unless you are going—as I am afraid you are—to limit those children to the most appalling type of education, you will have to bring in additional teachers to deal with those 690,000 extra children. But, do you realise that, as the number of those children will drop by 340,000, out of every seven teachers you employ to deal with that great bulge, three at least will be unemployed by 1940.
  Mr. PALIN: I do not understand anything of the kind.
  Lord E. PERCY: I know the hon. Member does not understand it. The real trouble in this matter of raising the school-leaving age is that the Hadow Committee never had before them these figures of the birth rate and of the number of children to be provided for. The moment the Association of Local Education Committees had the figures laid
  708
  before them, they substituted 1933 for 1932 as the date when they wanted the school-leaving age raised. It influenced them to that extent. From the very beginning of this controversy, hon. Members have refused to take into consideration this question of the statistical position of the juveniles. I do not mean to say that an hon. Member like the hon. Member for South Shields, who is the administrator of a local authority, has not taken into account the statistics as they affect his own area, but that no attention has been paid by hon. Members, as Members of Parliament responsible to the nation as a whole, to the statistical position. Some hon. Members like the hon. Member for Rochdale, who are engaged outside in voluntary work closely connected with this matter, know, of course, but other hon. Members have never taken it into consideration. On that, is it possible for anyone to argue that it is a wise thing for the nation to raise the school-leaving age at the date proposed, when you can get over all these difficulties by a gradual raising of the school-leaving age at a future date? I am not quite sure whether the process should begin in 1935 or 1936. I am not sure from my study of statistics which is the best period, and I have an open mind on the matter.
  Hon. Members, who are simply in a hurry to do this because of its immediate effect, as they think, on employment, should pause to consider. They may be preparing a very much worse position for the juveniles five years hence. The hon. Member for Rochdale, when he talked about the fluctuations in the amount of juvenile employment, said: "You do not take into consideration all the wonderful things we have done to deal with them." Yet, when the Government propose to reduce unemployment simply by withdrawing 350,000 or 400,000 children from the labour market, what will be the effect on the labour market? There are none of these neutralising factors about which the hon. Member talks. The idea that you will produce employment for 350,000 people by cutting off the supply to the juvenile labour market is a very sanguine estimate. It is pure guesswork it is a dream. What is certain is that fluctuations in the supply of juvenile labour or of any labour must lead to industrial dislocation and unemployment. That is so,

  709
  and that is the situation which you are preparing at the present moment, and with which you are refusing to deal.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I want to deal to some extent with the Noble Lord's reasons and then with a particular scheme, which he has not said very much about but which the House ought to consider. First of all, with regard to his reasons. He has talked a great deal about the birth rate. He revels in figures and, even though in some cases intensely admire the way he deals with them, I can never see the relevance of them, and I cannot really understand what the Noble Lord thinks is so very dreadful in what he has talked about. He has pointed out to us a drop in the number of juveniles between 14 and 18 of 300,000 and then a rise of 400,000 and says that, if we act as we propose to act, there will be a greater drop and a greater rise. That is clear, but where is the great disaster? It is perfectly true that there are a number of variations in the number of juveniles, but what is the harm in there being a bit more or less in the labour market? What happens is that the employers have to go elsewhere and, instead of taking the very young children, they have got to take those who are rather older. They are not all being employed now. The disaster is that these juveniles are not getting the employment they ought to be getting.
  The right hon. Gentleman talks about the process of evening out and stabilising. There is no particular advantage in that. The advantage is if older labour is to be taken instead of junior labour. That is the advantage which we are quite certainly going to get. There is not really any serious disadvantage in the fact that in one year there happen to be more juveniles who cannot get employment. He exaggerates the difficulties in the schools and talks of terrible difficulties in accommodation, of teachers and administrators in despair. What is the proof of it? The teachers as a community want this change. They certainly do not want it put off as long as the Noble Lord is proposing to put it 'off in this Amendment. I say that with confidence, and I say it with confidence in regard to the administrators.
  The Noble Lord may make what he can against me by what I am going to quote, but I aim quoting this against the post-
  710
  ponement of raising the school age until 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938 and, if the perfection of his present scheme is to come in the year 1938, we are not going to get the school age raised other than under the scheme which we propose to vote against presently. He said that administrators are in despair. I quite agree if he says administrators are not approving of the particular date that we have put in the Bill. I do not deny that. What I have said is that it is worth while the country asking the administrators to make the best of it for unemployment reasons. When we ask what the administrators want, let us see. In the first place, the Hadow Committee wanted the year 1932. The Association of Education Authorities want 1st September, 1932. The County Councils' Association, which of all the great associations takes the latest date, want 1933. The Association of Municipal Corporations want September, 1932. So that, so far frown the administrators being in despair, they are anxious that we should delay the thing from the educational point of view rather longer than the year that we propose. Have I ever said that from the educational point of view that was not a natural thing? I have always said so, hut I have said it is worth while for the nation to do an exceptional emergency thing for the sake of unemployment. I have said from the very first that, from an educational point of view, 1932 was a reasonable date. I have never said anything else.
  The Noble Lord is trying to quote the local authorities in defence of what? I must ask the Committee to consider what the scheme is upon which it is to vote, but about which the Noble Lord has said very little. First of all, the part of the scheme that is under the Committee's eyes at the moment is very ingenious, but it is administratively clumsy. The Act is to come into operation at different times. It assumes that there are a uniform three terms in the school year. So little is this the case that the number of terms differs very widely among local authorities. There are no fewer than 100 local authorities which have four and not three terms. The result would be that you would have all sorts of different results in different districts. I say again, as I said in connection with the last Amendment, that the one thing we ought to want is that the law should be simple, similar in its

  711
  incidence everywhere, well understood and easily understandable. It would not be if we had the Noble Lord's plan.
  My final objection is to the date. The Noble Lord referred the Committee to the later Amendment which is dependent on this. It pushes off the final realisation of this change to 1938, five years after the latest local authority organisation wants it. Let the Committee realise that when it comes to vote on the Amendment. Really, it is a destructive Amendment. We know that the Noble Lord dislikes raising the school age at all. He says, "We will not begin until 1936, and we will not complete the thing until 1938." I do not believe, whatever date the Committee decides upon, it is likely to take a date as late as this. I very much hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be rejected.
  Lord E. PERCY: I should like to ask the right hon. Baronet, in view of his last remarks, whether he really accuses the Balfour Committee of having put this forward as a wrecking proposal.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I said I was not surprised at the Noble Lord putting it forward, as he is opposed to the whole thing.
  Captain WATERHOUSE: It seems to me that what is involved in the Amendment is not so much the postponement of the date as a new scheme for the alteration of the proposals of the Bill. For some years past there have been two definite schools of thought in the party opposite, one to do things quickly and the other, led primarily by the Colonial Minister, who believes in the inevitability of gradualness. I should have thought that those who take that view—I believe the Front Bench takes it—would not look unkindly on this proposal.
  Mr. EDE: You are too gradual hut not inevitable enough.
  Captain WATERHOUSE: That all depends on the party in power. If an Act is passed with a party in power that is used to keeping its pledges and carrying out its word, it becomes a certainty. The right hon. Gentleman said it was worth while to do an exceptional thing for the sake of unemployment. He virtually admits that, although it would be better to postpone the scheme for the
  712
  sake of education, for the sake of unemployment it is better to bring it in straight away. I have never heard anyone engaged in industry advocate any sudden change in industry. It is universally admitted that the more sudden the change, the worse for any particular section that is influenced by the change. I have been making inquiries in my constituency as to the position with regard to juvenile labour and to unemployment. Leicester is a very considerable industrial city and I find that, between the ages of 14 and 17, there are to-day 103 boys and girls registered as unemployed in the whole of the City, and between 14 and 15 there are 10 boys and 16 girls.
  Mr. KELLY: How long have they been unemployed?
  Captain WATERHOUSE: I did not find that out, but there is plenty of employment waiting for boys and girls in the factories. They were in the category of clerical work, and were waiting for that class of work. That is not an isolated case, Therefore, if sex t year the right hon. Gentleman proposes to withdraw 420,000 children who would otherwise have entered industry at one fell swoop, the position in industry is going to be a very serious one indeed. The boot and shoe industry, for instance, have a carefully organised system by which they have children in the industry at 14 to 15. During that year they have time to look around, and decide into which particular branch they are going, and in subsequent years they take up their apprenticeship in that branch. It is not possible in one year at one time for that industry to reorganise itself, and to absorb the older boys or older girls. It will cause tremendous disorganisation. It will cause, not relief of unemployment but, if anything, increased unemployment, increased disorganisation and increased cost.
  If one looks at the educational side, exactly the same process is obvious. These children will not be absorbed into the schools. They will be superimposed on the whole educational structure. You want teachers to educate the whole of this one category. You cannot enlarge all the classes down your school, unless you keep certain children who ought to go to a higher class in a lower. Is that

  713
  what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do? Throughout the country the scheme of central schools is only just now coming to anything like perfection. In very many local educational areas it has hardly started. It is still meeting with opposition. It is gradually killing the opposition, because it is proving its merit. On top of that scheme, you place this tremendous extra burden. Surely from the point of view of the teachers it would be far better to spread it out year by year a term at a time, so that the curriculum could be adapted, so that the teachers might get the extra experience and, last but not least, so that the buildings could be adjusted and the local authorities as a whole could get their system adapted to this weight. From the educational point of view I feel certain that my Noble Friend, whether he keeps to his date or not, is absolutely right. If the right hon. Baronet does not like the date, let him suggest that he should start this gradual process at an earlier date, and I believe the proposal would be very carefully considered on this side, although we realise, as he realises, that from the educational point of view it is far better to get over this maximum bulge. As one who is interested in industry and who represents an industrial constituency, I ask the right hon. Baronet seriously to consider whether he cannot incorporate in his Measure some scheme for bringing it in gradually, term by term.
  Mr. KELLY: I had not intended speaking on the Amendment but for the speech of the Mover, in which he left us in very great doubt as to the lines upon which he justified it. If he asks that this should be held up until we are sure industry is to be of the same old kind, that there are to be no changes in methods of production and that we are to have it going on in the old sweet way of 1913, it means that he intends that this raising of the school age shall never come into operation. Can he give us an assurance that we shall have, year after year, the same number of boys and girls reaching the same age? If that point is examined, one is bound to come to the conclusion that there has been a desperate search and re-search on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to try and find some reason for this Amendment. I cannot understand their position unless they have made up
  714
  their minds that it is inadvisable for the boys and girls of this country to have a better education than that which they have had an opportunity of enjoying up to the present time. Those of us who have given our time, and what little capacity we possess, to this work realise the necessity for the raising of the school age as soon as possible. We who have suffered through having been turned out of school and sent into the industrial and commercial life of this country at an early age realise what an advantage it would have been if we bad been able to continue at school for a longer period. The points which have been put forward as to waiting until 1935, 1936 and even 1938 do not seem to have very much good faith in them.
  I do not know why the Noble Lord, in submitting his Amendment this afternoon, should have referred to Sir William Beveridge, whom I cannot accept as an authority on this matter. I do not accept his suggestion, and I wonder why it was put forward on this Amendment, that a smaller number of children going into employment results in wages being kept down. He quoted the period 1900 to 1910. I want to answer the Noble Lord and Sir William Beveridge. I do not accept Sir William Beveridge as an authority upon wages or even as an authority upon Employment Exchanges in spite of his employment at one stage by the Government in that Department. If they will examine that period, they will find that the reason wages did not reach a higher level was riot because children did not go into industry, but because there was bad trade union organisation in this country. Consequently, wages were not forced up by the men and women engaged in industry. In 1909 and 1910, owing to the increased membership of the trade unions and the increased spirit of the members of the trade unions, we secured higher wages in the only way they have ever been secured, namely, by forcing wages up by means of our organisation. The suggestion that if we can keep children out of industry wages will be reduced, is one which I should have liked to have heard the Noble Lord develop.
  We were asked whether the Balfour Committee, having come to certain conclusions on this matter, ought not to be accepted as an authority. An authority

  715
  upon what? Does anyone suggest that, the members of the Balfour Committee dealt with or considered the education of our children? The Balfour Committee, who sat for three or four years dealing with industry, were not concerned with the educational side of the life of this country. What the Balfour Committee had to say upon that matter is of very little importance as far as this Committee is concerned. To suggest that the children of this country should be asked to wait for another seven years before they are given an opportunity of a further year's education is asking for something which is against the interests of the country. I hope that this Amendment will be rejected by an overwhelming majority and that for once in a way we shall show that we are determined that our children shall have a better education than they have had at any time up to the present.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) into his dissertation as to why wages drop or fall.
  Mr. KELLY: I was following the Noble Lord.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I appreciate that fact. There was a remark which the hon. Member made to the effect that we on this side of the Committee thought it was inadvisable that the children should have a better education. We disagree with the procedure in this Bill because we do not believe that children thrust into schools without sufficient accommodation and sufficient teachers will have a better education. Indeed, we take the matter a step further and say that the children who are already there will have a worse education, because the classes will be raised to such a size that they will not be manageable by the teachers in the class rooms which are at present available. How are we to overcome that difficulty? By all means try and get the schools built and the accommodation provided in time, but I am certain that all areas in this country will not be ready at a simultaneous date. The President of the Board of Education, apparently wants to impose his view on the education authorities throughout the country, some of whom will be ready before and some of whom will not be ready until after-
  716
  wards. Such a method of dealing with individual local education authorities has already been objected to by this House, and I should be out of order now in attempting to go further into the matter.
  The point to which we have come is: Can we put the burden on to local education authorities in lesser degrees? Can we not deal with this large number of extra boys and girls, not in one lump, as it were, but in. a kind of spread-over manner? The hon. Member for Rochdale said he could not think that there would be every year exactly the same number of boys and girls reaching the age of 15 or 14 as the case might be. That is obvious. But the difference between one year and the next is not so great as when you suddenly give 400,000 extra children an additional year. What is being attempted by this Amendment is a, spread-over in definite blocks so as not to throw a huge influx of boys and girls on to our local education authorities at a. particular time. The date which has been referred to, and which appears in a later Amendment, is not very material to the Amendment which we are now discussing, because, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) said, that date can quite well be varied. The only thing to which the Committee are asked to agree or with which to disagree at the moment is whether there shall be this spread-over. If it is decided to have a spread-over, the question as to when you should start the smaller part or the larger will come to be decided by this Committee at a later stage.
  The President of the Board of Education said that this Amendment was administratively clumsy because in some areas there were four terms. I think he said that over 100 local education authorities had four terms. But what about the date which we find inserted in the Bill? The date of 1st April does not correspond with a single school term. It is merely a financial date and does not take any account of the educational standpoint as to when a term finishes and another term begins.
  We are seeking by this Amendment to deal with the children in batches, so as not to put a great strain upon the education authorities straight away. The dates in a subsequent Amendment are,

  717
  I believe, in accordance with the recommendations of the Hadow Committee, who went very fully into this educational problem. After all, we have to take some account of what is happening throughout the education authorities of England at the present moment. For instance, in an area round London containing parts of Middlesex, in the locality which I represent, there is a tremendous influx of children owing to the new houses which are springing up there.
  The education authority have all their work cut out in order to keep pace with the growing demands for school accommodation in areas such as Hayes and other places, where, I am glad to say, new schools are being put up. It may well become impossible for schools suddenly to take in an influx of children and give them the education which an advanced education authority, such as that of Middlesex, would wish to give and provide the proper teachers. We are providing, in this Amendment, a kind of spread-over so that children may gradually be absorbed into the schools and not taken in in bulk. I ask hon. Members opposite to give us credit for taking a real interest in the educational problem of this country and to realise that we object to this Bill suddenly thrusting this obligation upon local education authorities when they are, in our opinion, not ready to give to the children who come in and to those who are already there, the education which one and all of us would like to see given to the children of this country.
  Dr. ETHEL BENTHAM: I am not going to speak on the purely educational aspect of this matter, because I do not consider myself entirely an educational expert., but I wish to oppose the Amendment because I believe, from the experience I have had as a magistrate and as a doctor, that it will be entirely impossible to get the administration on to a satisfactory basis in this piecemeal fashion. We have enough trouble as it is with Section 138 of the present Education Act, which provides that a child shall not leave school until the end of the term in which it is 14. If we were to have this continual arrangement of making it a little longer interval, and again a little longer interval, and again
  718
  a little longer interval still, we should have a great deal of difficulty in administering the law.
  I think that the sense of injustice which Section 138 creates in the minds of many people, who find that there may be as much as three months' difference in the age of a child who is allowed to go to work, will be increased by such a scheme as that which is now proposed in the Amendment. For many years now I have found in my experience as a magistrate and as a doctor that it is quite easy for boys and girls at or even under 14 years to get a job. The bulk of the unemployment among these young people happens when they are 15 or over, and especially when they are over 16. They are discharged almost weekly in favour of their younger brothers or sisters. It would be very much wiser that the unemployment should fall upon the younger children and not upon the older ones. As a doctor, I should say that if there was no question of helping unemployment or no question of education involved it would be an immense advantage to the country to keep the young children between 14 and 15 years of age out of the labour market. If they had only to sit still in school and not to wreck their constitutions, as I have known many boys and girls do, in taking jobs which involve heavy and most trying tasks, it would be a good thing. It would be wise to keep these children out of the labour market and to get them through the most critical period without the adverse influence of too early overstraining work.
  Dr. DAVIES: I will not follow the hon. Lady into her experiences regarding the health of children of 14 to 15 years of age, It is not wise that differences in the medical profession should be heard too much by laymen. I regret that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) could not see that the Amendment put forward from this side is really in the interests of the children from the point of view of education, and in the best interests of industry. As a practical man, he knows the difficulty that we have in Lancashire at the present time with regard to juvenile employment at the time of the children leaving school. There has been such a. flood at the labour market that

  719
  the young people could not be immediately absorbed and the cotton trade for a long time agitated that the children should be allowed to leave school when they were 14, in order to prevent sudden fluctuations in the labour market., for the advantage of the child and industry. They were never able to get what they wanted. The Noble Lord who moved the Amendment did so for the purpose of helping the administration of the Bill and to prevent sudden influxes into industry which work to the detriment of industry. I regret that the hon. Member for Rochdale brought in the old class feeling by asking why children of the working classes should not go to school until they were 15, and get the full benefit of education. He did not recognise that we on this side have accepted the position that when the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill the principle of the raising of the school age to 15 was accepted, and that all we are trying to do is to make the Bill advantageous to the child and not a detriment to industry. The Hadow report has been quoted many times. May I read a. few lines from that report:
  "And still another is the awakening and guiding of the practical intelligence, for the better and more skilled service of the community in all its multiple business and complex affairs—an end which cannot be dismissed as utilitarian' in any country, and least of all in a country like ours, so highly industrialised, and so dependent on the success of its industries, that it needs for its success, and even for its safety, the best and most highly trained skill of its citizens."
  It is for that reason that the Committee laid stress on the point that the last two years of post-primary occupation should have a practical training, depending partly on industry. If we recognise that we are an industrial nation, and that if we are to continue successfully we must do the best we can for industry, surely we cannot be accused on this side of being opposed to education if we say that we want to do the best we can for the child and the least injury to industry. The Noble Lord mentioned figures, which I believe I mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill, but the hon. Member for Rochdale was rather suspicious of them.
  Mr. KELLY: I have had them in another capacity.
  Dr. DAVIES: 1 have had them from the Ministry of Labour, and the hon. Member may take it that these figures are official. They point very definitely to the fact that there is going to be a great influx into the labour market. The Minister ridiculed the Amendment, and suggested that it might delay the scheme until 1938. I would point out that on the 5th November, in answer to a question, he said that the expenditure would gradually increase until 1938, as this depended upon the teachers and the accommodation. That meant that the Minister himself knows that this scheme will not be at its fruition until 1938. He has allowed seven full years for the completion of his scheme. Therefore, he cannot give the full expenditure until 1938, but when we suggest that it may be that date, the right hon. Gentleman makes fun and tries to pour ridicule on us. We are trying to face the facts of the situation. We recognise from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he is going to put these children into school on the 1st April, 1931. He acknowledges that there will not be sufficient accommodation and that there will not be sufficient teachers, but he says: "That does not matter. We will take them into the schools, because it is very much better that they should be at school, even if they are doing nothing, rather than they should go into industry or walk about the streets." That is a very unfair position to take up.
  The success of education depends upon making it so attractive and valuable that parents and children will desire it. We are told that there is definite evidence throughout the country that where education is up to date and good the parents are gradually recognising the value of it more and more, and are becoming more and more willing for their children to stay at school another year. What will happen under this scheme? The parents will see their children at school, with the same staff, the same accommodation, the same curriculum. What benefit will they get from the extra year? If at the end of the year they find there is no benefit to the children, it will be a great set-back to the cause of education, it will antagonise the parents and will make the children less inclined to have this extra year of education. It would have facilitated the progress of the Bill

  721
  if the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more lenient with his opening speech dealing with the school-leaving age. He has referred to the unemployment aspect of the Bill. I thought we had finished with that, but it would appear that he has been asked by the Cabinet to bring in this Bill as an immediate benefit to unemployment. He himself ackowledges that we shall not get the full benefit of the improvement in the unemployment figures until the middle of 1932. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not going to be there in 1932.
  Mr. KELLY: Yes, we are.
  Dr. DAVIES: Judging from the Press and from what one sees up and down the country there is no one with any political knowledge or instinct who has any idea that a Socialist Government will be in power in 1932. It means that the party opposite are going to make us a present of a drop of 150,000 in the unemployment figures. I admit that they have great admiration for us on this side, but I do not think that their admiration is so great as to give us a present of a drop of 150,000 in the unemployment figures.
  Mr. FRANK SMITH: We put country first.
  Dr. DAVIES: The hon. Member says that they put country first. Therefore, I take it for granted that in 1932, if there is to be a decrease of 150,000 in the unemployment figures and we take the credit for it, because it will occur in our time, hon. Members opposite will be kind enough not to remind us that it is the result of this Bill, brought in in 1930. To put forward this Bill as an unemployment Bill is derogatory to education, and I would suggest, particularly after the quotation from the Harlow report, that the future of this country depends just as much upon our industrial efficiency as upon our educational efficiency.
  Increased educational efficiency may mean increased industrial efficiency in many trades and industries, but the point to remember is, that we are legislating in this House at a time of difficulty and stress and that we should not do anything that will burden industry. Industry is struggling under a heavy load of taxation and against foreign com-
  722
  petition and it is taking them all their time to keep going. If we, in the sacred name of education and on the plea of helping unemployment are going to put additional burdens upon industry, it will react upon the country and that will necessarily react upon the workers, and instead of having unemployment of nearly 2,500,000 we shall have increases of unemployment, our people will become more and more discontented, more and more anxious to work, with no work for them, and I tremble to think what will be the result. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheer up!"] Hon. Members say, "Cheer up!" They can have no conception of the real position of affairs in Lancashire. I will not refer to the mining districts, but I would say that the situation in Lancashire is extremely grave. Fifty per cent. of the people out of work and anxious to work.
  8.0 p.m.
  Industry is struggling, and yet we in this House are going to put this extra burden upon industry. We shall make it worse for juvenile unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman finds that we have had to shut up a large number of our mills and that there are a certain number of children who otherwise would have got employment in the cotton textile trade who are unable to get jobs, he will be confronted with a situation even more serious than at the present time. What will happen to those children? Hon. Members opposite may smile, but it is very much more serious than they think. Let, us have education by all means, but let us be very careful what we do. What you are doing now is like a rich man who goes out into the highways and byways and asks starving people to come into his house for a banquet and then, when they get there, puts empty plates before them. He hopes that things will improve and that presently there will be food on the plates. That is what the Government are doing by forcing children into school under the promise of giving them an education when, in fact, there are not sufficient teachers and insufficient accommodation. If adequate accommodation and a sufficient number of teachers were available we on this side should not say a word about it. The President of the Board of Education said that he would rather have the

  723
  children in school learning nothing than on the streets. That is the wrong attitude to take. The right hon. Gentleman would have been much wiser if he had accepted our Amendment, which is a sincere attempt to help the Bill.
  Some hon. Members opposite have asked how it is possible for me, having been such a bitter opponent of the Bill on Second Reading, to put down Amendments. My answer is that I am totally opposed to the compulsory raising of the school age for all children but I am prepared to accept the verdict of the House, and as the House has decided to raise the school age I accept the decision, but that does not prevent me doing all in my power to make the Bill as useful as it can be made for the children of the country. Therefore, if I put down amendments it is with a sincere desire to make the Bill as beneficial as possible. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted our overtures in this matter and I am more surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his knowledge of education, should suggest that our Amendment is something in the nature of the wooden horse of Troy. We are not so deep as that. It would never enter our heads to bring forward an Amendment to try and deceive and harass and worry the Government. The Amendment is a genuine effort to make the Bill better, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not be quite so suspicious of us. He should trust us more. We are just as keen on education as any Member of the Government, but with the proviso that it is properly given under proper circumstances and that the children, who alone should count, shall receive the benefit.
  Mr. R. S. YOUNG: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) in the details of his very reactionary speech. We are quite accustomed to hear the same type of speech from him on all kinds of subjects. I rise because I was particularly interested in one aspect of the argument put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in favour of the Amendment. He made a subtle point that if we raise the school leaving age and thereby bring into the school, or keep at school, a large number of additional children it would mean bringing
  724
  a large number of extra teachers into employment. Whilst he had nothing to say against that he argued that in the course of a few years it would be necessary to dismiss those teachers because we should be over the bulge. I am surprised that the Noble Lord should use that argument. As an ex-President of the Board of Education and with his love for education he should have imagination sufficient to appreciate the fact that the raising of the school age is not merely an end in itself. It is one cog in a wheel that is going round and going forward, and as the years go by not only will it be possible and wise to reduce the size of classes, which will probably prevent any of the teachers being dismissed, but we shall be able to enlarge the whole scope of our educational system and bring into it such subjects as civics, which seem to be entirely ruled out at the present with disastrous consequences to our people individually and to the State as a whole. I regret that the Noble Lord should show such a lack of imagination in the progressive nature of our educational system.
  We on this side are not merely concerned with the bread and butter of education; we want our children to get into their minds the whole beauty and loveliness of education for education's sake. That cannot be done now because the classes are so large that nothing but the most elementary education can be given. We believe and hope, and we have the courage to aim at, being able to give all our children a full education in the finest sense of the word, with benefit to them individually and to industry—though that is not the apex of our scheme—so that their lives and characters may be developed to the best interests of our State and civilisation.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington North (Mr. R. S. Young) that we should all work for the best education for our children, and I maintain that by the Amendment we are doing more for the interests of the children than the Bill itself. If the Bill is to come into force on the 1st April next year the President himself agrees that in many districts the reorganisation will not have taken place, that there will be insuffi-

