Sitting of 16 June 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER.
Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of George Lathan, Esquire, Member for the Borough of Sheffield (Park Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CLOTHES RATIONING.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to appeals by football clubs for gifts of clothing coupons; and under what regulation it is permissible for the public to detach and for football clubs to use loose clothing coupons?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The Board of Trade, in response to representations made to them, agreed last autumn to entertain requests by football clubs through their national associations for permission to collect coupons from supporters for the maintenance of playing kit. The loose coupons collected are sent in to the Board and exchanged for negotiable vouchers.
    Mr. Liddallasked the President of the Board of Trade why manufacturers are no longer permitted to make extra outsize underwear for men; and, in view of the many persons affected, if he will take steps to remedy this?
    Mr. Dalton: There is no prohibition on the manufacture of extra outsize underwear, either utility or non-utility.
    Mr. Liddall: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very satisfactory reply, I hope it will be possible to notify all manufacturers of the importance of what he has said as certain retailers are unable to supply this outsize underwear. Is he aware that notwithstanding rationing there will always be the fat kine and the lean kine and that I am glad to know that the policy of his Department is not to cater only for the long and lean kine?
    Mr. Dalton: We are very anxious to see that justice is done to all. If the hon. Gentleman has any further trouble, perhaps he will furnish me with some particulars.

    DE BERNALES GROUP, WEST AUSTRALIA.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now completed his consideration of Sir William McLintock's eight reports on the latter's investigations, under the Companies Act, into the circumstances in which investors have wholly lost approximately £3,000,000 which they were publicly invited to subscribe in the eight West Australian gold-mining companies known as the de Bernales Group; whether he has been advised that the promoters and directors have infringed the provisions of the Companies Act, the Larceny Act, the Forgery Act and the Common Law; and whether he proposes to take any further action?
    Mr. Dalton: Sir William McLintock's reports have been fully considered. Civil proceedings have been instituted by certain shareholders against the companies, the directors and other persons, and I am watching very closely the progress of those proceedings.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that these civil proceedings have been taken by shareholders who can afford to take them, and that there are many other shareholders who are not able to take these proceedings? In view of the strong indictment in the Sir William McLintock reports, will the Board of Trade, in the public interest, take some action?
    Mr. Dalton: I think we had better wait and see the result of the present proceedings. We are watching the matter very closely, and it may be that the present proceedings will reveal further evidence.
    Mr. Bellenger: But if these civil proceedings do not end—I do not know whether they will or not—will my right hon. Friend take some action under criminal proceedings?
    Mr. Dalton: That is a hypothetical question. We are watching the proceedings very closely.

    RETAIL TRADERS.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give consideration to issuing licences to proprietors of small businesses who have closed down in consequence of the war so that they may have priority in reestablishing themselves after the war?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I shall be glad to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion in the light of the views of the Retail Trade Committee.

    GAUMONT BRITISH PICTURE CORPORATION, LIMITED.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade why the investigation into the affairs of Gaumont British Picture Corporation, Limited, ordered in January, 1939, was suspended by his Department?
    Mr. Dalton: This complicated investigation was suspended in June, 1940, on representations from the inspector that it had become impracticable to proceed with it owing to the shortage of skilled staff and other circumstances arising from the war. The applicants were consulted and offered no objection.

    PUNCHING MACHINE.
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now grant a licence to Strange, The Printer, Limited, of Eastbourne, for the purchase of a new punching machine, as it has been ascertained that a new machine is available and lying idle at the makers and as their present machine is over 30 years old and not sufficiently accurate to carry out corporation contracts on which they are engaged?
    Mr. Dalton: No. Sir. I am informed that there is sufficient punching machinery in Eastbourne to undertake the work required by the Corporation, and the machine now in the hands of the makers should, therefore, be used to meet some more urgent need.
    Major Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider lending this firm this new machine until it is required for more urgent purposes? Otherwise they will not be in a position to carry on their business.
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already been in touch with my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. There is a good deal of evidence in favour of having the machine used somewhere else where it is more urgently needed, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to speak to me further about the matter, I shall be very glad. The case, however, is not very strong.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Have any of these punching machines been installed in the War Office?

    BRITISH FILM QUOTA.
    Lieutenant Butcherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that there are sufficient British films available to ensure that exhibitors are able to fulfil their quota requirements?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that there are still sufficient British films available to enable exhibitors in general to satisfy their current quota obligations. The position is, however, becoming more difficult, and I have made an Order, reducing the exhibitors' quotas for both long and short British films by 2½ per cent. as from 1st October, 1942.
    Lieutenant Butcher: May we presume that steps are being taken to stimulate as far as possible production of these films?
    Mr. Dalton: We are anxious to do that as far as limited resources due to war conditions allow. Many films produced within the last four years may still be shown within the quota, and many of these are worth showing again.

  GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare what quantities of flour or wheat have been delivered to Greece up to the latest available date under the following headings: interim consignments; and regular monthly deliveries arranged at 15,000 tons?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): Consignments of cereals which have been made available from Allied or neutral sources and shipped to Greece through the Blockade have so far amounted to 15,500 tons of wheat and 4,100 tons of flour. As regards the second part of the Question, for the reasons which I gave in my answer of 19th May to my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) the Swedish scheme for regular monthly deliveries has not yet come into effect.
  Sir T. Moore: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether his Department has any precise knowledge to show that this wheat has definitely gone to the Greeks and has not been taken by the enemy on the way?
  Mr. Foot: We have not yet received a detailed report from the International Red Cross, although we have asked for it and hope to receive it soon.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Although this supply of wheat is most welcome, is it not really inadequate?
  Mr. Foot: It would not be inadequate if Greece's domestic produce was left to be consumed by the Greeks.
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he will consider making a monthly statement to the House indicating the quantities of wheat or flour delivered to Greece during the preceding month?
  Mr. Foot: I think it will be better if my hon. and gallant Friend puts down a Question whenever he requires this information

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (USE).
    Captain Stricklandasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to specific cases of the misuse of Army motor-vehicles in conveying officers and men to football matches and dances and, in particular, to the use of three motor-coaches and four trucks, on 9th March, to convey soldiers a distance of one mile to the swimming baths on a route served by a frequent omnibus
    1360
    service; and what steps he is taking to prevent such wastage of petrol?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I am investigating the cases of which my hon. and gallant Friend has sent me particulars. I am sending him a copy of an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) on 5th May, in which I explained the narrow limits within which the use of Army motor-vehicles for other than purely military purposes has now been restricted.
    Captain Strickland: Has my right hon. Friend seen any reply from the military authorities from whom he has asked for particulars of cases?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have not yet had a formal report, but I have had an interim reply from which, without committing myself to this being the final fact of the case, it looks as though the incident to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers happened before the restrictions were imposed.
    Earl Winterton: In view of the apparent number of incidents which have occurred, can steps be taken to insist that units should keep a road use book, that is to say, a record of the use to which vehicles are put, which should be open to inspecting officers?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will send my right hon. Friend an answer on that point, but I have not the slightest doubt that it will be "Yes."

    SICK PERSONNEL, IRAQ AND PERSIA.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War what is being done with the British sick in Iran and Iraq; and whether convalescents are being transferred to less trying climates?
    Sir J. Grigg: British general hospitals and combined British and Indian general hospitals have been established for British sick and wounded in Iraq and Persia. In addition, hospital accommodation is available in the hills in India for patients who are recommended for a change of climate.

    DISPENSING DUTIES (TRAINING).
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for War what minimum of training is required for orderlies who dispense medicines; and what steps are taken to prevent the handling of dangerous drugs by untrained personnel?
    Sir J. Grigg: As the answer to this Question is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Dispensers of medicines in the Army fall into three classes; regular soldiers who qualified in the Army trade of dispenser before the war after not less than 10 months' training in that trade; soldiers enlisted during the war who hold certain civilian qualifications; and a very small number of soldiers, enlisted during the war, who trained for but had not obtained these same qualifications, but whose skill and training showed them to be up to the necessary standard, and who, having been trade tested, have been mustered as dispensers. The civilian qualifications in Question are, the Druggists and Chemists Qualification of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, that of Licentiate of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, a Colonial qualification as Pharmacist, registered as such by the Pharmaceutical Societies of Great Britain or Ireland, a Certificate as Assistant to an Apothecary of the Society of Apothecaries of London, and a Certificate as Assistant to an Apothecary of the Society of Apothecaries of Dublin.
    To prevent the handling of dangerous drugs by untrained personnel it is laid down that those classified as Poisons shall be kept in containers distinctly marked with the word "Poison," and if liquid shall be kept only in their original containers or issued in bottles distinguishable by touch from ordinary medicine bottles. Poisons must be kept under lock and key in a cupboard set apart solely for this purpose, which must be kept locked when not in actual use and of which the key must be in the custody of the dispenser when he is on duty and must be handed over by him, when he goes off duty, to the relieving dispenser or orderly officer. Other dangerous drugs must likewise be kept under lock and key and the key must be kept in the personal possession of the dispenser in charge. No medicine may be administered unless it has been prescribed by a Medical Officer. Prescriptions may be dispensed only by qualified dispensers. All prescriptions containing dangerous drugs must be initialled by the dispenser and marked with the date on which they are dispensed. The dispenser must file them separately
    1362
    and copy them into a special Record of Dangerous Drugs Dispensed; and this is kept for two years from the date of the last entry by the Officer Commanding the Hospital. Medicines must be carefully labelled and dated and the name of the patient and directions for use added. A poster emphasising the main points in these regulations is posted in a conspicuous position in every room where medicines and disinfectants are kept, dispensed or administered.

    REQUISITIONED HOUSES (KITCHEN GARDENS).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that, in all cases, the kitchen gardens of houses requisitioned by the military are being used for growing the largest possible supply of vegetables?
    Sir J. Grigg: In an answer of nth February, 1941, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, my predecessor gave an account of the Army Agricultural Scheme, which has particular regard to this matter.
    Mr. Hannah: But if instances are given of gardens going to utter waste, will the Government look into them?.
    Sir J. Grigg: There is one class of case in which difficulties do arise, and I am not sure that anything can be done about it. It is when requisitioned property is temporarily unoccupied. If there are cases beyond those covered by this class of case, I shall be glad to look into them.

    NEXT-OF-KIN (COMMUNICATIONS).
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that communications to verify lists of next-of-kin are marked "War Office Casualty Branch" and that the receipt of this communication has caused shock and alarm to relatives; and whether he will have the particular branch renamed or, alternatively, have the returns made to an address free from the inferences of the present practice?
    Sir J. Grigg: In order to avoid any possibility of such misunderstandings, I have given instructions that on the outside of communications of this nature all reference to the Casualty Branch shall in future be omitted.

    VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENT (UNIFORM).
    Mr. Toucheasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that members of mobile units of the Voluntary Aid Detachment are greatly assisted in their duties by the respect felt for the uniform of the British Red Cross Society and St. John Ambulance; and whether this factor will be taken into consideration before any decision is made to deprive them of such uniform?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. This factor will certainly be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Touche: In view of the obvious disadvantages of abolishing this uniform, will my right hon. Friend say what are the advantages?
    Sir J. Grigg: Not in reply to a Parliamentary Question; it would take much longer than that.
    Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the consternation caused by this proposal, and will he receive representations on the subject?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am well aware that it has aroused a good deal of feeling?
    Captain Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend receive representations on the subject?
    Sir J. Grigg: The War Office have arranged to receive official representations from the Red Cross and Order of St. John.
    Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend receive a deputation from a number of Members in different parts of the House who are seriously concerned about this matter?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think that it will be better to wait until we see the result of the discussions between the Red Cross and the War Office. If after that there is a desire for a deputation, I will certainly receive one.

    MISSING PERSONNEL, MALAYA (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information about members of the Forces reported missing in Malaya and, seeing that many of these must be prisoners in Japanese hands, will he continue present allowances to their dependants till definite information is received?
    Captain Cobbasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to continue the payment of allowances to the dependants of men reported missing at Singapore after 31st July, 1942?
    Sir J. Grigg: I regret that we are still without news about those reported missing in Malaya. We continue to press for lists of prisoners to be provided by the Japanese Government, but none have yet been received. With regard to the continuation of allowances, I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) on 12th May, of which I am sending them copies.
    Mr. Hannah: I very much regret the absolute necessity of bringing this question up on the Adjournment.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War whether the position of conscientious objectors who renounce their objection in so far as to be willing to join the Royal Army Medical Corps is still that defined on 26th March last?
    Sir J. Grigg: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind a specific case of a soldier already serving in the non-combatant corps, who wishes to be transferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps without unconditionally renouncing his plea of conscience. Such a man is not eligible for transfer to the Royal Army Medical Corps unless he has special qualifications.

    HOME GUARD.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider sanctioning an issue of two pairs of socks per annum for the Home Guard?
    Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) on 21st April.
    Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the boots issued to the Home Guard are unsuitable to wear with civilian socks? As these men give their time to the country for nothing, surely the country can give them two pairs of socks?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will be very grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the answer to which I have referred him.
    Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the leather of which these Service boots are made is so rough inside that socks are worn out even by the mere process of putting on and taking off the boots?
    Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman wear a pair of these boots and run up and down in them?

    LARGE-SCALE EXERCISES (DAMAGE REPAIR).
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the serious damage to food production and forest roads, gate posts and culverts done by troops in manoeuvre areas, he will authorise commanders to employ repairing squads of troops, or prisoners of war, to reconstruct the damage as far as possible before next winter sets in?
    Sir J. Grigg: Repair parties of troops to make good damage caused by large scale exercises already exist. They work under the control of claims officers and do their best to repair damage of the kind mentioned within a short time of its occurrence.
    Brigadier-General Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that reconstruction of damage is much more important than receiving the value? The parties he talks about are not very apparent in the countryside; could they be moved about more rapidly?
    Sir J. Grigg: We do the repairs as quickly as we can, but it is not always possible to do them at once. I was under the impression that the arrangements made were, by and large, pretty satisfactory.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War how many parcels are now being packed weekly by the British Red Cross Society?
  Sir J. Grigg: Nearly 90,000 a week in this country; apart, of course, from those packed in Canada.
  Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend give the number packed, including the Canadian parcels?
  Sir J. Grigg: The number is somewhere between 130,000 and 160,000. I cannot give the exact number, because there is a temporary diversion from the Canadian packing to the Far East for prisoners there.
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the disturbing position in Italy with regard to the delivery of parcels to prisoners of war, what special steps are being taken to deal with the difficulty?
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information on the extent to which prisoners of war parcels are being pilfered en route to Italy; whether he will make representations through the protecting Powers to ensure the regular transport of the parcels and also for the provision of proper heating arrangements to the prisoners' camps next winter?
  Sir J. Grigg: Difficulties arising from changes in the Italian organisation of prisoner of war camps have interfered with the distribution of parcels from Geneva to British prisoners of war in Italy. These difficulties have now been largely overcome and the position has improved. My information is that losses from parcels by pilfering between Geneva and the camps in Italy are less than one per cent. Representations about the defective heating at several camps have already been made.
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the disturbing position with regard to parcels reaching prisoners of war, he will state the number of parcels despatched from Geneva to the camps in April and May, respectively; and whether he has any reliable evidence as to these parcels having been received?
  Sir J. Grigg: In April 263,700 Standard Red Cross food parcels and food in bulk equivalent to over 90,000 more, and in the first half of May 195,000 Standard parcels were despatched from Geneva. It is too soon for acknowledgments to have been received in respect of these parcels, but there is no evidence to suggest that they are not reaching the camps.
  Miss Ward: Is any censorship now being imposed on letters coming from prisoners of war pointing out that they have not received any parcels?
  Sir J. Grigg: I should imagine not. If my hon. Friend wants a categorical answer, but had better put a Question down, but I should think that the answer is certainly "No." If there is an absence of reference to the non-arrival of parcels, I presume it is because parcels are arriving.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Could the right hon. Gentleman at an early date give us a comprehensive statement regarding supplies of foodstuffs or the shortage of supplies in prisoner of war camps in Germany, the non-arrival of parcels, and the delay in the arrival of parcels from this country? It would help Members considerably and also our constituents with relatives who are prisoners of war.
  Sir. J. Grigg: I have already given a full statement, and I will consider making a further one removing, I hope, some of the misapprehensions which are prevailing.
  Sir A. Knox: Was the dispatch of prisoner-of-war parcels from Geneva in April and May equal to one per person per week?
  Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await the answer to a further Question on the Paper.
  Mr. de Rothschild: When my right hon. Friend makes his statement, will he give information about prisoner-of-war camps in Italy?
  Sir J. Grigg: I will.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War for what reason the British Red Cross has prohibited the sending of medicine or concentrated vitamins to prisoners of war by relatives in the quarterly individually-addressed "Invalid comforts parcels"?
  Sir J. Grigg: The examination by the German censor of medicines sent to individuals was causing delay and difficulty in the transmission of the invalid comforts parcels which contained them. Medicines and vitamin concentrates are now being addressed to the medical officers of camps and hospitals, with a note of the
  1368
  individuals for whom they are meant. The medical officer can thus ensure that they are cleared by the camp censor and distributed to the right persons.
  Sir A. Knox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many prisoners have been accustomed to take certain medicines for years and that it is essential that they should continue to have these medicines? Is he aware also that the vitamins and calories in the rations supplied in German camps are insufficient to keep people alive?
  Sir J. Grigg: I quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, but the new arrangements are designed to enable people to get them more quickly.

  POLES (FORCIBLE ENROLMENT, GERMANY).
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that 100,000 Poles from Upper Silesia and 70,000 Poles from Pomerania have been forcibly incorporated in the German Army; and whether, in view of the intended opening of a second front in Europe, he will afford every encouragement and facility to such Poles to desert to us;
  (2) whether he will give instructions that a Polish-speaking officer should be attached to each of our divisional intelligence headquarters in the field in Europe; and that Polish deserters or prisoners coming from the German Army should be immediately segregated from the other prisoners and handed over to the Polish military authorities?
  Sir J. Grigg: It is known that numbers of Poles have been enrolled forcibly for various auxiliary military services, but I have no information that any of these have been drafted to combatant units or employed in the zone of active military operations.

  FUEL AND POWER.

    MINERS' NYSTAGMUS.
    Sir Francis Fremantleasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of cases of miners' nystagmus receiving compensation, respectively, in 1933, 1938 and the last year recorded?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): In 1933 the number of miners in receipt of compensation for nystagmus was 9,603, including 1,535 new cases and 8,068. cases continued from previous years. In 1938 the new cases numbered 1,019 and the continued cases 4,183, making a total of 5,202. I am informed that figures for the war years are not available.
    Sir F. Fremantle: Can the Minister assure me that the work of research is going on steadily, and that the results are being put into practice?

    ELECTRICITY CONTRACTS.
    Major Petoasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been called to the conditions which are contained in many contracts between suppliers and consumers of electricity which insists that the consumer must take a minimum amount of electricity per annum; and whether, in view of the vital necessity of reducing consumption, he will take steps to arrange for such contracts to be modified during the war period?
    Major Lloyd George: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to cases in which the supply undertaking, in view of the capital expenditure involved in providing a supply of electricity, have asked the consumer to guarantee to take or pay for a minimum number of units per annum for a period of years in order to ensure to the supply authority a minimum revenue to meet the capital and other charges involved. If, as a result of economies in consumption owing to present conditions, a consumer does not consume the guaranteed amount, he should get in touch with the supply authority and ask them to consider some revision of the contract. I am informed that the supply authorities are ready to consider particular cases sympathetically on their merits.
    Mr. Mathers: Will the Minister lend his influence where that sympathetic consideration is not given?
    Major Lloyd George: I should be very happy to look into it.

    BASIC PETROL (UNUSED ALLOWANCE).
    Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make an early announcement as to
    1370
    whether remaining supplies of basic petrol can be used up during July if still available?
    Major Lloyd George: I hope it may be possible to make a statement on this subject on the next Sitting Day or the day after.

    PETROL (PRICE).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the latest increase in the price of petrol was given as a result of an estimated increase in the costs of the Petroleum Board; and whether, in reaching the estimate, any account was taken of losses incurred by the oil companies in Rumania, the Dutch East Indies or other enemy or enemy-occupied territories?
    Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," and to the second part "No."