  725
  cient accommodation and an insufficient number of teachers, and that the curriculum will not have been drawn up. Surely, in the interest of the children themselves, and, may I say so in the interests of the people who will have to pay this money and who feel that they ought to get value for the expenditure, it would be well for us to realise that it would be better to postpone the operation and bring in the scheme gradually. This would be surely in the interests of the children. At the present time they leave school at the age of 14 and the industrial market is glutted. It is very difficult to find them a place. Under this Bill the contrary will be the effect as far as industry is concerned, no more children will be coming on to the labour market.
  Mr. KELLY: Your colleagues are dealing with that.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: My old colleagues would appreciate it more if the scheme was brought in gradually. To be really beneficial the scheme must be brought into operation gradually if you are to prevent chaos; and there is nothing in the whole arrangements which have been forecasted by the right hon. Gentleman which is not likely to lead to chaos. It has been argued that it is in the interests of the children to go to school whether they receive education or not. Is it in the interests of the children to cram the classes so full that none of them will get any benefit whatever? The London County Council is now endeavouring to cut down the size of classes. The hon. Member says that they are already large. They are too large; but you are going to increase the size of classes in many instances by this Bill and in so doing will ruin the education which is at the moment being given. The Amendment is in the interest of the children and of industry; and is good business.
  Everyone, even the Government, agrees that there will be educational authorities who will not be ready and it is absurd to rush this Bill through merely for the sake of doing one of the things which the Government promised they would do at the last election. If it is pushed through and comes into operation on the date mentioned we shall in another six months' time have chaos in our educational system. I have taken some interest in this matter and for a long time I have been
  726
  trying to transfer some children from one school to another in order that there should not be overcrowding in the classes. What will be the result of this Bill? More children will be coming into school and if there are 10, 15 or 20 additional children in a class where are they going to be put. If they are put with the children who are now 14 years of age they are not going to get the benefit of the extra year's education. If the children who are 14 are to be placed with those who are younger they will not get the benefit of the additional year's education. For all these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment which will really help him in the long run. If the Bill is passed as it is it will be a fiasco and he will get all the blame.
  Mr. TILLETT: I am glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) and his anxiety for the education of our children. I am sorry he introduced an element of class division. We on this side do not mind whether the children of hon. Members opposite are being educated at 20, 21, 24 or 25 years of age.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I did not mention the words "class distinction." I never alluded to it.
  Mr. TILLETT: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the hon. Member but he gave me that impression. He said that 12 months education does not make any difference.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. TILLETT: I understood the hon. Member to say that it would not make any difference.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Unless it was carried on systematically and properly.
  Mr. TILLETT: I agree that it should be carried on systematically and properly. Then why do you restrict it? I value even the 12 months. At the age of 17 I could hardly read or write, but between 17 and 18 years of age I learned a great deal. I appeal to the sporting instincts of hon. Members opposite who have had all the advantages of prosperity. I am not begrudging them those advantages. I merely wish that Members of my class should have the same opportunities and

  727
  privileges. I think that many of my class, if given a chance, could show a competence equal to that of those who are more privileged. I am not saying this with any class bias whatever. Between the ages of 14 and 15 a child is most calculated to benefit by advanced education. I am modest in asking for this extra 12 months of schooling. I claim that we are entitled to ask for five years, but I do not advance that proposition. A child of 14 with constructive education going on is in a better position to accumulate knowledge and to develop its faculties than at any other age, and that development would be entirely lost without some such proposal as that in this Bill.
  Lord E. PERCY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. TILLETT: I am glad that we are agreed upon that issue. Civilisation is impossible without education. The great organisations and empires of olden times could not have existed without education. The child of to-day is the asset of future generations. We have never questioned the right or the competence of hon. Members opposite to educate their children. I have the utmost faith in and regard for Eton and Harrow and Oxford and Cambridge, but when I see hon. Members opposite adopting a niggardly attitude towards the education of my class I must find fault with them and cross swords with them.
  Lord E. PERCY: No!
  Mr. TILLETT: I am very glad that the Noble Lord accepts my point of view. Why do hon. Members opposite say that we cannot afford to educate children from 14 to 15 years of age?
  Lord E. PERCY: We do not!
  Mr. TILLETT: Then why the opposition to the Bill?
  Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not question the competence of our class to educate our children. Neither do we question his competence to educate his children. We are prepared to provide that education, but we are not prepared to compel him to take it.
  Mr. TILLETT: If the Noble Lord said that to his own child it would be different.
  Lord E. PERCY: Why cannot you compel your children?
  Mr. TILLETT: I have compelled my children, but they have had more compulsion over me than I have had over them. I should look askance at the Noble Lord's class if he did not compel his son and his daughter to be educated. I say to the Noble Lord, "You are the despotic parent; you dare not allow your children to grow up in ignorance. You have class pride and family pride." We too are class proud and family proud.
  Lord E. PERCY: Then do the same with your children.
  Mr. TILLETT: I have done it, and they have done more than that with me. We do not begrudge your side the right to advance the intellectual capacity and mind training of your children, and you have no right to restrict the mind training of our children.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I would like, first of all, to return for a few moments to the speech of the President of the Board of Education. I hope he will not think me unduly severe it I say that I have seldom heard a more inadequate reply to a very carefully reasoned statement such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). My right hon. Friend produced to the House, in a speech about which he was very apologetic and which it was often very difficult to follow completely at first hearing, a very carefully prepared set of figures with which he had made himself fully acquainted. They were figures which he worked out in the year 1927 and put before the local education authorities, first of all in an interview and latterly in a circular which was issued to them all. They were very striking sets of figures. They brought before the local education authorities considerations to which those authorities seemed to have been quite impervious before, and I think that their importance must be recognised by any impartial person who remembers that they were referred to by that very important body the Royal Commission on Trade and industry. I say to the Minister that in brushing those figures aside, as he did, in a very airy manner, he really is not facing realities.
  Reference has been made to the position of the employer. If an employer

  729
  could not get young people, it was said, he would take older people into his employment, that is to say, adults instead of these young children. That is mere assumption. If a child of 14 is employed it is employed on something that is quite simple. An employer would not think of offering such work to an older person or of offering the wage that could be paid for the work. Does it not seem common sense that if suddenly the supply of juvenile labour is very much restricted many employers will be driven so to reorganise their work that they will do without that child labour? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is very easy for hon. Members opposite to say, "Hear, hear," but they should look further than the ends of their noses.
  Assuming that an adult is taken on instead of a child—a result with which we should all be very pleased—what is going to happen when a year or two later, a larger number of children suddenly come out of school, namely, the children born in 1920? It means either that your adult then loses his employment, or that you have a larger number of juvenile unemployed. Is that, then, a matter of no concern to the President of the Board of Education? I do not propose to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings in his figures because I am not capable of carrying them in my head as he does, but I ask the Committee to remember that, broadly speaking, the effect of those figures is to show that by raising the school age now, you take a large number of children off the labour market, which means that there will be a greater difference from the year 1935 onwards, when the children born in 1920 come out of the schools, after they have spent the extra year there. I venture to say that the Minister gave no real answer to the argument of my right hon. Friend.
  The Minister next dealt with the attitude of administrators towards the Government's proposals. He admitted that, administrators did not like the date which he proposed, but he went on to say that the date suggested by the Hadow Committee was 1932, and therefore he ridiculed our proposal that the change should be delayed until 1936. But if the right hon. Gentleman turns up the words of the Hadow Report he will find that what the Committee asked was that the raising of the school age should become obligatory after the lapse of five
  730
  years from the date of their report in order to give not less than five years' notice to the local education authorities and to enable those authorities to make the necessary arrangements. The right, hon. Gentleman will also remember that six months after the publication of the report, the local education authorities came to my right hon. Friend and said: "We want to raise the school age but we cannot do it in the five years proposed by the Hadow Committee. Give us another year. We cannot do it before 1933." That is to say, the local education authorities asked for six years and therefore it is rather misleading the Committee to suggest that the year 1932 is the year which would now satisfy the Hadow Committee. They asked for five years, and if the Association of Education Committees are asking merely for a postponement until September, 1932, I imagine that they are trying to make the best of a very difficult job. The County Councils' Association which represents the authorities which have to deal with the most difficult part of the scheme, namely, the rural part of it, have said that the change cannot be made before September, 1933.
  The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the case of authorities which had four school terms instead of three. I cannot see that that matter presents any insuperable obstacle in the way of carrying out the Amendment. It merely means that, in the first two years, over which the change would be spread, you would have one-quarter of the children in each year being retained in those areas instead of one-third; and in the last year you would have half being retained. It simply means slightly different numbers coming in during the course of those years. The difficulties involved in that course are nothing compared with the difficulties in which the right hon. Gentleman is landing authorities by his hasty raising of the age. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said it was desirable that the law should be simple. It is very easy for us here to pass simple forms of words. We have not to carry the law into effect. The people who have to administer the law are the local education authorities, and we know the tremendous difficulty which they are having. We know, according to the memorandum of the County Councils Association that not one large authority is

  731
  going to be ready to raise the school age before September, 1933. I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that education never is, and never can be a simple matter. The intellectual, moral and physical, development of the 5,000,000 children of this country must always be an intricate matter, and we are simply shutting our minds to realities if we try to imagine that, by passing a simple form of words and a uniform date for raising the school age, we are passing into law something which it will be easy and simple to operate.
  The hon. Member for East Islington (Dr. Bentham) foresaw a difficulty in getting parents to agree to the children being retained one term longer in school. The difficulty in that respect, where the proposal involves one term at a time, seems to me to be nothing compared with the resentment which many parents will feel at children being compulsorily retained for the whole year longer without any possibility of exemption. The hon. Member also spoke of children going into industry at 14 and being overworked, and the opinion of a medical woman on that subject is entitled to serious attention. But the answer is that we want more oversight, and, possibly, more restriction of the work of young people between the ages of 14 and 16, whether the school age is raised or not.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that the only matter in dispute on this Amendment is whether this change should take place at once or whether it should be spread over a certain period. All this extraneous matter which is being introduced has nothing whatever to do with that question.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I think, Mr. Dunnico, if you had been in the Chair during the last hour or two you would realise that a great deal of what you term extraneous matter has been introduced into the debate by previous speakers. I am not introducing any subject for the first time. I am endeavouring to reply to what has already been said. I do not wish to detain the Committee, however, on any matter which the Chairman considers extraneous, because I am only too anxious to get on to the main point of the Amendment.
  732
  May I say in reply to the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett) that we on this side of the Committee welcome what he said about the value of the work done at Eton and Harrow. It was in striking contrast to some of the remarks on the older public schools made by hon. Members opposite during the debates last week. The hon. Member made an eloquent plea for the retention in school of the child over 14, but I submit to him that that was rather extraneous to the subject of the Amendment. The subject of the Amendment is the substitution of a later date than that proposed by the Government, and the bringing of the change into operation by stages. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings gave weighty reasons, in relation to the question of entering into industry, why this change should be made in stages. I submit that there are also reasons from the educational point of view which are of very great weight. It is true that we have raised the age before, but, as I tried to explain in the debate on the Financial Resolution, we are taking two steps at a time in raising the school age without exemption. I submit, also, that raising the school age to-day is a much more serious matter than ever before, partly because there are more children in school to-day, partly because all Governments have recognised that smaller classes than were customary before are wanted, and partly because there is no proposal to assist this change by introducing uncertificated teachers.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already reminded the Noble Lady that the only issue before the Committee is whether the retention of these children at school shall commence as from one date, or whether the change is to be carried out by stages and at different dates.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: If you would be so kind as to allow me to proceed for a moment, I was about to come to that point. It follows from the circumstances which I have mentioned—and we know it from the Minister—that a tremendous number of additional teachers will be required in the year 1932–33. It is estimated that no less than 13,000 additional teachers will be needed then, about 5,000 of these being required in respect of normal expansion, by which, I suppose, the Minister means the reduction in the size

  733
  of large classes, and 8,000 being required entirely in respect of the raising of the school age. In a former time the President could have looked to get a very large number of uncertificated teachers, but to-day the right hon. Gentleman has either to get additional students into the training colleges or somehow to pick up certificated teachers in other ways.
  I do not want to go fully into the various suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman made in the summer, on the Second Reading of his former Bill, on this subject. I criticised them rather severely in a speech at the end of last Session, and I do not think I have had any reply, but I merely want to say that towards those 13,000 additional teachers, the President has only been able so far to show us that he has 1,800 additional students in training in the training colleges. He has told us that he hopes to pick up 5,000 teachers who are at present unemployed, to retain 4,000 young married women teachers, and 1,000 teachers who are due to retire. These, however, are all problematical, and he has net been able to give us any substantial reason why he looks for help from those sources. In the main be will have to get additional certificated teachers trained.
  It takes two years to train a certificated teacher in a training college, and it takes not less than one year to train those who have been to a university, and I do not see how it is going to be possible for the training colleges of this country to produce anything like the number of additional teachers in the time required. It is an impossible task to put on the training colleges. The President has been exerting himself, with all the authority of his high office and with all the enthusiasm which we know he brings to this subject, to get the training colleges to train as many additional teachers as possible, but so far he has only succeeded in getting some 1,800 additional students into the training colleges, and—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must not continue on that line. The general question of the advisability or otherwise of raising the school age will doubtless be discussed on specific Amendments later, and the Chair is placed in a position of great difficulty if, on every Amendment, we are to have a repetition of the same arguments. The real
  734
  substance of this Amendment is as to whether the Bill shall come into operation at one period, or by stages.
  Lord E. PERCY: On a point of Order. The whole point of this Amendment is to raise the school-leaving age at a time and by a process which will reduce the maximum number of children with whom you have to deal by about 450,000. I therefore submit that my Noble Friend is in order in arguing that if you did this, you would not have to train teachers for those 450,000 children, and that therefore you should accept the Amendment which will prevent those 450,000 children corning into the schools.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Noble Lady confines her arguments to the proposition of a gradual coming into operation of this Measure, well and good, but she was going in great detail into question's as to what the President of the Board of Education had or had not done.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I was only trying to lead up to this point, that if you cannot get enough teachers trained in one year at the training colleges, as the right hon. Gentleman has amply shown, does it not stand to reason that it is better to spread your raising of the school-leaving age over three years, so that you can gradually get into the training colleges more and more of the additional teachers that you will need? Further, is it not obvious that if you delay raising the age till after the additional 450,000 children have passed out of school, you will want nothing like so many as 13,000 teachers?
  This difficulty of getting in any one year or in a short space of time anything like the number of teachers you want is, to me, a new difficulty. Supposing you got these 13,000 teachers trained by two years, what would you do with them three or four years hence? Some would then be out of employment. Unless the Government are prepared to take into the schools a large number of uncertificated teachers, if only temporarily, to tide over a transitional period, it is impossible to raise the school leaving age at one jump and supply all the teachers that are necessary to enable the children to be properly taught. Therefore, I say that the postponement of the date and the carrying of the proposal into operation by stages is absolutely necessary if this change is really to be beneficial to

  735

  the children of this country and if there is going to be fair dealing with the teachers. If enough teachers were trained for the bulge years, you would have many unemployed teachers afterwards, but the colleges cannot provide places to enable these teachers to be trained except in stages. Therefore we believe that this proposal to raise the school age at this moment is likely to be prejudicial to many children who will be retained in school and unfair to many of the teachers. It is not possible to carry it out in the time if you are to have any educational standard that is worth having for the children.
  This Amendment is strictly consistent with the position that my right hon. Friend has maintained all along. He put it before the local authorities in 1927 and by Circular in January, 1928, that to raise the school leaving age before the year 1937 would either mean that you had too little accommodation and too few teachers before that year, so that you were not able to do your duty by the children, or that if you did provide enough accommodation and teachers before that year, you would be left with a surplus of accommodation and teachers afterwards. We say that by the first course you will offer no benefit to the children, and that the latter course means an unjustifiable waste of public money and of human material in the shape of the surplus teachers who will have been trained. Therefore, we shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not propose to follow the Noble Lady along the lines which she has just traversed in the concluding stages of her speech. There will be ample opportunity later to discuss the question of the adequacy or otherwise of teachers, when we hope to avail ourselves of the opportunity of showing that this problem has been reviewed adequately and properly. I understood that the Noble Lord, in support of his argument this afternoon, laid down a proposition something like this, that presently there will be inevitably a shortage of juvenile labour, and that that juvenile labour may very easily present industry generally with a, difficult and perplexing problem. Partly because of
  736
  that consideration, he invited us to consider this alternative as a much easier way of raising the school age. I have in my hand a copy of a document which the Noble Lord sent out at the last Election to teachers and educationists generally. It deals with the question of the advance of education and the service to industry of that advance. There are in it some 14 points, like President Wilson's Fourteen Points. No. 8 reads as follow:
  "The longer school life inevitable, under the new system, will keep children out of the labour market, where they are not wanted."
  That was the view of the Noble Lard in 1929.
  "The raising of the school age will come, not as an imposition, but as a natural development from the New Prospect 'reorganisation."
  That is our point, that the proposal embodied in this Bill is a natural complement to the reorganisation which has been going on during the last two years. I also read this in this precious document:
  "The employer can wait for applicants till they are 15 or 16, and he prefers to wait for a better product."
  I am really much obliged to the Noble Lord for having given such a lucid and succinct argument in favour of the proposals we have made. I do not think that there is any point in prolonging this discussion. We have had an exhaustive debate on the Amendment; every point of view has been surveyed, and I therefore ask the Committee to come to a decision.
  Lord E. PERCY: I observe with great interest that, whenever the Parliamentary Secretary and any Member on the Government benches talk about education, they can only thoroughly express their full meaning by quoting something that I have said. I do not think that they do themselves justice in quoting anything I said two years ago, because after all in two years we ought to have moved a little and what I have said ought not to be sufficient cover for the Government in their awn proposals. What the hon. Gentleman has read represents precisely ray views to-day, but does he not realise that I am complaining not that this Bill would lead to a decreased supply of juvenile labour between now and 1935, but that, the reduction in supply having been accentuated, it will do nothing

  737

  to prevent the over-supply of juvenile labour that would take place in the succeeding years. Cannot the hon. Member realise that the trouble about the whole proposition is that, if you are going to do either nothing or simply something slapdash like this Bill, you will have a sudden increase in the supply of juvenile labour in 1934–37.
  Perhaps I may, in reply to the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett) inform him that to-day his leader informed me, in answer to a question, that if 400,000 juveniles are withdrawn from the labour market, it must create more employment among adults or older children; that is certain, but that it does not matter if you increase the supply of juvenile labour by 400,000. Surely the hon. Member for North Salford is not so bad a mathematician as not to see the fallacy of that.
  Mr. TILLETT: I dissent from your figures.
  Lord E. PERCY: My figures are surely right. There is a Government report—[Interruption.] Do hon. Members say there is not a Government report?
  Mr. COVE: I do not dispute the figures, but the Noble Lord's deductions.
  Lord E. PERCY: I was not making any deductions, but I was saying that after a great reduction there will be a great influx of juvenile labour on to the labour market, and I was asking the hon. Member for North Salford whether he agreed with his leader that that sort of influx does not matter.
  Mr. TILLETT: I look upon the unfair use of child labour as a form of industrial cannibalism, and I am anxious that our children shall have a chance, at least until 15 years of age. I agree with the Noble Lord that it should be 16, 17, 1S or even 19; I am not pressing that point at the moment; but he has no right to challenge us on this side in regard to the extra year.
  Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member will know quite well what the effect on employment in the docks would be if a large number of boys of 15 were suddenly discharged on the labour market.
  Mr. TILLETT: No boy of 15 is allowed to do any shipping work, loading or unloading.
  Lord E. PERCY: Quite, but the hon. Member knows what would be the effect on the labour market in the East End of London of discharging at the age of 15 a greatly increased number of boys. He knows that that would produce unemployment. I should like to say a word in reply to the speech of the hon. Member. It has been said, and will be said, up and down the country that, because we move Amendments of this kind, we are against giving another year of education. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is true!"] That was the whole burden of the speech of the hon. Member for North Salford, and there is one Member below the Gangway who has the effrontery to say that it is true. Everyone who has followed the course of education during the last five years knows that what I have stood for constantly, and what I have made the local authorities do is to carry out their statutory duties, and to see that if any child desires to stay on at school past the age of 14 to 15, and even to 16 and later, proper education shall be available to him. That has been my policy. Every hon. Member knows that this is what I have done, and what this party has stood for. Why does the hon. Member for North Salford get lap in this House and sling accusations as if we were trying to prevent children of his class from getting another year at school? He knows perfectly well that what we say is this—[Interruption.] Yes, I know!"Look at the history of the past!" It is you Members below the Gangway who live in the past! That is your difficulty! You are the only reactionaries! You are the only Tories!
  Mr. TOOLE: Everything we have got we have forced from you.
  Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member may comfort his soul with that. Let him go home and go to bed and think that he and he alone is the one self-righteous person in the world who is forcing everybody else. The hon. Member for North Salford who, unlike the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Toole), knows the kind of attitude to take towards his political opponents, knows that that has been our policy, and that what we are

  739
  opposing now is the exertion of legal compulsion upon parents to do something whether they desire to do it or not. That is the only issue between us. Let me say, in conclusion, one word on this subject of legal compulsion, and this is strictly to the Amendment. [Interruption.] I must say in my defence that I went out to snatch a little dinner, and when I came back I found hon. Members roaming over the whole field of education, and I cannot be blamed for trying to reply. Hon. Members may say, "You attach great importance to this Amendment, but you have publicly said that you are not in favour of compulsion at all."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am handicapped by not having heard the preceding portion of the debate, and I have therefore allowed the Noble Lord considerable latitude, on the assumption that he was replying to opinions that
  have been expressed; but it is for me to rule what this Amendment contains, and I must rule that the question of compulsion does not arise here. Compulsion is assumed, and the purpose of this Amendment is to apply it by stages.
  Lord E. PERCY: All I was going to say was that in view of the fluctuation in the supply of juvenile labour it might be necessary on that ground, and on that ground alone, to exercise compulsion—to keep children in school for that purpose. In other words, I am at one with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in thinking that the raising of the school age may be necessary for unemployment purposes, but, if so, it is in this period between 1935 and 1938 that it is necessary.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 133, Noes, 288.

  Division No. 16.]

  AYES.

  [9.1 p.m.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Fermoy, Lord

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Balfour. Captain H. H. (I. of Thanat)

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Penny, Sir George

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Berry, Sir George

  Galbraith. J. F. W.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Remer, John R.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Boyce, H. L.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Bracken, B.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Cadonan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hanbury, C.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Herbert, Sir Denote (Hertford)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Spender-Clay. Colonel H.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Colman. N. C. D.

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lewis. Oswald (Colchester)

  Train, J.

  Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Llewerlin, Major J. J.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Meller, R. J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Dixey, A. C.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Withers, Sir John James

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Monsell Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  NOES

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Gray, Milner

  Marley, J.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Marshall, Fred

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Mathers, George

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Matters, L. W.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Messer, Fred

  Alpass, J. H.

  Grundy. Thomas W.

  Millar, J. D.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Milner, Major J.

  Angell, Norman

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Arnett, John

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Morley, Ralph

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Harbord, A.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Ayles, Walter

  Hardie, George D.

  Mort, D. L.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Mosley, Lady C, (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Barr, James

  Haycock, A. W.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hayday, Arthur

  Murnin, Hugh

  Bellamy, Albert

  Hayes. John Henry

  Naylor, T. E.

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Benson, G.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Herriotts, J.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Blindell, James

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Hollins, A.

  Palln, John Henry

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Palmer, E. T.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Perry, S. F.

  Bromfield, William

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Bromley, J.

  Isaacs. George

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Brooke. W.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Brothers, M.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Johnston, Thomas

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Jones, F. Liewellyn- (Flint)

  Potts, John S.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Price, M. P.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Burgess, F. G.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Caine, Derwent Hall.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Cameron. A. G.

  Jowett. Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Richards, R.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Chater, Daniel

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Church, Major A. G.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Ritson, J.

  Clarke. J. S.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Romeri1, H. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Knight, Holford

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lang, Gordon

  Rawson, Guy

  Compton, Joseph

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cove, William G.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Cowan, D. M.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Sanders, W. S.

  Daggar, George

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Sandham, E.

  Dallas, George

  Lawson, John James

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Leach, W.

  Scurr, John

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Sexton, James

  Day, Harry

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Denman. Hon. R. D.

  Lees, J.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Dud ean, Major C. R.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Dukes, C.

  Lindley. Fred W.

  Shield, George William

  Duncan. Charles

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Ede, James Chuter

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Edmunds. J. E.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shinwell, E.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Longden, F.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Edwards, E (Morpeth)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Simmons, C. J.

  Egan, W. H.

  Lunn, William

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Foot, Isaac

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Sinkinson, George

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Freeman, Peter

  McElwee, A.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  McKinlay, A.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Snell, Harry

  Gill, T H.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Gillett, George M.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Mansfield, W.

  Sorensen, R.

  Gossling, A. G.

  March, S.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Gould, F.

  Marcus, M.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Markham, S. F.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rolfox)

  742

  743

  Strauss, G. R.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Sullivan, J.

  Walker, J.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Tillett, Ben

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Wise, E. F.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Toole, Joseph

  West, F. R.

  Wright, W. (Ruthergten)

  Tout, W. J.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  White, H. G.

  Turner, B.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Viant, S. P.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.

  Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "years," to insert the words:
  "but between the ages of fourteen and fifteen years this obligation shall be construed only as an obligation to cause children to attend such courses of advanced instruction, suitable to their age and attainments as may be available in the district where they reside, and parents of children between these ages shall not he required to cause them to attend any school which does not provide such courses."
  The object of this Amendment is to provide that the obligation to send children to school between the ages of 14 and 15 years shall be construed only as an obligation to cause children to attend such courses of advanced instruction as are suitable to their age and attainments. Under the Education Act of 1921 it is the duty of the parent of every child between the age of five and 14 years to see that that child attends school to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic. The President of the Board of Education told the Committee that the whole country was in favour of giving a real education to these children. In face of that opinion, I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can oppose this Amendment which is intended to give the children a better education than they will have under this Bill if it passes unamended.
  The Amendment I am proposing provides that parents hall be under an obligation to cause their children between the ages of 14 and 15 years to attend courses of advanced instruction. It further provides that the parents of children between the ages of 14 and 15 shall not be required to cause them to attend any school which does not provide such courses of advanced instruction. The Bill provided that as long as the child is merely getting efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic he shall be kept
  744
  at school, but when you give him more advanced instruction that obligation ceases. If the child is given advanced instruction and the parent no longer wishes the child to attend school, no prosecution will lie against the parent because instruction is being given to the child, not only in reading, writing and arithmetic, but in a great deal more.
  This Bill in its present form is causing a great deal of disquiet in the country. We have heard to-day a great deal about the desirability of keeping children at school rather than in the factory, or even, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, in the field; but in the country districts the feeling turns to another aspect. People in those districts wish their children to go into the world equipped for their job. They want to give their children advanced instruction, not more instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic. I remember that, just after the first of the right hon. Gentleman's long series of Bills was introduced into the House, I met a village schoolmaster in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and I asked him, "If this Bill goes through, what will you teach those children of 14 to 15 directly you get them?" He replied, "I shall teach them quadratic equations and 17th century history."
  The children in these country districts will, it is hoped, go into agriculture and follow a long line of ancestors in farming. It is my hope, and I think it is the hope of some right hon. Gentlemen, that we shall have more scientific farming, and that advanced courses of instruction in agriculture will be provided in our central schools. I think the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must agree that that is necessary when we have the Prime Minister saying that nowhere is there more inefficiency than among farmers. Will he give agricultural children this advanced instruction? There

  745
  has been in the rural areas a very serious decline in the number of children entering agriculture. In the last four years, 23,800 children have left the industry. One of the main reasons is, of course, that these children go out without any advanced instruction in agricultural subjects, and they are thrown into a vortex of industry and a vortex of cinemas and tend to wander towards the towns. It must be the aim of any right hon. Gentleman entrusted with the office of President of the Board of Education to give agricultural instruction to those children. By doing so, he can help agriculture, he can help to stem that flight from the land—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I want to keep the discussion within reasonable limits. The hon. Member is taking the line that these facilities should be provided for all children, but I must remind him that the Amendment deals exclusively with those children who are proposed to be kept at school for an additional year should this Bill become law, and he must confine his remarks to those children.
  Mr. TURTON: I will certainly only speak of advanced instruction for children between those ages. I regret if I have erred beyond that limit; I had intended to direct my remarks to the giving of agricultural instruction to children between the ages of 14 and 15. I will say no more on the subject of agriculture, except to urge that we do require in the rural areas additional advanced instruction in agriculture, and, so far as I am aware, as regards those rural areas the President of the Board of Education to-day comes before us with empty hands.
  I have inquired in my own area how the raising of the school-leaving age will operate, and I am told that in the North Riding of Yorkshire it will be impossible to give these children advanced instruction until 1935. The right hon. Gentle-roan will have the figures before him. I turn to what is happening in Wiltshire, where the Director of Education has stated that without reorganisation it will be almost fraudulent to keep children in the schools till they are 15. He says that 2,577 children in the county will be in the 14–15 age group in 1931; that they will be able to provide reasonable, though incomplete, examination
  746
  for 677 at central schools, and that 238 others could be instructed with some profit at eight non-reorganised schools. This would leave 1,662 for whom no education worthy of the name could be provided, and he suggests that the school-leaving age should not be raised until there is a prospect of establishing central schools throughout the country. That is the dictum of the Director of Education in another agricultural county besides my own. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us of some few county areas in which it will be possible to give advanced instruction to these children between the ages of 14 and 15. It is not easy, I must admit, at the present moment, to make provision for central schools for these children. The right hon. Gentleman himself has not helped the establishment of central schools when he has set a hard face against any extra provision for travelling facilities for children who go from country districts into the central schools. I am told that in my area that want of provision of travelling facilities will make—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not carrying out my previous Ruling. The Amendment deals only with children between 14 and 15, and he must confine his remarks to those children.
  Mr. TURTON: I naturally abide by your Ruling, but I thought that travelling facilities for children between 14 and 15 would have some application to my Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with existing conditions, but the only point raised by his Amendment is that children between the ages of 14 and 15 should not be compelled to attend school unless special facilities are provided for them. That is the sole subject before the Committee.
  Mr. TURTON: I will not deal any further with the question of the transport of these children to schools of advanced instruction; I think I have made my point, and will leave it there. I do, however, want the Minister carefully to consider whether he should not help the country districts in their educational attempt. If he intends to leave the Bill as it is, he must be resigning himself to a dismal future, for some years, of small

  747
  country schools, often with women teachers, and perhaps even inexperienced women teachers, trying to teach these children betwen the ages of 14 and 15 at the same time as they have to teach children between the ages of five and 14. It is no easy task. If he would go round some of the outlying country districts in Yorkshire, he would find women teachers absolutely at a loss how to deal with that problem. He cannot give them advanced instruction at the present time. It is my submission that these children of 14 to 15 would be better employed learning agriculture on the land than being put down in school learning problems of arithmetical equations. The science of agriculture requires a long apprenticeship. It is not bad for the health of the children and it is in itself good for the character and qualities of the race.
  If you take them away from that agricultural employment, there is no doubt that, when they come out of school at 15, as they would do, without having received advanced instruction, they will be diverted to the towns with greater rapidity than if they come out at 14 and have their apprenticeship. Hon. Members opposite may want that result to follow, but this is a very grave piece of legislation. It is a very grave matter when the right hon. Gentleman puts such legislation before the country, legislation that gives parents an obligation to send their children to school and which involves a reduction of 7s. in their weekly budget for no better quid pro quo than the same instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic that these children have received from the age of five to that of 14. We are supposed to be a progressive country, and yet the same obligations will remain from five years to 14 and from 14 to 15.
  I do not know what is the view of hon. Members opposite about this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening said that, except in a very few cases, he would be able to find sufficient accommodation for the children, but on this side we take, I suggest, the more enlightened view that he should give them not only sufficient education but sufficient advanced instruction. Until he does that this Bill must remain a fraud upon parents and a fraud upon the child. Therefore, I ask that, in place
  748
  of this instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic, you shall give some better provision of advanced instruction.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: In the attractive speech made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) we find precisely the same agreement and disagreement that we had when discussing the previous Amendment. This is nothing new at all. I have stated our position perfectly clearly, and I should have thought it was superfluous to enter on a second debate at length upon the adequacy of the preparations. There is a difference of opinion between us, and I do not suppose any amount of talking will make any considerable difference. I want to deal with the Amendment itself, which the hon. Gentleman has barely mentioned. The proposal is that there shall only be an obligation upon children to attend courses of advanced instruction suitable to their age and attainments. There is no definition of the proposition which is put forward. There is no attempt to show how it is going to work. Even assuming for a moment that hon. Gentlemen opposite are right in their contention that a large number of children are not going to be able to find adequate courses and schooling in the schools as they are, this proposition is perfectly unworkable. Who is to work it and who is to decide whether the classes are adequate or not, or are sufficiently advanced or not? [HON. MEMBERS: "The parents!"] The parents? I wanted to find out. If the parent is to say "I do not think this will do, and I will not send my child there," all I can say is that we are getting a long way from any system which we are working at the present moment. It is not a conservative action. Some Members opposite think it should be the parents. If it were not, of course, it might be a bench of local magistrates. That is a possibility. A bench is to settle whether a course is an advanced course or sufficiently advanced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Perhaps it is the Board of Education, who, whenever they are asked, will have to send out inspectors to a particular school? Really, I do not think, if the Committee takes the matter seriously, that it will regard this as a practicable proposition. I think we are bound to consider how the thing

  749
  would really work and I do not think there is any administrator in the country who could see how to work it.
  There is another very serious objection to it. If it could be worked at all you would have different appointed days in different schools—not only in different areas but in different schools. I thought we had decided on the first Amendment that we were not going to have different appointed days. This is worse than the first Amendment, because it would mean that one school would be allowed and a school in the next area would not. Wilder confusion could not possibly be conceived, and 1 very much hope that the Committee will reject it.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this Amendment attempted to ride off on questions of legal definition and machinery. The object of the Amendment is to deal with the quite different problem of the single school areas pending the reorganisation which is now going on. Our point is that you really have no moral right to compel children, particularly in the rural areas, to stay in the general elementary schools up to the age of 15, and that, if you raise the school age, you will have to give them advanced instruction. Where reorganisation has taken place, where you have your senior schools, you can give advanced instruction. By advanced instruction everyone nowadays understands either a secondary school, or some special technical education, or these new senior schools. But we know that the process of reorganising the schools so that there will be a senior school for all the children from 11 to 15 is not nearly complete, particularly in the rural areas, and it is in the rural areas that you still hear the greatest criticism of the type of education that is being given to-day.
  The type of education that is being given in a few counties is becoming more ruralised. In such counties as Gloucestershire there has been a great effort by the county authority to ruralise education, to introduce biology, modern science and the rest of it—a most commendable effort which we all want to see—but in the main our education is the product of the urban conditions of the 19th century. You say that the farmer is inefficient. That, I know, is the view of the Labour party. But he has an immense amount
  750
  of traditional law and custom handed down from generation to generation which the school curriculum takes no thought of. In the single school areas in the rural districts, pending reorganisation and the provision of facilities for advanced instruction, it is unfair to compel the children to remain at school. The President of the Board of Education has said that he would rather have boys between 14 and 15 sitting in any school than out in the fields. We do not think so. It is a difference of opinion. We think if they are in school, with their minds being usefully developed, being interested and being really educated, with a curriculum suited to their age and their environment, there is a good case for keeping them there, but, if you are merely going to keep them going through the old text-books, we think it is extraordinarily hard on the children and will make them loathe school.
  The object, of the Amendment is to create a class of exemptions in all these single school areas where there has not been the development of the new type of education that we want. As each year goes by, those exemptions will get less under the Amendment, but until you can provide a proper type of education it is very hard to put this legal obligation upon the parents. The right hon. Baronet said that it is administratively impossible. I do not believe that for a moment. He says it means different appointed days. Of course it does, and why should it not? He is obsessed with the idea that one day next year he is going to say, "I am a great man who at one bound has revolutionised education in this country." It is a typical window-dressing idea—a typical Labour party idea. It is not the way in which real progress is obtained. Real progress is attained only by doing something thoroughly and efficiently, not for the sake of creating a sort of illusion that some great achievement has suddenly come about, but gradually, step by step, building up, by an evolutionary process, a better thing than you found before. I believe this is an extremely good, workable and sensible Amendment, arid I hope my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.
  Mr. JOHN JONES: I always understand the reception I get from hon. Members opposite. They have been so well educated that they do not know how

  751
  to behave themselves. I have to speak for those who are not educated. They have not had provided for them the same opportunities that have been provided for those who have been educated. The object of the Bill is to provide another year of education for the children of the common people.
  Lord E. PERCY: Elementary education.
  Mr. JONES: Yes, and that is the extent to which you have it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why worry about it?"] I am only worrying about the money it cost your parents. We are asking for another year to be added on to the school life of the children of Great Britain, not the children of the farmer, not the children of the bricklayer's labourer, not the children of any particular section of the people, but all the children. I have read before every argument that I have heard to-day. I have read those arguments on all the Education Bills I have had a chance of studying. When it was first proposed that education should become a national matter, the same arguments were advanced as have been advanced to-day. Now we are asking for an extension of the possibilities of education hon. Members opposite pretend to be the representatives of rural England. That is the reason why they are here, because they have kept education back so much that people have no chance of using their brains.
  If you want real education, what has prevented you, under all the Education Acts that have been passed since 1870, from extending the opportunities of children in rural England? If you thought they ought to be trained in the fields, what did you train them for? Scaring crows. Did you ever train them to real agricultural opportunities? No. You were out for cheap labour all the time, and, if the boys and girls could be used to provide cheap labour on the land, that was the end of their education. I was brought up in the country. I know what our chances of education were. I never learnt anything till I left school. I will try to understand hon. Members opposite if they will try to understand me. The schools were under their control. They saw to it that I did not get much knowledge or much opportunity, and I am only one of millions who have
  752
  been treated in that manner. We had to travel into the towns to try to get a job, and when we got there we did not know where we were. All we could do was to read the notice outside the factory gate, "No hands wanted." That was all we knew; that was the extent of our education. Our class needs education, but you are not going to give it to us.
  There is all this talk about reorganisation. I come from one of the poorest districts in the East End of London. We have already reorganised. We are getting ready for the possibilities of the future. We want to give our children the same chance as your children have had, or at least as near to it as we can, for we cannot give them all the chances that you have had. I wish to God that you had made better use of them! We want to give our children another year in school, in properly developed, properly organised schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Then you will vote for the Bill, which is an effort in that direction. [Interruption.] I am not speaking in favour of your proposition. Your ideas on education are fish-like and smelly. We are only asking that this Bill should be allowed to go through. It is going through its various stages in Committee, and eventually it will give our children another year at school under a definite form of organisation, which will mean a chance for them. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what we are asking for!"] You are not asking for anything; you are taking all that you can get. We ask for a fair chance for the children of our class, so that they may be given an opportunity of climbing up the ladder of education, so that they may have better chances in the future than they have had in the past.
  Mr. CADOGAN: I have been trying to correlate the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), but the only sentence in his speech which had any relevance to the Amendment was that he never learnt anything until he left school. Surely he should be on our side of the argument.
  Mr. J. JONES: You have never learnt anything since.
  Mr. CADOGAN: In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education said, it is in no factious spirit

  753
  that we are pressing this Amendment, which is one of substance, and reveals one of the two main motives for opposing Clause 1. Our contention is that the raising of the school-leaving age must not come into operation until provision is made which is adequate and suitable. The right hon. Gentleman, early in the debate, said that what we want to get is real education, and in that view he believed the whole Committee joined him, and he said that our contention was that we were not getting real education. For 70 or 100 years there has been one long struggle to provide education beyond the elementary stages, and now when we get almost within sight of the fulfilment of our ambitions the right hon. Gentleman jeopardises our chance of getting advanced education simply because of his understanding of the matter, that unless you do a thin before you are ready you will never do it at all, which seems to me to be a most melancholy philosophy. In one of its more aesthetic passages the Hadow Report speaks of the forming of character through the placing of youth in the hour of its growth, as it were, in the fair meadow of a congenial and inspiring environment. I do not see much prospect of the fair meadow. It will be the Slough of Despond in which the 14-year old will stick so fast that he will not be able to mark time.
  What were the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to our argument? He said, in the first place, if I did not misunderstand him, that it would be extremely difficult to define what was advanced instruction and what was suitable education. There may be something in the contention, hut I am sure that I shall have the whole of the Committee with me when I say that it is very easy to define, in many rural districts, what is not suitable education and what is not advanced instruction. That is our point. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are 140 education authorities who say that they are ready. I should like to ask him again what has been asked on one of the other Amendments, namely, what he exactly means by "ready"? Does he mean that these authorities are ready to accommodate him, or to accommodate the children? I should like an answer to that question.
  The second objection he raised to this Amendment was in regard to flexibility. He objects to local option of any kind.
  754
  The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Evans) earlier in the evening seemed to take objection to local option. He seemed to argue on the assumption that anything that was compulsory was of necessity progressive, and that anything which was optional was necessarily reactionary. I do not share that view at all. I think that we want to retain as much flexibility as possible. In the area with which 1 am most familiar I know of the extraordinary difficulties which the education authority have had in working out a scheme. There have been, apart from staff accommodation, geographical difficulties.
  This is a most essential Amendment, and I appeal to the Committee to vote for it. It is bound up with one of the main motives of our objection to the raising of the school age before adequate provision has been made. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has one ambition, as I said at an earlier stage in the Bill, to have his name associated with a great Measure of social reform. We all share that ambition. I have no doubt that he wants to be commemorated in bronze on the Thames Embankment between Forster and Raikes, and from what I know of the right hon. Gentleman nearer to Forster than to Raikes. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, that is not a sneer. We are trying to help his party out of one of the worst messes into which they have ever got. The right hon. Gentleman belongs to a new party. They are pursuing a policy of raising the school age before adequate provision is made for the children who are intended to benefit. I can only describe it as part and parcel—to use the Prime Minister's own words—of a policy of fatuous futility.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: I was more disappointed at the trivial reply which was given by the President of the Board of Education to this Amendment, to which we, at any rate, attribute considerable importance, than I have been on any previous occasion in these debates. He said that the point had already been discussed. I suggest, as a matter of fact, that it is an entirely new point which has not yet been touched upon except during the Second Reading of the Bill. Possibly, the most unfortunate part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the airy manner in which he dealt with

  755
  the subject of administration. He said that this Amendment was administratively impossible. Who was to judge? First, he mentioned the parents. He pooh-poohed that idea. Why, I do not know. I am still old-fashioned enough to believe that the parents have, or should have, I believe they have, a considerable interest and a considerable judgment in regard to the education of their children. We might well have a worse tribunal to decide what is suitable instruction than the parents of the children. Then he suggested the magistrates. He gave no reason why the magistrates were an impossible body. I can only assume that he holds a body to which I fancy he as well as I and other hon. Members of this House belong, in most regrettable contempt. This is not the time or place to argue that point, but if we have a magisterial system, it is presumably appointed for something and it presumably knows something of the laws that it has to administer. He gave no adequate reason why the magistrates were not capable of judging this matter. I have no extravagant opinion of the Board of Education, but I think it is capable of deciding. There is one body whose duty obviously it would be to decide, and it would be in every way the fairest body to decide, and that would be the local education authority. The right hon. Gentleman did not even dignify them by mentioning them.
  I suggest, not having the right hon. Gentleman's long experience of the Board of Education, but as one who has been a member of a local education authority for seven years, that the administration of this Amendment would present no difficulties to any competent authority. We decline to believe that any well-meaning, intelligent body of men, knowing anything about education, would definitely assert that it is better for children to sit for a year in school doing nothing than to be outside doing something. We may be unduly obstinate, but we decline to believe that. The right hon. Gentleman is obstinate in stinking to the intention that we must have one appointed day. It is like the old song: "When father turns, we all turn." That appears to be the idea of the right hon. Gentleman. We believe that this Bill is put forward wrongly as we submit, with a view of
  756
  giving better education. Although I am not going again into the question of the rural areas, there has not been one speech from the Government Bench either on the Second Reading of the Bill or on the Money Resolution or on the last Bill that has destroyed our contention that in the rural areas the children will get no benefit from this Bill. In the rural areas they will derive more harm than good from being in the schools for the extra year. For these reasons we shall press this Amendment to a Division.
  10.0 p.m.
  Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) is a master of 'lucid phrase, and certainly from his recent speech we derived one phrase which may serve as a motto and slogan for hon. Members on this side in the conduct of this debate in Committee. We join with him in our desire to secure for the children of this country real education, in well organised schools, and these Amendments are drafted with that object in view. The President of the Board of Education has said that the adoption of the Amendment will result in confusion. I do not think that is so. If it were so, we say that the confusion would simply be the result of his own insistence in forcing this Bill upon the country before it is ready for it. Consider what this Amendment is intended to achieve. When I first went through this Amendment, I said: "This appears to be a test as to whether the Government are really serious in their intention to promote education, or whether they only desire to achieve a cheap success." The rejection of the Amendment by the President of the Board of Education has caused me to have the most pessimistic feelings about any prospect there may be of improving this Bill in Committee. What is it that the Amendment is designed to do? Nothing more and nothing less than what any reasonable man would suppose to be the object of the Bill, namely, to secure to the children in the extra year
  "courses of advanced instruction, suitable to their age and attainments as may be available in the districts where they reside."
  Assuming that to be the positive effect of the Amendment, let me ask the attention of the Committee to what will be the effect of its negative rejection by the President, of the Board of Educa-

  757
  tion. The effect will be that he is prepared to force this Bill through with the feeling that there are available for the, children no such courses of advanced instruction. Is it the intention of the Bill to give advanced instruction to all the children, or is it, as must be the consequence of the rejection of the Amendment, the intention of the Government simply to continue the children in marking time in those courses of elementary education which have been described as, and which we all know to be, useless for them. Secondly, the rejection of the Amendment announces the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to force school attendance upon the children if advanced instruction is available, even though it is not "suitable to their age and attainments." That may not seem to be very serious, but it has a most serious application. It will mean, owing to the lack of means for the proper adaptation of courses for children, forcing, particularly upon the rural child, courses of advanced education which are totally unsuitable.
  The third consequence of the rejection of the principle of this Amendment is that the President of the Board of Education is prepared to force the children to continue their school attendance if advanced instruction is available to them but is not available for them in the district where they reside. I would lay stress upon the very ominous consequence that that threatens against the rural child. We all know only too well of the sad examples of the effect of our school attendance laws upon rural depopulation. We know of prosperous hamlets being de-populated owing to our school laws. The law now under consideration must inevitably have the effect of emphasising that condition of things.
  The higher education authorities have told us that for the proper administration of this Bill in the rural areas you need central schools of at least 200 pupils, and you need for those schools suitably trained teachers. There is no longer any serious contention, even from the Front Bench, that it is possible to supply the apparatus for the rural children at the time and date fixed by this Bill. It would seem almost incredible that anyone with any reasonable intentions with regard to education should reject this Amendment, were it not for the remark-
  758
  able pronouncement of the President of the Board of Education that he does not care what the children are doing in the schools so long as he gets them there. I have not the OFFICIAL REPORT to which I can refer, but those I think were his exact words. The Committee will correct me if I am giving a false impression of what he said. That is the impression he produced upon our minds.
  The matter is not on such a simple basis as that. It is the case that life provides education particularly the first year of life after leaving school. Any education provided in the school is not good enough. It must be such as to better fit the children for the practical education which they get after coming out of school. That is not so easy. It is hard to do it in every school year, and it is still harder to do it for the year which we are providing for in this Bill. We see not the faintest hope of it being done if the Bill is carried through in its present form. Unfortunately, it is in the capacity of the Board of Education and of the Government, and of the right hon. Gentleman, to force children into school and to keep them sitting there. They may then turn round and say that they have advanced education for one year. It will not advance education by a year; it will retard it by a year and injure the true cause of education.
  Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I should like to ask the President of the Board of Education what these children between the ages of 14 arid 15 years are going to be taught? Are they simply going over old ground which they already know? There are two classes of children; the clever ones and those that are not so clever. I would much rather see the clever ones going to a secondary school and learning something instead of doing nothing. Those that are not so clever and who will not assimilate very much of the education which is given would he very much better doing a job of work, starting on their life's work. I have had a good deal of practical experience in cotton and jute mills, and I know that every year after 14 which a lad spends out of the mill is going to be wasted as far as cotton spinners are concerned. They are going to be less efficient spinners. I should like to see a lad of

  759
  18 or 19 years of age trying to be a piecer. He would only skin his fingers badly at the job. Are you going to put a number of spinning machines into some of these schools? [Interruption.] It is not a bad thing to learn your job. I had to learn mine, and the sooner you begin to learn your job the less you are likely to talk an awful lot. [Interruption.] I do not talk very much in this House; and I do get amused at listening to many-people who talk, talk and talk, with very few constructive ideas in it.
  Mr. SKELTON: We on this side of the Committee are amazed at the attitude of the President of the Board of Education. From the point of view of education he is making a very great mistake. As it appears to me, he over-estimates the interest of the people of this country in education. He thinks that he can play fast and loose with their interest in education. That is not the case. I do not believe that the great mass of the people—I do not refer to any particular class but to the citizens of this country as a whole—greatly appreciate the importance of education, and one of the most important things, indeed it is a. platitude, is to make the people of this country realise the importance of high educational skill and high technical skill; to get the Briton out of thinking that blundering through on practical lines is enough.
  If you tell the parents of this country that you are going to keep their children at school between the ages of 14 and 15, whether you give them any useful education or not, and that is clearly the case where there are no facilities for advanced training, what is going to be the reaction on the minds of the people? Do you really think that you are going to make them more interested in education, more anxious to spend money on education and more anxious to further the cause of education if they find that the present Government, who seemed to think that they have some prescriptive right in education, is going to herd children into schools perfectly careless as to whether the time is going to be ill or well spent. I can imagine no step more calculated to alienate the minds of the people of this country from educa
  760
  tional advance. The President of the Board of Education says that if you have compulsion, what does it matter what the parents think. That is not true. It does matter, and it matters in a thousand different ways, whether the education of the rising generation is sympathetically regarded by their parents or not. How can you expect a sympathetic regard for the education of the children between the ages of 14 and 15 if during that year they are going to be taught what they have been taught already.
  Further, when you come to the actual and practical position in the country districts and the known fact that a considerable proportion of the rural children will have no chance of a proper advanced training, and also remember that in the rural districts an early acquaintance with their rural profession is vital, then I say that in the rural districts you are going to do immense damage. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Sandeman) raised some laughter amongst hon. Members opposite by pointing out the value of a boy getting a practical training early. There are two views. One is that it is necessary that a boy who is going to spend his life in a rural occupation should come to the farm and to animals early. There is the other view, and although I have only a slight acquaintance with rural questions, think there is a great deal in it, that owing to modern conditions in agriculture you want to have some scientific knowledge of agriculture. But what excuse is there for this middle course of keeping these wretched children at school for another year, cutting them off from the practical training and not giving them the scientific training.
  There is a well-known figure which one can always trace through political history from the time when men were politicians at all, and that is the aristocrat turned revolutionary. You can trace him in every history and in every country. He has never done any good and he never comes to any good. But he has one quality above all others—I do not care to what century or to what country you go—he exhibits this quality always, that he loses the trained sense of the governing classes and does not get the instinctive common sense of the great

  761
  mass of the people. For what he loses he does not get anything in return. The people of this country, when they see that their children are to be herded in school from 14 to 15, and that nothing new is taught them—[Interruption.] Yes, nothing new. It is only by taking the precaution that the Amendment suggests that it will be possible to make certain that something new will be taught them. If the Amendment is rejected we shall be right in saying that at least some of the children will not be taught anything new. No mere denials make that fact less obvious. If that is going to be the work of the President of the Board of Education I can only say that I think he will go down in the political history of this country as one of those characters who, as I say, do no good and come to no good.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I did not intend to intervene in this discussion until I heard the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. Quite obviously he was not speaking for Scotland. I do not think he will deny that Scotland is substantially ready now for the extension of the school age to 15. Therefore, the whole of the hon. Member's remarks are directed to the reactionary and backward land which lies south of the Tweed.
  Mr. SKELTON: Is it the case that rural Scotland is ready for this extension?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I can give an answer by saying, "Definitely yes."
  The TEMPORARY - CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): This Bill does not extend to Scotland, and the discussion of what effect it might or might not have on Scottish education is out of order.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I entirely agree. Neither does it extend to the history of aristocrats who turn revolutionaries. I was almost tempted to dilate on the history of revolutionaries who live to associate with aristocrats. This Amendment has a great deal of force behind it on a certain assumption, and that assumption is that nothing has been done in England in preparation for the extension of the school age. That assumption is entirely wrong. In very many of the urban areas, I believe in the majority, very large and extensive and effective preparation has already been made. There is no doubt, more-
  762
  over, that many of the more progressive and powerful bodies controlling education in the rural areas have been very busily making preparations. We are really not, so to speak, starting from scratch—very far from it. The only question is, how far will preparations he made for the appointed day when this Bill becomes substantially effective? I do not hesitate to express my opinion that the day appointed in the Bill is much too early, and I am sure that arguments will be addressed to the Committee with substantial weight behind them on that subject.
  On the assumption that we may he able to get an extension of the date, the question becomes one entirely of time. Given time, this Bill can and will be made effective. Even supposing that the change does come into operation much earlier than hon. Members above the Gangway desire, I cannot understand the remarkable attitude taken up by them, in suggesting that any boy who stays at school between 14 and 15, under the normal education of to-day, is necessarily going to depreciate as a future citizen. I regard that as an entirely wrong assumption. A large number of children go to school in circumstances of malnutrition and unfortunate home conditions, as a result of which they are, for years, quite unable to make use of the advantages offered to them. Many of them to-day leave school at 14 who would benefit marvellously by a further period at school. Therefore the rather perfervid' oratory which we have heard as to the deleterious effect upon children of the country of attending under normal conditions at school for another year has very little effect upon me. I am going to vote against the Amendment because I believe that when this Bill leaves the Committee it will be shaped in such a fashion that such a proposal as this will be absolutely unnecessary.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I would now invite the Committee to be in readiness to come to a decision upon this matter. The Committee has now been sitting since Four o'clock. We have, therefore, had something like 6½ hours discussion and in that time we have only been able to cover some two Amendments. I think that hon. Members will agree that in the

  763
  course of the discussion we have traversed and retraversed the same ground, but the speech to which we have just listened has focussed our attention upon one fact which hon. Members opposite appear to forget. If 1 may presume to say so, they overlook entirely the work in rural education which was begun by the late President of the Board of Education and is being continued under the present occupant of that office. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite to argue as though the village school to-day remained exactly as it was 20 or 30 years ago. Hon. Members who argue in that way do the village school a great injustice. There has been a real transformation in the nature of the work done in these schools, especially since the War. I do not speak in any unkindly sense when I say that to deny that transformation discloses a lamentable lack of knowledge of the development of rural education.
  It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend's arguments against the Amendment are trivial. Let us examine that suggestion. The first point which he put was that the Amendment posited two conditions before the raising of the school age in this year—first, that it shall be suitable, in regard to the age of the children to be educated, and, secondly, that it shall be available to them without any excessively long journey. Who is to determine the suitability, and who is to determine the availability? Let us take first the parents as one possible alternative. Hon. Members opposite are arguing on the ground that compulsion is unfair and is even iniquitous, and their proposition is that the parents object to compulsory education. Are you going to invite the very people who object to compulsory education to decide whether the time has come to have it applied to their particular area or not?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Have the parents no right?"] Whether the parent is a good person to decide it or not, I agree with the hon. Member that the opinions of the parent ought not to be neglected; naturally he has a sympathy towards this question. But since we have a compulsory piece of legislation, the law sets up an appropriate authority to determine who shall say when the education provided is suitable, and whether the
  764
  place where it is provided is available for those for whom it is intended.
  Let us take the other alternative, namely, the magistrates. I would not like to say anything unkind about the magistrates, though I have had some unfortunate experiences with them myself in the past, and I did not get off either. But I will say this, that they are people drawn from all walks of life; they are not chosen to be magistrates because of any special qualifications concerning their opinions on educational matters. Far from it. They are chosen on a multiplicity of grounds, oftentimes remote from ability to determine what is educationally good or bad. Therefore, I submit that the two alternatives outside the machinery of the education scheme, namely, the parents and the magistrates, are unsuitable media for this purpose. The only other alternative is the local education authority, and it seems to me that when my right hon. Friend argued against reposing in the parents or the magistrates this power to resist the application of compulsory education in their areas, he argued not at all on trivial grounds, but in a way that is entirely justifiable from the point of view of education.
  May I put one other point to hon. Members opposite They seem to imply in the course of their arguments that there is very little value in this extra 12 months educationally. I think hon. Members will agree with me that you must not consider this year from 14 to 15 entirely in isolation. It has a very valuable cumulative effect, and anyone who has been acquainted with the teaching of children—and I have had such experience myself—will readily admit that there are children who, while they pass through the ordinary elementary school, give no sort of promise and seem to be entirely lacking in response to the educational appeal, yet somehow or other, for some unaccountable reason—psychological or otherwise—make a spurt round the age of 13 and 14. They suddenly develop, and there are some children who are late developers who, if they could only get the privilege of this extra 12 months, would turn that 12 months, having regard to the preparation of the previous years, into an inestimable source of value to themselves and to the community. I do not desire to prolong this discussion un-

  765
  duly, but hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to advance a proposition like this unless they are able to show more substantial grounds for it than they have hitherto done. The difficulty of leaving the decision to parents or magistrates is insuperable, and the case in favour of the proposal in the Bill holds the field. I ask the Committee, therefore, to come to a decision.
  Lord E. PERCY: The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a most interesting speech, but I would represent to him that it is not quite right to ask the Committee in his first words to come to a decision on this matter, and at the end of his speech to say that he does not want to prolong the discussion unduly, for he has made a very provocative speech, and especially provocative to me; I do not mean unfairly provocative or provocative in an unfriendly way, but intellectually provocative, and I really must reply to him. I cannot understand the line of argument adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). That argument is this: You are very wrong in thinking that rural education is as bad as you make it out: there is a lot of very good advanced instruction in rural areas, and, therefore, it is highly undesirable and dangerous to say that the parents of children shall have the right to demand such advanced instruction. I cannot understand the logic of that attitude. I have stated it, and I need not argue against it; but, when the Parliamentary Secretary says that we on this side of the House are lamentably ignorant about the change in rural areas, I must say that I have looked at a pretty varied selection of rural schools in all parts of the country, including Cornwall. I know the history of the raising of the school age in Cornwall, and I know that Cornwall does not pretend to have begun to solve the problem of rural education. It has done a certain amount of concentration of and closing or decapitating schools, but it does not pretend to be in the position to be able to give advanced instruction in a great many schools, for the reason that while it has raised the school-leaving age, it continues to exempt more than three-quarters of the children over 14. They are doing what we are proposing should
  766
  be done by this Amendment. Exemption is given where it is realised that advanced instruction is not provided.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary has challenged me, will he allow me to say that I agree with him as to the great improvement in rural education, but it has been my experience that the teachers who are most efficient in giving that improved education are the first to say, "I really do not think we have got very much to offer to children over 14." One hears that from the best teachers in the best schools all over the rural areas, and let us face that fact.
  The Parliamentary Secretary is always appealing to this side to recognise the wonderful work which our party have done in reorganisation. A great deal of that is exaggerated. Mr. Fisher set the movement on foot after the War, and we did a great deal for it; but the hon. Member must know perfectly well that with all our efforts, and all his party's efforts, and all the efforts of any possible Government, it is a very slow job. You can get new accommodation, you can concentrate the children, but the education itself is a, very slow job. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), having accused this side of the House of having been responsible for his own bad education, said he and his friends were entirely responsible for the improvements in education now going on in West Ham. If the hon. Member only knew the business I had to get West Ham to consider any sensible scheme of reorganisation—
  Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that we had to work for years and years to persuade various Presidents of the Board of Education to give us a chance to give that education.
  Lord E. PERCY: I do not want to rob the authorities of West Ham of their share of credit—[Interruption.] The other argument is that this proposal is administratively impossible. Do we really have the President and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education saying that the magistrates in the country are not capable of giving a decision upon the efficiency of education? That is what they have to do now. There is an obligation upon every parent to see that his child receives efficient in-

  767
  struction in reading, writing and arithmetic, and attends school for that purpose, unless the child is being efficiently educated elsewhere; and if any local authority wish to issue a school attendance order to compel the attendance of a child at school, they have to submit for the decision of the magistrates the questions whether the parent has a reasonable excuse for keeping the child at home and whether the child is receiving sufficient instruction without attending school. Those are the functions of magistrates at the present time, and the fact that school attendance officers usually succeed in frightening parents long before they get to the magistrates' court does not alter the fact that it is the magistrates who, under the law, have to decide such questions. If the child is attending a private school, the magistrates have to decide whether that school is giving efficient instruction. Why should riot the magistrates decide whether the school is giving efficient advanced instruction? I see a smile on the face of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I should like to remind him that here we come to the really great issue about compulsory education. Year after year the school age has been raised while the old 1870 definition of elementary education in reading, writing and arithmetic has been kept upon the Statute Book just because we were afraid to put on the parent any higher obligation. From that arises nine-tenths of the problem of the efficiency of private schools if you only go to the root of the question. That is just the kind of extraordinary unimaginativeness which we have to face, and you are just continuing the old thing.
  Let us mark what this Bill does. It says that the child must go on receiving efficient instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic for another year and that is the only thing the Bill says. Hon. Members opposite say that it does not mean that, but is it not possible that our educational legislation and our educational regulations should say just for once what they really mean. The President of the Board of Education is very keen on simplicity and easier administration. Would it not be better to have a little of that complication which always goes with liberty.
  768
  What are we asking by this Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman has said over and over again, "If you want to secure that local education authorities will do their work, you must put pressure upon them." We say in this Amendment, "If you want local education authorities to do their work, you must put upon them the pressure of the parents." The parent must be able to say to the local education authority: "You are not doing your job properly, and therefore I am under no obligation to send my child to school. "I want the parent, even if he is under compulsion, to have, as every upper-class parent has, the liberty of saying to his school teacher or the school authority: "No, I think you are teaching my child very badly, and I am going to take him away from your school. "That is really what we want to do, and until you give the parent that power you will never get really efficient education.
  That is fundamentally what underlies the whole question of compulsion, and if you could only give the parent that power which we propose by our Amendment nine-tenths of my objections to compulsion would go. If, on the other hand, hon. Members opposite force us to divide on this Amendment and vote against it, they will be declaring that a parent shall have no right, as a parent, to require that his child shall be properly taught, and given suitable advanced instruction between the ages of 14 and 15 years.
  Captain CAZALET: I intervene in this debate for a few moments as a representative of a country constituency. Some reflection has been passed upon the efficiency and efficacy of rural schools, but I do not think that anyone would call in question the efficiency of the Wiltshire County Education Authority. The Director of Education in Wiltshire made a pronouncement upon this Bill, which I think represents the unanimous opinion of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches. He said:
  "To insist on children stopping at school until 15, when there is no chance of a satisfactory education being given, will bring education itself into disrepute."
  That is the gist of the argument that we put forward from these benches. This Amendment gives the Minister another opportunity of getting out of his own

  769
  difficulties. We are not contending, and never have contended, that an extra year in a suitable, well organised school will not be of great assistance to the children of this country, but the question is, are they going to get that at the present moment The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary believe strongly in two things, simplicity and compulsion, and both words have been used in their various treaties to-day. I can see great advantages to the Minister himself in being able to enact this piece of legislation with a maximum of compulsion and a minimum of liberty or freedom. Of course, it is far more difficult to enact legislation with a maximum of freedom, but we believe that that secures far greater efficiency in the country as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it would be so simple, and would avoid all complications, that on a certain day next year this Measure should come into operation throughout the countryside. Is it really so simple? The number of education authorities that will be prepared in April of next year to adjust themselves to the new conditions of this Bill has been disputed, but, as far as we can make out, there must be at least—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member, like others who have spoken, is now trespassing beyond the Amendment. I have allowed a good deal of latitude, but I must again point out that this Amendment is very simple. All that it proposes is that, if this Bill should become law, children between the ages of 14 and 15 shall not be compelled to attend school unless proper courses of
  instruction are provided for them, and that is the sole subject before the Committee.
  Captain CAZALET: I was only trying to show that those proper courses will not be available, because, from the figures quoted by the Minister himself, in the majority of cases the education authorities themselves admit that they cannot within the next few months, or even the next few years, provide suitable Counts.
  There is another point on which we definitely join issue with the Minister. We believe it to be far better for the individual child himself, for his family and for his future, that, if suitable courses are not available, he should be either in the field or on the farm than in the classroom with no adequate teachers, no adequate curriculum, and no adequate provision for teaching him. Therefore, I end as I began, by saying that we believe that this Amendment provides the Government with an opportunity of getting out of their own difficulties. If they accept it, it will be an additional safeguard for the smooth working of this Measure, and, therefore, we confidently hope that the Minister will not only accept it, but will welcome it.
  Sir C. TREVELYAN Sir C. TREVELYAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 134.

  Division No.17.]

  AYES

  [10.49 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Bevan, Aneurtin (Ebbw Vale)

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff.. Cannock)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Charleton, H. C.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Blindell, James

  Chater, Daniel

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Church, Major A. G.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Bowen, J. W.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Cock., Frederick Seymour

  Angell, Norman

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Compton, Joseph

  Arnott, John

  Bromfield, William

  Cove, William G.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Bromley, J.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Brooke, W.

  Daggar, George

  Ayles, Walter

  Brothers, M.

  Dallas, George

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Barr, James

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Batey, Joseph

  Buchanan, G.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Burgess, F. G.

  Dukes, C.

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Eiland)

  Duncan, Charles

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Ede, James Chuter

  Benson, G.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Cape, Thomas

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Ritson, J.

  Egan, W. H.

  Lees, J.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Rothschild, J. de

  Foot, Isaac

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Rowson, Guy

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Freeman, Peter

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Longden, F.

  Senders, W. S.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Sandham, E.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lunn, William

  Sawyer, G. F.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  MacDonald, Bt. Hon. J R. (Seaham)

  Scurr, John

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Moseley)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Sexton, James

  Gill, T. H.

  McElwee, A.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Gillett, George M.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Glassey, A. E.

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettlestone)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Gossling, A. G.

  McKinlay, A.

  Shield, George William

  Gould, F.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Gray, Milner

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Shinwell, E.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  McShane, John James

  Simmons, C. J.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mansfield, W.

  Sinkinson, George

  Groves, Thomas E.

  March, S.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Marcus, M.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Markham, S. F.

  Smith, Frank (Muncaton)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Marley, J.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Marshall, Fred

  Smith, Tom (Pontetract)

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mathers, George

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Harbord, A.

  Matters, L. W.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Hardie, George D.

  Messer, Fred

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Middleton, G.

  Sorensen, R.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Milner, Major J.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morgan Dr. H. B.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Haycock, A. W.

  Morley, Ralph

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  heyday, Arthur

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Strauss, G. R.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Sullivan, J.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Herriotts, J.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Toole, Joseph

  Hollins, A.

  Naylor. T. E.

  Tout, W. J.

  Napkin, Daniel

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Turner, B

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Viant. S. P.

  Isaacs, George

  Oldfied. J. R.

  Walker, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Wallace, H. W.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Johnston, Thomas

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  palin, John Henry.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Welsh, James (Palsley)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Perry, S. F.

  West, F. R.

  Jewett, Rt, Hon. F. W.

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Westwood, Joseph

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  White, H. G.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Kelly, W, T.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Kenworthy, Lt -Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Potts, John S.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Kirkwood. D.

  Price, M. P.

  Williams. T. (York. Don Valley)

  Lang, Gordon

  Pybus, Percy John

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Law, A (Rossendale)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Winterton. G. E (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Lawson, John James

  Richards, R.

  Wright, W. (Ruthergien)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Leach, W.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Riley, F, F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Paling and Mr. T. Henderson.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Boyce, H. L.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Bracken, B.

  Campbell E. T.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  772

  773

  Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth.S.)

  Hanbury, C.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Colfax, Major William Philip

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Leighton, Major J. J.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Dugdate. Capt. T. L.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Steel- Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Meller, R. J.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)

  Merriman. Sir F. Boyd

  Tinne, J. A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Monsell Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wayland. Sir William A.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Ho. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Galbraith. J. F. W.

  Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Womersley, W. J.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Remer, John R.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col, Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 288.

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES

  [11.2 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandman (Liverp'I., W.)

  Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Liewellin, Major J. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W,)

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Eden. Captain Anthony

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Elliot, Major Waiter E.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Erskine. Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Monsell, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Bracken, B.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Ferguson. Sir John

  Morrison-Bea, Sir Arthur Clive

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Fleiden, E. B.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Pirsf'ld)

  Butler, R. A.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Penny. Sir George

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Peto, Sir Basil E. ( Devon, Barnstaple)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Pownall, Sir Asslieton

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Greases-Lord, Sir Walter

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Cautfey, Sir Henry S.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Remer, John R.

  Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ross, Major Ronald D,

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hanbury, C.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Sarsoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Cranborne. Viscount

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Crookshank. Capt. H. C.

  Hurd. Percy A.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen, Sir R.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Winterton. Rt. Hon. Ear

  Somerville, U. G. (Willesden, East)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'moriand)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Captain Wallace.

  NOES

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Adamson, W. M, (Staff., Cannock)

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Longden, F.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Alpass, J. H.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Ammon, Charles George

  G, T. H.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Angell, Norman

  Gillett, George M.

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Arnett, John

  Glassey, A. E.

  McElwee, A.

  Aske. Sir Robert

  Gossling, A. G.

  McEntee. V. L.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  McGovern. J. (Gl gow, Shettleston)

  Ayles, Walter

  Gray, Milner

  McKinlay, A.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro' W.)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Barr, James

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  MacNeill-Weir. L.

  Batey, Joseph

  Groves, Thomas E.

  McShane, John James

  Bellamy, Albert

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Malon, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Mansfield, W

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  March, S.

  Benson, G.

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Marcus, M.

  Bentham. Dr. Ethel

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Markham, S. F.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hartford. A.

  Marley, J.

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Hardie, George D.

  Marshall, Fred

  Blindell, James

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mathers, George

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Matters, L. W.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Messer, Fred

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Middleton, G.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Hayday, Arthur

  Milner, Major J.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hayes, John Henry

  Morgan, Dr. H, B.

  Bromfield, William

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Morley, Ralph

  Bromley, J.

  Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Brooke, W.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Brothers, M.

  Herriotts, J.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Mort, D. L.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Hoffman. P. C.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hollins, A.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Sme thwick)

  Buchanan, G.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Calve, Derwent Hall-

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Isaacs, George

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Johnston, Thomas

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Chater, Daniel

  Jones, F. Llewellyn (Filnt)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Church, Major A. G.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Clues, W. S.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Palin, John Henry

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Compton, Joseph

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Cove, William G.

  Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Perry, S. F.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Dagger, George

  Kelly, W. T.

  Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.

  Dallas, George

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lang, Gordon

  Potts, John S.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Price, M. P,

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Law. Albert (Bolton)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Dukes, C.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lawrence, Susan

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lawson, John James

  Raynes, W. R.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lowther W. (Barnard Castle)

  Richards, R.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Leach, W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Egan, W. H.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Rlley, F. F, (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lees, J.

  Ritson, J.

  Foot, Isaac

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Freeman, Peter

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Rothschild, J. de

  776

  777

  Rowson, Guy

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Smith, W. R (Norwich)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Sanders, W. S.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Sandham, E.

  Sorensen, R.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  West, F. R.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Scurr, John

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  White, H. G.

  Sexton, James

  Strauss, G. R.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Sullivan, J.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Shield, George William

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Sillaker, J. F.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Shinwell, E.

  Toole, Joseph

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Tout, W. J.

  Winterton, G. E.( Leicester,Loughb'gh)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Wise, E. F.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Turner, B.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Sinkinson, George

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Walker, J.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Wallace, H. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Mr. Paling and Mr. T. Henderson.

  Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Sir C. Trevelyan.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) [MONEY].
"Resolution reported,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to promote the better utilisation of agricultural land in Great Britain and the settlement of unemployed persons thereon, to amend the Law relating to smallholdings and allotments, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain or the growing produce thereof of—

(i) such sums as may be required for the purpose of financing the operations of the Agricultural Land Corporation, to be established under the said Act, not exceeding in the aggregate one million pounds;

(ii) such sums as may be required by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as 'the Minister') for the purchase of land acquired by him under the provisions of the said Act relating to the acquisition and holding of land for the use as demonstration farms, and to the acquisition of land for purposes of re-conditioning, and for such other expenses under the said provisions as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure not exceeding, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, five million pounds;

(iii) such sums as may be required by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as
778
'the Department') for the purchase of land acquired by them under the provisions mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, and for such other expenses under those provisions as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Department to be capital expenditure not exceeding, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, seven hundred thousand pounds;

(iv) such sums as may be required by the Minister for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of smallholdings under the said Act, and for such other expenses for the provision of smallholdings under the said Act as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure;

(v) such sums as may be required by the Department for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of holdings for unemployed persons under the said Act, and for such other expenses in connection with such provision as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Department to be capital expenditure;

(b) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding twenty years, for the purpose of providing money for the sums so authorised to be issued or the repayment thereof to the Consolidated Fund;

(c) to provide for the payment of any such terminable annuities, in so far as payment thereof is not directed by the Treasury to be defrayed out of the Smallholdings and Allotments Account or the Agricultural (Scotland) Fund, as the case may be, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries or for the service of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as the case may be, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof;

779

(d) to authorise the payment, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(1) of any deficiency in the Smallholdings and Allotments Account or in the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund arising by reason of any excess of expenditure directed by the said Act to be defrayed out of that account or fund over the amount of the sums directed by the said Act to be paid into that account or fund; and

(2) of any expenses incurred by the Minister or by the Department, or by the Minister of Labour, in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under the said Act not hereinbefore provided for."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. GUINNESS: When the House considered this Resolution in Committee, the Debate dealt chiefly with general policy. To-night we welcome the opportunity of dealing with the very large question of finance. Hon. Members opposite who seemed so surprised just now at the number on this side who are anxious to take part in the debate, cannot have appreciated that so far we have had no information whatever as to the speed at which the smallholding policy is to be put into force, or as to the burden upon the taxpayer which will be involved. Interesting as it is to discuss the general policy of the Bill and to point out the great waste of money and unproductive expenditure, I hope that tonight we shall really get down to brass tacks. We know the limits of expenditure for large-scale farming and for reclamation of land. Under the Resolution no more than £6,700,000 can be spent on those objects. We believe that that expenditure is unwise; we think it will do no good; we think it will lead to a great outpouring of public resources. I have already explained my opinions on that subject and I do not now want to deal with it any further.
But there is another part of the Resolution where no limit whatever is imposed, and to that I shall especially direct attention. There is no limit in the Bill or the Resolution, and the Minister of Agriculture can spend money to infinity. When he introduced the Bill perhaps he did not know how far he was going. Perhaps the unexpected support
780
from the Liberal party and the encouragement of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) induced him to aim much higher than he orinigally intended. It was noticeable that he expressed surprise at his own moderation in only asking to waste £1,000,000 on large-scale farming. As he has not told us what smallholdings are to cost, we are bound to try to work out a rough estimate for ourselves. The programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is to place 100,000 families on the land. They are to be financed by borrowing. The money is to be borrowed on terminable annuities of 20 years.
In the memorandum we have been given figures of expenditure for holdings of each type, and the cost will vary, apparently, from £640 to £1,100 per holding. If we take the average, it comes to £870 per holding. Over and above that there is working capital. That working capital has to be advanced, as far as I know, with no limit. I do not know what may be the Minister's intention, but let us take these figures: 100,000 families would need for the actual purchase and equipment of the land £870 each, which brings it up to £87,000,000. Then there is the expenditure for working capital which, on the experience of what was done after the War, will be lost. We do not know how much that is going to cost the Exchequer. Is it going to be another £10,000,000" If so that brings us to the region of £100,000,000 to be borrowed for 20 years and repaid on terms which, I hope, will be explained to us. If interest and sinking fund are spread over the 20 years at a flat rate, on the 5 per cent. table, it costs £8 odd per cent. which means that the cost of borrowing this £100,000,000 for 20 years, would be £8,000,000 odd every year. Of course, it will not all be spent at once but we want to know over what period the Minister expects to spend this money, and at what date we shall reach the peak of the expenditure. Apart from this, which I believe to be the most important financial consideration, what burden would have to be faced in future years for the voted money? It is only fair to say that there will be something to set off against the voted money in the form of rents received, but we have been told that they

781
will only bring in about 2½ per cent. on the money borrowed, and I want to know what the amount will be. It looks as if the gross annual cost borne on the votes will be about £10,000,000 a year. How much of that will come out of the smallholdings account for the 2£ per cent. which the smallholders are expected to pay in rent?
We would like to have that figure worked out, and we would like to know in advance what are the expectations of the Minister as regards the voted money every year. Apart from borrowing, there is also to be provision for training men up to £70 per head. I think that is, more or less, a flat rate estimate, and there is to be a payment of £50 per head for the unemployed as maintenance allowance, and on their farms. If a man draws both this represents £120 per head. I do not suggest that all the men will draw both, but taking it at 100,000 families, that might amount to £12,000,000.
What will they draw? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any figure? It is very possible that, apart from the £6,700,000, we shall have every year £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 as the scheme matures and reaches the maximum expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman avoided this subject on the former occasion, and I cannot help admiring his debating skill. No man, indeed, is better able to sugar the nauseous draught or coat the bitter pill. That capacity, which I am afraid I never possessed, has enabled him to get away with very remarkable proposals in the House of Commons without explanation. I hope he will not get away with it to-night. I hope that to-night he is going to tell us what it will cost, the speed at which he is going to work, and the maximum expenditure we have to provide every year for the borrowed money and for the training and maintenance of the new settlers. It will be a great relief to this side of the House to hear that my estimates are far too high, but I am very much alarmed, in view of what he said as to his moderation on the Committee stage, that he may be more tempted to please hon. Members below the Gangway and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who seems to have been the prime author of these proposals.
Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I should like to support the arguments which have fallen from my right hon. Friend. The opposition which we, on this side of the House, offer to the proposals contained in this Bill has not been modified but rather intensified by the lack of information which has been vouchsafed to us on these benches. The Minister in charge of the Bill has been strangely secretive, and that fact arouses suspicions, which I fear are not altogether ill-founded. A million pounds is to be devoted to the establishment of an Agricultural Land Corporation. What is the justification for this expenditure in the present hard times through which we are passing? We know that large-scale experiments have been made in other countries and have lamentably failed. What is going to be done with this large-scale experiment? Where is the land for the large-scale experiment to be obtained? What is to be grown on that land? How many farmers who are at present farming it are to be dispossessed? How many workers who are now employed on that land are to be thrown out of a job? Will they obtain any compensation? If so, what compensation? What good, anyway, is the scheme going to do to the nation, and where is the money coming from?
I feel that we ought indeed to have been furnished with further information before we are asked to sanction the expenditure of such a large sum of money. We have vividly in our minds the experience of the co-operative societies. It is generally held, even on this side of the House, that the co-operative societies have a great many good brains conducting the affairs of their organisation, and if they, with all those brains and reserves and with a market lying at their doors, were unable to make a success of the land that they farmed, how can we expect the people who are to be brought in to manage these new large-scale farms to meet with success? We are entitled to some information on that point. I cannot see how the value of the expenditure of this £1,000,000 will come either to the producer or to the consumer, and I hope, at a later stage, to move that this plan shall not come into operation until it has received some affirmative Resolution in this House or in another-place, or, preferably, in both places. In, a scheme of this kind £50,000 or £100,000,