    PETROL ALLOWANCE (CHURCH-GOING AND SHOPPING).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the petrol allowances for church-going and shopping after 30th June will be limited to one journey a week; and whether further steps will be taken to prevent the use of private motorcars for journeys between home and businesses when public transport could reasonably be used?
    Major Lloyd George: The petrol allowance for church-going will be limited to one journey a week except in the case of ministers of religion and others whose duties require more frequent attendance. For shopping the limit will be two journeys a week. Allowances for travel between home and place of business are kept under constant review in order to eliminate the use of petrol where public transport facilities are available.
    Mr. Cocks: Do we understand from the reply that, in the opinion of the Minister, shopping is quite as important as church-going?
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, because as a rule there is only one day a week for the latter purpose.

    ARMED FORCES AND MERCHANT SERVICE (LEAVE, PETROL).
    Professor Savory (for Sir Frank Sanderson)asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider, when the basic ration of petrol terminates at

    1371
    the end of June, giving a special basic ration for the motor-cars of members of the Fighting Forces and merchant sailors on leave, including men of the searchlight stations and anti-aircraft batteries?
    Major Lloyd George: If by a basic ration the hon. Member means an automatic issue to be used at the holder's discretion, the answer is "No." There is already provision for certain controlled allowances to Service personnel and members of the Merchant Marine, and I propose to discuss with the Departments concerned what modifications, if any, are desirable in the changed circumstances.
    Captain P. Macdonald: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he is considering this matter see that the allowance is given for operational pilots as well as for those in the Army?
    Major Lloyd George: All those in the Services are included, whether they be operational pilots, or in the Army, or in the Merchant Service, and there are existing arrangements between the Services which have been in operation for some time.
    Captain Macdonald: But when the basic ration was withdrawn no provision was made for further supplies supplementing the ration for the Services.
    Major Lloyd George: But provision is already made which has nothing to do with the basic ration, I understand. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in the consultations the position of the Service he has mentioned will be kept in mind. At the moment provision is made for those he has in mind.
    Captain Macdonald: I am not thinking of the moment, but of the time when the basic ration is withdrawn. What is the position of a man on leave who has not got his car licensed now?

    FUEL RATIONING.
    Mr. Molson (for Mr. Lewis)asked the Minister of Fuel and Power for what climatic reasons it is proposed under the Fuel Rationing Scheme to give a higher rationing in Scotland and the North of England than in the Midlands, and a higher ration in the Midlands than in London and the South, having regard to the fact in the winter the isotherms in
    1372
    Great Britain run North and South so that the climate is colder in the East than in the central districts, and colder in the central districts than in the West?
    Major Lloyd George: Taking the evidence afforded by the isotherms alone, it is true that the coldest parts of Great Britain in winter are along the East coast. But the ordinary dry bulb thermometer is not an adequate measure of temperature as it affects human beings. The rawness of the air in the North, the humidity in the West, must also be taken into account. Moreover, in summer the temperature does fall steadily from South to North. As a result of all these factors, the consumption of fuel has always increased steadily as one goes Northwards.
    Mr. Molson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in the rationing system introduced in the last war special provision was made in the case of certain parts of the country which, owing to their height or for other reasons, are colder than other parts; and is he also aware that most of the coal is consumed in the winter and not in the summer, and therefore the fall in the temperature in the summer is hardly relevant?
    Major Lloyd George: The point about isolated places is one which I will look into, but with regard to consumption, it is a fact that, taking a number of cases—admittedly as yet not a very large number—it is an extraordinary thing that as one goes northwards the consumption increases steadily.
    Mr. Lawson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before the war, when coal was plentiful, business men argued before the Royal Commission on the distribution of population that light industries would not go North on account of the climate, and can they grumble now if, as a result of their own policy, they are penalised for coal?
    Mr. Shinwell: Are not these questions hypothetical? Do the Government really intend to put into operation this fuel rationing system?
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very cold down in the East and that we cannot get coal? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Plaistow has not been able to get any coal for the last three months?

    SILICOSIS.
    Mr. Daggar (for Mr. Ness Edwards)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of claims for silicosis certificates made by South Wales coal-miners to the Medical (Silicosis) Board; and what number of such claims were rejected for each of the years 1939 to 1941?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The number of applications for disablement certificates in 1939 was 658, of which 271 were refused; in 1940, 825, of which 396 were refused, and in 1941, 1,136, of which 662 were refused.

  TRANSPORT FACILITIES (NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE).
  Mr. Ellis-Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (1) when the considered reply on the question of North Staffordshire transport is to be sent; on what date did the North Staffordshire Consultative Committee last meet; what has been done since that meeting; and when the people are to be provided with adequate transport;
  (2) whether he is aware that much improved transport facilities is an urgent necessity in the North Staffordshire area; that a great strain has been put on the workpeople during the past winter; and, in view of the increased employment of women, the provision of adequate transport is urgent, and should be provided as soon as possible in view of the serious situation which will arise next winter if nothing is done meanwhile?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The North Staffordshire Transport Consultative Committee last met on 26th January, 1942. Since then a working committee of operators has been dealing with complaints and preparing a plan for co-ordinated services. Additional buses have been drafted into the area. The spare parts position has been improved and additional staff has been provided for operation and maintenance. The result of these measures has been a substantial improvement in the services, but further efforts will be made to ensure that transport arrangements shall be adequate, especially in the winter months.
  1374
  For this purpose I think that staggering of working hours in the pottery industry will be necessary, and I shall be grateful for any help which my hon. Friend can give me to secure its adoption.
  Mr. Smith: In view of the growing need in this area in regard to transport and the difficulties which will arise next winter if action is not taken, will my hon. Friend see that the Consultative Committee and other interested authorities are called together as soon as possible to deal with the situation?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The working committee of operators of which I spoke is preparing a plan, and I think the next step is to expedite that plan. I will certainly consider sympathetically my hon. Friend's proposal that the Committee should meet again.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Have adequate steps been taken to provide spare parts which are urgently needed for essential service vehicles?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that the system is working very well, but if my hon. Friend has any complaint, I shall be glad to look into it.
  Mr. Mack: Is regard also being taken for the needs of Newcastle-under-Lyme?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend will submit any facts he has, I shall be glad to look into them.

  SECOND-HAND MOTOR VEHICLES (PRICE).
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that second-hand motor-cars of small horse-power cost now twice their price new in 1939; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware that the prices of second-hand motor vehicles of various classes have substantially increased. My Noble Friend is appointing a small panel of consulting engineers to investigate the facts and to report to me.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will the Minister consider this as a matter of urgency as owners of high-powered cars are now being asked to economise in petrol by exchanging them for low-powered cars?

  1375
  Is he aware that such owners are being asked to make a big sacrifice, in view of the fact that high-powered cars can be sold only at "knock-down" prices whereas small-powered cars are selling at twice their value?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: This matter is being treated as a matter of urgency. The committee of experts is to meet this week.
  Sir Irving Albery: In what respect are the committee of consulting engineers experts on this matter?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: They are engineers who have very special experience in regard to the value of motor cars, both second-hand and new.

  RACEHORSE GELDINGS (RATIONS).
  Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Agriculture how many racehorse geldings are at present entitled to rations?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): During the present month, 293 racehorse geldings are entitled to rations.

  "REVIEW OF WORLD AFFAIRS" (ARTICLE ON RUSSIA).
  Sir H. Morris-Jonesasked the Home Secretary whether he intends taking arty action against those responsible for a publication called "Review of World Affairs" which, in its 1st June issue, has an article calculated to cast doubt upon the loyalty and effectiveness of Russia as an Ally?
  Mr. Peake: I have seen the publication referred to, and I share the view of my hon. Friend as to the objectionable nature of some of the references made in it to the significance of the Russian war effort in relation to the Allied Cause and to internal conditions in Russia. On the other hand, it is the considered policy of His Majesty's Government—and I think of this House—that the special powers conferred on the Executive in war-time should not be used to interfere with expressions of opinion in insignificant publications of limited circulation however objectionable and deplorable provided they are not likely to have any appreciable effect on the war effort.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is not the whole of this article, in its effect if not in its purpose, calculated to endanger the Alliance in many directions and also jeopardise victory? May I further ask whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to another aspect of this publication, namely, that owing to the auspices under which it is published it is regarded by many as an official or semi-official publication? From that point of view will he not take some action?
  Sir T. Moore: Does the Minister think it wise to give publicity to this publication, which otherwise would continue in its present obscurity?
  Mr. Peake: In reply to the first part of the question put by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), I think we ought to remember that the appeal of this publication is neither universal nor obvious, and that it requires persons gifted with wholly exceptional powers of application and concentration to peruse it.
  Mr. Shinwell: Was not the "Daily Worker" banned for much less?
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Is this review subsidised by the enemy?
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the case that a Very large number of passages in this particular article were put forward not as expressions of opinion but as statements of fact regarding incidents and conditions in Russia, and does he not think it fit either to warn or stop this publication in the same manner as he did in the case of the "Daily Worker" and the "Daily Mirror"?
  Mr. Peake: I am sure the producers of this publication will take heed of the feelings of the House and will have regard to the answer I have given on behalf of the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister aware that this has been going on for more than a year?
  Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that this publication is sent abroad, and can he say whether it was examined and passed by the censor before it was sent abroad?
  Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. I believe that was, in fact, done, and the censor took

  1377
  exactly the same view of this publication as does the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Maclean: If the censor is passing material of this character to go abroad into countries favourable to us, what other sort of stuff is allowed to go out of this country?

  BRITISH PARLIAMENT (EARL OF SELBORNE'S SPEECH).
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliotasked the Prime Minister, whether he will give an assurance that, in any readjustment of the relations between the various countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations, no steps have been or will be taken without full consultation with the responsible Ministers, which include the breaking up of the unity of the British Parliament into separate Parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or the transfer of the British Parliament outside the United Kingdom?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. My right hon. and gallant Friend is presumably referring to a speech made in another place on 4th June when the Minister of Economic Warfare intimated his view that such subjects, among others, were worthy of post-war consideration; but the Minister made it plain that he was speaking only for himself, and that the subject was not being even considered in any quarter.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Are we to understand that the statement was made without any previous consultation with any of the responsible Ministers concerned?
  Mr. Attlee: I think the statement was made in the course of a rather wide-ranging Debate and was not a matter of consultation with other Ministers.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the War Cabinet convey to the Ministers that it is very inadvisable to make statements of this character and then to have them subsequently disavowed, which casts doubt on the validity of other and perhaps more important statements?
  Mr. Attlee: I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that his point will be duly noted.
  Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that Ministers of the Crown can make irresponsible statements of this character and get
  1378
  away with them? Is it not true to say that the same Minister has been, over a period of years, responsible for many other indiscretions?

  BOMBING OF GERMANY.
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister at what sacrifice to our convoys to Russia and naval defence in the Mediterranean the two recent 1,000 machine raids on Southern Germany were made; and whether he is satisfied the machines could not have been better used elsewhere?
  Mr. Attlee: It is not proposed at the present time to make any further statement on these topics.
  Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that expert opinion is seriously concerned as to whether mammoth raids of this kind do not divert from the protection of the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine aeroplanes necessary for their safety?
  Mr. Attlee: I am not aware to which experts my hon. Friend is alluding. There are numbers of experts, and some people are supposed to be experts who are not so expert as they think they are.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these well-organised raids have won the admiration of the whole people?
  Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a substantial minority which considers indiscriminate raiding of this kind highly immoral?
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rest of the people of the country admire the Royal Air Force?
  Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend probably more accurately represents the views of these people than the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

  LIBYAN OPERATIONS.
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the withdrawal from Bir Hacheim, and, in particular, in reference to the inability to provide the garrison with sufficient air support against the attacks by enemy dive bombers?
  Mr. Attlee: I could not make any statement while the battle in Libya is still in progress without giving information which would be useful to the enemy, but I must not be taken as accepting the statements in my hon. Friend's Question.
  Sir H. Williams: Before he makes a further statement, will the right hon. Gentleman read his own speech of 7th May?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    SERVING CIVIL SERVANTS (PAY).
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a statement showing the conditions governing the issue of Civil Service rates of pay to those civil servants who have joined one of the Fighting Services.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The basic conditions governing the issue of balance of civil pay to civil servants serving with the Forces are already set out in Treasury Circular 13/39, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    INCOME TAX (ADJUSTMENTS).
    Professor Savoryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer involved in substituting the new limits of Income Tax of £2 for a single taxpayer, £3 for a married couple without children, £4 for a married couple with one child and £5 for a married couple with two children; and, secondly, the cost of the promised concession to widows and widowers?
    Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that these limits involve a loss of revenue to the Exchequer. The limits do not reduce the total tax bills of the taxpayers concerned but defer collection. The purpose of these limits is to prevent the actual amount paid in any week in which the wages earned are lower than usual from falling, by reason of the tax deduction, below the figures stated in the Question. Where in any week the tax deducted is limited in this way the amount under-deducted is carried forward and deducted in the two closing weeks of the six months' period in accordance with the existing Regulations. The same considerations apply to the application of the higher limits to widows and widowers with dependent children.

    WAR DAMAGE CONTRIBUTION.
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what powers are invested in local inspectors of taxes to remit or defer the payment of contributions under the provisions of the War Damage Act;
    (2) whether he will consider the setting-up of machinery to investigate cases of hardship to owners and occupiers of property which may occur in evacuated areas due to the provisions of the War Damage Act with a view to the remission or part remission of contributions in place of the deferment provided; and
    (3) whether, in order to alleviate some of the hardships in evacuated areas he will permit the War Damage contribution to be charged as an expense for Income Tax purposes?
    Sir K. Wood: Collection of the War Damage contribution is entrusted to the Collectors of Taxes, and not to the Inspector of Taxes, by whom the contribution is assessed. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, arrangements are already in operation under which the collectors allow payment of the annual contribution to stand over or to be made by suitable instalments, as the circumstances of the individual case may require, where it is shown that the owner is unable to pay the contribution as it falls due. I am satisfied that the difficulties of owners of properties in evacuation areas are adequately met by those arrangements. I fear that I could not contemplate in their case a special remission of the charge or a departure from the general rule, which Parliament has approved, that the contribution is not to be allowed as an expense for Income Tax purposes.
    Major Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that some of these persons affected have large sums of money piling up as debts which they have very little possibility of meeting?
    Sir K. Wood: My hon. and gallant Friend is advised to get in touch with the officers concerned, who will endeavour to to come to some arrangement.
    Major Taylor: Has anyone any power to give this remission? A deferment can be made, but that is again piling up a large sum of money all the time.
    Sir K. Wood: As I said in my answer, I think that the existing arrangements are adequate.

  CZECH VILLAGE (GERMAN BRUTALITY).
  Captain P. Macdonaldasked the Minister of Information whether he will take special steps to publicise the brutality of the Germans in obliterating the Czech village of Lidice and to commemorate for all time the martyrs of that place?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): The Czechoslovak Government are already taking action on the lines of the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, and my right hon. Friend will give them all possible assistance.

  FOOD DISTRIBUTION.
  Captain P. Macdonaldasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the anxiety of distributors of essential foodstuffs, such as groceries and meat, at the depletion of their staffs, which is making it almost impossible for them to carry on their work; and whether he will consider classing these trades to some extent as essential war activities?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquo-dale): By agreement with my Noble Friend the Minister of Food, withdrawals of staff from the food distributive trades are regulated under arrangements made locally between the two Departments. These arrangements, which have full regard for the vital importance of food distribution, are working well and at present I see no necessity for changing them.

  ALLIED WAR PRODUCTION.
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Minister of Production whether he can make any statement with regard to the setting up of an Allied War Production Council in Washington?
  The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): Pending the Minister of Production's return from Washington, I have nothing to add to the statement which has already appeared in the Press about the Combined Production and Resources Board.
  Mr. Granville: Can we have any information as to when this Council will begin its functions? Will there be a similar Council in this country, and will there be Ministerial representation from this country on the Washington Council?
  Sir J. Anderson: I can only refer the hon. Member to the statement which has appeared in the Press.
  Mr. Granville: When will the Council begin its functions?
  Sir J. Anderson: They begin forthwith.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it intended that the Minister of Production shall return shortly? Is there not a great deal of work for him to undertake here?
  Sir J. Anderson: I do not think I ought to make any statement on that point.

  EDUCATION (COUNTRY PURSUITS).
  Captain Studholmeasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied that full advantage is being taken of the presence in country districts of elementary and secondary schools from urban areas to teach the children in those schools the importance of the countryside and country life from a national point of view; whether they are taught proper consideration for crops, woodlands and farm property in general; and, if not, will he take steps to ensure that this unique opportunity is not missed?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. In Circular 1474, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy, the Board suggested various ways in which an understanding and appreciation of the countryside and country life could be developed among evacuated school children. Pamphlets encouraging the participation of children in various country pursuits are also issued from time to time. Reports received from His Majesty's Inspectors indicate that good use is being made of these opportunities by evacuated schools.
  Mr. de la Bère: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the value of a clear, simple and precise pamphlet? Some are very ambiguous.
  Mr. Ede: I can assure the hon. Member that these are so clear, simple and precise that one might imagine they had been written by himself.

  JAMAICA AND TRINIDAD.
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give the result of his further inquiries into the operation of the Postal Censorship Order in Jamaica and the petition of the Civil Service Association of Trinidad?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As regards the Jamaica Postal Censorship (General) Order, 1941, the Governor has reported that it is not correct to say that dislocation to business or damage to personal relationships has been caused by the Order, and that the delay to letters posted without the name and address of the sender was within a month reduced to about I per cent. and has since practically disappeared. As regards the Trinidad Civil Service Association, my Noble Friend is awaiting a reply from the Governor to a recent despatch.
  Mr. Adams: With regard to the Postal Censorship Order, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this useless, irritating and pernicious Regulation should be withdrawn now?
  Mr. Macmillan: That is another Question. My Noble Friend is in communication with the Governor on the whole question.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOSPITAL MATERNITY BEDS.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill (for Mrs. Hardie)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland provide maternity hospitals in their area; and how many free beds are available in these hospitals?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Forty-two of the 55 Scottish local authorities with power to provide maternity beds have done so either in special maternity hospitals, of which there are 22 with 555 beds, or in general hospitals, where there are 400 maternity beds. There are also in Scotland 700 maternity beds in voluntary hospitals, and 300 beds in 10 maternity hospitals provided by the Government for evacuated expectant mothers, but which in practice are also used for other patients. There is, therefore, a total provision of nearly 2,000 maternity beds in the coun-
    1384
    try. Local authorities do not specifically allocate beds as free beds; they charge according to the patients' means, and in necessitous cases no charge is made.

    POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. Neil Maclean (for Mr. McKinlay)asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to allocate the responsibility for postwar reconstruction in Scotland to the Ministry of Works and Buildings?
    Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. The general responsibility for post-war reconstruction in Scotland lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in close consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster-General, who is co-ordinating the study of all reconstruction problems. Other Ministers with departmental responsibilities in Scotland, including my Noble Friend the Minister of Works and Buildings, share in the work of Scottish reconstruction. The Secretary of State for Scotland will continue to be responsible for the exercise in Scotland of the functions in regard to planning to be exercised in England and Wales by my Noble Friend the Minister of Works and Planning designate.
    Mr. McNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he used the phrase "general responsibility," since he has said in the latter part of the reply that the responsibility rests upon the Secretary of State for Scotland Why "general responsibility"? What does the qualification mean?
    Mr. Attlee: I think the answer points out that he does act with other Ministers with special responsibilities, but the general, broad responsibility lies on the Secretary of State for Scotland.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Greenwood: Will the Leader of the House state whether the Report of the Committee of Privileges on my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is now available, and when it is contemplated, to provide time for its discussion?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Report from the Committee of Privileges on the case of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is

1385
available in the Vote Office to-day. It will no doubt be convenient to the House to consider this Report on the third Sitting Day, after we have considered the Special Report from the Committee of Privileges which relates to another matter. I may add, as regard the Business on the third Sitting Day, that in addition to the Business already announced we shall ask the House to agree to the Report stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit and the Ways and Means Resolution. It will be necessary for a special Consolidated Fund Bill to give the legal authority for the issue of the money to be passed early in the next series of Sittings.
Mr. Maxton: I think there is something wrong with the right hon. Gentleman's grammar. He said the Report on the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) would be taken on the third Sitting Day after we had discussed the Special Report. Does that mean on that day or after the third Sitting Day?
Sir S. Cripps: On the third Sitting Day, after we have discussed the Special Report.
Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Will the Special Report of the Committee of Privileges which is to be discussed on the third Sitting Day be discussed in Secret Session or open Session?
Sir S. Cripps: I understand the Special Report will be discussed in open Session.
Sir H. Morris-Jones: May I put this point, that the Report deals with matters which occurred in Secret Session, and it may be that Members will want to make reference to matters which could not be made in Public Session. Is it not desirable, in view of the fact that the whole case has been treated in secret, that it should continue to be treated in secret?
Sir S. Cripps: That is the object, I understand, of the procedure which the House is to discuss. If the House decides that it wishes the matter to be treated in Secret Session, it will then pass the necessary Resolution to enable that to be done.
Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask, if this Motion should go to a Vote, whether, having regard to the fact that it affects the House in its official capacity, Members will be free to vote without the intervention of the Government Whips?
Sir S. Cripps: It is not proposed by the Government that anybody should be asked to vote in any special way, but that it should be left to a free vote of the House to decide upon its own procedure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (OFFICIAL REPORT).
Dr. Haden Guest: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an error of substance in the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings on 9th June? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] On the cover of the copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT which I have appears this statement:
"MEMBERS' PASSES (INSPECTION):
Motion— [Sir Stafford Cripps]—after Debate, agreed to."
In fact, as the report of the proceedings in the OFFICIAL REPORT itself shows, after Debate on a Motion for its Adjournment the Debate was postponed. This is a matter, of substance, to which I draw attention, not for this reason alone, but because there have been lately a number of inaccuracies in the OFFICIAL REPORT, perhaps because those who have to report for the OFFICIAL REPORT have a very difficult duty to perform. I myself was asked just now to speak up: Members do not always speak up I would like to ask whether the Official Reporting staff do not require further assistance in order that mistakes of this kind may not occur. I draw attention to it because at the present time very large numbers of people depend upon the OFFICIAL REPORT for accurate reports of Debates, and it is unfortunate that an error of substance should be in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Speaker: My attention has been called to the mistake that occurred upon the cover of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 9th June. Hon. Members, having read the Report, will know that the Report quite correctly states that the Debate was adjourned. Hon. Members will be aware that the Official Reporters, like others, have difficulties to contend with and occasionally make mistakes.
Dr. Guest: Would it not be desirable to increase the staff of those who are dealing with this important matter, or otherwise to consider whether they can receive extra assistance? Can that matter be considered?
Mr. Speaker: That matter can undoubtedly be considered.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Cyril Harry Alfred Lakin, Esquire, for the County of Glamorgan (Llandaff and Barry Division).
ORDERS OF THE. DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1942.

    EDUCATION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following Departments connected with Education for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, namely:

    £

    Class IV., Vote 1, Board of Education

    10

    Class X., Vote 5, Ministry of Health (War Services)

    10

    £20"

    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The Committee will remember that last year there was no Debate on the Education Estimates. This year I welcome the return to normality in our proceedings, I hope for good, in order that I may tell the Committee how education is standing up to the stresses of war. Perhaps I should not say "standing up", but I should use the terminology of war

    1403
    and say that we are holding our lines well and that we are making positive and definite advances on certain sectors of the educational front. I have discovered in my term of office that educational reformers are legion. In fact, I have passed from one realm of affairs at the Foreign Office, to another in education, in which I have had the benefit of many people who have told me how to run the show. One fact which I welcome is that there is a consensus of opinion that the Board should be a major Department of State. The education service is, perhaps, less in the public eye in war-time than in peacetime. But I think we should all agree that we should not treat this nation-building Department badly and that in war-time we should not treat it as badly as we have treated the Service Departments in peace-time. If such an attitude were permitted, we should prejudice our national development. Education is a main arm with which to win the next peace. Let us therefore furbish it during the war.
    To have succeeded, as we have done, in retaining the normalcy of the lives of nearly 5,000,000 children during the course of the war, a war very often over our own soil, means that we have, at one and the same time, husbanded our greatest national asset, maintained the national morale—and I think the morale of the parents has been exceptionally important in this time—and we have assisted the war effort. The Committee will observe, when I give some account of my stewardship during this year, that we owe a great deal to the initiative and devotion of local education authorities, to teachers and to directors and secretaries of education, to whom I should now like to pay a tribute for what they have done. Education, as the Committee will remember, is run, not as one might suppose, by the central direction of the Board, but by co-operation among a large number of local authorities and teachers working with the Board and its inspectors throughout the country.
    Before I come to the flesh-and-blood story of education in wartime, let me dispose of one or two figures. The Committee should first observe that there has been a rise in the Board's expenditure from £41,832,562 in 1933 to £57,763,118 this year. There has been a substantial and increasing rise. The total for this
    1404
    year represents some 13½ per cent. of the total sum for Civil Estimates, excluding the Vote of Credit. It is interesting for us to note that, while the protagonists of the new Order are busy restricting and reducing the provision for the education and care of their children, we have not put education on rations here, but are, in fact, voting additional sums for valuable purposes. The increases this year are attributable to one or two important matters. The actual increase this year is £2,847,479, due in part to the war bonuses for teachers, and to increased provision for meals and milk, of which I shall be telling the Committee. The sum set aside for the Youth Service has risen from £136,000 to £250,000. I am confident that this matter enlists the sympathy and interest of all Members of the Committee.
    Similarly, there has been an increase in the provision for the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts from £50,000 to £100,000 in this year's Estimates. Hitherto, this Council has been assisted by the Pilgrim Trust, but their subsidy has now ended, and that accounts for the increase in the Exchequer Grant. Here I should like to express the Government's thanks to Lord Macmillan, who was the Chairman, and to Dr. Tom Jones, for their sympathy and interest, and for the manner in which they have enabled the Council's work to develop during the last two years. I naturally looked around for the best possible Chairman for this Council, and I was very glad to receive the acceptance of Mr. Maynard Keynes, whose honour we all noted in the recent List and upon which we congratulate him; I cannot think of any man who could better assume the mantle of a State Maecenas, or who could better carry forward the work of this Council in spreading abroad an interest in art by circulating art exhibitions, in music, whether by concerts in halls and factories, or in stimulating interest in the drama.
    My hon. Friend who will be speaking at the end of the Debate will deal with any further details which may arise over the actual Estimates and no doubt will supplement any remarks that I may make. I shall now attempt to give as short an account as I can of the general situation, remembering that in these days it is well for Ministers not to take up all the time. If we look at the general situation, we find that the day-to-day service

    1405
    of education has been substantially maintained. It would be idle of me to pretend there has been no loss of efficiency, or that at various times and in various places things do not go wrong. They do. But if I am to give an unprejudiced view, I would like to quote to the Committee the view of an American observer who returned to his own country just recently. He said this:
    "It would not have been surprising if this enormous initial dislocation the was referring to evacuation) had thoroughly uprooted and defeated the purposes of British education in the very beginning of the war. It is a miracle that in spite of these difficulties the schools have been able to carry on. The educational facilities at the level below the University are now carrying on with something like 93 per cent. efficiency, measured in terms of attendance, examination results, and the other normal standards of evaluation."
    That is the view of an independent observer, and I think I can bear out its truth by giving the Committee some facts. As this is a Supply day, it is natural that I must adhere to problems falling within the field of administration, and that I cannot give any general description of our designs for the future structure of the whole system. I think, however, that I can mention certain administrative inquiries that have been set on foot, and from my remarks it will no doubt be possible for hon. Members, with their usual perception, to deduce our general design, which is to smooth out the unevenness of British education but to retain its tradition, its diversity and its life.
    I mentioned unevenness. I have had the opportunity of going around the country, in fact to almost every part, and where I have not yet been able to go I hope to go in the coming months. It is like passing from one world to another to move from the ideal building of a modern senior school, such as many hon. Members must have visited in their own districts, with its advanced instruction in woodwork and metalwork, its rooms for domestic science, its gymnasium and library, with all the senior children gathered together, to the gloomy atmosphere of some old, unreorganised, all-age school, where harassed teachers can hear each other chiding and exhorting their little flocks of children of all ages in old-fashioned classrooms. There is a similar contrast with the juniors. I am only giving the Committee the impressions which I have formed, but one can contrast the old voluntary school, with its
    1406
    individual, atmosphere—of which the managers are understandably proud—clustering against some ancient ecclesiastical pile, whose architecture it fancies but does not reproduce, and the more up-to-date provision of some of our modern junior or infant schools, very often with their small kitchen for midday dinners, about which I shall be saying more shortly. These contrasts undoubtedly exist, and I think that hon. Members will deduce from certain statements that I have made what our ultimate hopes and desires are. While we await the opportunity for great changes, we must not neglect the everyday chances of improving our day-to-day administration, which is my task in war-time.
    I told the Committee that I would give some figures to bear out the general tribute, made by an independent observer, which I quoted earlier. Let us look at full-time schooling. That has increased from 96.5 per cent. in March of last year to 99 per cent. in March this year, a very substantial improvement.
    Sir Percy Harris: Does that figure relate to the number of children on the registers, or the number of children of school age in the country? That is a most important point. I know lots of children who are not at school.
    Mr. Butler: I am coming to that point in a moment. There has been a reduction in those receiving part-time instruction to some 44,506 for the whole country, which, taking the approximate figure of 4,750,000 children, is not a large percentage. The proportion of those receiving no instruction at all is only 0.22 per cent. Attendance is not quite so satisfactory, for out of every 100 children on the registers of elementary schools, 84 were actually in attendance, compared with the pre-war figure of 89. I do not claim that those figures are entirely satisfactory, but I do claim that in the last year of administration they have shown a considerable improvement. The Committee must consider them against the background of the dislocation and the migration of children which has been going on. The inspectors are particularly watching this question of attendance, and here I would like to pay a tribute to the inspectors, who are the eyes and ears and also the handymen of the Board all over the country.

    1407
    Perhaps the most important improvement during last year has been the drive made by local education authorities, the Board and the inspectors to increase the provision for meals and milk. Over 700,000 children now take midday meals at school. Last year 1,733 proposals providing for 240,000 children were approved, and from January to May of this year an increased number covering some quarter of a million children have been sanctioned. I see no reason why the target already mentioned, of 1,000,000 meals a day for children, should not be reached by the end of the summer. The outstanding example of success comes from Anglesey. I think, as we are discussing education Estimates to-day, we ought to have some kind of form order among members and as, in this matter, Anglesey comes out on top, I am sorry that the hon. Lady who represents that constituency is not in her place. I can pay her the compliment of saying that the county of Anglesey has already provided canteens for over 60 per cent. of its schools and the authority expects to have them everywhere in its area by the end of this term. The Director of Education, whose views I quote because they exactly represent what we at the Board feel, calls attention to the almost incredible effect of the provision of school meals on the health of the children as reflected in their physical well-being, their zest for life and their alertness. I can bear that out from our experience all over the country, wherever this system of school meals has been started. I trust that this remarkable lead will be followed, not only in Wales but also in England. I must say that some authorities have shown great drive and that others are attempting to follow up what is one of the great advances of this year. I should like to express my gratitude to my Noble Friend the Minister of Food for his co-operation, with his depots and equipment, in making this drive more easy.
    I have consulted my medical advisers before making the statement, that I believe that the health of the children—largely thanks to these proposals and to the fact that 3,250,000 children odd are now getting milk at school—has positively improved, and that in war-time. We shall watch the further drive for meals and milk. I am glad to announce that it has been decided to extend to all schools the
    1408
    benefit of the milk-in-schools scheme, now confined to grant-aided schools. The result will be that all school children will be able to obtain milk for drinking at the price of ½d. per one-third of a pint. Schools will be notified as soon as possible how and when they should apply. If I had time, I could go into details about the school medical and dental services, but I would sum up our experience this year by saying that the volume of treatment given to school children during 1941 was almost as great as that given in 1940 and the years immediately preceding the war. That is not to say that everything is all right. The loss of doctors as a result of the calling-up has been very severe but we are doing our best to meet the situation.
    I wish now to tell the Committee something about the contribution which is being made by the schools to the war effort. The schools have certain very remarkable achievements to their credit. One of the most remarkable is the amount which they have managed to save as the result of children bringing in small sums of money. The total amount of savings up to last March was £23,500,000. Besides that rather remarkable achievement, which has been acknowledged, there are many other ways in which the children are learning in wartime practical lessons in citizenship—such matters as the collection of salvage and paper, in gardens, and in a host of other ways. We have also stimulated the formation of new nursery classes and play centres to look after the children of women engaged in war work, and I have established a new department in Kingsway to look after this work. I am determined also to see that the educational value of the war-time nurseries shall find full scope.
    Perhaps a more direct contribution to the war effort is the steady flow of qualified recruits for the Services—doctors, dentists, engineers, naval architects, biologists and agricultural chemists who come from our secondary schools. I am able to tell the Committee that our standard has been maintained in the higher forms of these schools. Our technical colleges, which exist all over the country, have been given over very largely to the training of expert personnel for the Services, and I should like to thank the authorities and the principals of those colleges and their staffs, for the

    1409
    day-to-day service—and day and night service very often—which they give to men and women who are training for the Forces.
    The school children have also shown their mettle under fire. From localities which have been raided, I have received reports of how the children have faced bombing with courage overnight, and their examinations with equal equanimity next morning. One report from a city which was recently bombed showed the figures of the attendances at the secondary school on the morning after the raid to be only three per cent. below the normal. Incidentally, I learned from that report that four girls had undertaken the whole running of a rest centre for four days. These were girls of 15 and under. They washed clothing, looked after cooking, cheered homeless men and women, and some of the elder women, whose tribute we have received, spoke of the girls' resource and ability saying, "They showed us our limitations. We mothers and grandmothers have learned a great deal from them." That sort of independent tribute gives some indication of the character and quality of our younger generation in war-time.
    I believe that education has learned from the war besides contributing to the war effort. The great migrations of children which took place were experiments unprecedented in our social history, and they have not yet ceased. The Committee can imagine what effect they had—the uncertainty about numbers, the changes in the relationships of parents and the effect on the administration of the local authorities. I would like to thank the authorities, and the hosts of the children, and the teachers who are proving that hospitality remains one of our national graces.
    I notice occasional references to the administrative difficulties resulting from these changes, but those difficulties, in my opinion are, on the whole, wildly exaggerated. I think that in most cities to which children have returned and in most reception areas to which children have gone, the lag between the arrival of the children and their establishment in some school is made up very quickly. But probably we have learned most from evacuation in regard to the curriculum itself—what is actually taught in schools, Sometimes I think that in our education
    1410
    Debates we spend too much time on administration and too little upon what is actually taught in the schools. Our teaching during the dislocation some time ago, was inclined to fall back on the classical three R's and in fact was pretty dull. Now we have instituted a series of courses which teachers are attending, and as a result of which it will be possible to introduce a good deal more colour and interest into the curriculum. I have been keen throughout to encourage a practical bent wherever possible. Short courses, for instance, in rural subjects, are being held. I may, in passing, point out what a good effect evacuation has had in making town and country understand one another better. I heard a story of some children who when they were first sent into the country thought that the windmills were for the purpose of keeping the cows cool. Those children are now learning something about rural life. In addition to rural subjects, there are courses covering the work and activities of junior schools, physical training, musical and dramatic work—which I think we must try to introduce more and more into the curriculum of the schools—handicrafts and domestic science.
    There is another very important question which I know interests hon. Members, and that is the question of religious instruction in the schools. I feel that the Committee would wish the teachers who give the religious instruction to be as well equipped as possible in the subject. It is a very difficult question to talk about, because I know many feel that religious instruction depends very largely indeed on the person who gives it. Therefore from the point of view of one who has responsibility in this matter I issued circular 1566 with the object of encouraging local education authorities and others to conduct courses in religious instruction for teachers and others. I must say that the result has far exceeded all the bounds of what I had hoped. For one of the Board's three courses there were 300 applications for 120 vacancies. The teachers themselves—I noticed it in Somerset when I went there—have followed up the courses with their own. That, I think, is extremely refreshing, and I hope that from this sort of beginning we shall be able to build on the already existing syllabus of teaching which is given in the schools.

    1411
    Courses have also been organised on the United States and the Soviet Union. I expect that they may have come to the attention of hon. Members in their districts. These courses have been organised in close co-operation with the United States and Soviet Ambassadors, and I am determined that this work of the Board in international education shall continue and prosper. All these courses have been extraordinarily successful, and the results are beginning to be seen in the schools themselves which I have visited. By these, and also by keeping in close touch with the Ministers of the United Nations now in London, we can illustrate the part that education can play in the task of international as well as national reconstruction. We have also had some courses initiated in the Welsh language. I regard as obscurantist the attitude of the Commission of Inquiry exactly 100 years ago which went to Wales and took the view that to keep alive a knowledge of this beautiful tongue was tantamount to crippling Welsh intitiative and penalising Welsh endeavour. I wish now, 100 years later, to make amends for that attitude. I therefore invite local education authorities in Wales to co-operate, and I invite teachers in Wales to co-operate, in the three courses which we are establishing in districts thought likely to be the most suitable. I think that these examples in courses and what I have said about the curriculum will show that we are backing up the teachers in toning up the content of what is taught.
    This leads me to a short discussion of some of the difficulties of the teachers at the present time. There has been a severe drain on the teaching profession. I must confess to the Committee that a perpetual problem that I have with the authorities is the staffing of the schools. The drain on the teaching profession has been made good by calling upon married teachers, who have come back and are saving the position at the present time. These were originally the reserve of the teaching profession, and they have now been thrown into the line. Even so, some areas are seriously short, and we have set up a small body which, working with the authorities and others concerned, has worked out a scheme to arrange for allocating young teachers coming out of the training colleges and university departments this summer to those local education
    1412
    authorities where their services are most needed. I hope that that administrative effort will do something to meet the difficulties of the teachers at the present time.
    This investigation of the difficulties of teachers leads me to mention one of the first of the new steps I have decided to take. I have learned many lessons in going round the country and I have been encouraged to go to the source and to the inspiration of all educational endeavour—to visit and study the work of the training colleges for teachers. I confess that I am not satisfied that we recruit teachers from a wide enough field, or that the teachers themselves get sufficient opportunity for fitting themselves for their noble career. In my opinion the old days of academic attainment being the sole test for the teaching profession are gone. Education is more than a mere acquisition of knowledge, and it is my belief that after the war we could find young men and women with a wide experience of life, not necessarily academically inclined, who, if suitably trained, would welcome this form of service to the community and would add variety and richness to the teaching personnel. I have thought this question so important that I have set up a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. McNair, Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool University, to investigate it, together with the question of the supply of teachers and the supply of youth leaders. I think that this initiative will bear very good fruit.
    Mention of youth leaders leads me to mention another initiative which has been taken—that is, new plans to deal with the youth of the country. For the past two and a half years the Youth Service has prospered. It was started by Lord De La Warr and was continued by my predecessor Lord Soulbury, whom, I am glad to say, I have now appointed chairman of the Burnham Committees in succession to Lord Onslow, to whose long work I should like to pay a public tribute. The Youth Service has made satisfactory, and even remarkable, progress with the encouragement and support of local education authorities and the co-operation of the voluntary organisations who make up the Service, and the teachers. Every authority for higher education, I am glad to say, has now got a youth committee; the only remaining laggards have come along. A number of local organisers have also been appointed. I am very sensible