783
is enough to spend on an experiment in hard times like the present; and, until the experiment has justified itself, it is not fair to ask the taxpayer to dig into his pocket to find £1,000,000.
There is also the question of £5,000,000 for reconditioning. I would like to ask a, series of questions about that. What is going to be reconditioned? What does this proposal include? Is it a reclamation scheme, or what is it to be? A claim was made on the Committee stage of the Resolution that, as a large sum of money was spent on the roads of the country, it was only right that the House should be asked for money for the development of the land. If money is to be spent on reconditioning, some of it should be spent on turning the soft roadways in the Fenlands, which are passable only in the summer months, into good metal roads, so that the land could be developed. When there is a funeral or wedding in the winter months, it is impossible to move except by boat. Is any of this money to be utilised for drainage? Engineers had been examining great schemes of carrying the rivers out to the deep water on the East Coast, in order to prevent the land from becoming soured and sodden. The engineers say that the scheme is feasible. I do not know whether that comes within the scope of the proposal, but the spending of money on a project of that kind would give immediate employment to many thousands of men, and, incidentally, the result would be to reclaim many acres of land upon which eventually smallholders and others could be established.
I would like to draw attention to Part II of the Bill. I feel that the county councils are not being properly treated in this matter, and that they have a distinct grievance. They have been charged with the administration of smallholdings ever since the Act of 1908, and no one in the House can truthfully say that they have not properly discharged their duties. Then, however, a new organisation is being set up, the cost of which nobody knows; not even those responsible for the Bill have been able to forecast what the expenditure will be. I feel strongly that the sympathy of the county councils should
784
be enlisted in this matter, and that they should not be estranged. Under this proposal, the whole of any loss will fall on the taxpayer. Under the 1926 Act, 75 per cent. of the loss is met by the taxpayers, and 25 per cent. by the county councils. The county councils should, as far as possible, be appointed agents for the development of smallholdings in their areas, and the funds which we are being asked to vote to-night should primarily, if not wholly, be administered through their agency.
The House yesterday was, perhaps, rather startled, as far as this House ever can be startled by anything said within its walls, by the pronouncement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he declared against dumping. He did not suggest any remedy, but at least it was a significant admission, and there is no doubt that if it is followed up something may be done to make it more possible for a smallholder to get a living in future than it has been in the past. To-night, however, we are being asked to give what is virtually a blank cheque, and I for one object, in these times, at any rate, to give a blank cheque unless and until we are given further information as to how the money is to be spent.
Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I can promise hon. Members that the agricultural watch dog is going to bark; but for the moment I am surprised at the cheers which greeted me from hon. Members opposite, because during the Committee stage mast of them who rose to speak congratulated the Minister on having introduced the Bill, and I am going to follow in their footsteps and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he introduced the Bill. I would congratulate the Government on the excellent choice they have made of a Minister. The Government started by promising that they would make farming pay, and they have had a difficult and almost an impossible task, and there is no one who can—[interruption.] The Minister himself has said that it is high time that we as a nation made a considered and sustained endeavour to restore prosperity to and increase employment in the countryside. That is an admirable phrase; and he went on to say that no

785
nation could go on from generation to generation draining the best blood of the countryside without having to pay for it. But we are not discussing the geniality of the Minister; we are discussing this Financial Resolution, and I suggest that it does nothing whatever to help agriculture. The Resolution performs two functions: it finances large-scale farming and it finances smallholdings. I have had considerable experience of both large and small-scale farming. My experience of large-scale farming is that it cannot be made to pay. I understand that certain protests have been made against large-scale farms—
Mr. SPEAKER: I think we must get a little nearer to the Resolution.
Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I apologise for digressing, and I will now revert back to the Resolution, which proposes to limit the sum of money available to finance large-scale farming. I would like to give my own experience of large-scale farming —
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better keep those reminiscences for another occasion.
Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was very anxious to save the taxpayer from suffering loss as a result of large-scale farming. The second function of this Financial Resolution is to finance the smallholder. I have always been in favour of smallholdings, but my opinion is that the money which it is proposed to apply to financing smallholdings will not produce the results which the Minister of Agriculture desires. Our attitude towards this Resolution would have been difficult if some Measure to improve agriculture had been brought forward before this Financial Resolution to charge the taxpayer for putting on the land people who, in the present state of agriculture, will be hopeless in their efforts to make smallholdings pay.
Mr. TURTON: With regard to the administrators of large-scale farms, I wish to know whether they are included in the Financial Resolution, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to pay the same rate of salary as that which is now being paid to the directors of the farm settlements in existence at Amesbury. I
786
understand that at Amesbury £750 a year is paid as salary for a director in addition to allowances for rent and rates. He further receives a share of the produce that accrues from that large-scale farm. I ask these questions, not with any animus against that director, because I know that he is a very able administrator of that farm settlement, but I want to know the administrative cost of these farm settlements. We have not been told what it is to be. Is it to be £750 a year, with free rent and rates and also a share in any produce that accrues, as is at present the case at the Amesbury Farm Settlement, or is it to be more or less? The right hon. Gentleman, in the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, declares that he is uncertain as to the cost of administration, but he admits that it will be large. It is of great importance that the House should know how much is going to be spent on administration.
The present small holdings and land settlement administration is managed at a cost of £76,000, and the present annual loss on these smallholdings is £850,000. The £76,000 includes the salaries of the surveyors, land officers and clerks connected with the Land Division of the Ministry, but does not include the large salaries that have to be paid in all the local areas. I understand from the Financial Resolution that these smallholdings are all to be managed from the Ministry, and if that be so it would appear that the cost of administration will be more than £76,000, with a loss of £850,000 a year. If this be so, I shall be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us to what extent he intends to enlarge the Land Division of his Ministry, and, in that extension, what salaries he intends to pay for that administrative work. Before we leave this Resolution we must know what the cost of the administration is going to be to the country. A short time ago we had from the Government a demand for increased salaries for officials. I fear, reading through this Bill, that we shall be asked for a great deal more money for officials in these Departments, and this at a time when every other country in Europe is cutting down official salaries.
There is another question which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer. He undertakes, in the Financial

787
Memorandum, that a rent of 3 per cent. will be received on the capital expended on smallholdings. Does he seriously contemplate that these smallholdings of 10 and 20 acres will pay a rent of £33 a year? I should like to know whether he is restricting this estimate to smallholdings including orchards and market gardens, because in the North Riding of Yorkshire the smallholdings, on which it is a struggle to keep a family, cannot pay £20, and certainly not £33, a year in rent.
If that £33 a year is less, the financial return which the right hon. Gentleman is going to set off against these great administrative expenses to which I have referred will be sadly awry, and it will be a larger venture and even more financially disastrous than he ever reckoned. I should be grateful if he would give us some details of the administrative cost, because I do not think the House could leave this Financial Resolution with these words:
"The Bill will necessitate an increase in the Ministry's administrative and technical staff, but neither the extent of the Ministers' operations nor the extent to which the provision and management of smallholdings will be undertaken by local councils can be definitely foreseen."
We are being driven blindly forward, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some estimate of the increased expenditure.
THE MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): There are some questions which have been addressed to me which are quite easy to answer and some which it is impossible to answer, but I ask the House to notice what is the ground of objection behind them all. It is not that smallholdings have not, as a whole, been as profitable an investment of the nation's money as perhaps it has ever made. The objection is that we ought to spend the money on something else. It has always been something else. I will not peer into the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) that we ought to have spent it in some indefinite way that was going to make farming pay. In other words, it was to be spent in some form of dole. But if it had been spent in making farming pay in any other way, the expenditure would still be here and the burden on the taxpayer would be no less.
788
It would only have been spent in a much less profitable fashion.
I will take the minor questions of the hon. Member who spoke last before I come to the major issues which have been raised. He asks me if we are to pay the kind of salaries which were paid at Amesbury and if our losses will be as great. I hope we shall manage this matter in a very much more businesslike fashion than the last Government. I hope our record in helping unemployed men to get allotments and those who want to get smallholdings will be a much better record. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking their own standard, but I am looking for something of a much more frugal and remunerative kind. Then the hon. Member asked how much we were going to spend on salaries to officials. I do not propose to surmise because it depends on the progress made with the scheme.
Let me come to the criticisms, first of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), and then of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness). The hon. Member for Cambridge asked me a series of questions, where was the land we were going to buy, how much were we going to pay for it, how were we going to get it, and so on. The opposition to this Resolution is on the ground of economy, and I am now asked to advertise where the land is that we expect to buy. I am asked to state on the Floor of the House of Commons where are these patches of ground which we hope to acquire and which will need reclamation, on the ground, I suppose, that the price that is asked will be less. I will tell the hon. Member why I do not say, though I should have thought he would know. In some cases I do not know. In some cases I do know. The reason I do not mention it is quite simple because, if I did, the price would go up at once. The hon. Member gave us an illustration so far as Clause 3 is concerned. He suggested that it would be better to spend the money on some road or other through a morass in order that weddings and funerals should go on it. He said that would have been a better method of spending money and it would improve the land. Whose land? It would, of course, improve the land on either side of the road across the quagmire, but we are proposing to improve land that belongs to the nation, and that

789
is a better method of spending money than making a road across this bog for weddings and funerals, to improve someone else's land.
Sir D. NEWTON: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. He does not realise that in the fen districts you have some of the finest land in the country, but it is not fully developed in some cases owing to the lack of access to it. My suggestion was that it could be made available for smallholdings and other purposes if access were given to it by means of hard instead of soft ground.
12 m.
Dr. ADDISON: That does not affect the point. In this Bill we may propose to acquire that land and to improve it for ourselves. According to the hon. Gentleman, you would make the road and let somebody else reap the benefit. I suggest also that, if it, would pay to make the road in order to improve land which belonged to a number of different people, it would equally pay to make the road if the land were acquired by the State. In this particular Bill we have therefore limited the expenditure on reclamation to the land acquired, and, in my judgment, if the House of Commons took any other course it would probably create difficulties of a very intricate kind.
The criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) really resolved itself into a series of interrogations, as to how many smallholdings it was proposed to provide, in what time, and so on. The Financial Memorandum gives, as far as possible, a precise estimate of the cost of these holdings, per thousand or per hundred. We state precisely how much it will cost to train men; how much our allowances will cost. This is condemned, I would have the House notice, as a great waste of money in unproductive expenditure. It all depends upon how you view it. How are these men upon whom money is to be spent, otherwise engaged? They are unemployed persons. [Interruption.] The provision is for persons who are unemployed. That is to say, it is for persons who at present, on an average, are costing the State about £70 a year, with nothing in return.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: When did you find that out?
Dr. ADDISON: Under this proposal we shall, by the expenditure of £70 for those who need it, get men who are trained for agricultural work. The sum of £70 is the estimated cost in respect of those who require training. Of course, a vast number will not require training. There are, in my opinion, tens of thousands waiting for a chance who will probably not require any training. I can imagine no more useful expenditure of public money than to enable one of these men to grow some food for himself and his family and to help him, as far as we possibly can, to become a self-sustained citizen. It is better than spending a similar amount of money month after month in keeping him in idleness. That is really the alternative presented by this Bill. That is what it does. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman how many men we shall be able to deal with in that way. We shall do as much as we can, subject to a wise and sensible choice of applicants, in putting them upon suitable holdings, and, where it requires market gardening work, in putting them upon suitable land.
We are proposing that they shall get proper equipment and shall not be at the mercy of any speculator who comes along. As far as we can we shall take every means to secure that public money is well spent and that it is spent under good advice and as economically as possible, but how many men of those who are waiting, when we have opened this door, will prove themselves capable of benefiting by these means, I cannot say in advance. I shall do my very best for as many as possible, and nothing would rejoice me more than to find that the number of men who prove suitable for the work and are likely to make a living out of it and become self-supporting citizens and get themselves off the unemployment register, is greater than we expected. It is on that account that I cannot give the number, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that neither now, nor in the Committee stage, nor at any other stage will he drive me into giving a number. If he were in my place, and the same remark applies to any other responsible leader, he would give the same reply that I have given. If he would not give that reply, then he would be, in advance, limiting the useful ness of a great scheme.

791
There is one remark that I should like to make in reply to what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge. I can assure him that we have no desire whatever to stand or work on any other than on friendly and helpful terms with the local authorities. The Bill provides, and it will very often happen, I hope it will, that they will gladly co-operate with us, but when we have said that, it is no use pretending that the progress of the smallholdings movement in this country, as far as we know that it could advantageously be pressed forward, is being pressed forward by the county councils in sufficient measure. It is not. Since 1924 the total additions to smallholdings in the whole of England is 673. That is an absurd number. Except in the case of a few counties, the work is practically stationary. That is a justification for our proposals. I am not blaming the county councils; I think they have been paralysed by the Act of the late Government, as they were paralysed by the Act of 1926. That brought the work practically to a standstill.
Mr. GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means? Is he aware that until the Act of 1926 was passed there was no power in a county council to provide a smallholding which involved any loss whatever. Far from paralysing any existing activity, it is only by the Act of 1926 that there is any legal power to provide these smallholdings.
Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the facts of arithmetic by talking about imposing a loss on the county councils. The fact is that the work came practically to a standstill.
Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. It is not a question of imposing a loss on the county councils. There was no power for a county council to create these smallholdings. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Act he will see. You cannot paralyse a non-existing movement.
Dr. ADDISON: The fact was that there was what was called a clearance, a stocktaking. As a result the county councils were informed that hereinafter they would pay 25 per cent. and the Treasury would pay 75 per cent.
Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to get up in this House—[Interruption].
Mr. J. WILSON: You are not entitled to get up.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the Minister gives way the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a statement.
Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make statements in this House which can be shown to be ill-founded by anyone who looks at the Statute. [Interruption.]
HON. MEMBERS: Shut up!
Mr. J. WILSON: Shut up, yourselves!
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member does not cease from interrupting I shall have to tell him to leave the House.
Mr. GUINNESS: The settlement to which the Minister refers was dictated by the Act of 1919. Purchases were to take place for three years. The actual losses were to be paid for seven, years from the date of the passing of the Act, and at the end of the seven years that settlement was to take place. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that under that settlement 75 per cent. would be borne by the State and 20 per cent. by the county councils. That is a complete invention. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that he did say that that was what the settlement involved. I arm within the recollection of the House that settlement did not impose any payment on the county councils, and the provision of 75 per cent. loss by the State was for new holdings, which could not take place otherwise. For that reason again the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in saying they were paralysed, seeing that these activities did not exist and were only created by our Act.
Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman did not listen with as much care as usual to what I said. I said that there was a settlement. I did not say that that settlement meant a loss to the councils. I said that hereinafter the county councils paid 25 per cent. of the loss. That was after the settlement. That is true. When the loss was cleared up it was a State loss, but after that settlement the Act was

793
so framed that any smallholdings provided after that time were provided by the county councils on the basis of the Treasury paying 75 per cent. of the loss and the county councils 25 per cent., and the result of that scheme for the provision of smallholdings was to paralyse the movement. The proof of that statement is in the fact that since that date the additional number of smallholdings provided in the whole of England and Wales is less than 700. [Interruption.] It is not that a great many of them are not getting a living; a great many of them are getting a good living, and taking them on the whole the smallholders have stood the bad times as well as any one. The real reason is first the imposition of the 25 per cent. loss on the county council and the second reason is the Act of 1929. Those are the two main reasons. I am not blaming the late Government. The county councils did not know how they were going to come out with the allowances under the Act of 1929, and have been averse to incurring additional expenditure. I am not blaming them, but if this movement is to be improved and put in good form to take advantage of those who can use and develop smallholdings the State must undertake the responsibility. I believe the county councils will be willing to help and become our agents wherever it can be arranged, and we shall do what we can to work in harmony with them, but it is hopeless to expect this movement to make progress on its present basis. That is the reason why we propose this scheme. We have given the estimated loss on every different type of holding. I believe that is a correct estimate, but I cannot say how many we shall be able to provide. We shall provide for as many as we can, and do it on economic lines.
The objection to this proposal is that the method is wrong, but the only alternative to providing these smallholdings to enable unemployed persons to do a self-respecting job of work, is to go on paying allowances to men for doing nothing. I do not know how many men we shall be able to help in this way, but seeing that the smallholding movement has paid in cash about 3 per cent., for the main part, that is not a bad cash dividend for a land investment these days. It is much better than most landlords are getting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,
794
hear!"] Hon. Members opposite know that that statement is true. It is not denied that these smallholding enterprises may reasonably be expected, even with inflated post-war costs, to provide a return of 3 per cent.; the balance will be represented in self-respecting citizens who are able to support themselves and produce food for the nation. I believe that is a much wiser investment of public money than paying a greater amount for doing nothing.
Captain CROOKSHANK: We have, indeed, heard an astounding speech from the Minister of Agriculture. If I make a few remarks upon it, before I come to my comments on the Financial Resolution it is first of all, because of his final admission that 2½ per cent. is a great deal more than the average landlord gets to-day as a return. What happens then to the claim made from the benches behind him, by hon. Members who talk about the landlord class as the bloodsuckers of the country? The right hon. Gentleman admits that landowners would be delighted if they could make 2½ per cent. on their invested capital. [HON. MEMBERS "Three per cent."] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say 2½ per cent. I will not say that the Minister is an ignorant man or that he does not know the agricultural situation. I will not say that he comes here as an unctuous man, but I will say that he has a great deal to learn about some of these subjects. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you teach him?"] I hope that all hon. Members will take the Minister's own advice. I commend to my interruptor what the right hon. Gentleman said during the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution.
"If any hon. Member has any suggestion which will help us to improve and make more business-like the administration of the Bill, I shall welcome it gladly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1930; col. 345, Vol. 245.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "We are not on the Bill now."] No, but we are on the Financial Resolution, on which the Bill is based.
Mr. J. JONES: What a brain wave!
Captain CROOKSHANK: One must first have a brain in order to have a brain wave. If the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) will allow me, I should like to take up some of the

795
points made by the Minister. He said that he had stated precisely in the Financial Memorandum how much the Bill would cost. I look at the Memorandum-which, incidentally, does not bind the House in any way-and the first words to catch my eye are:
"It is impossible to state how many holdings it may prove necessary…to provide."
Elsewhere in the Memorandum one finds such phrases as:
"the class of holding provided will depend on the qualifications of the suitable applicants,"
and, later on:
"On the assumption that, wherever possible, suitable land is acquired in the vicinity of the workers' home."
and:
"The cost per person settled will depend on the time of the year the tenancy commences."
The Minister says that he has estimated the cost exactly, but his own Memorandum begins by informing us that it is impossible to state anything exact about it. Really, the Minister must have been taking a liberty with the hour of the night. He says that hon. Members here are trying to get him to state where the land is which it is proposed to acquire; the idea at the back of his mind being that, if anybody knew what land was to come within the scope of the Bill, the price would go up. I assume that that idea was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I suppose that he is a Socialist nowadays and that is the sort of thing which Socialists think. But in Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill we find that when the Minister is going to take over any land compulsorily, he himself has to publish the fact in one or more newspapers, describing the area to be acquired. If that is not for the purpose of publicity, I should like to know what is the purpose. He also talked about improving the land which belongs to the nation but he had not specify what land belonging to the nation he intended to improve. Does that statement indicate a collaboration with the First Commissioner of Works in regard to Hyde Park or elsewhere? Is that the land suggested or is it some secret which we are not to be told? The right hon. Gentleman, in criticising the speech of one of my hon. Friends, said that the
796
ground of objection to the Financial Resolution was not that smallholdings were not profitable—I dare say if we had gone into the question we should have been quickly ruled out of order—but that the objection coming from this side was that the money was not being spent elsewhere. It is a figment of the right hon. Gentleman's imagination. No one here ever said anything of the kind. We realise that this is not the time, having regard to the country's present financial straits, to make any expenditure at all on the lavish lines associated with the name of the right hon. Gentleman.
We have had ample evidence in support of our view in the discussions which have already taken place on this Resolution. The right hon. Gentlemen during the Committee stage said "Why in the world did I not ask for more money?" I do not know. He did not answer the question for himself. Personally, I have a suspicion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might supply the answer. "Why did I not ask for more money." What a pathetic thought—the Minister of Agriculture sitting there and worrying himself because he has only asked for £6,000,000 or £8,000,000—"or whatever it is,'' to use the expression of his colleague, the President of the Board of Education—and has not asked for more. Yet the Minister also said that he intended to avoid the errors and extravagances of the past. By doing so he may avoid the stigma of incompetence which was handed to him at one time by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But when all is said and done, that aspiration to avoid errors and extravagances does not seem to tally with the delightful question "Why did I not ask for more?" This Resolution is hopelessly loosely drawn and a great deal of money is involved. I ask the Committee to listen to what was said by the Minister's old friend who thanked him from the Liberal benches.
"There is a great deal of money which the Treasury will not see again"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1930; col. 306; Vol. 245.]
That is "deep calling unto deep"—Carnarvon Boroughs calling unto Swindon. But the taxpayer will never seethe money again. The Bill has already been pretty adequately riddled on the

797
Second Reading and, no doubt, during the Committee stage a great deal of discussion will arise on the various issues involved. As far as finance is concerned, it is exactly the hopeless kind of Measure which one would associate with the right hon. Gentleman. What is most noteworthy is the fact that during the two days and a fraction of a day over which these discussions have extended, we have not had a word from the Treasury. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury smiles and smiles but says nothing. We have no indication whether the policy of the Government regarding the utilisation of agricultural land is in any way linked up to their other schemes for developing the country, including that of subsidising grand opera. If there is any direct connection between the two—and it is hard to see any—one might expect some statement from the Treasury, but none is forthcoming. This is a bad Financial Resolution, and one cannot get away from the fact, even at half-past twelve o'clock in the morning. It is perhaps only fitting that, having spent the evening discussing education, we should now be let out of school for a few minutes to dance about the pastures and the green fields. But I call the attention of the Committee to this idea of the Government, because it is the crux of the situation.
What is the good of the Government coming to the House to ask for money for these large-scale ranches, or 'whatever they may be called, when at the same time they are draining money away from the land, through the enormous Death Duties raised on estates of landowners? Surely the obvious thing, if you want to see money going back to the land would be to remit—[Interruption]. I fail to see anything wildly hilarious in this. It only shows the complete inability of hon. Members opposite to appreciate any kind of economic argument. They are prejudiced in regard to landlords. The Minister of Agriculture stated just now that 2½ per cent. would he a wonderful return on their capital. What is the good of denuding the. land of capital which might be put into it by the existing owners and then using that self-same sum via the Treasury?
The Minister of Agriculture talks about having spent so much money in developing the rubber industry in Malay, and he
798
asks why we cannot find money to develop our own land. But did the Treasury provide £8,000,000 to develop the rubber industry? Not a penny. The private investor did it all. What is the comparison between ordinary people in private enterprise putting money into developing various activities in what part of the country they may want to risk their money and the Government coming along and taxing people here in order to put the taxpayers' money into some other industry which may or may not work? The two cases have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is going to get his Bill through by that kind of argument, he might as well sit back and think again, It may be that he is going to drop all that part of the Bill and it may be that the present Prime Minister may follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He may say that this is too extravagant. At the same time, other sums of money have to be found for small holdings. It really seems as if the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have lost all sense of logic, of common sense. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take note of the criticisms made to-day, and will take the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see that he does not become as extravagant during the passage of the Bill as he has been during its inception.
Mr. R. W. SMITH: I am sorry that this is the first opportunity I have had of saying a word on this Bill, and I wish to do so now on its finance. I come from Scotland where we are supposed to look after the pounds, shilling and pence, and I do wish the Government would be a little more careful of the pounds, shillings and pence. I rose to ask the Minister a question when he was speaking but he did not give way, and I would like to put the question now. He said that he was not going to tell us where the land was to be purchased for these large-scale holdings. Will he kindly tell us if it is his intention to have any of these large-scale holdings in Scotland?
Dr. ADDISON: I can assure the hon. Member that Scotland will see to it that it gets its share.
Mr. SMITH: Does the Minister intend to set up these large-scale farms in Scotland or not? I assume, as he does not reply, that he does not. That is what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said the other day. He said that there was not going to be large-scale farms in Scotland, and, as the Minister refuses to reply, I assume that we are not to have them. Mark what that means. This Bill says that the only way to better utilise the land of this country is by large-scale farms. In Scotland, the farms are not going to be improved. Better utilisation of the land only refers to Part I of the Bill. That has nothing to do with small holdings. Therefore, we in Scotland are not to have the advantage of better utilisation of the land.
I am speaking for both smallholders and large farmers, and I say that we ought not to let the Financial Resolution go through if we can possibly help it, because farm servants and smallholders are going to be taxed to subsidise those whom you are going to put on the land. These unfortunate smallholders are going to have to pay for other smallholders who will produce goods to compete with them. Is that fair? Further, it has been stated that within the last 10 years 100,000 men have gone out of agriculture and into other industries. What is the good, then, of spend-
ing money on training when you have these 100,000 men already trained? We can save on that. We are also told that there are hundreds of men at present who are trying to get smallholdings under the present Smallholdings Acts. We are told that they cannot get them because it is so expensive We have waiting at the present time men who are willing to put capital into the industry by taking a smallholding. Why not create your smallholdings at once and let these men have them, these numberless applicants for smallholdings? If you look at the Report, you will see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a large waiting list. Why go near the unemployed at all? You have men ready and willing to go into these smallholdings if they can only get them. You can thus do St much more cheaply. It is possible, without spending the money which it is here proposed to spend, to achieve the same result. In the present circumstances, it would be madness on our part to spend this money when we can attain exactly the same result without further expense.
Dr. ADDISON Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 78.