    1413
    of the assistance which I and my predecessors have received from the National Youth Committee, started under my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) and carried on by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary as Chairman.
    The planting work is now largely finished, and we now look for further growth and expansion in the garden of youth. To help me in this new phase, I have decided that closer contact is needed with those actually working in the field of youth. I have therefore decided to set up a Youth Advisory Council. This will constitute the first attempt to include in one body the many types working in the field of youth, whether administrators, members of youth committees, or younger people, engaged in the voluntary organisations and in the pre-Service organisations. On this Council, the names of which I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, are representatives of the Churches, those concerned with the employment of young people, those who are aware of the point of view of the employees, a representative of the juvenile courts with a knowledge of problems of delinquency, and assessors from the other Government Departments concerned, so that for once we may have a broad general picture of this vital problem. Members will be appointed in the first place for one year. The Board will meanwhile retain contact with the Conference of Voluntary Organisations, the education authorities and the teachers' organisations through their ordinary channels, which are well known. I have been glad to obtain the services of an independent chairman for this Council. Mr. Wolfenden, the headmaster of Uppingham, has accepted my invitation to take the chair. He has shown, by his work for the A.T.C., a remarkable grasp of the possibilities of organising training for boys of a first-class educational character. I wish him and those ladies and gentlemen whose names are announced in this list, good fortune in taking on this task of assisting me and the Government with advice.
    Following is the list:
    Mr. J. F. Wolfenden (Chairman)—Headmaster of Uppingham.
    Persons directly concerned in the Youth Service.
    Miss Patience Bland—Chairman, East Suffolk County Youth Committee.
    Miss K. Stewart—Leader of the Archers' Club, Southampton.
    Miss D. M. M. Edwards-Rees—Youth Service Organiser (West Riding L. E. A.).
    Mrs. Walter Elliot—Chairman of the N.A.G.C.
    Mr. R. F. Thurman—Field Commissioner, Boy Scouts.
    Dr. D. J. Lysaght—Principal, Flora Gardens Evening Institute, Hammersmith.
    Mr. T. W. Walker—Joe Walton Boys' Club, Middlesbrough.
    Mr. L. G. Selway—Schoolmaster, Fonthill Road School, Bristol.
    The Churches.
    Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. A. Lytton-Milbanke—National Catholic Youth Association.
    The Rev. H. G. G. Herklots—Commission of the Churches.
    The Services.
    Cadet/Lieut.-Colonel J. A. Rhys—Army Cadets.
    Mr. S. J. Noel-Brown-A.T.C.
    Lieut. C. W. Hoggard—Islington S.C.C. Unit.
    Mrs. Wenger—G.T.C.
    Persons concerned with the employment of young people.
    Mr. E. S. Byng—Standard Telephones & Cables, Ltd.
    Miss Dorothy Elliott—National Union of General & Municipal Workers.
    Juvenile Courts.
    Mr. John A. F. Watson—South-East London Juvenile Court.
    Education Administration.
    Mr. T. A. Warren—Director of Education, Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Henry Morris—Cambridgeshire Education Committee.
    Assessors.
    Sir Robert Wood—Board of Education.
    Mr. S. W. Harris—Home Office.
    Mr. W. Taylor—Ministry of Labour and National Service.
    Secretary.
    Mr. H. E. Melvin—Board of Education.
    At this stage, I must bring the Committee hard up against the fact that the great mass of our children end their education suddenly at the age of 14. We vote these millions in our Estimates, and then we cease to exercise continued care and supervision over our adolescents. I do not believe that this gap can be met simply by raising the school-leaving age to 15, or even to 16, but I think we should take the former step whenever we get the chance. The fact that there is a new registration scheme for youths between 16 and 18 has meant that it is now recognised that, up to at least 18, young people should be regarded as still falling within the purview of the education authorities and the Board of Education. Indeed

    1415
    that scheme is a new province in the service of education. I trust that this new Advisory Council will be an advance along the road to a more integrated national service for youth. But if we are to do what is right by the health and welfare of our young people, some continued supervision is necessary; and we must also secure recognition of the fact that, in the first years of their employment, young people should be treated as learners, and not simply as earners.
    In the interests of youth, as well as out of consideration for our future industrial and commercial welfare—and I go so far as to say of our strategical welfare, as a great country—the whole system of our commercial and industrial training must be reviewed. I am glad to tell the Committee that the first step has been taken. Yesterday, the first meeting took place of representatives of industry—both employers and employed—and of the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Education, and the Scottish Office. All these interests have been brought together, by agreement, to consider the vital question of vocational training in relation to employment. I trust that, by putting the same drive into this development as has been put into some others which I have mentioned, we shall build that bridge between education and industry which the country has so long needed.
    These departures—the training of teachers, the new Advisory Council, and the new attack on skilled training and vocational education—are by no means the only ventures of which I can inform the Committee. In the secondary sphere an expert investigation is being made into the question of examinations and the curriculum of secondary schools. I look forward to a report from that investigation, which should be an important contribution to our stocks during this formative period of educational reform. Hitherto, the secondary education of the State has been almost entirely provided by day schools. It has been felt for some time that children should have more variety of choice. In fact, it would be well if children could have an opportunity of going either to a senior modern school, a technical school, or a grammar school, according to their capabilities, after leaving the junior stage. But it may be that there should be another choice, a boarding school education.
    From my investigations, it appears that many pupils, or their parents, who may speak for them, do not desire a boarding education, but there is a growing feeling that there is some advantage in the corporate life of this type of schooling, which should be made more widely available. This is a large and comprehensive question. Different views are held and expressed on the subject. I have recently had a request from the Governing Bodies Association of the public schools, and from the Headmasters' Conference that a body should be set up to work out a plan under which the facilities of a boarding-school education might be extended to those who desire to profit by them, irrespective of their means. The Government have decided to set up such a body. It was thought desirable to secure the most impartial, experienced, and independent chairman possible, and, if possible, one who was not wedded by previous association to any type of schooling in England. I have therefore looked to Scotland. I am glad to inform the Committee that Lord Fleming, a Scottish Lord of Session, has accepted my invitation to take the chair at this inquiry. He will be well-known to some members of the Committee, since he sat in this House for some time.
    Mr. Cove: I am not quite clear what the inquiry really is about. Is it to report upon the facilities that the public schools will provide for students from, say, elementary schools to get into them?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, I think the hon. Member has summed up the position beautifully. I shall be issuing the exact terms of reference and the names of the Committee, as I was going to say, a little later; but I shall be interested to hear any points of view which may be expressed in this Debate.
    Mr. Maxton: Scotland is greatly flattered at the right hon. Gentleman's choice; but will he give us some hint as to the qualifications of Lord Fleming for this appointment?
    Mr. Butler: His qualification is that he is one of the most capable of the Lords of Session, and a man who, by his record, has shown that he has that independent bearing and ability which would enable him to command confidence at an inquiry

    1417
    of this kind. I hope to add to this Committee representatives of different scholastic and educational interests and representatives of different points of view. I shall keep the House informed as I make progress on this subject.
    Thus, I think we can say that, in reviewing the various advances planned or the progress made on the many sectors of education, the trend is ever forward and upward. It seems to me that British education goes winding on, like some track up the mountain side of our civilisation, ever ascending and ever providing the traveller with broader views and widening prospects. But, alas, like many mountain paths, it ceases abruptly when the children reach the age of 14, just when the views are becoming most interesting. This is not the moment to discuss the unevenness which I have described, and I am barred by the rules of Order from giving any further description of how we shall deal with this abrupt stop. But I can draw the attention of the Committee to the many suggestions I have made in my speech to-day, and encourage all concerned to make a contribution at this vital time to the pioneer work of social reform. I have purposely paid as much attention as possible, with the aid of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, this year to the needs of youth, for the path of education must be extended further, the road made up, and the summit reached. I know I can confidently count on the co-operation of hon. Members to assist me in this work of path-finding to the new world and to the new opportunities which are opening out for us.
    Mr. Ammon: The right hon. Gentleman who has just given us a very interesting survey earned the reputation, when he was at the Foreign Office, of a stone-waller against whom the late John Scotton would have been a reckless slogger. From his excellent survey one gathers that he has not quite lost all those qualities of stone-walling, although now and again one was a little hopeful that he was going to hit out pretty vigorously. A good many committees are to be appointed, and a good many things have been hinted at, and on some of these we would like something a little more definite, but it is only fair to say that to a certain extent the right hon. Gentleman was restricted by the fact that we cannot discuss matters that require legislation. It would not be an exaggeration
    1418
    to say that never was the subject of education more important than it is to-day. I join heartily, as I am sure the Committee will, with the Minister's expressed hope that his Department will be considered and looked upon as one of the major Departments of the State. Not only will it have much to do later on in holding down the peace, but it will be the chief cornerstone in the rebuilding of society after the war. His reference to evacuation and what has flowed from it, including the disadvantages, causes some of us even now to regret that at the commencement, when it could have been done, evacuation was not made compulsory. It would have saved us a tremendous lot of perplexity and worry, and a good deal of loss of education. On the other hand, it has to be admitted that it has not all been lost. Education consists in learning how to live with one another, and the contact of town children with children in the country, and the education that they have assimilated there, may be of great advantage to the State later on.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the increase in the Estimates for education. That is the very best possible investment into which the nation can put its money, but the question is. Are we getting full value for that money? One feels that we are not, because, as the right hon. Gentleman has already intimated, a good deal of it is lost when the school life terminates at the age of 14 and children are drawn into the vortex of industrialism with the subjects that are so necessary for after life only half assimilated. He made a passing reference to religious instruction, which I think is a very essential part of education. For education to be only mechanistic and materialistic would land us into very much the same position and bring about the things against which we are fighting. A spiritual and moral foundation is necessary. I want to utter a warning, now that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are in discussion with many of the leaders of religious thought and organisations in this country, that no assent will be given to anything that will lead to denominational and sectarian strife and to making the children's bodies and souls the instrument over which wrangling may take place. I trust that the teaching of religious instruction

    1419
    will be an optional subject in the training colleges and that specialists will be appointed in that connection.
    Flowing from that, comes the question of provision for the provided schools. If these schools are to claim, and to draw from, public money and seek grants of assistance, we have the right to insist that they shall provide proper and adequate buildings. I hope that the Board will take a very strong line with regard to some of the wretched buildings that are now in existence. Very inadequate accommodation, insanitary in many cases, must make it impossible for teachers to impart instruction properly. I have been into a school in the South of England where the classes were simply divided by a curtain drawn across the room, and teachers were shouting against each other on either side of the curtain in order to impart instruction to the children. That sort of thing ought to go. If the denominations are not prepared to play their part in providing adequate buildings after taking public money, it is time that such schools should be terminated and the whole brought under the aegis of the State.
    The right hon. Gentleman also made reference to extra subjects, such as the teaching of international subjects, music and dramatic work and that sort of thing, and in that connection I would remind him that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie), a few days, ago, asked a Question about the third-year course for school teachers, and from the Answer we gathered that it seemed rather to have been suspended. I know that the opinion is held very strongly by the teaching profession itself, and I also hold it, that the third-year course should be reinstituted in order that the necessary qualifications for teaching these extra subjects may be obtained. I shall have something more to say about the schools and the provisions for youth, and I hope that before long, perhaps before this Debate ends, we may even hear the names of the other members of the Committee, in order that we may be able to estimate their respective qualities. I welcome the appointment as Chairman of the Headmaster of Uppingham, who is a young man with broad ideas, and I am sure that he will do good service. I am a little estranged, however, with regard to the
    1420
    appointment of Lord Fleming, because I remember him in this House, when I rather looked upon him as one of the greatest reactionaries we ever had here. Upon matters of education his attitude may be different.
    Mr. Maxton: If it is, he has kept it secret.
    Mr. Ammon: I will leave that matter to my hon.' Friend. The problem of education is accentuated both by the war and by a number of other things which we cannot afford to ignore. The tremendous change which has come in home life and the decline of religious education—almost the breakdown of home life—have thrown more and more responsibility upon the teaching profession for the training and care of the children. Another point that cannot be ignored, as far as adolescents are concerned, is the abnormally high wages which many of them are now receiving. This is raising tremendous problems, and it will present a greater problem a little later on. Anyone who has had contact with the institutions that are open for youth will know the tremendous problems and difficulties created by this fact, and will realise the difficulty in handling those who attend these institutions. I have taken particular interest in that side of the question, and I have been in touch with and have visited a good many of them, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, something more than academic attainments are required for running these particular institutions. Qualities of leadership and the ability to obtain the confidence of these difficult young persons are most essential.
    I want to deal with one or two further points, and I know that many hon. Members who want to speak will deal with other aspects of education. I want to touch upon the vexed question of the public schools. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, a committee is to be set up. It should be made clear that these schools should be brought into our national system of education. If it is to be done by instituting some form of scholarship for the best boys from our secondary schools, that will not solve the problem at all. In fact, it will have some very evil effects. It will result in our best boys being "creamed" from our State schools; they will be lured by the bribe of pleasant surroundings and by whatever

    1421
    remains of the prestige of our public schools. The latter will acquire new prestige from these boys coming from our State-aided schools on which the less clever boys, who have got into public schools owing to the length of their parents' purse, will be carried. We shall still have two different kinds of education in the State, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman when he appoints his Committee will put this question to them.
    Such a solution ignores the fact that one of the losses which the nation incurs under the present arrangements is that local schools are debarred from the advantages which would accrue to them if local wealthy people sent their boys to the same schools as the local poorer people—the squire with the tradesman and so forth. Not only would social advantage be derived from this healthy mixture of classes, but if the moneyed classes in the country used the same schools as the unmoneyed classes, the former would take a more active interest in the development of the State and rate-aided system of education. Public schools, in so far as they are boarding schools, should be made to serve the locality or the county in which they are situated. It has been brought to my notice that in some areas children are debarred from secondary education because there are no schools easily accessible to them, and some kind of boarding school is, therefore, necessary.
    As I have said, the first claim on a public school is that it should serve the area in which it is situated and should provide boarding accommodation for those children who would not otherwise be able to get secondary education. For instance, I know that some years ago, in certain parts of Shropshire, it was impossible to award scholarships because there were no secondary schools accessible. Why should not the children concerned have gone to Shrewsbury as they would have done under a proper system of education? That privilege was denied to them. With regard to Dauntsey's School, in Wiltshire, which is aided by the Board and, I think, by the local education authority, a certain number of places have been awarded, it is true, but they do not cover more than tuition. Because of the long distances to travel, and unless parents are able to pay for board, the scholarships are valueless. I hope this point also will be borne in mind. It has been brought to
    1422
    my attention that this is happening in large parts of Devonshire and Northumberland.
    I would like now to raise a point which I have raised before in this House and which I have raised with the London County Council, who have met it in a half-hearted manner. Under our multilateral system we designate certain schools as secondary schools, and others as Trade Schools, and this sets up a snobbish division and gives a false sense of values. In fact, we have maintained this utterly false sense of false values throughout our educational system, which is largely individualistic. Suppose there are two lads in a family, one who is keen on the academic side of education and the other who has a bent for the mechanical side, say, as an engineer. What happens? The boy who wins a scholarship on the academic side goes to a secondary school, and the other lad, who wins a trade scholarship, goes to a trade school. At once the lad who has gone to a secondary school feels that he is a superior person to his brother. He is nothing of the sort. I cannot see why we should stick to this terminology. We should insist on there being secondary schools which stand on an equal basis. Has the President given his mind to the possibility of having fewer schools and larger schools under one roof catering for the children who now go to three different types of schools? If he has not, will he do so? I wonder if he is frightened by the bogy of the large schools. If so, why? Has he given any consideration to the position of such schools in Canada and the United States? I am informed that Eton and Manchester Grammar School each have 1,100 boys, that St. Paul's has 800 and that Dulwich—of which I happen to be a governor—also has 800.
    As regards planning for post-war education, I know I must not touch upon anything which requires legislation, but at the same time the right hon. Gentleman intimated that he was setting up various committees, and it would be as well to indicate to him what we have in mind. I hope he will not countenance a mere patching-up of our educational system. If he does, it will ruin our post-war position. I hope that before the war ends he will bring to the House proposals for the post-war period so that we can have an opportunity of discussing them and mak-

    1423
    ing plans ready for when the opportunity arrives. We never know how long the war will hold or when it will collapse, and we do not want to be caught out on one foot, as it were, so far as this matter is concerned. All the experience gained in the service of youth, and particularly in the registration and interviewing, goes to show that the most urgent necessity is to keep young people under educational influences after they have left the elementary schools and during their first years in industry. I suggest that one of the first things we should consider in that connection is the establishment of day continuation schools at least from 15 to 18. That ought to be undertaken as almost the first thing after the war. We shall have, I am afraid, a generation of school children who will go into the world after the war having had very little education owing to all the dislocation that has taken place, and we ought to do all we can to overtake that lapse. If the establishment of day continuation schools is undertaken as a first step after the war it will help considerably to clear the ground in order to give some attention to the elementary school children who will be coming on.
    Another point I want to raise is the unification of our system of education. There is a Ministry for education, but there are a good many other Ministries which have a hand in it. It will be conceded that the Navy, Army and Air Force must necessarily look after the technical training of those who are in their schools, but they are not the only schools. The Ministry of Agriculture deals with agricultural education, which would be better dealt with by the technical branch of the Board of Education. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the backwardness in our provision of technical education in the rural areas is largely due to the fact that the main industry is agriculture and the Board of Education is debarred from undertaking agricultural education. The Home Office is responsible for a number of approved schools, an uneconomical arrangement, since it involves special educational staff in the Home Office which duplicate the staff of the Board, and its doctrines and regulations may even conflict with those of the Board. The Ministry of Health is responsible for a number of boarding schools for children under the
    1424
    Poor Law. Is there any reason why these schools—surely public schools in the real sense of the term—should not come under the Board and their residential facilities be used not merely for the children who are unfortunate in respect of money, but also for those who need residential facilities for other reasons?
    I do not think I shall be treading on the toes of our mining friends when I point out that the Ministry of Mines conducts examinations for colliery managers—an engineering profession—although the Board of Education is the one which runs national certificates with the co-operation of the institutes for mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, naval architects, and so on. I understand that a large number of those who present themselves for the colliery manager's certificate have relied upon correspondence courses and many of them fail. Surely in a profession such as that of coalmining the criterion ought not to be merely the ability to pass an examination which may be precariously achieved by correspondence courses. It ought to be linked up with attendance at approved courses in properly equipped institutions such as now exist in most parts of the mining areas. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister should consult with his colleagues in the Government, and that all educational matters should come under his own Department, which would then have undivided authority in the sphere of education. I put forward these suggestions, which I hope are practical suggestions, and trust that they will be considered in the light of the discussions that are taking place, and that the Minister will see that the scheme of post-war education is drawn up and brought to this House as soon as possible in order that it may be properly examined and discussed, so that it can be launched without delay when the opportunity presents itself.
    I should like to express my appreciation of the growth in the expenditure on the provision of meals for children. Whatever might have been the grounds of objection of some people m days gone by, I think that in this hour of our nation's necessity everybody must have been convinced of the value of this provision. Anybody who has had the duty and privilege of seeing the children since this larger provision of meals and of noticing the tremendous improvement in their physical health and mental brightness, will realise

    1425
    that we are getting a good return from our money, pressed down and running over. We ought to be getting a bigger return than we are getting educationally for the money already invested. We realise the many difficulties that beset the path, but we trust that the days of simply going on with the old time methods without seeking to reform and reorganise the whole system of education have passed. We must give attention to an education which will make a good citizen and not merely turn a child into a cog that will fit effectively into the industrial machine. It must be an education that will send out into the world well-equipped, efficient, and what I would call human souls with a spiritual outlook on life. If it is not that, there will be nothing that divides us from those very things against which we are fighting. Looking at Germany and Russia, we can quite conceive that it will be possible to get an order of society organised on such lines that while all the material needs can be supplied real freedom and real development will not be there and the system will merely make effective machines. Education, if it means anything, means that it will turn out boys and girls to be men and women capable of living with each other and capable of living with the rest of the world. It means the development of mind and body so that people can express their own individualities while at the same time co-operating with the rest of the community in order to build up a society so that terrible tragedies such as that through which we are now passing will be impossible in the days to come.
    Mrs. Tate: I cannot say how heartily I concur with the views expressed by the hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) as to the real purpose of education. When I listened to the Minister's interesting speech I could not help feeling that there was rather too much emphasis on the desirability of an increase in expenditure on education. I want to see education extended, but I cannot concur in the view that efficiency is necessarily indicated because the expenditure is greater. I wish that I could think so. Although we must congratulate this country and the Board of Education on the fact that education has been carried on often under most difficult conditions during the war, I believe that we could have laid far greater foundation for post-war education than we have done. I am afraid that the statistics which the
    1426
    Minister gave with regard to attendance at schools showed a more satisfactory picture than is, in fact, the case. The Minister may say that so many children have attended school, or a certain percentage of children were absent from school, but that does not give a true picture. Since the beginning of the war enormous numbers of children have had their education so broken up and interrupted and changed to such an extent that it has been practically useless. The Minister gave us no picture of this often unnecessary movement in his speech.
    I very heartily welcome the increase in school feeding and the extension of the milk-in-schools scheme that will be of real value. To turn to the Youth Advisory Council it will not have the opportunity it should have if it is to deal only with children from 14 to 18. Any youth advisory council which starts advising about children only when they reach the age of 14 will be largely ineffective, because the character and problems of youth as also the problems of juvenile delinquency need attention at a far earlier age if we are to give them the attention they deserve. The Minister knows how much I deplore and have for long deplored the fact that so many children between two and five years of age have been handed over by the Board of Education to the Ministry of Health, who have proved themselves extraordinarily incapable of dealing with them. If expenditure of money were a guarantee of efficiency, how remarkable would have been the record of the Ministry of Health. They have certainly spent the money, but efficiency has far from followed that expenditure. A Committee was set up the other day to deal with maternity and child welfare. It is an enormous Committee which is overloaded with medical representation, and, as far as I can make out, it is not responsible in any way for reporting to the Board of Education. I should like to have a definite reply from the Minister as to whether that Committee is obliged to advise and report to the Board of Education, or whether, having been set up by the Ministry of Health, it is obliged to report and advise only to the Ministry of Health. In my opinion the Committee will be greatly hampered if it has to deal only with the Ministry of Health, in advising on child welfare. Judging by their near past record, they should not be allowed to touch a single

    1427
    child over the age of two. The taxpayers would be absolutely horrified if a careful analysis was made and given of increase in expenditure where, in war-time nurseries, children from ages up to two are mixed with children from two to five years old. Certainly everyone who is interested in child welfare is horrified with the inefficiency of these nurseries, as compared with those which take children from two to five years of age only and put them in charge of properly qualified nursery school teachers instead of under a trained nurse or matron who are not the persons best qualified to deal with the education of children.
    Maternity and child welfare cannot be dealt with purely from the physical point of view. The sooner we realise that the physical and mental welfare of children are indissoluble the sooner we shall understand that their management is largely an educational matter and put children of two and over entirely under the Board of Education. It is no good the Minister laughing, because he knows very well what a terrible mistake his Department made when, in their folly, they handed over these children to the Ministry of Health. An enormous opportunity has been presented during this war, because children have been entering nurseries at an earlier age and in larger numbers than in peace-time because their parents have joined up or are working in factories. We could have built a really ideal structure of nursery schools for post-war years, but, owing to the fact that the matter has come under the Ministry of Health, that wonderful opportunity has been largely thrown away and enormous sums of public money with it. I know that I am surrounded by potential speakers, and I do not want to detain the Committee very long, but I wish that the Minister had paid greater tribute to the teachers who have had to meet almost insuperable difficulties during the war. I note he said that we were still short of teachers.
    Mr. Butler: I think it would be a great pity if the impression were given that I am not grateful. On many occasions I have expressed my gratitude, and on several occasions during my speech I purposely paid a tribute to the teachers. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to stress it again, be-
    1428
    cause I think it is important that teachers should be aware of my gratitude.
    Mrs. Tate: I apologise. I certainly put my point badly. I was thinking of married women teachers. The Minister explained that we were calling on reserves of teachers and were asking married women to return to the teaching profession. May I say that I consider that no woman who is married should be forced to leave the teaching profession? I do not consider that when a woman marries she becomes less experienced. I think it is very regrettable that so large a proportion of women were forced to give up their profession on marriage, and I trust, in view of the service they are rendering during the war, women may be dealt with more reasonably and justly in the postwar years. I sincerely hope that the Youth Advisory Council will have a closer link with the Maternity and Child Welfare Committee. I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of that. Youth does not begin at 14, and child welfare does not stop at infancy. Child welfare and youth development are and should be linked together. I repeat that we should not have so great a preponderance of medical advice on the Maternity and Child Welfare Committee, and that it should not be set up to advise only the Ministry of Health, but should report also to the Board of Education.
    Mr. Richards: The Committee has listened with very great interest to what the President said in the first review of education during the war years. I think we can congratulate both ourselves and the Board upon the fact that the educational system, working under considerable difficulties, is still really doing a splendid job of work. I did not feel, however, that the President was taking the serious view of the future of education that we are entitled to expect from him. I think the country is particularly anxious at present to know something of what is in the mind of the Board of Education and the House generally with regard to the future development of education. It has been said by some speakers—and I am sure we all agree—that the development of education is the most fundamental of all the reforms that we are looking forward to as the result of the war. The community that we shall have after the war must be largely formed by the kind of education that we evolve.

    1429
    We have only to look to other countries to see that this is so. Education, if it means anything at all, is education for life in the community. It seems to me that there are conflicting ideals as to what this life may mean.
    We have the point very clearly put, for example, in the case of the system that has been adopted in Germany. A very striking book has been written recently by an American professor dealing with this system, in which he outlines something of the Nazi idea. Dr. Siemer entitles his book, curiously, "Education for Death." He gives detailed examples of the way in which Germany has trained its youth to regard its own life, and very largely its own ideals, as matters of no consequence at all provided they have an opportunity of giving their life for the State. This is the kind of thing that we are meeting on the Continent at present, a system which has controlled the youth from babyhood upwards to the need that the demand of the State is absolutely paramount. There is, as he said, in the career of that youth a ceremony of dedication to the State. It takes place at about 14 or 15, when the boy is introduced in the presence of a particular kind of ceremony and swears that he will do everything for and by the State. Germany is not the only country where you have that belief. You have it in the case of the Soviet youth. One would like to feel that we really are going to establish a system of education such as will give every boy and girl such a belief in the institutions of his country that he will not only be willing to die but—a much more difficult thing—to live for this country too. We are looking forward to something of that kind, and the instrument that we have for forging that future system of education is very largely the Board of Education.
    I do not think we can say that the present system is at all satisfactory. Take, for example, the very simple case of the gross inequalities of the system as it is working at present. Take the case of children going into secondary schools. The inequalities are really very great. We give opportunities to children to go to secondary schools, but compare different counties. Compare a rich with a poor county. There is no equality of opportunity as long as you have those great differences in what are called special places. One county will be very generous,
    1430
    and another will be much less generous. Why should children in the second county be treated differently from children in the first? It all comes back to the question of rateable value. Why should that determine the opportunity that the children are to have? It stands to reason that the burden that would be imposed upon Merthyr Tydfil by giving a number of special places in its secondary school would be much more considerable than in a rich town like Bournemouth. I was glad to find that the President was very much impressed by what has been done in Anglesey in the matter of the feeding of school children. Does he realise that Anglesey is one of the poorest counties, from the point of view of rateable value, in the whole Kingdom? That makes the effort that Anglesey has made in this respect, as well as in others, a very noteworthy one indeed.
    It seems to me that there is only one thing that the Board can do in this matter, and that is to get rid of the idea of special places altogether. Everyone bemoans the fact that children are leaving school just when they are beginning to learn. Why not give them all an opportunity of going to a multi-lateral school where they will be taught all kinds of subjects? It is in that kind of atmosphere, where every boy is given an opportunity of being taught all kinds of subjects, that we discover the natural inclination of the child. One will be academic; let him go to a university. Another will be technical in his tendencies; let him have the best technical education the country can give him. I think it would do both kinds of children, brought up together in that kind of atmosphere, a deal of good. The one would respect the talent that one child has in his hands, just as the other respects the talents that the other has in his mind. We need them all for the community, and we are beginning to realise that one of the most important persons at present in the community is the engineer. We should be in a very sorry plight indeed were it not for the dexterity with which the engineers are fighting the battle for us in the factories.
    I am sorry to say that this distinction as between rich and poor extends also to the university colleges and to the training colleges. I heard the other day of the case of a little girl who could not have a university education because her parents were poor and she would have had to go

    1431
    to another town, whereas children living in the neighbourhood of that town could avail themselves of university education. The whole thing wants regularising. If children are fit to go to the universities, the State ought to see that they get an opportunity of going there.
    We have heard something about the public schools, and that is a subject which is causing considerable concern in the country at the present time. I am not here to decry, because it would be ridiculous to do so, the services that have been performed by our public schools, but if they are in considerable financial straits at the present time, if they come to the State to assist them in their difficulties, we feel that they ought to be brought into the general system of the educational life of this country. One feels sometimes that the public school is the only school from which the public is quite definitely excluded and we want to put an end to that position. Public schools have great traditions and great experience, and we want to place those traditions and that experience at the service of the community generally, so that every child who can profit by that kind of education will have an opportunity of doing so. It has been said that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton. I do not know whether by analogy, we ought to say that the battle of Singapore was lost on the playing-fields of Harrow. At any rate mistakes have been made by the public schools, just as by other public institutions, and I hope that the Committee which the President of the Board of Education has set up will not be a halfhearted committee and that a determined effort will be made to make the public schools even more efficient than they are now—and some of them are very efficient—and certainly more prepared to serve not a particular section of the community but the whole of it.
    There is another aspect of the matter to which I should like to refer. We have just been celebrating the centenary of one of the greatest headmasters of a public school which this country has ever known, and it is rather interesting, when looking back over the century, to think that what Arnold did at Rugby and what Jowett did to a certain extent at Balliol was to train people for the administration of the Ser-
    1432
    vices, particularly abroad. For that kind of work emphasis was laid not particularly upon intellectual qualities, upon the training of the brain, but upon other social qualities. I think too much stress has been placed upon good form, upon certain qualities which we value very much but which ought now to be combined with definitely intellectual training. Although our Dependencies and our Colonies owe a great deal to this type of administrator, it is becoming increasingly clear that we need another type of administrator to-day. We shall want the scientifically-trained mind if we are to get the best from whatever Dependencies will remain to us at the end of the war. Our weakness in scientific training has been an outstanding blot upon our educational system. I was interested to find that in the report published by the Board of Education, I think in 1927, it was pointed out that during the last war science came into its own, for a time at any rate, but that it was quite possible that we should slip back again in that respect, and that they were endeavouring to do something towards making permanent the contribution of science to the life of the community.
    Science, we all believe, will play a much more important part in the future even than it has done in the past. Progress, particularly on the technical side, during these three years of war has been enormous. Science will control the future. We have seen how Russia has equipped herself, in the scientific sense, in the short time she has enjoyed the kind of government she has at the present time. Science is going to control the future of nations. That nation will be on top which is best scientifically equipped. From that point of view alone our children should be scientifically-minded in future to a degree which it was not possible for earlier generations to attain. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there is a tremendous value, almost a unique value, in scientific training. It is not for me to decry the value of training in the classics or any of those other subjects to which we have been so long wedded, but I am certain that the training which science gives is invaluable even if we regard it merely as a kind of training.
    There will also be, I am certain, a great demand for cultural education in future. After the present weary period people will turn for comfort and for inspiration to

    1433
    the classics in the wider sense of the term. I was rather disappointed that the President of the Board of Education did not say anything about the splendid work which is being done by the tutorial classes and by the Workers' Educational Association. It holds the future in its hands, it seems to me, and as long as we can get adult people who have been through the war or working in the factories to feel that there is something more which can only be given them by a course of education, this country can be proud of itself and pretty certain of its future. Like some of my hon. Friends here, I have had the privilege of conducting evening classes for workers. We have all been struck by the fact that they have found in them something that they had missed. I am sure there will be a greatly increased demand along these lines in future. The people of Wales in particular are looking forward—and I was glad to hear the President of the Board of Education refer to it—to opportunities for renewed study of their culture and their literature. We are, I assume, fighting for the small nations of the world. Wales is a small nation judged by numbers. It has one of the most interesting and varied, as well as the richest, literatures in the world. It is a miracle how that literature and that language have persisted. We are looking forward to an opportunity for extended study, in the sense of giving all our people an opportunity of enriching their lives at the fount of this culture, which is native to them, while not despising the culture of other nations which are greater from some points of view. It is a unique opportunity for the Board of Education. If we have further discussions on education, I suggest that some of these fundamental problems which worry us should be discussed and debated, and some kind of a conclusion come to before the end of the war, in order, as has already been said, that we may move on at once to perfecting our system of education, as far as is humanly possible.
    Captain Cobb: I congratulate the President of the Board of Education upon the first speech which he has made in this House since his appointment. I am sure he will understand what I mean when I say that probably most of us were far more interested in what he is going to do in education than in what he is actually doing. We all realise fully that, in the
    1434
    reconstruction of the post-war world, education and educational reform will be of first-class importance. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not allow himself to be deterred in his activities by the knowledge that any step forward ever taken in educational reform has invariably been well ahead of public opinion. It is false to imagine that progress in education comes from public demand. Almost invariably the people who are most affected, that is, the parents, are opposed to reforms involving their keeping children at school longer, and that sort of thing. After the reforms have become established, it will be only a very small minority who will wish to return to the status quo ante.
    In one respect, the President of the Board of Education might use his good offices with the officers of the Board. I feel that the Board are over-obsessed with the importance of stressing the individual. Children should be taught, above everything, that the individual is of little importance and that what counts is what the individual is able to give. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), who made a most interesting speech, referred to education abroad which stresses the importance of the children rendering service to the State and to the State alone. I agree that the example which he gave showed the undesirable effects of the kind of education which is practised in totalitarian countries, but, in a country like this or in any other really democratic country whose institutions are worth preserving, it is of immense importance that the individual should not consider himself but should realise that he is performing his best function by giving to the community rather than in taking from it.
    I was very glad to hear what the President had to say about the school-leaving age. Generally speaking, we are becoming increasingly conscious of the fact that we have failed in the past to live up to our responsibilities to the young. We have allowed them to leave school and become almost entirely divorced from any kind of educational influence at a time when they are still very young children, far too young to be thrown on the world and left to their own devices. The House of Commons has approved the Education Act, which raises the school-leaving age to 15. That is a very desirable advance as a first step which will, I understand and hope, be put into operation as soon as the war

    1435
    is over; but if the President of the Board of Education is proposing to bring forward plans in due course for post-war education, I hope that he will divide his programme into two parts, long-term and short-term. There are certain reforms which could be put into operation almost immediately, but there are others equally necessary and desirable which should be agreed as essential. If it were left to me to make post-war plans for education, I should ask—demand—that the school-leaving age be raised within a specified time to 16; that from 16 to 18 there should be compulsory part-time education, and that from 18, to round off our educational system, there should be at least a year of compulsory national service. It seems to me that one could then feel that we had really given every child in the country an opportunity of becoming a first-class and useful citizen.
    One reform to which no reference was made by my right hon. Friend, is urgently necessary. It is essential that, as soon as it can be effected, there should be a very material reduction in the size of classes. In many schools, teachers are faced with the almost impossible task of having to teach classes of 35 or 40 children. That may be all right in a secondary school where a great number of the children are specialising and working on their own, but to try and teach a class of 40 very small children means that the teacher is presented with a task which it is impossible to perform.
    The registration of youth which is now taking place has shown clearly to the Board of Education and to the authorities concerned how few are the opportunities provided for children between the ages of 16 and 18. In some areas it is difficult to find suitable activities which are worth while for these young people. One very great difficulty is to find suitable leaders. So many active and suitable men have been called up to service in the Armed Forces that I suggest that the President of the Board might get into touch with the Service Department with a view to getting a supply of suitable, youngish men who have been invalided out of the Services or have been retired from the Services on the ground of age. After all, you are an old man in the Services at 45, but you are perfectly suitable for many years after that to be a very effective leader of youth.
    1436
    There is another subject which the President of the Board touched upon in his speech, the selection and training of teachers, and I was very glad to hear him tell the Committee that he has appointed a committee which is to inquire into the whole question and make recommendations. In view of the immense importance of the teaching profession, those proposing to enter it should be given the best possible preparation for their most important career. I should lay it down as being almost 100 per cent. necessary that they should have the advantage of education in a boarding school, and that they should proceed thereafter to a university. I hope that the teaching profession will not take it amiss if I venture to express the opinion that the present system of training teachers can hardly avoid making them into a narrow-minded community. It seems to me a most unhappy state of affairs that at the age of 18 or 19 these teachers should be herded into monastic institutions like training colleges, where every student is about to adopt exactly the same profession. It would be infinitely better in every way if intending teachers went to a university, where they would rub shoulders with all kinds and conditions of men who are entering every kind of profession, because this mixing with other people is bound to give them a broader outlook, which will be of enormous advantage to them in their profession.
    My right hon. Friend also said a word about religious education, and I was very glad to hear him tell the Committee that arrangements are being made to teach teachers to teach religion. That may be a rather complicated sentence, but I think that under the existing system, or what has been the system until now, it has been perfectly ludicrous to allow teachers who do not profess to believe in Christianity to have the duty of teaching the Christian religion to children in their charge. I am not decrying the value of the work that has been done by teachers in the schools, because I think that everyone realises that the religious syllabus is a matter of comparatively small importance; what does matter is the zeal, the ability and the profound belief of the teacher who is giving the instruction. There is no doubt that in spite of many handicaps very fine results have been achieved in the past. A committee was appointed in the days when Lord Halifax was President

    1437
    of the Board which recommended that in training colleges there should be a diploma for teachers who wished to specialise in religious instruction. I do not know whether anything was ever done about that recommendation, but I feel that religious instruction should be accepted generally as being equally as important as mathematics, history, literature or anything else. It is essential that this immensely important subject should be taught by people who are really qualified to teach it and who really believe in the subject which they are teaching.
    In conclusion, I should like to express the opinion that the Board of Education has been hardly treated by Prime Ministers during the last 20 years. We have had 11 or 12 different Presidents of the Board during that time. I think that Lord Eustace Percy was the only one who held office for more than four years, and I suggest that for the position of President of the Board of Education to be one which lasts for such an extremely short time makes it quite impossible to have any consistent policy. What has happened is that a man has arrived at the Board of Education and has just begun to learn something about his job when he is either removed to another place or is translated to some other office. The same may apply to other Ministries as well, but I express the opinion that it is more unfortunate in the case of education than it is in the case of a great many other offices. I hope that the present President will not allow himself, if he can possibly help it, to be translated elsewhere until he has had an opportunity of presenting to the House the work on which he is engaged, the preparation of a plan for the future reconstruction of education.
    Mr. R. Morgan: I am sorry that I have to follow my hon. and gallant Friend, because there is so much in what he has said that I should have liked to say myself. That will, however, have the advantage of making my speech short. I am very glad to see that the Education Estimates are in the hands of my right hon. Friend the President and also of the Parliamentary Secretary, an intellectual whom we have borrowed from the other side of the House. I and some of my hon. Friends have often said in Debates on the Estimates that we always believed education to be a thing which has no place in party politics, and
    1438
    I hope that we shall follow that lead now and for ever. In the field of education there should be no room for political opportunism. I say this because there has been a spate of books on education, and almost every weekly has attempted to tell us recently what should be the future of education. As we have been treated to so many glimpses of what is likely to happen in the future, I cannot but refer to a statement I saw in a weekly called the "New Statesman." It contained what I might call a left-handed compliment to the party to which I belong. The writer started his argument by saying:
    "It is fantastic but true that the Conservative party is more active in the educational field than the Labour party."
    I am not sure whether that was intended as a left-handed compliment to our party or a tribute to our record in the past, or whether it was a spur to the Labour party to join more heartily in the cause of education. Be that as it may, I am very glad to see that the Estimates to-day are in the charge of the tandem pair who are seeing a very responsible job through. I take it that they are both agreed on this scheme of which we have had glimpses. Apart from these articles in the Press, we have also had many resolutions and many conferences in the past month, particularly the Whitsuntide conferences, by which we are led to believe, if we may sum up some of the resolutions which were passed—and I am not going to disagree with them—that all is not too well with our educational system. I think that the general burden of the complaint is that our educational development is too slowly moving and that in peacetime it is handicapped and hampered by some of those social evils which ought long to have been eradicated, such as poverty and unemployment.
    In war-time, I hope that the President or the Parliamentary Secretary, whoever is to reply, will not mind my saying that although education is an important service, it is not quite regarded as an essential service in the war period. I do not think one can quarrel with that. What I was going to say is that from the resolutions I have seen it is evident that a large body of opinion in this country feels that education now deserves a new drive, in deeper and wider and more fruitful channels. I want particularly to join with my hon. Friend who preceded me in