Division No.19.]

AYES.

[12.43 a.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Compton, Joseph

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvi1)

Addison. Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Dagger, George

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Dallas, George

Harbord, A.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Dalton, Hugh

Hardie, George D.

Alpass, J. H.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Ammon, Charles George

Denman, Hon. R, D.

Haycock, A. W.

Arnott, John

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Hayday. Arthur

Asks, Sir Robert

Dukes, C.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Duncan, Charles

Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

Barr, James

Ede, James Chuter

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Batey, Joseph

Edmunds, J. E.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Bellamy, Albert

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Herriotts,

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Egan, W. H.

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Benson, G.

Elmley. Viscount

Hoffman, P. C.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Freeman, Peter

Hollins, A.

Bevan, Aneurrn (Ebbw Vale)

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Hopkin, Daniel

Bowen, J. W.

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Horrabin, J. F.

Broad, Francis Alfred

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Brockway, A. Fenner

George. Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Brooke, W

Gibbins, Joseph

Isaacs, George

Brothers, M.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Gill, T. H.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gillett, George M.

Jcnes, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Glassey, A. E.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Gossling, A. G.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Burgess, F. G.

Gould, F.

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Cameron, A. G.

Gray, Milner

Kelly, W T.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Cofne)

Kennedy, Thomas

Charleton, H. C.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Kinley, J.

Church, Major A. G.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Lang, Gordon

Cluse, W. S.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Oldfleld, J. R.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Law, A. (Rossendaie)

Oliver. George Harold (Ilkeston)

Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)

Lawrence, Susan

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Smith, Torn (Pontefract)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Palin, John Henry

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Lawson, John James

Paling, Wilfrid

Sorensen, R.

Lowther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Palmer, E. T.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Leach, W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Peters. Dr. Sidney John

Strauss, G. R.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W,

Sullivan, J.

Lees, J.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Lindley, Fred W.

Potts, John S.

Thurtie, Ernest

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Price, M. P.

Tinker, John Joseph

Logan, David Gilbert

Pybus, Percy John

Toole, Joseph

Longden, F.

Qulbell, D. J. K.

Tout, W. J.

Lunn. William

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Vaughan, D. J.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Walker, J.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Baesetlaw)

Ritson, J.

Wallace, H. W.

Mc Elwee, A.

Romerli, H. G.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

McEntee, V. L.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Wellock, Wilfred

McShane, John James

Rothschild, J. de

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Rowson, Guy

Westwood, Joseph

Mansfield, W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Marcus, M.

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Marley. J.

Sanders, W. S.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Marsball, Fred

Sandham, E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Matters, L. W.

Sawyer, G. F.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

Messer, Fred

Scurr, John

Williams, T. (York, Don valley)

Middleton, G.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)

Milner, Major J.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Sherwood, G. H.

Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

Morley, Ralph

Shield, George William

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

Morrison, Herbert ( Hackney, South)

Shillaker, J. F.

Wise, E. F.

Mort, D. L.

Simmons, C. J.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Moses, J. J. H.

Sinclair. Sir A. (Caithness)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Sinkinson, George

Murnin, Hugh

Sitch, Charles H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Noel Baker, P. J.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

NOES

Acland-Troyte, Lieut,Colonel

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Reynolds. Col. Sir James

Albery, Irving James

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Ferguson, Sir John

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Salmon, Major J.

Bird, Ernest Roy

Ford, Sir P. J.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Ganzoni, Sir John

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Boyce, H. L.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Bassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Bracken, B.

Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Brass, Captain Sir William

Guneton, Captain D. W.

Skelton, A. N.

Briscoe, Richard George

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newby)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinedine,C.)

Butler, R. A.

Hartington, Marquess of

Smithehs, Waldron

Campbell, E. T.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Castle Stewart. Earl of

Knox, Sir Alfred

Southby. Commander A. R. J.

Coltox, Major William Philip

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Colville, Major D. J.

Lleweilin, Major J. J.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Thomson, Sir F.

Cranborne, Viscount

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Croft, Brigadier.General Sir H.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Tartan, Robert Hugh

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Mitcheil-Thomson, Rt. lion. Sir W.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Cunliffe-Lister, RI. Hon. Sir Philip

Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Wells, Sydney R.

Dalrymple-White, Lt: Col. Sir Godfrey

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovi1)

Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge)

Womersoley, W. J.

Duckworth. G. A. V.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Penny, Sir George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Eden, Captain Anthony

Remer, John R.

Sir George Hennessy and Captain Euan Wallace.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 77.

Division No. 20.]

AYES

[12.52 a.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Ammon, Charles George

Bellamy, Albert

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Arnott, John

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Aske, Sir Robert

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Benson, G.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Barr, James

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Alpass, J. H.

Batey, Joseph

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Bowen, J. W.

Horrabin, J. F.

Price, M. P.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Pybus, Percy John

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Qulbell, D. J. K.

Brooke, W.

Isaacs, George

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Brothers, M.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Ritson, J.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Romeril, H. G.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Rothschild, J. de

Burgess, F. G.

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Rowson, Guy

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cameron, A. G.

Kelly, W. T.

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Kennedy, Thomas

Sanders, W. S.

Charleton, H. C.

Kinley, J.

Sandham, E.

Church, Major A. G.

Lang, Gordon

Sawyer, G. F.

Cluse, W, S.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Scurr, John

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Compton, Joseph

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Daggar, George

Lawrence, Susan

Sherwood, G. H.

Dallas, George

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Shield, George William

Dalton, Hugh

Lawson, John James

Shillaker, J. F.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Simmons, C. J.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Leach, W.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Sinkinson, George

Dukes, C.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Sitch, Charles H.

Duncan, Charles

Lees, J.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Ede, James Chuter

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Edmunds, J. E.

Lindley, Fred W.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Smith, Torn (Pontefract)

Egan, W. H.

Logan, David Gilbert

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Elmley, Viscount

Longden, F.

Sorensen, R.

Freeman, Peter

Lunn, William

Stamford, Thomas W.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Strachey, E. J. St. Lo

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Strauss, G. R.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

McElwee, A.

Sullivan, J.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

McEntee, V. L.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Gibbins, Joseph

McShane, John James

Taylor, W. R. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Moseley)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Thurtle, Ernest

Gill, T. H.

Mansfield, W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Gillett, George M.

Marcus, M.

Toole, Joseph

Glassey, A. E.

Marley, J.

Tout, W. J.

Gossling, A. G.

Marshall, Fred

Vaughan, D. J.

Gould, F.

Matters, L. W.

Walker, J.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Messer, Fred

Wallace, H. W.

Gray, Milner

Middleton, G.

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Morley, Ralph

Wellock, Wilfred

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mort, D. L.

Whiteley, Wilfred (Birm., Ladywood)

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Moses, J. J. H.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Murnin, Hugh

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Harbord, A.

Noel Baker, P. J.

Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Hardie, George D.

Oldfield, J. R.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Haycock, A. W.

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Mayday, Arthur

Palin, John Henry

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Paling, Wilfrid

Winterton, G. E.(Leicetter,Loughb'gh)

Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Palmer, E. T.

Wise, E. F.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Herriotts, J.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hoffman, P. C.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Hollins, A.

Potts, John S.

Hopkin, Daniel

NOES

Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Albery, Irving James

Cranbourne, Viscount

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Bird, Ernest Roy

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Boyce, H. L.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Hartington, Marquess of

Bracken, B.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Briscoe, Richard George

Dugdaie, Capt. T. L.

Knox. Sir Alfred

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Butler, R. A.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Liewellin, Major J. J.

Campbell, E. T.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Ferguson, Sir John

Marjorlbanks, Edward

Colfox, Major William Philip

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Colville, Major D. J.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

804

805

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Penny, Sir George

Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinedine, C.)

Wells, Sydney R.

Remer, John R.

Smithers, Waldron

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Reynolds, Col, Sir James

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Womersley, W. J.

Richardson, Sir P. W, (Sur'y, ch'ts'y)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Salmon, Major J.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Thomson, Sir F.

Bill read a Second time.

CUNARD (INSURANCE) AGREEMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is not necessary for me to say a great deal, because the subject was fairly and extensively examined when my right hon. Friend moved the Money Resolution in connection with the Bill. I am encouraged in that view by the fact that on that occasion the Bill was welcomed by all sections of the House and that, I venture to think, very largely because it is in itself a contribution towards providing employment in an industry which is very much in need of it, and more especially in the district in which the proposed ship is to be constructed. The position is this. The Cunard Shipping Company, which in the past have achieved a great distinction in the ships that they have put upon the various seas, and particularly upon the Atlantic, are making a further attempt to bring more distinction to British shipping and to bring back what might be termed, if not the blue riband of the Atlantic, certainly a position of success as far as shipping is concerned. But the magnitude of the task is such that there is a doubt as to whether or not the insurance can be covered by the ordinary means, through the ordinary insurance companies, and what the Government have consented to do by the agreement that has been entered into with the Cunard Company is to provide the insurance that they may not be able to obtain in the open market. The conditions of that insurance were very fully explained on the Money Resolution, and I do not know that I need enter into them in any detail.
I will give some figures so far as the size of the ship is concerned. The information that I have is that the new ship will be 1,018 feet in length, which I
806
am advised is about 15 times the length of the "Aye" lobby; it will be of about 73,000 tons and will have in cubic feet about 7,300,000. I think these figures will indicate that this ship is one of considerable magnitude. Having regard to the fact that the Government have entered into this agreement—to take up the balance of the insurance that the Company may not be able to obtain in the ordinary insurance market—I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
Mr. ALBERY: When the matter was last discussed in the House we were told that the rate—I think it was 30s.—was to be charged for the construction. I want to ask whether any steps have been taken to make sure that this is in fact a reasonable rate. I also wish to remind him that on that occasion a statement was made that the Chairman and Vice-Chair-man of Lloyds had given him an assurance that at least half the amount of this risk would be placed with underwriters at Lloyds. If this is wrong, I stand to be corrected.
Mr. W. R. SMITH: What my right hon. Friend said was that we had received the very fullest assurance from Lloyds that the rate proposed to insure the ship was reasonable so far as the market rates were concerned. I do not think he said that Lloyds would take up half of the insurance, hut he did anticipate that at least half of it would be taken up through the ordinary market.
Mr. ALBERY: do not think that differs in substance from what I have said—that he can anticipate that about half the insurance for construction purposes can be placed with underwriters at Lloyds.
An HON. MEMBER: No, he never said so.
Mr. ALBERY: I am not particularly well versed in insurance and I only want to clear up one or two points. Has the

807
right hon. Gentleman had any advice as to what proportion he is likely to be able to place in the marine market? The Government may have to take up the whole of the premiums, and that is a thing which we must take note of. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman has any further information on that point.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I welcome the suggestion of the Government in a scheme of this magnitude. There never has been a ship like the one proposed. It is estimated that it will cost between £4,500,000 and £5,000,000 sterling. It shows plainly that if we are to bring back the blue riband, which I hope to see brought back to this country, if we are to maintain our position of supremacy in the mercantile marine, we have to go ahead, and I congratulate the Cunard Company for the pluck and courage they have had in going into the question of the construction of a ship of this magnitude. I say, further, that if it had not been for the help of the Government the Cunard Company might have been in a difficult position to find sufficient cover for about half the value. My hon. Friend referred to the question of marine insurance, and he is under the impression that perhaps it may be necessary for the Government to assume the whole risk. I have never heard any suggestion of that kind, and I do not think that my hon. Friend need worry upon that score. I should hope that the market would be able to cover somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,500,000. I am sure from my knowledge of the marine underwriters that they will do all that they possibly can, in any reasonable manner for the safety of their book, to take up as much as possible of this business. They have always recognised that their duty is not only to cover insurance plainly and simply, but to render any assistance that they can to the great shipping community.
There is one question I would like to ask the hon. Member with regard to the schedule. On page 7 reference is made to premiums payable to the Board of Trade, and it says:
"in respect of the insurances against ordinary marine risks premiums at the respective gross rates payable in respect of the corresponding insurances placed in the open market with the addition in both
808
cases of two and one half per centum of the said gross rates and subject to deductions in both cases from the rates so augmented of"
It is a recognised custom in the insurance world that insurances of this nature are subject to a brokerage of 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. discount, and I want to make plain that there is to be no additional charge on the shipping community; that it is not the intention of the Government to debit the shipowners with an additional 2½ per cent. of the premiums, but, on the other hand, that the Government are going to give the same returns in commissions and discounts, because I do not think it is the intention of the Government to go into the transaction from a profitable point of view. I hope there is to be no cheese-paring, and that it does not mean that there is to be 2½ per cent. additional charge on the premium. Perhaps the hon. Member can make that plain. I only want to say once more that I appreciate the efforts put forward by the Cunard Company.
Mr. BROCKWAY: I want to put one question. In return for this service which the State is rendering the Cunard Company, are any conditions being required regarding wages arid the charges which are to be asked from the public by the company?
Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: On the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, my colleague in the representation of Southampton raised the question of the accommodation for seamen on these ships. I think he was ruled out of order and told that he could mention it on the Second Reading of the Bill. I recognise that this subsidy is of rather an unusual character, and one is loath to oppose it. I am aware of the great importance of these ships from the point of view of employment. But I think it will be news to most Members that the accommodation for the crew on these palatial liners is of the worst possible description. The conditions are nothing short of abominable. Every possible luxury—luxury almost unnecessary on account of the shortness of the trip of five-and-half to six days—is provided for the passengers. There are swimming baths, tennis courts, and every other luxury, but the quarters of the crew are of the worst possible description.
Mr. PYBUS: Have you seen the plans of the ship?
Mr. LEWIS: I have seen all the ships that sail from Southampton. I have visited the "Olympic" and other ships, and for 20 years I have been urging the importance of improved conditions for seamen. I went upon a deputation to the late Prime Minister when he was President of the Board of Trade eight years ago. He was very sympathetic and was staggered with the position put before him by the deputation. He promised to visit Southampton at an early date, but nothing has been done. For years and years this question has been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, and I am merely asking whether the President of the Board of Trade will put in a request—he cannot demand it; the thing has gone too far—on behalf of these men who follow the sea. We talk of the slums of our towns, but these slums of the sea are ten thousand times worse than the slums we so often describe in this House. It is the cause of a tremendous amount of ill-health among seamen. The health of the seamen is absolutely the worst of all occupations; far worse than the miners, and most of the sickness and ill-health are due to the accommodation on the ships. The accommodation is worse on the big liners than on the smaller
810
ships. I ask the Minister to make inquiries into the hygiene of the crews' accommodation. They are divorced from civil life and for 40 weeks out of the 52 they are on the seas, and it is the place of the Government to see whether they can put in a word with the Cunard Company asking them to give better accommodation than is now done. If they do that it will be one of the finest things that the Board of Trade has done.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after One o'Clock.

  WEST INDIES (INQUIRY).
  WEST INDIES (INQUIRY).
  KENYA (LAND BANK).
  KENYA (LAND BANK).
EDUCATION.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (COST).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (COST).
  MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
  MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
  MILK RATION.
  MILK RATION.
SCOTLAND.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
  RATES, LANARKSHIRE.
  RATES, LANARKSHIRE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  RUSSIANS.
  RUSSIANS.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  GRANTS (INCOME TAX).
  GRANTS (INCOME TAX).
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
  SHREWSBURY.
  SHREWSBURY.
  UNINSURED OCCUPATIONS.
  UNINSURED OCCUPATIONS.
  BRIDGES (CONSTRUCTION).
  BRIDGES (CONSTRUCTION).
  INSURANCE (COST).
  INSURANCE (COST).
  YOUNG OFFENDERS.
  YOUNG OFFENDERS.
  RABBITS (TRAPPING).
  RABBITS (TRAPPING).
  BROWN SQUIRRELS.
  BROWN SQUIRRELS.
  SUICIDES.
  SUICIDES.
  RIVER TINE POLICE.
  RIVER TINE POLICE.
  DEPORTATION ORDERS (RUSSIANS).
  DEPORTATION ORDERS (RUSSIANS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CHIEF INDUSTRIAL ADVISER.
  CHIEF INDUSTRIAL ADVISER.
  TREASURY SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT (OFFICE KEETER).
  TREASURY SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT (OFFICE KEETER).
  STAFFS.
  STAFFS.
  SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
  SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
  TRUSTEE SECURITIES (COLONIAL STOCKS).
  TRUSTEE SECURITIES (COLONIAL STOCKS).
  PALESTINE (DEVELOPMENT SCHEME).
  PALESTINE (DEVELOPMENT SCHEME).
  CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
  CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  POLAND (UKRAINIAN MINORITIES).
  POLAND (UKRAINIAN MINORITIES).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MENTAL PATIENTS.
  MENTAL PATIENTS.
  MILL ROAD HOSPITAL (MENTAL WARDS).
  MILL ROAD HOSPITAL (MENTAL WARDS).
POOR LAW.
  OUT-DOOR RELIEF.
  OUT-DOOR RELIEF.
  VAGRANCY COMMITTEES.
  VAGRANCY COMMITTEES.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES (PRESS, ADMISSION).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES (PRESS, ADMISSION).
  CASUALS.
  CASUALS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  TOYS (IMPORT).
  TOYS (IMPORT).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORTS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  EXPORTS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
AGRICULTURE.
  SMALLHOLDERS (BANKRUPTCIES).
  SMALLHOLDERS (BANKRUPTCIES).
  HOPS.
  HOPS.
  FRUIT FARMING.
  FRUIT FARMING.
  BEEF (NATIONAL MARK).
  BEEF (NATIONAL MARK).
  FARM SETTLEMENTS.
  FARM SETTLEMENTS.
  FISH DOCKS, HULL (ACCOMMODATION).
  FISH DOCKS, HULL (ACCOMMODATION).
  NATIONAL PARKS COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  NATIONAL PARKS COMMITTEE (REPORT).
TRANSPORT.
  NEW BRIDGE, LOFTSOME.
  NEW BRIDGE, LOFTSOME.
  TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, CAMOMILE BOTTOM.
  TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, CAMOMILE BOTTOM.
  MOTOR CYCLE SILENCERS.
  MOTOR CYCLE SILENCERS.
  RAILWAYS (ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT).
  RAILWAYS (ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT).
  INDIA (PRISONERS).
  INDIA (PRISONERS).
  AUXILIARY POSTMEN.
  AUXILIARY POSTMEN.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LAWARR): My Lords, the grey seal, rather less romantically described as the halichoerus grypus—I think in the Bill described as halichoeri grypi, but later it is to be amended—is a rather rare inhabitant of the more isolated parts of certain islands in Scotland. Some years ago, largely through the efforts of Mr. Lyell, Parliament was asked to pass a Bill to prevent the taking of this particular seal during the breeding season between October 1 and December 15, and that Bill was made to operate for five years. It had a very good effect, and undoubtedly increased the number of grey seals. At the same time it has been decided that there is still a comparative shortage of grey seals, and it is necessary to continue their protection. It is, therefore, suggested that your Lordships should pass this Bill, which continues the protection, but that it should only operate from year to year. Neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State for Scotland would consider removing the ban unless they held very careful inquiry before they did so. I think, probably, it is generally agreed that this is the best way of carrying on the scheme. The Bill has been before the Society for file Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire, and has received their approval. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who is unfortunately unable to he here to-day, wrote informing me of that fact, and, as he was in the chair, he was in a position to know what had happened. I think that is all I have to say on the Bill except that, we would like to get it through as soon as possible in order that we may send it down to another place.
LORD CUSHENDUN: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, might I ask if he would explain why it is proposed to make it from year to year instead for another five years? Surely that would be a more effective protection?
EARL DE LA WARR: That suggestion has been considered. As there has been a very considerable increase already in the number of grey seals, the necessity of continuing for the full five years was questioned, and a compromise was arrived at that we should watch the process of protection, note any increase in the breeding of this particular form of seal from year to year, and then judge the matter as circumstances dictated. I may say that it has been suggested to me privately by certain of your Lordships that it is unfortunate that we should attempt to protect the grey seal because it is harmful to fish, but, so far as we are able to ascertain, it is not the grey seal which is injurious to fishing, but the common seal.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, as vice-chairman of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and on behalf of the Society itself, I welcome this Bill. The grey seal is one of the largest and most beautiful of the wild mammals now left in Great Britain, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has for many years past taken an active, and I think an effective interest in protecting the seals, and in seeing that the provisions of the Act for protecting them are duly carried out. I say we support the Bill, but it has been pointed out to me that when the Bill comes into Committee it will require some modification. For instance, in Clause 1, there is a power for the Minister of Agriculture in England and the Secretary of State in Scotland to make orders saying there should be no close season during the twelve months next following the making of the order. That may be quite right, but that order ought not to be made, I suggest to the noble Earl, except after consultation with some Committee of experts which the Minister could appoint. Very probably, without a provision of that sort in the Bill, he would consult some Committee, but I think it would be desirable

275
to have it in the Bill so that that very necessary protection might be duly carried out.
My second point is a smaller one. It is on subsection (2) of Clause 1, where it says that any order made under that clause shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than twenty-eight days during the Session of Parliament. I venture to suggest that that is too short a time, because many of the people who are interested in this matter live in very remote parts of the country—perhaps in the north of Scotland or elsewhere—and twenty-eight days would be really too Short a time to allow for them to get knowledge of the draft order and to take advice as to what alterations, if any, should be made in it. Therefore, when the Bill reaches the Committee stage, I shall suggest to the noble Earl that he should give a little longer time, perhaps forty-eight days or something like that. That would not prejudice the making of the order.
The only other point I want to bring to the attention of the noble Earl is this. I suggest that the Minister should make regulations as to the mode of killing these seals, and especially of the baby seals. During the period when there has been no close season in the past there has been a great deal of cruelty perpetrated by the killing of the grey seals, and more especially of the baby seals. It appears that the baby seals do not normally take to the water under a period of from a month to six weeks. They remain on land. They are absolutely helpless and in many cases—certainly in former times and I believe now—there have been attacks made upon these small seals, and both they and the mother seals, which have been engaged in protecting them, have been clubbed on the head and subjected to great cruelty and suffering. Therefore I suggest to the noble Earl that it would be extremely advisable that he should accept some clause by which the Minister should prescribe some humane mode of killing these seals when they are in excessive numbers. Probably shooting would be best, but that would be a matter for consideration. Subject to that, I would cordially support the Bill, but I hope that the noble Earl will give reasonable time before the Committee
276
stage in order that the Bill may be considered and, if necessary, amended.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have no desire to oppose this Bill, but I confess I should like to hear something more in defence of the proposals contained in it. The noble Earl opposite in charge of the Bill has committed himself to the perfectly astonishing statement that these seals do not eat fish. A seal will not even eat a bun in the Zoo. What else is there for a seal to live on except fish? My impression is that a seal eats an enormous number of fish. We are always being invited to eat more fish, but these seals, every one of them, eat something like 20 lbs. of fish a day. I should have thought that in the interests of the consumer—the consumer being the person in whom noble Lords opposite are more interested than in anybody else—that the sooner animals of this kind were exterminated the better. Personally, I should like to wage war upon seals and porpoises, and all animals that prey upon fish, and I do not think their absence would be regretted in the least, however painful it might be to my noble friend sitting beside me. However, I cordially support the restrictions proposed because they will make killing more certain than it would be in the ordinary way.
LORD DANESFORT: May I tell my noble friend that the grey seal eats dog-fish, which is the most pernicious fish. The common seal, I believe, eats all kinds of fish and probably does not deserve protection, but the animal which eats this pernicious kind of fish, the dog-fish, does deserve protection.
LORD NEWTON: If my noble friend will give me an undertaking that the grey seal will only eat dog-fish, I am quite prepared not to oppose the Bill, but I confess that so far I have not found the arguments very convincing.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can assure the noble Lord that the grey seal certainly eats less fish than the common seal. As to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, the Government will certainly give them consideration.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day read for the House to be put into Committee.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I have to apologise to your Lordships for being in the position of having to ask that the Committee stage of this Bill be postponed until next Tuesday. A technical point has been discovered, and I think it would be better to wait for the Committee stage until this somewhat obscure point has been cleared up.
Committee put off accordingly.

EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONDITIONS IN RUSSIA.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON asked if His Majesty's Government are in possession of any official information bearing upon the statement that certain Soviet exports to this country are produced under a so-called slave State system, and, if so, whether they will consent to its publication. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Question upon the Paper in consequence mainly of a controversy which arose between the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and the noble and learned Lord opposite with regard to the question of Russian dumping. A controversy between these two noble Lords is not in itself a matter of much importance, but, on the other hand, this question of Russian dumping is a matter of enormous importance, although I confess it does not seem to have dawned upon many people. It has, I observe, dawned on Mr. Lloyd George—which is a somewhat surprising event—but it has not dawned apparently, much to my surprise, upon that great economist, Lord Beaverbrook, who is firmly convinced that the one thing that this country desires more than anything else is dear food. Perhaps he and his disciples will awake to the importance of the question one of these days. I have little doubt that before long the Albert Hall and the parks will be crowded with demonstrators
278
against dumping. I have no doubt, either, that the next time the question is raised in this House there will be a more representative attendance.
I do not ask the noble and learned Lord opposite to accept my opinion upon the importance of this question. I candidly admit that I do not profess to be an authority upon economics, but I will refer the noble and learned Lord to an opinion which I am sure he will deeply value—namely, the opinion of the Labour Office of the League of Nations, a body presided over by a very well-known French Socialist, M. Albert Thomas, and a body which is not in the least likely to be influenced by reactionary feelings. I extract the following significant passage from their Report of this year:—
"In spite of difficulties of all kinds, economic or otherwise, which may result from such action, Russia is setting out to isolate herself from, and to Organise herself against, the rest of the world."
In other words, Soviet Russia has declared economic war, not only against this country but against every other European country, and I do not think that anybody who is not absolutely devoid of imagination can conceal from himself the importance of this attitude. Here you have a country of 140,000,000 people, increasing by several millions every year, directed and absolutely controlled by an irresponsible and despotic Government and acting literally as one man, with the object of destroying capitalism and promoting revolution by means of unemployment and so forth in European countries.
In the debate to which I alluded just now I intervened for a few moments and stated that, in pursuance of this policy of what is known as the five-year plan, unemployment had been pronounced to be a crime in Soviet Russia. The noble and learned Lord opposite corrected me and said that there was no unemployment in Russia. It so happens—it does not often happen—that we were both right. In the beginning of the year, in fact as late as June, there were no fewer than 662,000 unemployed in Soviet Russia. I take these figures again from an international source. A little more than a month ago all these unemployed disappeared. They did not disappear by the ordinary process of being absorbed into industry, but they were literally abolished by a stroke of the pen. I think it was on November 8 that the Soviet Government issued a de-

279
cree abolishing all unemployment relief and ordering the drafting of all registered unemployed for compulsory work all over the country. This was followed by a similar decree two days later. This all-important fact was disclosed by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons yesterday, but apparently the Press did not consider it to be worth their notice, and there is nothing about it.
The plain facts are that in the so-called proletarian paradise the unemployed person dues not receive a "dole," as he does here and in other countries, but he is drafted off to work in whatever direction the Government chooses. Those seized upon are both men and women, provided that are able bodied, and they are drafted off to work on farms, in mines or factories, or in forests and timber works of various kinds. My noble friend Lord Ernle, who I am sorry not to see in his place to-day, pointed out with great force last week the effect which this Russian dumping of agricultural products would have upon this country; and here again, utilising my source of information, the Report of the International Labour Office, I may point out that they say with some acidity that the process of collectivism is so vigorous in Soviet Russia that not only has the poorer class of peasant disappeared but, in pursuance of this policy of collectivism, many peasants were executed in the course of last winter.
The noble and learned Lord opposite will probably contend that no great harm accrues to us by reason of this collectivist system of farming. It is quite possible that he will think it a very good thing for us because, although the Russians themselves may starve, we shall be able to get our food cheaper, although a vast number of persons may be ruined in consequence. I expect that, if he entertains these views, he will be warmly supported by his colleagues, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will probably add that dumping has at least one very great merit, because it helps to facilitate and increase our export trade with Russia. Our export trade, in fact all our trade, with Russia appears to me to be a very one-sided business. So far as I am able to judge—as I said before, I do not profess to be an economist—the case seems to be that we lend
280
money to the Russians in order to pay for a few articles from us, including armaments which are probably intended to be used some day against us, and they on their side dump here an enormous amount of stuff which we do not require, and which does us harm because it throws a vast number of our people out of employment.
I am not going to detain the House long, but I would pass for a moment to what is known as industrial dumping. I really use the term "dumping" with a certain amount of diffidence, because the noble and learned Lord opposite is of so amiable a disposition that he cannot see anything wrong about anybody or any institution. It is quite plain to me that in his heart he has what I will venture almost to describe as a profound affection for dumping. He is thoroughly sympathetic with the practice, as will be judged from the speech that he delivered on the subject last week. The noble and learned Lord said:—
"But unless you can find unfair conditions, I am bound to admit that I think the word 'dumping' is a mere term of prejudice. Of course, if there are unfair conditions it is different, but when the noble Viscount talks about unfair conditions, we want the conditions very carefully ascertained and very carefully stated in order not to make any error in a matter of that kind."
I could not have found any words that suited my purpose more admirably. That is the exact reason why I am making my request to him this afternoon.
It is not disputed that there is conscription of labour in Russia. Conscription of wealth came first, but conscription of labour, perhaps to the surprise of the Soviet citizen, has now succeeded it. It is not denied that the products of what has been described as the slave system are now dumped all over Europe, with the double purpose of ruining capitalism and bringing about political trouble. The Socialist Party may perhaps argue that this is a justifiable course, but what they cannot possibly defend is the employment of a so-called slave system, if it really exists. Sweated goods have always been a supreme abomination to the Labour Party, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, has gone so far as to say that products of this kind ought not to be dealt with by taxation, but by actual prohibition. According to the numerous statements that I have seen

281
in the Press, which I am not going to quote, this conscript labour is carried on, apparently, under almost intolerable conditions. The conscript labourers, according to an eminent Labour authority, Mr. Bevin, do not even receive pay. They only receive very inadequate clothing and food. They work for preposterously long hours, they are given very little to eat, and finally, are treated with extreme brutality; and when I use these expressions have in mind principally the accounts received from merchant seamen, and others, who have been engaged in the timber trade in North Russian ports. So far as one can judge, the position of these unfortunate men and women—I am speaking of those employed in the timber trade—is exactly the same as that of many of those unfortunate prisoners during the late War whose fate excited the commiseration of everybody. Yet in spite of these conditions, more or less substantiated, no protest has been made on the part of any responsible body. Certainly the League of Nations have not moved in the matter, although eventually they may be stirred up to do so.
I have risen to ask whether these statements are true or not. If they are not true, then all these charges of slave labour and so forth fall to the ground, and there is nothing more to be said. If, as is represented by some visitors who have been to Russia, the fact is that everybody employed in various labour is doing it in a spirit of generous emulation—every man trying to produce more than another for the benefit of the State, in the spirit in which people engaged in a football tie here—nothing more is to be said. If, however, the allegations which I have mentioned are true, then I do not see how the Labour Party can possibly resist exercising prohibition. There is only one method that I can see by which this question can be settled, and that is by means of an official Report. There has been no Report whatever published in this country on labour conditions in Russia since Lord Curzon was at the Foreign Office in 1921, and I am perfectly confident myself that Reports of this kind exist. They either exist in the Foreign Office or in the Board of Trade, or in the Overseas Department, or somewhere.
I shall probably be told—I am quite prepared to be told—that to produce any
282
Report of this character might be embarrassing to a friendly Government. To my mind the great mistake all through this business has been to pretend that Russia is a friendly country. So far from being a friendly country Russia is a distinctly hostile country, and grows more hostile. You may search Russian newspapers and official communications, and I defy anybody to find one word of friendliness towards this country. Russia is in reality a bitter enemy of this country, and I cannot believe that the issue of any Report of the kind for which I am asking could make our relations with Russia any worse than they are at the present moment. When I say that, I am quite sure that noble Lords opposite detest the Soviet Government just as much as I do. We were told, when they decided to resume relations with Russia, that one of the great advantages would be that we should be able to obtain reliable information with regard to Soviet Russia, but ever since the surreptitious meeting in some pot-house near Brighton between the Foreign Secretary and the Soviet representative, the Foreign Secretary has maintained an air of mystery and of reticence which would better become a Metternich or a Talleyrand than a representative of democracy. It is time that we got rid of this secrecy and were told what is going on. In conclusion, I ask the noble Lord opposite to cast his mind back and to reflect for a moment upon the impassioned oratory of former years relating to the iniquity of secret diplomacy. If he does so, he will find it difficult to refuse the very reasonable and moderate request which I am making.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I do not pretend to have any special knowledge of this subject more than is available to any reader of the newspapers, but I think we must realise that the Government is skating over very thin ice. The following is, I think, a very accurate picture of popular impressions. During the War the old Imperial Government of Russia perished of inefficiency, and the only organised body of people capable of taking their place were a set of conspirators who by means of a ruthless reign of terror acquired the control of the destinies of the whole Russian nation. We need not trouble ourselves with what they said, but having

283
destroyed all means of production they were unable to avoid plunging their country into a state of almost indescribable misery. Being unable to find anything else to do and being in control of overwhelming physical force, it occurred to them, as it has occurred to many embarrassed revolutionaries before them, that the best thing to do to put off the day of reckoning for themselves, and to distract attention from their own failures, was to involve other people in the destruction which they had brought about in their own country.
In these circumstances it was obviously desirable to obtain complete control of the man-power of Russia. What more natural than to turn Russia into a slave State? This appears to be what has happened. The impression may be a wrong one, but there is a great deal in support of it, and so far as I know no serious attempt has ever been made to disprove it. If it is accurate the position of His Majesty's Government is one of the greatest embarrassment. Obviously they depend enormously upon the support of those elements in this country who are in the strongest sympathy with the clique which now controls Russia, and who are indeed in open and avowed communication and alliance with that clique. His Majesty's Government defer to these people on all occasions. They introduce measures which are obviously calculated to undermine the strength of this country. At their bidding they proclaim loudly that black is white and that two and two are five if enough people vote in this sense. At their bidding they promise their deluded supporters a new heaven and a new earth, where no one need do any more work than the electorate sees fit to decree, and all trouble shall be transferred to the shoulders of that unpatriotic section of the people who have dared to exercise thrift.
And all the time the people at whose bidding they do these things are the people who are responsible for the reintroduction of slavery in Russia. No wonder that the Government refuse to answer questions upon Russia. No wonder they are shy of the subject of slavery. No wonder they refuse to tell the truth, which is that men who willingly live upon the "dole" are in character already slaves, and in fact more than half way to slavery. This,
284
I say again, is the impression that has been created. It may be a wrong impression. I hope His Majesty's Government will tell us all about it, but I am terribly afraid that they dare not. Mum's the word!
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, it is perfectly well known that conscripted labour is being used at this moment in Russia. I should like to give your Lordships one instance of the result of conscript labour in Russia with regard to our own trade. This comes from the British Empire Producers' Organisation Canning Committee and relates to British Columbia. In 1910 this country imported 10,000 cases of tinned salmon from Russia. In 1929–30 over 1,000,000 cases were imported from Russia, which has practically brought the British Columbia salmon industry down to nothing at all. They are exporting hardly anything this year. The manager of one of the biggest firms in British Columbia told the representative of this organisation that the Russian agents were ordered to undersell as far as they possibly could. Of course, this does not affect this country at present very much. It affects more the primary producer in Canada. It should be realised that the time will come when it will affect this country, because all the money that is being collected from this dumping is used to finance the five-year plan, which aims at setting up factories to export £175,000,000 worth of manufactured goods. The fact of this conscript labour in Russia is perfectly well known. Throughout the world measures have been taken to stop it. In practically every country in the world these measures have been taken. In Rumania and Yugo-Slavia and Hungary they have absolutely prohibited the import of all Russian goods. In France and other countries in Europe, except Finland, they have committees sitting which will not allow any Russian goods to enter without a licence. In America it is the same. We are the only country which has this laisser faire policy, and one simply cannot understand it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Newton has asked for an official Report. May I add to that a request that if, in reply to that application to His Majesty's representatives, the Govern-

285
ment are informed that there are limitations which prevent these facts and figures being obtained, those limitations are also reported upon? May I also ask the noble and learned Lord to ascertain the number of convicts and administratively deported persons in the Soviet Union at the present moment, and whether or not it is the fact that under Tsarism there were approximately 500,000 convicts or administratively deported persons, whereas at the present time the number is something well over 5,000,000. Because I am afraid that we may be told that there is no slavery in Russia, but that there is convict labour. When you have 5,000,000 convicts, even in a population of 140,000,000, you have a largish labour corps to draw upon. I hope we may have that additional information.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I should like at the outset to repudiate the notion, brought forward I think by Lord Monkswell, that we have any desire not to give all the information we can about Russian labour conditions and Russian trade, or that we have ever acted in a way to suggest that we have such a desire. The noble Lord said that he had not studied the question, and I am sure he cannot have studied either the answers which have been given both here and elsewhere, or the discussions which have taken place at Geneva, or the information that is already known about conditions in Russia. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, I am not aware at present whether we can give any more information on the points to which he referred, but I do not want to suggest that I will not make further inquiries as to the particular points which he mentioned.
In the debate the other afternoon I was asked both by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to approach the Departments concerned in order to see whether further information could not be given and certain documents laid on the Table giving the information for which they asked. I at once communicated with the Departments, and this enables me to start by answering the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has raised specifically. There has been, of course, diplomatic correspondence between this country and Russia. Lord Newton would
286
admit, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, frankly admitted the other day, that diplomatic correspondence of that kind cannot be made public. It is not a question of this particular instance: you would imperil the whole basis of diplomatic relationships if correspondence of a diplomatic character were not preserved against publicity. You might at once destroy the whole advantage and merit of the position of a particular representative in a foreign country. But, more than that, I state quite positively that on no occasion has it ever been suggested that a diplomatic correspondence of that kind should be made public, because to do so would be against the public interest.
The second point raised by the noble Lord was whether, apart from diplomatic correspondence, there have been any questions asked or answered as between our Government and the Government of Soviet Russia. The reply to that is that there are no such communications. All the communications which have passed between us have passed through diplomatic channels, and therefore there is no Paper under that head which we can lay upon the Table, because no such Paper exists. The last point on which I should like to answer him before I come to other matters is this. No doubt we have, I should think in a form which could not be obtained elsewhere, a large number of documents referring to all that the Soviet Government have done either by legislation or ordinance upon this labour question. Those documents in many respects are complex and difficult. They are documents which might lead to one interpretation or another; I shall state presently what our interpretation has been. And it would be far better that all the documents so far as they have been collected should be published in a White Paper and laid on the Table of your Lordships' House; that is to say, published as a Parliamentary document.
Judging from what I have seen—I cannot go beyond that—I think that both sides of the case, both the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the very different suggestions that I have made, can be fairly judged when the documents themselves are published in a form in which we can study them and endeavour to ascertain what they really mean. That the Government are

287
prepared to do. I am told that I must utter one word of caution about that. It will take some time to collect these documents so as to make a complete collection in order that they may be published in as complete a form as possible. The process will commence at once, but I cannot promise that it will not take some time before the actual documents are published.
Having said that, let me deal with the other matters to which the noble Lord referred. He rather sought, I think, to re-open matters which we discussed the other day in this House. I do not wish to re-open those matters because it would be necessary to discuss them at very considerable length. The first objection I take to what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said is as to the form of his question on the Paper. He talks about "a so-called slave State system." What does he mean by slave State system? I think if one thing is more certain than another in the matters we are discussing it is that "a slave State system" cannot be applied to Soviet Russia and is in no sense whatever applicable to Soviet Russia. When I say that I am not putting out of sight what I shall refer to later—what is called forced labour. Forced labour is a very different thing from a state of slavery.
Loan NEWTON: It is worse I should think.
LORD PARMOOR: I wonder at the laughter of noble Lords because I am perfectly certain that no one who has studied this question will deny the statement I am making when I say that the question of forced labour has been considered by the International Labour Office; whereas the question of slavery has always been considered by the political side of the League. I think there is no doubt whatever that the statement I am making is absolutely true. I regret that matters of this kind should be laughed at in your Lordships' House, whether you agree with them or not. I should have thought it was the prerogative of this House to discuss matters of this kind in a most serious sense and with every attention. Slavery suggests a status, and a slave system suggests a system in which the slave population are in the nature of property or chattels belonging to their master. That is the
288
way in which the word "slavery" was used in his great decision by Lord Mansfield, who said that it meant treating a human being as a chattel, and that it was inconsistent with all ideas of morality or religion. Therefore, he negatived the suggestion that the slave who had escaped into this country could ever, under our principle of habeas corpus, be restored to his master.
But may I quote the last definition on this matter? I think it is perfectly accurate and I hope that those of your Lordships who have not studied the question will consider these words. It was in the Slavery Convention of 1927, which was before we were in power, but that makes no difference. There is not the slightest possibility of difference or misunderstanding between the two political Parties under this head if they realise what words really mean. This is the definition of slavery which they took: Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom all or any of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised. That is a perfectly complete and perfectly simple definition. Surely, when we are dealing with a matter of this kind, when we do not want to import mere prejudice, we may have regard in using words to their real, technical, legal and general signification.
That is rather important here for this reason. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, very properly no doubt—I do not want to refer to it at any length though I have a note about it—referred to a Report of 1921. That was the Report (I think we are referring to the same matter) of a Committee of which Lord Emmott was Chairman and which was appointed by Lord Curzon. As regards the matters which we are now discussing—I am not going back into it—that Report stated that on the evidence before them the Committee could not come to any certain conclusion. But there were two matters upon which they did come to a conclusion. They never used the word "slavery" at all, but they came to a conclusion on two matters even at that date which are absolutely and wholly inconsistent with the idea of slavery. One was that it was utterly illegal to have compulsory unpaid labour. It has never been questioned that I know of, that that

289
has not been always so. Of course, it is utterly inconsistent with the whole notion of slavery. The second was that all labour which was employed was to be paid and must be paid, and the suggestion was made—I admit it is a difficult one economically—that payment should be made as far as possible in relation to the productivity of the labourer's work. Those are two organic laws of the Soviet Government at the present time.
I ask, in the sense of fairness of one country considering the social conditions of another, whether in those circumstances the system of slavery is possibly applicable to conditions in Soviet Russia? That was in 1921. And that, of course, was the time when the Soviet Government were in immense difficulties. No one can imagine really, I think, the terrible conditions in Russia at the end of the War and the starvation which subsequently took place in the Saratov district, with which I happen to be somewhat closely connected. No one can imagine the extraordinary state of disorganisation and poverty without really feeling admiration for the extent to which order and some proportion at any rate of food were introduced in a comparatively short time.
The next matter in history which I think the noble Lord referred to and to which I should also like to refer, was the statement made the other day by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place. I quote the passage because it is no good going over these matters again and again. I am only giving your Lordships the best information which we, as a Government, could obtain and which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the House of Commons a very short time ago; I think only a week ago. These Articles have to be considered, I admit, in much greater detail. Speaking from the legal point of view that is most certainly so. I can only give a brief summary. I am quite willing that all the Articles themselves should be published in a White Paper in full. I think it would be of the greatest advantage that these matters should not be left in the realm of prejudice, but should, if possible, be within the realm of fact. The Foreign Secretary said:—
290
"Article 9 of the Constitution of Soviet Russia imposes the duty of labour on all its citizens, but compulsory unpaid labour of whatever nature is illegal."
There is an end to the slavery question.
"Forced labour may be imposed by judicial and administrative organs as a punishment for crime or misdemeanour,"—
we do the same here—
"and, in addition, labour may be mobilised for special national emergencies (e.g., earthquakes, floods, etc.)."
He next referred to the timber industry. This is a specially important matter and I want to deal with it. In regard to this the Foreign Secretary said:—
"As regards the timber industry, provincial communities are empowered by a decree of the 13th February last to employ compulsory labour at special rates of pay where the fulfilment of a production programme calls for such action."
I am not going to defend that scheme so promulgated, but reading, as I have, Article 9, it wholly negatives the idea of slavery. It states what is the principle of the whole of Russian labour legislation—that labour is to be fairly paid, except in special conditions and as a punishment or penalty such as we might have in our own country. Then the Article gives the special regulation as regards timber. I think that that regulation covers a great deal of the ground to which attention has been called. But, apart from timber, take the case of wheat. I do not want to go into what we discussed the other day, nor is it necessary to do so, but the information that I have is that labour is popular on the State and collective farms on which these great areas of wheat are being grown, and for two reasons. This labour on the whole is better paid than labour in the towns, and, further, owing to the aggregations of labour, you can have inter-communication in games and other ways. That is something which is very popular in a country like Russia, where there is so much isolation.
While I am dealing with that, may I give another figure which has been supplied to me, and it is this. If you compare the conditions as regards the standard of life in Russia now with what they were in old times you get this result, that they are sixty seven per cent. higher. That does not mean that the conditions are satisfactory. It is almost impossible that they should be so with

291
things as they now exist in Russia, but it shows that a really great effort has been made, whether we agree with the basis of it or not, and that there has been a real advance in the social condition and prospects of at any rate a very large number of the 130,000,000 or 140,000,000 to whom the noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Can the noble and learned Lord say what the rates of pay are?
LORD PARMOOR: I have not got the figures, or I would give them.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Will the noble Lord admit that they are sweated rates of labour?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not know exactly what you mean by "sweated labour." Sweated labour is labour judged in reference to some standard.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Well, with regard to the ordinary standards obtaining in Europe?
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps I might answer that. I do not want to be misunderstood about these matters, and it is not easy to avoid being misunderstood. Protests are made against imports into this country on the ground that it is dumping because the products are said to have been made by sweated labour. That is quite untrue. What I should mean by "sweated labour" is this, that if we had certain international standards of living which must be complied with wherever commodities are produced, then, in my opinion, to produce commodities under worse conditions than those which have been internationally agreed upon would make them into "sweated labour" goods, but you cannot compare the labour in one country with the labour in another. It is said that labour in England is three or four times—I think those were Mr. Bennett's figures—less well paid than labour in Canada. You have to consider all the conditions, the price of food, which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, is so anxious sometimes to refer me to, and matters of that kind. But I do not go into those questions. I believe that in this country the conditions of labour compare favourably with those in any other country when properly ascertained and considered, and I
292
am, in favour of pressing forward International Conventions under which other countries would have to maintain the same level, having regard to the conditions of each particular country, and then the export of goods produced under conditions of labour of a worse kind would be regarded as dumping under unfair conditions.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: May I ask the noble Lord, will he state whether labour in Russia is sweated or does he not consider it to be sweated?
LORD PARMOOR: That is exactly the question. What basis are you going to take? I cannot profess to have been all over Russia, but I do know Russia pretty well in some ways, and, as far as I know, the conditions in Russia now compare most favourably with what they were some years ago. That there is no sweated labour I am sure I cannot say, nor do I think the noble Lord can, but what I do say is that so far as the Russian Government are concerned they do what they can to raise the standard of labour, and they make it a condition not only that there should be no employment without payment, but that the payment when given should be in relation to the productivity of the labour employed. I do not think I can go farther than that. It is all very well to use these terms, but they do not really mean much unless you know what the standard of comparison is. Let me go a little further, if I may, because I have some accounts of how labour is dealt with in Russia. Here, again, let me enter this caveat. I want all these documents to be before your Lordships, but all I can do at the present time is to give a summary which has been carefully supervised by other minds than my own.
A general review of the nature of the labour conditions in Russia would be incomplete without some consideration being given to the classes of the community who may be regarded as occupying a special position in these matters and to special legislation which may, to some extent, affect the general position. There are three classes of persons occupying positions in this respect. This is going as far as I can to-day. Why it should be thought that I do not desire to give all the information we can I do not know. That suggestion is quite untrue. I think

293
I shall have to go back to one other passage before that. There are five sub-divisions which I ought to refer to. There are five such categories. There is labour for hire, forced labour, mobilised labour, labour in places of incarceration and public labour. Now what are those classes and how are they dealt with? Labour for hire is on a purely voluntary basis between the two parties and is in accordance with existing rates of pay and insurance regulations. Payment is made in money and, where necessary, in kind also, but payment in kind must be in addition to money payments. That is to say, you may not have the truck system, which we have abolished here.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Can the noble Lord give any rates of pay as a specific example.
LORD PARMOOR: Really I am giving all the information I can. It has been very carefully obtained. Unpaid work is prohibited. I find I can give a figure which has been asked for by the noble Lord. It has just been given to me, but I must consider it. Forced labour is imposed by judicial and administrative organs as a punishment for crime or misdemeanour. It is carried out at the place of work of the condemned person for a period of from two weeks to one year. Payment—this is even for labour as a criminal punishment—must be made at the State minimum rate (ten roubles per month), or at a percentage fixed in accordance with local conditions, or at a special percentage to be decided on by the Court, being not less than the State minimum. I think that perhaps answers the question.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Would the noble and learned Lord tell us what he is reading?
LORD PARMOOR: I am reading a document.
LORD CUSHENDUN: I know that.
LORD PARMOOR: It has been prepared for me and I helped to prepare it in order to show what the conditions of labour are as far as we have been able to ascertain them in Russia at the present time.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would the noble and learned Lord say what the value of the rouble is? What is the exchange rate at present?
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to finish my argument. I do not mind cross-examination—though I prefer to administer it rather than to be the subject of it—but it really interrupts the whole argument if every second some noble Lord jumps up. Mobilised labour is used only in special emergencies, such as earth quakes, floods, etc. That is what I referred to generally before. In that case, the population is mobilised and is paid a daily wage at a rate decreed for the occasion. Fortunately, they do not have these special matters every day even in Russia. As regards labour in places of incarceration—that is what we call prison labour—those condemned to solitary confinement carry on the work either of their profession or, if that is not practicable, some work available at the place of detention provided that this work is in accordance with the education and the moral and physical condition of the prisoner. As a rule, the wages paid to the prisoner are at a rate specially fixed, somewhat lower than the rate for other citizens. A part of the money goes towards the keep of the prisoner and the balance is put to his account and is paid to him on release. I should have thought myself, I must say, that that is an admirable system.
Is it not right—you want to maintain the level as far as possible of a man in prison—that lie should be given work he is capable of doing and be paid a substantial rate of payment, and that when he comes out the surplus should be at his command to start life afresh? I should have thought that was an admirable and humane system. As regard, public labour, that is purely voluntary and is based exclusively on the good will of the workers. In most cases it is word of a cultural and educational nature and is unpaid. I think under those various heads I have explained what was put in much shorter terms by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Henderson, when he gave an answer some time ago in the House of Commons. I do not think that you would stand all the information I have got, in spite of the apparent desire for more, and I must

295
pass on to a later stage of the information which I managed to acquire in order that I might tell you all that I could.
There is one other matter I want to speak about, and that is the question of what is called prison-made goods. Your Lordships know that under the Statute—I think of 1895—prison-made goods cannot be imported into this country, and the system is that the Customs officers should be made acquainted with the charge and that then they should make such inquiry as they can. This matter was raised in another place, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an answer. He said he had not had any complaints to be brought before the Customs officials and, therefore, up to date there could have been no inquiry because no basis for inquiry had ever been suggested. If you ask me for my opinion for what it is worth, I think that to allow prison-made goods to be imported so as to compete with free made goods would be to permit unfair competition, and in a case of that kind I for one would rejoice in prohibition.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Would the noble and learned Lord extend that to goods produced by prison labour outside the prison?
LORD PARMOOR: I am not sure whether that would be so. You must look at the Act of 1895. Personally, I think that will have to be dealt with at present under the terms of that Act. If the Act is not sufficiently comprehensive, or is considered on inquiry not to be sufficiently comprehensive, that is another matter, but at the present time it must depend upon the terms of the Act and the action taken after inquiry by the officials.
I think I have answered as well and as fairly as I can, and certainly with no other desire than to give such explanations as I could, the Question asked by the noble Lord, and also one or two inquiries that he made in the course of his speech and which did not appear on the Paper. I make no complaint of that fact. The noble Lord is as well aware as I am of what can be disclosed in response to inquiries of this kind and what Papers can be laid upon the Table. I hope that he will feel that, if he gets the information which the Departments concerned are prepared to supply, he
296
will be sufficiently informed to form a just judgment on the matters to which he has referred. Nothing can be worse than to live under conditions of doubt and suspicion. Nothing can be worse, in my view, than that the intercourse between countries like Russia and England should be spoilt by being based on suspicion instead of on friendship and industrial amity. That is a matter into which I do not want to go further at the present time. We will give all the information we can in any connection, and we hope that by that information these suspicions may be lessened and we may spend our time more profitably than in merely criticising another country without sufficient information upon which to found our criticism.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I desire to raise one point in connection with this subject which will, perhaps, give an opportunity for debating it at a slightly different angle. Naturally I am not going into the difference between slave status and forced labour conditions. I do not think the country as a whole is interested in the distinction between the two. What they want to know is whether goods that are being sent from Russia to England are produced under anything like similar conditions to those that are enjoyed under the regulations of this country. If His Majesty's Government think that it would be unfriendly to ask for an inquiry into labour conditions under the Soviet Government, I should like to know if they could ask for an inquiry into the reason why the Soviet rule is so efficient that it is able to produce timber at a far lower cost than anybody else, although we are told that the conditions of labour are so much better than they were under the Imperial rule; and also as to how they are able to produce wheat at a lower cost than any other country in the world, with this great increase in the labour bill: and, finally, how they are able now to compete with the thoroughly organised canned salmon industry which is of such long standing in Canada. If there is such efficiency, surely the Russians would be only too delighted for us to see how they achieved it, So that we may adopt their system of government.
Let me take the example of timber. The Russian Government are now able