    1439
    saying that if we are to have a long-term policy, these kaleidoscopic changes of the Board must cease. We ought at least to see that we have a President and a Parliamentary Secretary who will give us in the near future a five-year plan, and we ought to be able to hold them to it, and check them as they go along and see how they get along. It has been deplorable in the past to see the different changes in the Board. We have seen a noble Earl, well fitted to occupy the chair at the Ministry of Agriculture, put into the Board of Education presidential chair; we have seen an equally well qualified man from the educational point of view put into the chair of agriculture. So one could go on. I hope some method can be found of stabilising, at least for a time, the office of the President of the Board of Education.
    After all is said and done, educational policy cannot be dissociated from other fields of national activity, such as national service and defence, the relation of the State to industry, unemployment, local government and social services. All these things act and react on one another. Therefore it is essential that we should have a President of the Board and a Parliamentary Secretary in charge who are able to get into close touch with these different Departments. If I were to be asked what I considered to be the greatest need of the Board of Education's work to-day, I should say that it would be that they should see that the whole of the education services are integrated into one national system under one national control, right from the nursery school to postgraduate and university stage and adult education. In that I am only following what another Member said previously. What we really want is to treat education as an indivisible whole. Then we should not have these questions cropping up as to how we should deal with public schools and private schools, and approved schools. What we want to-day is to get away from the multiplicity of types of schools. Simplification would help us to get unification, with one great division, primary and secondary, as has been suggested, and then a university course for those best able to take advantage of it. I very much like the slogan which the President of the Board gave at an Easter conference at which I was present, when he said he was going to have a fresh slogan, that rather than "Equal oppo-
    1440
    rtunities for all" he would say, "Each according to his ability." I thought that an excellent slogan.
    There are some things which hamper educational progress and have always done so. I do not know whether the President of the Board knew it, but when he touched on the question of the religious factor he dealt with it rather gingerly-very wisely, if I may say so—but I would warn him that it is a factor that has to be faced. I think I am right in saying that the majority of the people of this country desire that education shall be founded on a religious basis. That is easier said than carried out. It would be distressing if we had the experience of the past repeated—if we had to witness again an Education Act wrecked on the rocks of religious prejudice. I have come to the conclusion that although this has to be faced, we must face it boldly and, in a way, simply. We cannot possibly base any educational system on a sectarian system that would satisfy all sects, but I think we could concentrate, or the Board could concentrate, on a system which would suit the majority of people, that is, they could concentrate on the central Christian doctrine. You may ask me, What is the central Christian doctrine? I confess it is a very difficult thing to answer, but if I were to be pressed, I would say it is one which is based on the Ten Commandments and the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. Few people would object to that; at least, I do not think so. At all events I think that the definition we might keep in our minds is the one which Professor Jacks gave us the other day, when he said,
    Let us base our educational system on an agreed system of factual religious instruction.
    His actual words were, if I remember rightly:
    "Education is a way of life based on a faith which gives meaning to our way of life and sanctification to our teaching."
    I think that is rather what the President of the Board was hinting at to-day.
    I think it was the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) who stressed a point which must be evident to the minds of most of us, that is, that the State must concern itself with religion. Otherwise you get these awful parallels from the state of France, what is happening in Germany, and what has been happening in Russia. In France, after the victory of anti-clericalism that took place, we found that there was no substitute for religion

    1441
    there at all; therefore there was no ideology, and man must have an ideology. In Germany they sought after a substitute; they set up a sort of ersatz religion. We all know the terrible results of this. Those are the kind of things we want to avoid, and we can only avoid them in the way I have suggested.
    Mr. Sorensen: How about the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Morgan: The Soviet Union was a different proposition.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I would remind the hon. Member that in his opening remarks he promised to be short, and I do not think he will be able to go through all the educational systems of the world.
    Mr. Morgan: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Williams. My point is that the war has shown us the need for spiritual national unity. I think that an agreed and approved syllabus is the best and only practical way you can possibly adopt. I wanted to make reference to the men in the Forces. I can do that best by quoting a letter which I have received:
    "It seems to me that the experiment in providing facilities in the Forces for many of us is important, not only for the period of the war but also for the preparation of big post-war developments."
    I know much is being done; but is it possible for the Board of Education to give any account of what is going on in order to make up the leeway for those young men in the Forces who have been deprived of the opportunity of going into the different educational fields, as they intended to do; and are the Board of Education able to follow up and receive reports on what is happening in those directions? I should like to conclude by congratulating the President of the Board of Education on giving us this opportunity to examine the educational position in spite of so many calls in other directions.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I should like to join those other Members who have expressed their pleasure that the President of the Board of Education is in his office and the hope that no sudden turn of the ministerial kaleidoscope will remove him from work in which he is taking such deep interest, and for which he is so well qualified. We have been encouraged by what he has said about the progress being made
    1442
    in schools, even under war conditions, and in spite of the special stress of war-time finance. There is universal satisfaction at the development of school feeding. The right hon. Gentleman stressed not only the immense value physically of the inauguration of regular school meals, but the educational value. School life is really inadequate unless it is something much more than the life of the classroom. It needs the life of the playing fields and social life within the schools. The school meal adds a social sacrament to the life of the school if it is conducted in the right way and enjoyed in the right spirit. From this point of view, as well as that of the physical advantage to the children, we must rejoice at the progress which has been made in this respect, even in these difficult days. Then there is the remarkable development in the opening up of the service of youth and the registration of children between 14 and 16—for they are still children, although they are wage-earners. This has opened the eyes, at any rate, of many who are working in and for local education authorities to the existence of wrong conditions of which they were unaware. From the point of view of educating our education authorities and administrators, we must welcome the introduction of this change. We shall get to know the facts about life as it affects these young wage-earners, many of whom are working long hours, working very hard, and sometimes in wrong conditions. As a result, we may look forward to greater reforms.
    But this would never have been necessary if successive Governments and successive Parliaments had not allowed the provisions of Mr. Fisher's great Act to become a dead letter; and if the education authorities had acted as they might have done under the provisions that Parliament had given them, we need have had no ignorance about the conditions of our young people. They would not then have been neglected, but would have been going on with their education. Why is it that during these 20 years only one education authority has had the courage to go on with the provisions of the Fisher Act, and to provide education for all its children of between 14 and 16? Let us turn our eyes to Rugby, and think of the wonderful example that that education authority has set, with every boy and girl leaving school going on with one day a week at continuation school up to the

    1443
    age of 16, with the result that almost all the boys and a very large proportion of the girls voluntarily go on with continuation schooling after that. That might have happened all over the country if education authorities had really cared about education as they ought to do.
    Captain Cobb: Is the hon. Member not aware that that voluntary part-time education scheme broke down because of the opposition of the parents?
    Mr. Harvey: I do not think it was merely the opposition of the parents. I know that there was opposition, but it could have been overcome if the leaders in the municipalities and in the Government had been enough in earnest. There was opposition, no doubt, at first in Rugby, but it was overcome. The good will of the manufacturers and of the leaders of the trade unions was obtained, and it has been maintained. No one questions the value of that work. We must see that there is a development of it in years to come. The hon. and gallant Member opposite wants, I know, to see not only the raising of the age to 15 immediately after the close of hostilities, and at a very early date to 16, but a fuller education provided for all our children. If that is done, we shall then be a family. Until we do it we are a family divided, and unworthy of the name. The President of the Board of Education used an interesting phrase, which I hope I am not unfair in saying was a characteristic under-statement. He spoke of his desire to "smooth out the unevenness" of English education. He wants to see an increase of variety. I agree. But "smoothing out the unevenness" is a miserably inadequate description, considering the terrible inequalities that still exist.
    Let us try to think of the child in a poor family who has obtained a free place in a secondary school, and who is either unable to go to that school at all or is withdrawn at the earliest possible moment, not because of unfitness, not because he does not wish to go on, but because of the pressure of poverty in the home. That injustice has to be removed, not merely for the sake of that child and of that home, but for the sake of the whole family of the nation, to which we all belong. The President of the Board of Education spoke of his plan for improving
    1444
    and widening the training of teachers. He hopes to bring into this greatest of professions men and women with a wider and different background of experience, along with those so devotedly working in it to-day. I hope that he will go further, and ensure that the entrants into this profession get a training which is worthy of their noble calling, in the truest sense. It is not satisfactory that we should have these segregated training colleges utterly apart from the life of the universities.
    We ought to bring in our future teachers to share the life of the universities along with fellow students of their own age. They would be wider in their outlook for that and would bring their own contribution to the life of the universities. Some of these colleges are already close to existing universities and could easily be linked up. It might be necessary to transfer others from their present sites, but we need to have it made clear that the object of our system should be to give the very best training possible to the teachers of the future. We ought not to grudge the expenditure that is needed, if we realise the importance of the work to which the teachers are dedicated.
    There is one point of which the President did not speak at all in his hints about future development and the plans he is already making for it. I hope that during this Debate we may hear from the Parliamentary Secretary some word upon the matter. I refer to the plans he is now making for the further development of adult education. The Board of Education has been the Cinderella of Ministries, and I am inclined to think that adult education has been the Cinderella of all the Departments with which the Board itself deals. I hope that we shall see the present system of scholarships provided to the universities widened very much in their scope. At the moment the Board provides scholarships to universities for young students who intend to teach, and they have to make a declaration promising that they will teach for a certain number of years. I hope that we shall have a far wider system in substitution for that.
    We have to remember that it is not only those who go to the universities who need adult education. We want to see a far greater extension of the splendid work of the tutorial classes to which the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards)

    1445
    alluded. Already in the Army there is a great piece of adult educational work going on. That too has revealed the need. I read the other day a letter from an officer deeply interested in this subject and he said that he was struck by the amazing interest of the men, and also by their amazing ignorance. The need is very great and the appetite is there; cannot the Board make fuller use of the work that is now going on in the Army? The teachers who are already working there and the opportunities that are opening out are providing a foundation for wider adult educational work in the future.
    I was very pleased when the President spoke of the child in industry in the way that he did—that we should think of him as a learner rather than as a wage-earner. We ought to think in the same way of all our fellow citizens, not think of them just as wage-earners, but as being capable of going on learning as citizens right up to the end of life, and help and encourage every effort being made for adult education for all sections of the community; not to have everything run from Whitehall but sympathetically reviewed from Whitehall and generously aided where aid is required. I believe that the President of the Board of Education has an outlook upon life which will make him sympathetic to work and reform of this kind, and I earnestly hope that he may remain in his great office long enough to see the plans which he seeks to develop carried to fruition.
    Mr. Summers: I should like at the outset of my remarks to add my sense of satisfaction to what has already been expressed at the remarks to which we listened from the President of the Board of Education. Not only did he show a very laudable desire to get the benefit of the best of tradition but also a realistic and progressive spirit in moving with the times. One effect of the war and the constant repetition of the question, "What is it for which we are fighting?" has resulted in a kind of national introspection, and, as with the individual so with the nation, that process may very easily develop into something thoroughly unhealthy, despite the excellent motives to which it gives rise. Moreover, it is a process which, once started, is very difficult to stop and may very easily destroy a proper sense of proportion. I believe that that is the cause of some of us tending to criticise aspects of our social
    1446
    system, not because they are inherently bad but because they conflict with the soothing and, in my view, dangerous principle of equality.
    That brings me to a word of surprise that the President of the Board of Education should have found a growing recognition of the value of the boarding school as such. In my experience the criticism of what we know as the public school system is tending to grow rather than the reverse. It is high time that this country realised that in the last 100 years we have accomplished a very great deal and that we have now very much of which we may justly be proud. It is only fair that the appropriate part which the public schools as such have played in that achievement and in that pride should be given proper recognition. There are cases where views become thoroughly distorted and extreme. I heard it contended the other day that the full importance and value of our public schools were only appreciated by our enemies, and, in justification for that view, it was suggested that the real reason for the invasion of Abyssinia was because Mussolini was so imbued with the importance of the public school system that he must needs acquire a North West frontier in which the public school spirit might have free play to the national advantage. That is a view which is so extreme that one may dismiss it, but there is no denying the fact that the majority of the posts of importance and influence in this country at the present time, whether it be a good thing or whether it be bad, are, in fact, occupied in the majority by people who have been to the public school. That has undoubtedly given rise to a measure of jealousy. In addition to that, there has been abundant evidence that a public school education is by no means an infallible guide to wisdom, for there have been numerous and grievous blunders created by those who have had the benefit of that system. But that need not divert the criticism from the proper channels.
    It seems that one point upon which attention can rightly be directed is not that there exists a system whereby individuals—and only a limited number—may prolong their education up to the age of 18, but that the financial means of acquiring that additional education are practically the sole passport to it. It is of paramount importance that facilities and

    1447
    means should be found whereby those in a position to benefit from that type of education—and I underline those who may be expected to benefit—should have it made easier for them to derive benefit and acquire that advantage. But in doing so I hope too much weight will not be attached to examinations in selecting the people to benefit, as has been the case in the past, but that greater weight will be attached to nominations. For that reason I welcome the information given to us by my right hon. Friend that there is to be an inquiry into the nature and effect of the system of examinations as we know them to-day. There are, after all, very many who, although able to pass the necessary scholastic tests, for lack of personality, drive or some other reason are not able in after life to make the best use of the knowledge they have acquired. By the same token there are those who, although not so scholastically inclined, could, with proper training and development, make much of their after life. As opportunities are extended, as I trust they will be, there is scope for dealing with the selection of those who will find a place in those institutions.
    I would like to say a few words about the public school system as such. There are, I believe, two main defects, which are by no means as bad as they were at one time, to which attention can be directed. In the first place, too great an insistence is placed upon athletic prowess, and, secondly, there is too great a desire for uniformity. I have no doubt that both these characteristics are the result of a desire to pay particular attention to the development of character as such, and to those who have followed the controversy in "The Times" I would add that I see no reason why the desire to obtain character in our educational system need necessarily conflict with the desire to develop intellect. The desire to build up character is, I suggest, given a slightly false emphasis in regard to uniformity and athletics. The mere playing of games is not the only way in which courage, teamwork and initiative can be developed, and it seems to me that as catering for individual talents and aptitudes is dealt with there are opportunities for creating that enterprise and resource which are such essential features of our educational system. I hope the development of individual talent rather than a positive
    1448
    search for uniformity will guide the minds of those who govern our educational institutions.
    May I refer, to the experiment with which some Members may be familiar, and which I believe could with advantage be more widely known? I refer to the County Badge Movement. This scheme, which has the very wise backing and support of the Master of Balliol, does not pretend to be an educational system in itself. It is by no means complete, nor does it pretend to be complete, but it is there to be grafted on to existing movements and adapted to local circumstances. The four achievements, for which particular standards have been laid down, are physical achievement, the expedition achievement, the project achievement and the service achievement. In the physical achievement where there are three grades—junior, intermediate and senior—with appropriate standards for attainment in the different tests and subjects dealt with, there are swimming, life-saving, running, throwing, stamina and matters of that kind. As regards the expedition achievement, that includes riding, climbing and items of that kind, while the project achievement is related more to an individual hobby, such as music or constructional ideas of a particular kind. The service achievement is such local service to the community as can be found practicable. There is no desire for absolute uniformity in the attainment or even in the tests of such a movement. It is desirable that it should have a strong local flavour. It can also be applied not only to public and secondary schools but also to many who have left school. Here is a great opportunity to create self-discipline as opposed to mass discipline, and I hope that educational authorities, as well as my right hon. Friend, who are in a position to give help and support, will not hesitate to do so and to give encouragement to the energetic pioneers of the movement.
    In conclusion, I hope that in speaking of those features of our educational training which should be stressed particular attention will be paid to self-reliance and willingness to accept responsibility. If we look around at the modern age, we cannot deny that there has grown up what has come to be termed escapism. People seem incapable of deriving strength and help for themselves; they must continually be distracted, taken out of themselves. There must be hundreds of thousands of

    1449
    pounds spent annually by people who are incapable of providing mental stimulation or relaxation for themselves. They must needs go out and buy it. That, I feel, is a reflection on the educational system of this country as it has been known in the past, and as a counter to that and as a means of developing self-reliance in life in general, self-engendered, I hope that full advantage will be taken of those who have been evacuated from the towns to the countryside and who may for the first time have had a chance of seeing and learning something of the simplicity and beauty of the countryside and all that goes with it. Great chances are available, and all who are in a position to encourage that type of approach to their sojourn in the country will do well to make note of it.
    We heard to-day of the question of religious instruction in schools. I believe that the country is ripe for a religious and spiritual revival, and I believe that by progressive approach to the problems of education the ground may be prepared for that revival to take root. In our present President of the Board of Education we have one to whom we can look with confidence to build up a system which will provide opportunities not only for wider education for the greater number, but for that religious and spiritual interest in life which should be taken in future by education.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I will try in the few remarks I shall make to confine myself to the speech which the President has made, because it is clear that it is impossible to cope with this vast problem in a few moments. I know it is not very popular to say so, but I cannot help feeling that a two days' Debate on what everybody keeps saying in the Press is the most vital question of the day would not have been entirely out of place. I am not sure, however, whether they really mean that. It is becoming a trite thing to say. If they do mean it and do not ask for the Debate, I think it is because they believe that schools and the educational structure are not really the major forces in forming the character of the country. There is a curious disbelief in this country in the efficacy of schools as such. There is on the other hand a strong feeling throughout the country, such as I have never known in the last 20 years, in favour of changes in the educational system, and it would be interesting to analyse why
    1450
    that feeling exists. I think that my right hon. Friend will understand me when I say that I hope his speech was a masterpiece of under-statement. I hope that it betrayed, as I believe it did, a tremendous consciousness of the task with which he is faced and a spirit of inquiry first, because it is clear that there are very few decisions which he has yet been able to take.
    We have not had a Debate on education for two years. It was my difficult job and privilege to introduce the previous Estimates for three or four years, and I do not want to go back over that field except to say that the unevenness to which my right hon. Friend referred and the inequality between the various authorities were then just as evident. It was to attempt to meet that situation that we were spending £2,000,000 a week in capital expenditure on the building of senior schools. As he said, as you go round the country you may see in some areas brand, new schools and in many other areas very bad ones. There are, in fact, 10,500 church schools; more indeed than there are council schools. A large number of them are for junior children, but we cannot deal with this problem, as I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates, without tackling the dual system. We came up against a blank wall, as he is doing and is bound to do. He cannot proceed with reorganisation unless he tackles the dual system, and I should like to know what progress has been made in the solution of that problem, to which I know he has addressed himself in relation both to church and local education authorities.
    My right hon. Friend told us what we had learned from the war and what the schools were doing to help the war. It was my privilege to share in starting in this country a few years ago three major experiments—Camp Schools, the Youth Service and the body known as C.E.M.A. The expenditure on camp service has increased from £136,000 to £250,000, and the £50,000 allotted to C.E.M.A. has been increased to £100,000. I was under the impression that it came under the Treasury, and I am glad to know that it comes under the Board of Education. The President in an earlier speech in the country used a phrase which I wish he would repeat and act up to in the coming years. He said that the Board of Education had sacrificed itself too much for other Departments. Take

    1451
    any great question like camp schools, nursery schools and agricultural education, what has happened? Camp schools, which is the greatest experiment, that has been made, with an element in it of boarding provided by the central department, apart from any money which comes from the parents, is still under a department which is not primarily interested in education, the Ministry of Health. I wish hon. Members would not think that I have any narrow departmental feeling, but during the war we have created a Ministry of War Transport because the common element is transport. It covers canals, ships, ports and roads. The common element in the Ministry of Fuel and Power is coal. I cannot see why, when the common element for education is the growing child, the various schools that are required whether agricultural or technical, should not be intimately related to a Central Ministry. When Mr. Runciman left the Board of Education and went to the Ministry of Agriculture he took agricultural education with him, and it has been there ever since. When my right hon. Friend's predecessor allowed a committee to be set up on the relation between education and agriculture it was left to the Ministry of Agriculture to act with only an assessor from the Board of Education. The consequence is that the whole educational system between 14 and 18 in the country is not to be considered in relation to the senior school or in relation to the agricultural institute, which stands midway between the schools and the agricultural college, but is to be considered primarily from an agricultural outlook. I consider that to be wrong.
    If we take nursery schools, I was sorry that my right hon. Friend did not see fit to make reference to this foundation of the whole educational system. He said he had set up a child division at the Board, but what has he done in fact? He has brought back one of our oldest and most distinguished civil servants who had retired to take charge and has referred to this division a whole number of matters. Many of these questions are in fact being dealt with by a vast committee of the Ministry of Health consisting of 32 people which was announced by the Minister of Health last week, and which is concerned with children under five. Margaret and Rachael Macmillan, 20 years ago established the nursery school
    1452
    which has proved itself by experience, and it is high time the Board realised that the difference between a nursery school with the educational provision and a nursery centre with sick nurses is "a genuine difference" this is going back on a fundamental principle of education. I do not want to flog that question to-day because it has been debated before. The fact is that no proper provision has been made under the auspices of the Board of Education for the teachers in these schools. There are, in fact, a number of vacancies in the training colleges, but there are also very large numbers of people—and registration has proved this—who want to go in for this particular work. One county, Hertfordshire, has take the initiative, but the point is that this matter should be the major concern of the Board of Education and should be transferred to them.
    Let me take the case of the Minister of Labour. The system of apprenticeship has very largely broken down, and the technical training of young people between 14 and 18 is profoundly important. This is a major educational commitment, and it is for that reason I rejoice that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to start some inquiries in that direction. I congratulate him wholeheartedly on it, and I hope it will go a long way. It is just as important as the Youth Advisory Council he announced to-day.
    May I say this about the problem of youth between 14 and 18 years of age? I came to the conclusion many years ago that this is the determining point in education. Everything leads up to it, and everything leads on from it. There was a very great purpose in regard to the schools to which Arnold gave his name. They had a real purpose in their day, but it is not easy to see what is the purpose of our present educational system. It is not easy to discover what we are trying to do in these schools, and the reason is because they are unrelated to the modern world. By turning out children at 14, we are destroying nine years of work. There is no medical and dental attention after 14: this matter ought to come under the supervision of the local education authorities. Health cannot be separated from education in this way. No one receives any benefit from health insurance until the age of

    1453
    17. The consequence is that there is not only a decay in teeth, but a general deterioration which goes on in these vital years.
    Since we started the service of youth two years ago, two important things have happened. Firstly, 500,000 young people have joined pre-Service training units; secondly, registration. It is idle to pretend that they are under the best educational control, and that is why I am very pleased to know that Mr. Wolfenden is to be made Chairman of this Committee. He brought to the A.T.C., not only the thing which is implicit in the R.A.F.—glamour and the uniform—but also a clear-cut goal. The results many hon. Members know only too well. These boys attend classes in the evenings, which they would never have dreamed of attending had they been ordinary evening institute classes, to learn mathematics and navigation, and they do it because there is a purpose behind them. It is true to say—and I had experience of this last night in a club—that unless there is an element of discipline—and that element has been discovered particularly by the A.T.C.—there is something shoddy and second-rate about the whole business. The problem is what is to be the motive to inspire young people between 14 and 18 to go to classes and clubs after the war. The Committee should bear in mind that it does not necessarily follow that 500,000 will be in pre-Service units when this war is over. We shall suddenly have an enormous let down—there is a serious gap now because there are not enough leaders to deal with this problem.
    I wonder whether the Committee really understand the significance of this movement. As far as I can see—and this is where the Fisher Act broke down—it will mean 100,000 leaders or teachers but men and women of an entirely different kind. If we do not deal with this problem we may have a system not unlike the Fascist movements on the Continent, because these young people are tuned up now to such an extent that there is literally nothing to which they will not respond. That is why I am so anxious that the Minister of Home Security should encourage Civil Defence cadets. I only touch on this point because it is difficult to say more in the time available.
    Reference has been made to day continuation schools for those between the
    1454
    ages of 16 and 18. I have been re-reading speeches made by Mr. Fisher, and the story of the breakdown of the day continuation schools. It is not true to say that the breakdown was due mainly to parents. It was quite as much due to the employers, who did not like the idea. You cannot have extended education without maintenance during training, which is the problem of the Minister of Labour. He must have maintenance during training for those between 14 and 18 if he is to replace apprenticeships by vocational training. How is he to face the problem? Firstly, there are family allowances. The Committee is coming to see the wisdom of the great book written by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) 20 years ago. I hope that if we do not have a system whereby more money goes into the home, especially where there are more than two children, a system of maintenance grants in schools will be introduced. My right hon. Friend spoke about teachers. We can all repeat what has been said already, that unless we recruit teachers from wider sources we shall not have the quality we want. Would it not be a good thing to have a number of teachers given the chance to enter industry first? A youth between 14 and 18 will follow a craftsman, whereas he will not so easily follow the teacher with ordinary academic qualification.
    My right hon. Friend made some remarks about public schools, but, like so many other things in his speech, he did not tell us very much. He is right in obtaining the best possible advice on this question before making up his mind, but we are not very much wiser about the Committee over which Lord Fleming is to preside. Camp schools have proved that the idea of boarding is accepted by parents irrespective of their incomes. The point is made that the boarding element is an essential part of our public schools. I do not agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) on public schools. Nor did I think he was quite up to date in calling most of the schools of the country board schools. It was an approach to the problem with which I was not quite in sympathy.
    What is this thing that people keep on talking about which happens at public schools and not at Raynes Park County Secondary School, one of the finest in the

    1455
    country, and many others? What is it that happens at a boarding school which gives this peculiar quality? Is it not very largely the fact that most of those who go to the well-known boarding schools come from different homes? There is another difference, which is not only the difference between education for the labouring poor—still the education for the great mass of the people—and the education which was associated with the old public schools. There is a temperamental difference. It is the difference between the speech of my hon. Friend opposite and the speech of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities. It has been repeated in America and in the Dominions. I will sum it up in the description of Governor Berkeley in 1671 in Virginia. He said:
    "I thank God there are no free schools and I hope we shall not have them these hundred years, for learning has brought disobedience and heresy into the world."
    To which the Puritans replied that a good dogmatic education would pave, the way for a reign of saints. I almost felt it when the hon. Member for the Combined Universities was speaking. In other words, the Puritans really believed that education could liberate people and give them a new sense of citizenship and a new outlook. The difference is still there. There is a large number of people who do not believe that the schools can give this and therefore they do not back up the interest in education, which I think is really stronger in the country to-day than I have ever known it, and perhaps than it has been at any time. I would ask the President to address himself to this question. He has set up a Committee under Dr. Norwood to go into the future of the secondary schools. He set up a Committee under Dr. McNair for the recruiting and training of teachers and youth leaders. He set up an Advisory Council, and I hope they will be more consulted by the Board than the Youth Committee has been, because advisory committees work in two ways. Sometimes it is an excuse for the executive to do very little, and sometimes it means that the executive is really getting to the roots of a problem by drawing from a wide variety of experience. If a committee consists of 20 it does not, normally, meet more than eight times a year. Here is a Committee composed of 18 or 19 people. I hope the
    1456
    President is going to get the best out of the experience of these younger people and translate it into actual legislation in the very near future and certainly into administrative action.
    When the right hon Gentleman has set up all his committees, when he has the result of the Luxmore Committee set up under the Ministry of Agriculture and the Forster Committee, I beg of him to create out of the present Board of Education a new Ministry. The phrase "Ministry of Youth and Childhood" is merely a name. It must in fact cover the whole life of the child from the age of two up to 18. In his opening remarks he seemed to suggest that that was firmly in his mind. If he means business, I think it is going to be one of the major changes since 1902, possibly since 1870. If you look upon it in any other way, what is the good of raising the school age another peg? What is the good of talking about day continuation schools? Everyone knows that it will take at least seven or eight years to get the teachers and the buildings after the war. There are at this moment no Senior schools in this city. I am getting a little tired of books relating to post-war education Senior and junior schools have been amalgamated in London. I appreciate the difficulties. I had a letter from Mr. Henriques of the juvenile court to-day. He said that the main problems that he is faced with in his court are caused by the coming backwards and forwards of children to and from London, the complete breakdown of the home and the deterioration of the children who are coming out of the schools because of their lack of security.
    We are faced with a difficulty, but also with an opportunity. My only purpose in speaking is to ask, almost to beseech my right hon. Friend not to pitch the key too low, nor, on the other hand, to raise false hopes, but to realise that in this crisis in the world, if we really mean that the education system is capable of effecting certain changes, it will need a radical approach. My right hon. Friend said the other day that he did not like the phrase "equality of opportunity" as much as "training for talent." Equality of opportunity means one thing only. It means access to an agreed standard of physical provision. If you are born in one county you may have six times the chance of secondary education that you have if you are born in another. That is wrong. The

    1457
    increase in meals and milk is almost entirely due to the increased grant from the State plus the drive put behind it by the Board of Education. You cannot get away from the fact that unless you spend probably twice as much on education, that is on people under 18 instead of later on, you will never approach to equality of opportunity. If we mean equality of access to an agreed standard of physical provision it means buildings, it means doctors, it means dentists, it means milk, it means the whole physical basis of education; but after that I hope every school will be utterly different from every other.
    I hope that there will be no longer any question of a uniform standard but that the schools will be utterly different and each school will be a little experiment on its own. But to do this you must have a Ministry which is not just the old Board of Education created out of bits and pieces of the nineteenth century. It must be a new Ministry created out of four or five present Departments. I believe that that view was expressed by an hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Ammon) for his party, it has been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for the Liberal party and it has been expressed by Conservatives, and I should like it to go forth from this House that we here, as a united House, ask the President of the Board of Education to create out of the present Department, for that is what it is, a new Ministry with a new purpose to provide much greater opportunities, phiysical and mental, for the children of the country.
    Sir Percy Harris: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the new President of the Board of Education on his very charming and attractive speech and also upon the modesty of his approach to his very important task. I have seen many Ministers introduce their Estimates. Going back to rather ancient history, to the last war, another Minister, the late Mr. Fisher, then occupied that post. It was the third year of that war. Just as in this war, the Cabinet was occupied with the tremendous task of winning the war, and the Prime Minister of that day had very little time in which to think of education. But Mr. Fisher was a "stone-waller." My right hon. Friend also has a reputation for being a stone-waller. Mr. Fisher was
    1458
    very persistent in his approach to the Cabinet. He insisted that time should be found for an Education Bill and he was very persistent to that end. He achieved his purpose, and the last year of the war period he was largely occupied in passing through this House the very contentious but very constructive Measure which even to-day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) has pointed out, is still not entirely translated into practice. Now that we are considering the Estimates I must not speak about legislation, but if my right hon. Friend is not successful in persuading the Prime Minister to find time for legislation at any rate he can do something to complete the work initiated by Mr. Fisher, which is still unfinished.
    A lot of nice things have been said about education. I am going to say that education has suffered more than any other social service during the war. Children have been the victims of the circumstances and conditions of war and have lost valuable years of training. I do not wish to apportion blame, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock must accept some responsibility for what happened during the first months of the war. Inevitably education suffers during war. There has been an inevitable reaction to the scheme of evacuation, which has not worked out as was expected. Children who went into the country have gained untold benefits through making contact with country life, benefits both to their health and knowledge, but those who remained behind in evacuation areas have suffered immensely. In the first few months of the war there was no provision for education at all. Schools were closed and children were running wild about the streets, and no serious attempt was made to do anything. Such were the difficulties that finally we had a voluntary system—voluntary attendance. It was one of the most comic experiences I have ever come across: children going in and out of school as they pleased, attending sometimes for a day or two if they felt so inclined. There is much credit to those children who did go to school of their own accord. But for many months many children in London had no education at all. Then there came the unfortunate system of double sessions, children going to school for half a day, and teachers having different classes in the afternoon from those in the morning.

    1459
    Now, in 1942, we have a so-called full session of education, but there is a shortage of school places, a shortage of staff, and the whole machinery built up during the last 30 years is in bits and pieces. Boys and girls are mixed. Yesterday I was in two schools and saw teachers struggling with classes of 40 and 50 made up of boys and girls of ages ranging from 11 to 14. That is actually going on in London within a mile or two of this House, in spite of the vast sums of money which we are voting for education. Where all that money has gone I do not know, but certainly there is some weakness in the machinery, there is some faulty organisation and children are having a makeshift system of education. As for the reorganisation plans inspired by the Hadow Report, providing for junior and senior schools, that has all gone to the wall. Where there used to be three head teachers there is now one. There are boys and girls and infants all under one man head teacher, and boys, girls and infants all under one woman head teacher. To his credit and to her credit they are tacking their difficult problem with courage and tenacity. I cannot pay too great a tribute to teachers in London. I am speaking of London in particular and conditions may be different in the provinces, but I cannot pay too high a tribute to the courage and tenacity with which these teachers, handicapped by shortage of staff, insufficient accommodation and everything else, are tackling their difficult problems.
    But we shall never make up to the child the loss during the precious years between 8 and 14. Let us be frank. After the war, when things will be appallingly difficult, we shall have a generation of partly-educated children. Either education—full-time education, with small classes—is a good thing or it is not. If it is a good thing, then these children will suffer in after life as a result of the conditions which have existed during the war. I am purposely not attacking any particular Minister. I think there has been a lack of vision and understanding. Both local authorities and the Government have been too ready to let education take a back seat. One of the difficulties in London and in other towns is that many school buildings have been taken over for other purposes—for the fire service or other Civil Defence activities—and educa-
    1460
    tion has suffered. Some time ago I asked a question about attendances and the Minister declared that there was only a small number of children who were not attending school. All my information is that there is a great increase in truancy. The trouble is that the education authorities are not in a position to trace those children. Boys and girls are running about the streets who have not been to school for a year or two. Perhaps their fathers and mothers are in the Services; at any rate they are not there to send them to school, and the attendance officer is not able to trace them.
    Some of them have moved to other areas and some are away in the country. I am going to make a statement to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply. The percentage which he gave is misleading. If he got down to the truth he would find that thousands of children throughout the country have, for one reason or another, made no attendance at school and are growing up practically illiterate and uneducated. At a school to which I went yesterday I found boys of 13, quite normal children, who could not even read. They had been in and out of school and have been evacuated, some half-a-dozen times and others even ten times. Such cases create a very serious problem.
    Earl Winterton: Is there not only one way to deal with that situation—to make evacuation, or non-evacuation, compulsory? But the right hon. Gentleman does not advocate that.
    Sir P. Harris: The Board of Education must find a policy to deal with the situation. It is about time they had a policy. Some of these children have been ten times to the country, just according to mood or a change of weather. They go for a fortnight and have their expenses paid, and then come back. No doubt it is very pleasant for the children, but their education is important, especially when we have to vote these immense sums of money.
    Another serious aspect of the matter, again a reaction of the war, is the extension of the number of hours during which children are employed in our basic industries. The right hon. Gentleman was hurt when I challenged his new policy about child labour in agriculture. I still think that that policy was reactionary. If it

    1461
    had not been for the action of some of my friends in another place nothing would have been done to stop the employment of children in the worst industry for this purpose, the pottery trade, which is by no means a healthy occupation. The same applies to the cotton trade. The original idea was that no children were to be employed in industry for longer than 44 hours. A few years ago that was decided by Act of Parliament. Owing to stress of circumstances in the cotton trade the time was extended from 44 hours to 48. Now it has been extended, I understand without protest from the Board of Education, to 53 hours.
    What is my right hon. Friend going to do? Is he going to insist that the Board of Education shall consider the interests of the children? The circumstances of the cotton industry lend themselves to child labour, but we are the trustees and protectors of the children and we should see that this kind of development is stopped. Longer hours are far more general than we realise and attendance at evening classes has become impossible. Among the most valuable work done in London during the last 30 years has been the increase in the number of evening classes. It has been most valuable work, not only from an educational but from a social and moral point of view. I am told that now, owing to longer hours and the demand for their labour, little children who leave school at 14 years of age and to whom a promise was given before the war that they should stay at school till 15, are so occupied in the offices, factories and workshops that they are too tired at the end of the day to attend evening classes. That is a short-sighted and wrong policy and we look to our new Minister, who I believe is really keen on his job, to assert himself. Let him tackle that big powerful personality the Minister of Labour, and insist upon a Children's Charter against exploitation through long hours in industry, even though it may be in the immediate interests of the prosecution of the war.
    I am glad that my right hon. Friend put such emphasis on technical education. At this moment we are in a very critical phase of the war. It looks as if the technical side will be the deciding factor. Shortly after the last war and before the Nazis came into power I visited a great part of Germany and particularly I went
    1462
    into their technical schools. They are miles ahead of us in their technical training. During Victorian years we regarded that kind of training as rather inferior to a literary education. I have no particular case for the technical schools as such and there is much to be said for the multiple school with mixed technical and literary classes but this is a matter which cannot wait. My right hon. Friend referred to what is being done to co-operate with industry during the war; in spite of the pressure of war conditions, I believe that energy, man-power and time would be well spent in developing the technical side of education. I do not believe that the war will be over in a few months—I wish I could. We may be faced with war conditions for many months to come. Therefore, do not let us leave our boys and girls at 14 years of age to be driven into the cotton mills or the potteries or on to our farm land to work long hours. Let the right hon. Gentleman use some of his energy in developing technical classes and schools so that whether the war drags on or is over soon, that policy will be a valuable investment. It will help us in our post-war policy. When the men come pouring back from the three Services and the munitions factories it may be extremely difficult for them to find jobs in the peace-time factories. It will be useful for us to have enlightenment on what the Board of Education are doing to train young people who are leaving school by way of technical classes and continuation schools, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply on this point.
    I was pleased at the enthusiasm shown by my right hon. Friend for continuation schools. The critical age in boys and girls—do not let us forget girls—is from 16 to 18. We are inclined to overlook the education of the young women between 16 and 18 years which is important from the moral as well as from the educational point of view. Mr. Fisher, with that magnificent vision of his, created the idea of continuation schools and put it prominently in his Act of Parliament. I notice on the opposite side my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb). I would like to have his attention. He refuted the idea that local authorities were in any way responsible for the breakdown in continuation classes. I agree that London was not responsible. The Board of Education of

    1463
    that day were. They ought to have seen to it that all the areas round London cooperated. It broke down because children in outer areas were leaving school at 14 and taking jobs which were available, against children inside the L.C.C. area who had to attend continuation schools, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is a good time to make another experiment in continuation schools, especially in some of the large industrial areas. It is not a good thing for boys and girls to leave school at 14 and spend the whole of their time in a factory or workshop without any conflicting influence.
    I remember the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor introducing his scheme for youth. Expressed in fine sounding phrases, it was a magnificent idea, but it was largely a sentimental appeal. It has not achieved very much in spite of the £250,000 provided for it. That is not much for a country like this. In spite of the good intentions and high-sounding phrases, it has achieved very little result. If you want a youth movement you want continuation schools, which will provide centres to get control of the children through the machinery of educational organisation. It is all very well to register them and have the records. It gives employment to a number of clerks and gives us interesting statistics, but if there is to be any justification for this registration, I hope my right hon. Friend will follow it up, not next year but this year, this very winter, by translating it into something more practical. The time factor is critical. We all know that we have had Debates about boys earning high wages. Some hon. Members have refuted such statements, but I submit that it is all right for boys to earn high wages and take them into the home, provided always that there is a social influence from the education authorities, exercised through evening classes and continuation schools, giving them some occupation for their minds, to keep them healthy and out of mischief.
    I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend opposite on the question of public schools. I think that the public schools have got quite out of focus in our Debates. They affect only some 70,000 boys and there are only 160 schools altogether, about half of which are receiving grants from local authorities and are conforming
    1464
    to the regulations applied to secondary schools as a whole. I hope that our attention will not be focused too sharply upon the public schools. It is not that they do not do good work, but some of them are happy hunting grounds for parents who are well off, and their advantages are limited to people who can afford to pay fees of £150 or over. By all means let us spread the advantage of boarding schools so that all those who would benefit by them should have an opportunity to do so. There is machinery created for the purpose in the Act which we passed enabling the purchase of school camps to be undertaken.
    I think that what is far more important at the moment is the question of private schools. During the period when our educational system was paralysed and schools were closed, they were springing up in many parts of the London outskirts like mushrooms, giving a very unsatisfactory system of education for a considerable fee. They are not open to inspection, there is no control over them and they can be staffed by any person, however unqualified. The children suffer in consequence. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the time has now come when the Board should tackle this problem of the private schools. It is far more important in my view than that of the boarding-schools or the public schools. Private schools spring up in back streets with high-sounding titles and uncertificated teachers, and give a very poor form of education. We really shall not have democracy in this country until we have a common school to which children of all classes up to the age of 11 will go, where they will sit on the same benches and have the same kind of training. They have it more or less in the Dominions, and the principle has long prevailed in the United States of America, and to a great extent in France. It can be done without passing legislation if the Board, through the local authorities, use the power of insisting that children who now go to these unsatisfactory seminaries I have mentioned must go to the ordinary schools.
    In conclusion, I would say that while my hon. Friend who spoke last wanted the Board to grow and the Department to become a Ministry, I, on the contrary, want the Board to remain, but I want it to become a real Board. If I may speak of the matter in Service terms, in the