297
to compete with, and indeed absolutely to knock out, the pit prop product at Cardiff which used to be sent from the North. In the Landes, as you know, this is an industry which has been going on for many decades. The pit prop which is sent from there is simply a surplus product. The resin has been extracted and all the value taken from it, and it is sent as a return cargo in vessels which go out with coal. Yet the same labour bill has to be paid there, and the Landes can now barely compete and in many cases those who run the industry have been knocked out by the activities in Russia. Surely all this gives us ground to imagine that there must be either some astounding efficiency or a curious absence of labour payment, or at any rate some method of payment which allows unfair competition. Surely we might have smile inquiry as to how Soviet Russia is so efficient that it is able to compete in timber. The same thing is true in regard to wheat. Apparently they are able to dump wheat into various countries of Europe at a much lower price than is possible for the well-organised, well-tilled and easily marketed crops of Canada. I know Russian land and I know Canadian land. I know what the organisation has been in both. I can hardly imagine that any reasonable labour wages could be paid so as to make it possible for Russia to compete with Canada.
There is one rather anxious fact which has been dealt with by the noble Lord. He mentioned five classes of labour. I note that only one of those classes is both voluntary and paid. It would be very interesting to know what proportions of employees are in the various categories. There is forced labour, which gets the payment. of 10 roubles a month as the minimum. Any one who has travelled recently in Russia knows what the value of the rouble is. Ten roubles a month represents very much less than is paid to any native in any part of His Majesty's Dominions. Then the noble and learned Lord referred to mobilised labour, which may be used for dealing with earthquakes and so on. He talks about prison labour, but he is most careful to abstain from giving us any precise figures in that connection. With regard to the public labour, it will be noted that it is unpaid. If there is any truth in the reports that we have from
298
Russia, a certain amount of political pressure is sometimes introduced to make people do things out of public spirit which they would not do if they did not have a very efficient Government.
Let me return for one moment to timber. That is a matter with which I had very much to do in the last twelve years, and naturally I have a great many acquaintances who are actually engaged in the trade. I do not say that I have been out there, but I base my remarks upon information received, not from casual sailors, who may tell sailors' yarns, but from men who took part in the War and in whose veracity I believe. I gather that the conditions which exist, both at the sawmills in the White Sea and at the loading stations, are inhuman. Unless the Soviet Government can show, either that they have astonishing efficiency or that they are able by some method of their own to produce timber, wheat and salmon at a cheaper rate than other nations, we have at least grave ground for suspicion that it is done at the cost of the labour which, after all, accounts for a very high proportion of the cost of production of all those articles.
This question of dumping into this country, which was debated last night, is really a very vital thing for the country at large. A dumped market has no bottom. The mere fact that great cargoes are on the way to this country, of wheat and timber which can be produced at a cost with which no other country can compete makes it impossible in this country to go forward with agricultural production with any confidence at all. May I remind the Government that hard things will be said about them in the near future, because the largest buyers of Russian wheat at these knockout prices are their own friends and supporters in the co-operative associations. Have they put down the price of bread? Is it right that they should be making a profit out of the labour conditions which exist in Russia and not pass it on here to their customers, who also support the Government? They are making a hidden profit, to which I suggest they have no right. I think that we ought to press for an inquiry into the labour conditions in Russia. It is quite immaterial whether it is called slave labour or forced labour. What we want to know is whether the conditions

299
there are similar to those which we have here. If not, are we right to allow these materials to come in and force people out of employment and off the land, and add to the enormous roll of unemployed?
LORD CUSHENDUN: My Lords, I am bound to confess that seldom, it ever, have I had to listen to a Ministerial reply, either in this or the other Rouse, winch seemed to me so deplorably unsatisfactory as that delivered by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The first question I have to ask is how does the noble Lord know what he has told us? Where has he got his information from? He told us quite truly that diplomatic correspondence cannot be published. With that I agree, but I go further and I say, in this particular case, that even if we had the diplomatic correspondence it would be of very little value, because one of the false points made by His Majesty's Government when they resumed diplomatic relations with Russia was the utterly false idea that by doing so they would be able to command larger and more accurate information of Russia itself. That is entirely untrue. I do not believe that any diplomatic correspondence that comes to us from our representative in Russia would have the slightest value at the present time.
I have said that the noble and learned Lord's reply to my mind was deplorably unsatisfactory, but there was something almost pathetic, I think, in the laborious way in which he tried, in very difficult circumstances, to make out some colourable case against the suggestion of my noble friend behind me. He took great trouble to give us definitions which are not of the smallest account or of the slightest value. He took considerable time and trouble to define slave labour. He said that slavery implied that the slave was a chattel. To begin with, I entirely deny that that is so, because there have been lots of instances of slavery in the world, and some exist now, where that has not been true; but in Russia it is true, and every labourer in Russia at this moment is a chattel. He is not the chattel of an individual. That is the only difference. All property in Russia is the property, not of individuals but of the State, and every labourer is the chattel of the State. He is at the beck and call of the State. He is shot by the State if he does not obey its
300
orders, and large numbers of them have been shot within the last few months, and I believe within the last few weeks, because they demurred to obeying their orders or offended in some way against the decrees of the oligarchy which rules Russia.
I believe in many cases the only offence these wretched people were guilty of was being hungry, or something of that sort. I saw not long ago that there was a decree making it illegal to go into a food queue, and I believe many people have been shot because they were hungry and had the impudence to say so, or to show that they were. Therefore, nothing which the noble and learned Lord has said is likely to convince this House that you have anything in Russia except slave labour. The noble Lord tried to draw a distinction between slave labour and forced labour. There may be a distinction, but it is not an interesting one. It does not matter in the least to any of us whether the wretched labourer is a slave or whether he is a forced labourer. The noble Lord read us, or summarised, an elaborate document referring to the payments said to be given to labourers in Russia. I ventured to interrupt him, and to ask him what that document was. He was rather annoyed with me for doing so.
LORD PARMOOR: Oh no.
LORD CUSHENDUN: I thought he was. At any rate he did not give me an answer. All he told us was that it was a document, which I knew already. It was a document which had been put into his hands, but where and by whom he did not say, and I go so far as to say—the noble and learned Lord, I am sure, perfectly honestly used that information and endeavoured to give us correct information—that I do not believe a word of it. I do not believe that document has any substance whatever. Of course one may have to revise that opinion if, and when, the noble and learned Lord condescends to tell us where the document comes from.
LORD PARMOOR: I did tell you.
LORD CUSHENDUN: Who wrote it, and what is its significance in the eyes of His Majesty's Government? So far it is merely an anonymous document, which has been read out, making certain allegations to which I do not think your

301
Lordships are likely to pay any attention, with regard to payments to labour in Russia. I do not believe from all I have seen, and I have read a great deal about it, there is any honest and real payment to labour in Russia. There may be certain colourable conditions, and no doubt the Soviet Government are quite astute enough to put forward decrees and laws and so on, which the noble and learned Lord can come and read to us here, telling us how many roubles an hour are paid to Russian labour. But that is all humbug. We do not believe that in the least.
My difficulty in discussing this matter at all is that I do not think that it is primarily an economic question. It is a moral question, and I do not care what benefits we might be going to derive from the dumping of these Russian goods—I believe that the underlying morality of the whole case is such that no decent nation ought to submit to it. That is my own belief. But, beyond that, the fact is that at the present moment there is no honest production in Russia at all. Large quantities of grain are being produced, though not nearly enough to keep the Russian people themselves from starvation. And how? It is being produced in the main by the forcible confiscation of the property of the kulaks, the shooting of large numbers of them and the forcible distribution of that grain under a system of forced and communal labour for the sake of putting something on the balance sheet of the five-year plan. But that dumping of grain which is going on is not merely a great disadvantage to us. It is not merely an economic fact which we have a right to resent and to resist. It is far more than that: it is an immoral and dishonest production of their own stuff because they have no right under any system of right and wrong to export Own grain either to this country or anywhere else.
It is the same thing with regard to their industry. Under the five-year plan, they are by the system of forced labour trying to produce credits, trying to produce a balance of trade by exporting timber and other things. There again it is all hopelessly dishonest ab initio. They have imported for some of their industries a considerable number of foreign experts and engineers. They have
302
shot a good many of those foreign experts and engineers. It is very easy for them to trump up a story of some counter-revolutionary plot which these Germans or Latvians—I do not know whether there are any English among them—have been guilty of; and numbers of them have been assassinated by the Russian Government. With regard to a great many other properties, we have recently had the revelations about the Lena Goldfields. In the same way, property which does not belong to the Russian Government under any circumstances has been hopelessly confiscated. It is not merely a question of legislation nationalising property. That is not the case. In this particular case the Russian Government actually consented to a system of arbitration in the arrangements they made with the Lena Goldfields, and then, when it came to a question of a dispute between them, they repudiated their own signature. Therefore wherever we turn, whether we turn to the oilfields of Baku or the grain of the Ukraine or to the coal of the Donetz Basin, you find that for their own purposes the Soviet Government are, by immoral and dishonest means, trying to produce something to export in order to get credits from us, or return imports into Russia; and with all that aspect of the question, the noble and learned Lord does not attempt to deal in any way.
LORD PARMOOR.: I do not believe in a word of it.
LORD CUSHENDUN: He spent the whole of his time in trying to work out some futile little definitions and distinctions between slave labour and forced labour. I do not think that my noble friend will get any Papers that will be of any value. I do not believe there are any Papers of any value. I do not know what the noble and learned Lord meant by a whole volume of Papers which he hoped to see published in a White Paper, but he did not tell us what they were or anything about them. I am very sceptical of their value, but I think my noble friend has done a very good piece of work this afternoon in bringing the matter before your Lordships' House.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I think the debate this afternoon has been a most striking example

303
of the prejudice which is introduced into this subject whenever the Soviet Government is mentioned. The noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has attacked my noble friend the Lord President for a speech which he delivered under considerable difficulty, being constantly interrupted and prevented from continuing his argument. Not content with that, the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, has further attacked him in language which quite reminds me of old days when the noble Lord's sphere was in another place. He taunted the Lord President for holding in his hand some mysterious document. We at this box always have to hold in our hands documents from which we make our speeches in order that we may show the necessary courtesy to noble Lords in giving them the fullest information we can. That document was nothing more than what the noble and learned Lord himself had drawn up with the assistance of officials from the Foreign Office in order to give your Lordships full information. Why should there be anything irregular in that? It was merely an attempt on this subject to attack the Lord President, whose good nature is proverbial in this House, and to introduce bad blood in this dispute.
The noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, will not believe anybody on any point connected with this question of the Soviet Government. He will not believe our Ambassador, he will not believe any statements made by the Lord President. He says that his correspondence is of no value. In those circumstances it seems almost useless for us to attempt to reply to questions that are put down on the Paper.
LORD CUSHENDUN: The noble Lord is quite in error when he says I would not believe the Ambassador. I never said anything of the sort.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I took down the noble Lord's words: "No correspondence is of any value." Well, that is correspondence of our Ambassador, who sends us reports. And I hope our Ambassador notes the way that a former occupant of the Foreign Office treats his Despatches. Then, having said that in regard to information which has been very carefully collected so as to give the noble
304
Lord, Lord Newton, full information, this is the kind of statement he expects us to believe—I took this down—" I believe a good many people have been shot because they said they were hungry." That is the sort of information we get from the noble Lord. That is the sort of prejudice he introduces into the debate and the attack he has brought against the Soviet Government. I have no objection to people attacking the Soviet Government. But the noble Lord has sufficient knowledge about diplomacy to know that a Government that is in official friendly relations with us may be very much estranged by, and must necessarily take into account, statements made in your Lordships' House by responsible ex-Ministers.
Lord Cushendun said that this was not an economic matter. I agree with him. The whole matter has been brought forward, not because your Lordships are concerned with dumping, but because this is a fresh opportunity of attack against the Soviet Government. That is really what is at the basis of the whole debate. It comes up constantly both in your Lordships' House and in another place. Concern is pretended because of the conditions under which products in Russia are manufactured and produced—wheat, timber and other things. Is it suggested that we should send for reports into the labour conditions in the countries of the world? Are your Lordships perfectly satisfied that the dried fruits from the Levant, the products from Poland, the products from Spain and the products from South America are all imported into this country and exported from those countries under conditions which we in Great Britain would regard as perfectly satisfactory? Of course not. When by an international decree we lay down general conditions by which all labour shall be regulated in whatever country in the world, then it will be time for us to say that this or that country is in default and we shall reject their products. Until that time comes it is invidious to select one country or another country. On this occasion Russia has been selected, not because there is any suspicion that their goods are being produced under very much worse conditions than in any other part of the world—
A NOBLE LORD: Why has Rumania shut her doors?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:—but merely because an attack is desired against the Soviet Government. The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, brought forward the case of timber and of wheat. We may regret that we are not able very fully to describe the labour conditions in Russia. That your Lordships would not find them satisfactory I have no doubt. We might none of us find them satisfactory; but, as I say, that might apply equally well to any other country, or to several other countries. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, heard Lord Ernie's speech the other day—a very interesting speech it was—in which he described the methods by which the cultivation of wheat in Russia has been brought about. At any rate, apart from the conditions of the workers, he illustrated how by this great effort they are making they are able to turn out so large an output of wheat as to export it, as they are doing. Whether the Soviet Government have the right method or the wrong method it is not for me to say. Condemnations of their morality coining from the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, carry very little weight with me. But anybody who has investigated this vast, this terrific, this perhaps savage experiment that is going on in Soviet Russia, must recognise that they are experimenting in a way that may open out an entirely new economic idea in the world, and that those of us who are going on with old systems may find that we shall have to revise our systems. It is a great experiment which may fail. On the other hand, it may, as generations pass, succeed. A new effort is always regarded with suspicion, and by those minds which cannot adapt themselves to anything new it is always condemned. But for us in your Lordships' House—
LORD LOVAT: May I just say that that is exactly my point. As this experiment is going on and as this is being done so successfully, surely it would be a good thing to go and see how it is done? Then we should know. At any rate we should know about the labour.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am sure that the Soviet Government would be delighted if the noble Lord would go over there and investigate. I
306
am sure they would give him a very warm welcome, and he would be able to talk with great authority when he returned co this House. In fact, it would be very refreshing to have somebody who had first-hand knowledge of this question.
LORD CHARNWOOD: Does the noble Lord think that he would return?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: However that may be, I think in reference to a question which is a very far-reaching one, that to touch one corner of it with a view, as the speeches have shown to-day, more especially the speech of the noble Lord opposite, to attacking a Government with which we are on official friendly relations, is unworthy of the level of debate which is usually maintained in your Lordships' House.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a moment or two in order to express my view and I hope the views of those with whom I am usually associated. Most of us on these Benches believe that tariffs are in restraint of trade and are not advisable. But we have had a lesson from Russia during the last few years which, I think, justifies the noble Lord in imputing to noble Lords on my left a desire to express themselves as against the Soviet Government. The policy of the Soviet Government apparently has been to produce articles in its country at a particular cost and then to sell those articles to other countries in, order to destroy the industries of those other countries, and not because it is in love with those countries or desires to help the consumer in those countries. It seeks to destroy nation by nation in order to secure revolutions everywhere. It is that policy to which those of us on these Benches object. Where there is no freedom there can be no right trading. The Russians are entitled, no doubt, to make their own laws in their own way. But there are human considerations which justify us in protesting against the inhuman treatment which has been meted out to the workers in Russia. There is no freedom in that country.
You may ask where I get my information. I get my information weekly from individuals who have studied the Russian Press and have put it into the English language. From the evidence which has

307
been before me I am satisfied that the poverty in Russia is greater to-day than at any time in the history of that country, that the misery of the individual is greater, that the people have not sufficient clothes or even the ordinary comforts of life, and that they are underfed. It is not a question of a few hundreds; it is a question of millions being in that condition to-day. When those conditions occur it is perhaps not unnatural that some of us should desire to speak about the Soviet Government and try to secure for the benefit of everyone in this country true first-hand information. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord who leads the House for giving us such information as he has been able to do. I am obliged to him for saying that he will try to get further information, and circulate it so that we may have as much official information as we can get. That is all to the good. All I desire to press upon the noble, and learned Lord finally is that no delay shall occur in furnishing us with that information in order that everybody may realise what is the true position in Russia in regard to the production of its commodities.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I regret that I was not in the House when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, began his remarks, and I am not sure as to the nature of the documents which he said he would include in the White Paper. With reference to what my noble friend who has just spoken said regarding the desirability of getting additional information, may I suggest that information should also be got from our representatives in the Baltic Provinces. We should get information from Latvia and Finland, because our representatives there will be able to write more freely than our representatives in Russia. I think it desirable to get additional information in that way, because, two or three days ago, I had information given to me which shows what the Russian Government are doing at the present time. It is quite true that they are experimenting in the wonderful way referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and no doubt they have an elaborate organisation established in connection with factory and agricultural production. Possibly also the workers under that organisation may
308
be fairly well off so far as the wages are concerned. But their conditions are different from the conditions of the millions who are outside these Government employment organisations. Those outside are treated as nothing. They are allowed to starve or are shot. The Russian Government have established organisations at great expense. They have had the most skilled advice from all countries in the world, they have installed the best machinery, and they have acquired funds to pay for those things by dumping their goods into various countries. Even into Persia sugar and matches have been dumped to the ruin of the trade of Persia.
I do not wish to go into the general argument raised in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, but I do want to urge that it is desirable that we should get information from all quarters which are situated near to Russia. I may say that the Provinces to which I have referred live in a state of constant alarm because of the machinations of the Soviet Government. They do not know what will happen. The Russian Government have tried to break down trade in other countries so as to establish a revolution there. If they make a success of this wonderful organisation they can say to these other countries: "See what we can do." They can inculcate the principles of revolution in those who know no other form of government. It is an endeavour to convince these other countries that the Russian form of government is the best for mankind. I think it is best that we should get information from those who perhaps know better even than the noble and learned Lord and his friends in Whitehall.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I should not have ventured to interpose in this debate if it were not for the fact that, when it was proposed to renew diplomatic relations and trade relations with Russia, I think I was the only member on this side of the House who voted in favour of that proposal, and I did so in what was, as I now see, the mistaken belief that if we entered into those relations we should get full information of what was going on in Russia, and what was being done to affect our trade relations with that country. Will anybody who has noticed what has gone on since then

309
say that those anticipations have been realised, or anything like realised? The Whole of the speech of my noble friend Lord Gainford went to this, that we do not know, in spite of our diplomatic relations, what is really going on in Russia, and as far as I can make out no one is satisfied to be so little informed on the subject except the noble and learned Lord who leads this House.
My noble friend Lord Newton has got something at all events by his Question. He has had a paper read by the noble Lord opposite of which the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, did not understand the nature. He has been told since by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that it is not any diplomatic document, but that it is a composition of some one given to the noble Lord who leads this House, having been compiled from various Papers and documents to give him facts which he can lay before your Lordships. Therefore, it is practically nothing but a brief which has been handed to the noble Lord opposite. Now Lord Cushendun knows that is so, and of course he will speak of it with that respect with which any lawyer would speak of a brief. But anybody who has ever had a brief knows very well that one must not trust to all the things in it as being accurately stated. I have had many briefs which stated that die person for whom I appeared was not guilty, but somehow or another he went to gaol—all my fault I dare say, but he went.
There was a little instance which I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, did not notice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, seemed to be perfectly satisfied with the conditions in which all these goods that are being sent to this country were produced, satisfied that they were perfectly proper conditions, and were not in the least of a nature that could displease anyone. When a noble Lord not far from me asked "Are they not sweated goods?" the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, asked to be told what was meant by "sweated." Why the Party to which he belongs uses the word constantly; I may say daily. There is not a trade unionist in the country who does not loony what "sweated" means. Instead of asking some noble Lord, who, of course, spends his time in idleness, like all of us, why not ask some hardworking
310
trade unionist what "sweated" is, and remain ignorant on that subject no longer?
My noble friend Lord Newton asked for information regarding "a so-called slave State system." He used the word "so-called," and did not even put it into French. He put it quite plainly in English—"so-called slave State system." The noble and learned Lord—and if he were not learned he would have satisfied this House—at once pointed out that my noble friend Lord Newton was very inaccurate in using the word slavery, or in implying that what is being done in Russia might be described as slavery, and he said—it may be with perfect truth, but not all lawyers would agree with him—that you cannot be a slave unless the property in you belongs to somebody else. He said slavery is a status. Many people are struggling for that. We ought to be thankful that a man has got that. It arises not out of any contract into which he has entered. He is born to it, and he has status. These people in Russia are not slaves. They are working harder than slaves generally work, but they ought to be perfectly happy and contented. Really the noble and learned Lord reminds me of Dr. Pangloss. They ought to say: "Everything is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds. We are not slaves. It is true we are not free. We cannot go home when we like. We cannot live where we like. We cannot work at work we like. We cannot make a contract. No, but we are not slaves. The people who stand over us can order us to get up when they like, to sit down when they like, to work when they like, to eat when they like, and not when we are hungry—not whenever we are hungry, at 911 events. But it is not slavery, and therefore we are happy as sandboys."
I regretted that some of my noble friends tittered slightly. But lawyers must always expect that kind of treatment when they explain the real inwardness of things, for my noble friends here do not see the difference. They are only laity. Of course, I except the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. For the rest, there are so many of them who are mere laity and they do laugh. I know they should not—I wish they would not—but they do laugh, when the noble Lord says it is not slavery, it does not depend

311
upon the conditions of life, it does not depend upon whether you are paid wages or not, it does not depend upon whether your labour is State labour or not, it does not depend on whether you are allowed to dispose of what you make or not; it depends entirely upon this: that you have the status of a slave. Of course every Russian, every well educated Russian, knows exactly what the noble and learned Lord means and is happy in consequence.
Other people have differed a little about this. A noble and learned Lord, who long, long sat where the Lord Chancellor sits now, published a book upon the laws of England. It defines many things. "status" among them. Lord Halsbury says this in his work:—
"There is no precise legal definition of slavery."
Of course, unfortunately he died before hearing the noble and learned Lord opposite. Although he lived a very long time, I wish he had lived until to-day. He goes on:—
"but it may he described as a service for life, for bare necessaries, and power in the master over the person and property of the slave "—
property—there is the word that the noble and learned Lord opposite insists upon—
"and a right of alienation "—
that means that you may sell him when you think you can get a profit on him—
"and the like power over the slave's descendants."
Now, I think the noble and learned Lord was gentle with my noble friend Lord Newton there. He did not point out how wrong he was, because there is no proof whatever that the children of these workmen in Russia will be in the position of being sold. I should think it is very probable that before their grandchildren have grown up there will be a revolution which will upset the governors.
Then there is this note:—
"A man is not a slave if he is taken as a free labourer under local immigration laws, even though he has been kidnapped for the purpose."
It reminded me of the line: O fortunatos nimium, sue si bona norint. Oh happy Russians! You are not slaves. You have been kidnapped, we have heard that you have been taken from your homes involuntarily, you have been put to work
312
when you do not want to work, at work which you do not want to work at, but you are not slaves! There is nothing to inquire into with regard to Russia. You make a lot of goods which the English want and other nations want, and you make them so that they are disposed of cry cheaply. What is the matter with that? That is exactly what Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright and many others of that period said was the proper system for England—buy in the cheapest market, sell in the dearest. The misfortune about that maxim is that we buy in the cheapest market, but we cannot sell what we make. Why? Because our workmen are not subject to those happy laws which prevail in Russia and which received, I think, no word of condemnation from the noble and learned Lord opposite.
Before I sit done, I must say that there is another definition. It is Dr. Johnson's definition. Of course, it may not be appropriate to the present time, but he says: "A slave is one subject to compulsory labour." Of course, my noble friend Lord Newton did not read all those hooks about status, I dare say. He is content with Dr. Johnson, rather than to be right with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. "Better to err with Pope—"I will not finish the quotation. Rut there was somebody else who was a lawyer. I have heard him use language in exactly the same manner as many have used it in the course of this debate. He was a lawyer to this extent, that he was Chief Justice of England. He was a member of this House as an Appellate Court, and when I was young at the Bar and he sat in the Criminal Court, I have often heard him pass sentence of penal servitude in these words:—" You will go into slavery "for five, six, seven, or twenty years as may have been the case. Of course, I regret that he used language so loosely. There was no excuse for 'it, really, because he should have known that the man when he went into penal servitude did not lose his status as a free born Englishman. He was, of course, in there enjoying all the liberties of a Russian of to-day. I regret, even at this distance of time, that Lord Coleridge should have left those who came after him uninformed as to the difference between status and a condition not to be distinguished from slavery.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am not quite clear whether I ought to express gratitude—
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think the noble Lord moved a Motion. I am unwilling to interfere if anything more is to be said, but no Motion stands in the noble Lord's name.
LORD NEWTON: I was only going to say that I should return to the subject.

EAST AFRICA.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Loan PASSFIELD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That a Committee of ten Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa, etc., and to report thereon:
That the Lords following he named of the Committee—

E. Onslow,

V. Mersey,

L. Stanley of Alderley (L. Sheffield),

314

L. Lamington,

L. Cranworth,

L. Phillimore,

L. Lugard,

L. Passfield,

L. Dickinson,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Lord Passfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint ten members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

MID-LINCOLNSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of portions of the Parts of Kesteven and Lindsey, in the County of Lincoln:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.