    1465
    case of the Army Council we have had discussions on the General Staff and the importance of thinking out the science of war. I submit that the time has now come for the President to think out the science of education. He has been doing it, in a way, by setting up a number of committees and advisory councils, but I suggest that the Board itself should have the machinery within it to think out educational strategy and the science of teaching. There should be a new general staff, and the Board itself, like the Army Council, should actually function and meet. Power should not be vested in one man. Just as, in the Army, the Secretary of State is advised by the Army Council, so the right hon. Gentleman should be advised by a real Board of Education, composed of men and women qualified and able to advise him in a comprehensive way on the whole educational problem, so that when the war is over the advance should be on the right lines and on the basis of a co-ordinated and well thought-out policy.
    Mr. Hannah: It is no small privilege to be allowed to take part in a Debate in which one is able to agree with the great bulk of what has been said. Nobody will doubt, I think, that our country has great educational traditions. Our oldest public school was already venerable a thousand years ago—St. Peter's at York. In 1603, Scotland annexed England. One of the very first reforms which the Scots made was to have universities represented in this House. And when we see the kind of people they send us we realise the wisdom of the action. Our English system of education has many great traditions. Perhaps the most important that separates it from the systems of other countries is the tremendous emphasis we lay on sport. It was no small honour to Oxford University when a Harvard Rhodes scholar said that what impressed him most there was that while a thousand men were desperately keen to win, everyone of them would prefer to lose rather than to win by any kind of unfairness. But, after all, we are concerned rather with the future than with the past, and I wish very briefly indeed, under four points, to speak about what seem to me the general lines which English education ought to pursue. I have made these points as few as possible because English folk do not
    1466
    like points. In fact I frequently think the reason why football and cricket are so popular is that neither a football nor a cricket ball has one single point.
    The first point is that there should be an exchange of teachers all over the English-speaking world. I lay enormous stress on that. It will help more than anything else to bind us together. And our unity is the chief hope of mankind. Possibly, in a personal way, I may be influenced by the fact that I have had the privilege of teaching on the shores of the Yellow Sea, on the High Veldt of South Africa, by the shores of the Bay of Fundy, and among the woods of Ohio, as well as in this country. I know perfectly well that I have been a rolling stone, and I have gathered no moss. But I have yet to learn exactly what would be the use of the moss if the rolling stone did gather it. I wish to express very strongly the absolute need of binding together the English-speaking world by an interchange of teachers and an interchange of pupils as well. I had the very valuable experience of teaching in a purely classless society in the American Middle West, and I think that institutions like Oberlin College have a great deal to teach this country. The "movies" have for the most part made us familiar with the American language and therefore the exchange presents little difficulty. Supposing there were not considerable linguistic difficulties I would want interchange with a rather wider range of lands. I want to emphasise the great desirability that those who are to teach at Winchester should spend part of their time at Michaelhouse in Natal, and so with all our schools, so that throughout our educational system every school, elementary and other, should have somebody who is familiar at first hand with conditions in lands overseas.
    My second point is that I hope we shall make no effort at uniformity of education, but that we shall have equal opportunities for all. Every child has a right to the best that the country can give, and I think that in days gone by, and also at the present time, the Quakers did a great service in establishing a special type of school, emphasising nature study, archæology, and things like that, rather than the classics. England was immensely enriched by their work. It is obviously unsatisfactory that every school should teach the same thing. I have in my

    1467
    hands a very interesting leaflet issued by the Board of Education in 1908—Circular 599—on the teaching of history in secondary schools. I will not read it for obvious reasons, but it says that in every school there should be special reference to the particular history of the locality. I think it is obvious also that education should be rather different in the country and in the town. Such works as Gilbert White's "Natural History of Selborne" would be a very useful thing for country children to study. People who have to live in villages should learn to appreciate the great opportunities for culture which the country possesses—quite as much as any town.
    My third point is a demand that our education should be made as democratic as possible. I wish we could have as soon as practicable free places in the great public schools for elementary school-children, first, because I think it would be tremendously to the benefit of the children; secondly, because I think it is absolutely essential to the future of the public schools themselves. Public schools have done a great deal for our country in days gone by, and now I think nobody can doubt that we do not want them any longer to be merely the preserves of the rich. The general internal atmosphere of a public school is so democratic that, if it were done gradually, I do not believe there would be the slightest difficulty in bringing children from all sorts of homes into them, and making them entirely at home. Those of us who have been to public schools have seen the sons of belted earls fagging—or sweating, as Winchester has it—for the sons of country curates. Once you got those boys into the public schools, they would undoubtedly be received in a liberal and fraternal way.
    My fourth point is that I think our education must have vision. Man cannot live by bread alone. Personally, I would ask very earnestly indeed for religious education everywhere, but if that cannot always be managed, then something like the saluting of the flag in American schools, instilling the idea of patriotism, of loyalty to something more than mere utilitarianism, some idealism. This seems to me of the greatest value as part of every school curriculum. There are certain people in this House who seem to think that a good deal is done by talking about
    1468
    old school ties, and when they accuse men of "strangling their consciences with their old school ties" they think they have annihilated opponents. I hope that some time my own education will be extended so as to enable me to grasp the meaning of that phrase—if it has any meaning. I desire to draw attention not so much to the old school tie as to the old school chapel, the centre of all that is greatest in our public schools. A man whom I would have no hesitation in calling the greatest of all the poets of Bilston, Henry New-bolt, some years ago—during the last war—was musing in his old school chapel at Clifton and there he gave a message that seems to me as valuable as any other for our education at the present time, and not merely for our education but for the whole of our national life:

    "This is the chapel: here, my son.

    Your father thought the thoughts of youth

    And heard the words that, one by one,

    The touch of life has turned to' truth.

    Here in a day that is not far

    You, too, may speak with noble ghosts

    Of mankind and the vows of War

    You made before the Lord of Hosts.

    To set the cause above renown.

    To love the game beyond the prize.

    To honour while you strike him down

    The foe that comes with fearless eyes:

    To count the life of battle good.

    And dear the land that gave you birth,

    And dearer yet the brotherhood

    That binds the brave of all the earth."

    As a Scot I object to waste. I find I still have one half-minute left of the time I promised not to exceed. I use it to ask for a new type of school, one which shall teach hon. Members of this House to stand up, to speak up, to shut up.
    Mr. Cove: I have spoken in a great number of education Debates during past years, but I have not attended one that, on the one hand, gave such a sense of despondency, and, on the other hand, gave such a feeling of hopefulness as that of to-day. A great deal of hopefulness is to be derived from the attendance of Members to-day. I cannot remember an education Debate in the last 15 years at which so many Members were present for so long. That shows that, underneath, at least, there is great interest in the service of education. The House, in its collective capacity, to-day has shown that it realises that education, and the service of education, are of fundamental importance, both during and after

    1469
    the war. On the other hand, the Debate has given cause for despondency. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I say that he struck that note. Where in the Minister's speech was there a note of hopefulness? Where in the Minister's speech was there a spur to enthusiasm? Where in the Minister's speech was there a motive of idealism? We have heard from the Minister the most masterly exposition of inactivity that I have ever heard from any Minister. So far as he was expressing the mind of the Government, I should say the Government have no ideas about education. Where in the Minister's speech was there any concrete proposal, for now or for the new world that we are supposed to be building? It is difficult to follow the Minister. I would like to pay him this compliment. It was an extremely clever speech. It might have been due to his experience in the Foreign Office of closing up, but there was no opening out of new fields of vision. He did not even open out enough for me to attack him. Every controversial subject that now agitates the educational world, every controversial subject that is now engaging the minds of people, is hidden behind the masterly facade that the Minister built up to-day. I congratulate him on that masterly performance. But we have come to the point when masterly inactivity is a defeatist policy.
    The Parliamentary Secretary is to reply to the Debate. Will he reassure me about two main drifts and drives in the educational world? Can he assure me that there is not a drift and a drive towards militarisation in the educational world? Take the posters that I see around London, inviting young people to join the youth movement for free military training between the ages of 14 and 16. Is military training for boys of 14 educational? What is the attraction? What do I see on the bills round St. Pancras? "You will have battle dress; you will be equipped with the modern weapons of war." What check has the Board of Education on that movement for the militarisation of youth? It is a dreadful prospect. My hon. Friends on these benches want to win the war, but I hope they do not want to do so at the expense of the militarisation of youth. Take another main drift. Again I may be falling foul of some of my hon. Friends here, but I would ask, is the Board of Education dominated by the Bevin complex?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Aneurin Bevan?
    Mr. Cove: No; as a matter of fact, Bevan is much more expansive than Bevin. What do I mean by the Bevin complex? Is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary quite sure that, dominating the policies of the Board of Education at this moment, there is not this over-pressure for what is called practical and technical education to the exclusion of the wider and broader aspects of education? Every regulation of which I know that has come from the Board of Education, with regard to students going into colleges and universities—I have the details here but it would be boring to mention them to the Committee in detail—is completely in favour of what is called the practically and scientifically-minded students. There is a longer period at the university for the practically and technically-minded students than for other students. That is a wrong approach. This country will not suffer after the war for the lack of technically and scientifically trained people. It is more likely to suffer from the lack of what are generally called the executive-minded people. The arts are at a discount. The literary-minded student is at a discount. Although I am not inside at all and can only tell my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary what is conveyed to one outside, I would say that the impact of the Ministry of Labour on the Board of Education is far too strong and powerful. Therefore I ask the Board to assert and to reassert itself against any narrow-minded interpretation of the purpose and function of education and the educational system. I am not such a fool—I am foolish perhaps in many ways—as to' believe that a democratic education system can provide us with a democratic system of society but I am certain that we cannot have a democratic system of society without a democratic system of education. I am looking to the Board to see that that principle is carried into practice.
    Let us look at the concrete case of the camp schools. We are told that this is a great educational experiment. Humbug! I have heard it said in this House that children are being taken out to draw maps of the localities, and we are given all sorts of reasons in favour of this as a new experiment. Everything in the educational world that has been carried

    1471
    out in camp schools has been carried out in ordinary council schools for the last 20 years. I want to press on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the camp schools are seething with discontent. There is friction. The camp schools are not being given their proper head, as far as their educational services and activities are concerned. The National Camps Corporation, through someone who was at the Board of Education and who, I understand, has now been seconded into that sphere, impinge far too much upon the educational activities of these schools. Frankly and definitely, if the camp schools are to be a real and a true educational experiment then the dual control that exists has to go.
    The control of the camp schools has to pass to the local education authorities, and the sooner the Board make up their mind the better it will be. Of what are they afraid? Are they afraid of the Camp Schools Corporation, or whatever they call themselves, not making a profit? In every sort of trivial way—I could give pages of both trivial and major instances of cases in which the representatives of the National Camps Corporation interfere with the educational endeavours of these schools. If the camp schools are to be an experiment in boarding schools, I say to the President of the Board of Education—and I hope he will listen sincerely to this and carry it out—that that dual control has to cease or else what will happen will be the complete breakdown of the camp schools. We have heard to-day that the boarding school is a school to which working-class children can look forward.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Yes, the boarding school.
    Mr. Cove: What boarding school?
    Mr. Walkden: The new one. I will tell you if I get a chance.
    Mr. Cove: I would like to hear it.
    Mr. Walkden: I would convert 300 aerodromes into good public schools and vocational training centres and give our lads the same opportunity of enjoying public schools as other privileged families have enjoyed them in the days gone by, make them residential boarding schools. The buildings are there ready to be used. After the war, of course.
    Mr. Cove: I am very glad to have that answer, because it is the one that I expected. My hon. Friend will pardon me if I say that he really does not understand the significance of the boarding school if he associates the boarding school with the public school. The public school is not there. Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Oundle and all the lot are not there because they are educational institutions; they are there because they are social institutions, because they are the embodiment of class privilege.
    Mr. Lipson rose—
    Mr. Cove: There is nothing, even at Cheltenham, to justify the public school from the educational point of view. I would have the Committee bear in mind that the elementary schools, the municipal secondary schools and the public schools of this country have two functions, one educational, and the other social. They are not only educational institutions but social institutions. I was reading only last night the history of the large public schools, Winchester and the lot of them. What has clearly to be borne in mind is that the public school is not there because it has contributed anything. Suppose it had, suppose the public school was generous in educational practice and theory still, it is not there because of all that.
    It does not last because of that. Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Oundle, and Cheltenham to a lesser degree, are all there because they are confines of class privilege. They are social institutions. They give a meaning to the old school tie. It is not for nothing that that phrase has been coined. It means something. The President says he has set up a committee whose intention it is to see how we can infiltrate into these public schools children from elementary schools. You will not change the system by that method. You will never democratise public schools by giving a few scholarships to elementary school children. You will only "aristocratise" them—if I may coin a word. You will only make working-class children into snobs.
    Mr. Lipson: Was not this House at one time confined to Members of only one class, and was it not then, perhaps, exposed to some of the criticisms which, in part, my hon. Friend has applied to the public schools? Afterwards working men came here. Have they not justified their presence here?
    Mr. Cove: I have justified my existence. The only way to deal with public schools is to abolish them. I do not believe that on the educational side, leaving the social side alone for the moment, there is any case for isolation, even in camp schools. I do not believe there is any case for normal children in boarding schools. Schools ought to be part and parcel of the integral life of their community; they should be there on the spot with children coming in from all the various industries and walks of life. You think you will get something by isolation. What are you getting? You are merely getting boys to follow their leader. We do not want boys to follow their leader. The period of youth ought not to be the period of follow-my-leader. It should be to provide conditions whereby youth can exercise its own initiative. I challenge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friends on this side of the House. Look up the history of Germany since the last war. All youth movements, all the regimentation that we are now seeking to impose upon our educational system, were there during the Weimar Republic. There were youth movements in churches and various organisations all over Germany. All Hitler had to do was to amalgamate them, to "trustify" them, as it were. I am desperately afraid that that is happening in this country. It is an English form of totalitarianism, an English form of dragooning and militarising. I do not mean militarising in the sense of using a rifle; I mean it in the sense of militarising men. That is happening in the educational world at this moment, and it is forsaking all our history.
    There is only one great contribution, and it is a great contribution, that British education has made to world theory and practice in education, and it has been this—the relative individual freedom of the individual school. That has been our great contribution. We are leaving it behind. Frankly, I am sorry to have to make a speech like this. I am sorry to have to hurt my hon. Friends. I want to convey to them two things. One is that I am very critical, suspicious and sceptical of the influences that are borne in on the Board from outside. The other is that they should reassert themselves and get control. They are the Ministry of Education. I am not blaming the present occupants, but where has the Board been
    1474
    during the whole period of the war? I ask them to reassert themselves now and for the future. I have great sympathy with the Board and the Parliamentary Secretary. They have great problems before them. Here, as the President said, is a system; it is a hotch-potch, there is no equality of opportunity. If you are born in place A you can get a secondary education and much more attention than if you were born in place B. The whole educational system from that point of view wants changing.
    One of the problems which has been mentioned to-day is that of religious education in the schools. I understood that the President of the Board was disturbed about it. We cannot discuss legislation to raise the school-leaving age today, but I understand that negotiations are going on about what exists and what is proposed in the schools. I gather that the President has invited the religious denominations to make proposals as to religious teaching and conditions in the schools. I hope that he will get those proposals. I was sanguine about a couple of months ago about the outcome. It may be very indiscreet to say so, but I hope that the Church of England will not give the impression that all the difficulties belong to the Roman Catholic Church. I hope that the spirit which has been expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the spirit which will continue to prevail. I read that there was no doubt that the Church schools were able as a general rule to give a sense of corporate unity to the schools and create a stronger sense of corporate life and bring in the schools an element of special understanding and interest which was far more difficult for schools administered under a public authority. That sort of argument is not likely to make for a feeling of good will; it is likely to arouse opposition. There are other statements which, so far as I can see, will find no basis and no response for an agreement. There is no body of an organised professional or political character of which I know which will stand against a religious basis of teaching in the public schools of this country. Surely to goodness, in the Protestant field they can come to some agreement, because, if not, what is the use of talking about unity? I appeal, therefore, to those outside, to the leaders of the Church of England in particular, to make their contribution in easing the problem. Quite

    1475
    clearly, the 1902 Act showed that the Churches could not carry the burden of continuing to pay for the educational system, and the 1906 Act pointed the same way. It is quite clear that the Churches have to make their contribution towards any advancement that may be made in the future. I appeal, therefore, to those outside, to the Archbishop of Canterbury and all those concerned, to modify their views so far as they have expressed them, and approach this problem in the spirit of reaching some agreement.
    I should like now to turn to the question of children in the industrial field. I have here the condemnation of the Agricultural Union on this. They find no reason why child labour should be employed in agriculture. I cannot go into details.
    The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member has not studied the Order Paper.
    Mr. Cove: I have.
    The Chairman: Then he should have realised that he was anticipating something already on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Cove: Finally, I ask the Board of Education to reassert itself and give expression to the new world now. Let us have an educational Bill.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member said he was not going to deal with matters requiring legislation, and now he is actually advocating a Bill.
    Mr. Cove: Let us have a new educational Bill.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member will please bear in mind the Rules of Order.
    Mr. Cove: I will put it in another way. Let us have some new hope and some new vision as far as education is concerned, and let us see that the Board of Education are really masters in their own house.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede)rose—
    Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. May it be assumed on the next coal Debate that at least two university Members will catch the eye of the Chairman?
    Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend, I think, can feel every satisfaction with the
    1476
    course that the Debate has taken. We have never claimed that during the war we can conduct education without there being some casualties. Our endeavour has been to reduce to a minimum the number of casualties and, when they have occurred, to do all we can to secure that there shall be as speedy a recovery as possible. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) referred to my right hon. Friend's speech as a masterpiece of under-statement. I think my right hon. Friend did the very best he could to give an accurate picture of conditions at the moment. It would have been quite futile for us to say that everything is as we would like it to be. We do say that we believe the local education authorities and the teachers have been doing the very utmost they can, in very difficult circumstances, to maintain the standard as high as it possibly can be. I would agree even with the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir. P. Harris) in some of his criticisms of London education, because undoubtedly at the moment London is the weakest spot in the educational world. But I believe, if my right hon. Friend's speech was a masterpiece of under-statement, the right hon. Baronet's speech was a masterpiece of over-statement in some of the lurid pictures that he drew. I move about London, and I have visited some of the schools, and, while undoubtedly some of the advantages of formal education have been lost, I am convinced that a good many informal lessons which in normal times would never have been learned have been conveyed to the children, and their afterlives will be all the stronger for some of the initiative which they have had to exercise.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) asked me about the third-year course for some of the training college students. At the moment we are so hard pressed for teachers in the schools that, when a teacher is qualified, we think it is her duty to come into the schools and teach. After the war we may be able to offer some opportunities for these people to carry on with the courses they had embarked upon.
    A good deal of time has been spent on the discussion of the public schools, but only my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) suggested that they should be abolished. The Committee which is in process of being appointed will

    1477
    not be concerned with the abolition of the public schools but with finding how, if at all, it is possible to assimilate them more closely to the State system of education than they have been in the past. One of the things we want to know is whether there are some children for whom the boarding-school type of education is preferable to the day-school type, irrespective of the home into which they have been born. I should not by any means have thought, with the hon. Member for Aberavon, that there is something superior about the type of home that usually sends its child to a boarding school. I certainly came from a home which never dreamed of sending a child to a boarding school, but it was as good a home as could be found anywhere in the country, where the interests of the parents, as in most working-class homes, are bound up with their children and the opportunities that those children will have for intellectual expansion and advancement. It may be that there are some children who are not suited for a boarding-school education, and I believe some of them are in boarding schools to-day. I believe from what I have seen—I will not say from such ex-members of boarding schools as I have seen in the House but some that I have seen outside the House—that many of them are unsuited for the particularly robust kind of life which has to be led in a boarding school and are not possessed of sufficient individuality of character to stand up to the process which prevails in too many of these schools, inflicting uniformity rather than unity on the pupils. Where boys and girls are not capable of standing up to that I think it is doubtful whether they ought to be admitted, and certainly whether they ought to continue in those schools. That is one fundamental problem on which it is high time the country had some advice. There are various other things with which this Committee will be concerned. One is the question of the entrance examination to the schools. Let us be sure of this, that if classics are to remain one of the essential subjects for admission there will be no recruitment from the elementary schools into the public schools.
    Mr. Cove: Thank God.
    Mr. Ede: I am not sure for what particular thing my hon. Friend is offering his prayer. The whole question of the relationship of the public school system to
    1478
    the State schools has been overdue for examination for a great many years, and I sincerely hope that the Committee which has been appointed, and which I think will be found to comprise people who will command a very wide measure of confidence throughout the country, will find ample scope for a wide investigation and for a report which must have a profound influence upon the future of education in this country.
    Mr. Ammon: Is it possible to give the names of the Committee?
    Mr. Ede: Not now. They will be announced in due course by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how long this Committee will sit and when their report may be expected? Will it be a question of years or months?
    Mr. Ede: As they have not yet met —[Interruption.] If we are to deal with the question of the average attendance of Members in the House we may get into all sort of difficulties. My hon. Friend has asked me a question, and all I can say is that at the moment they have not met, but certainly we do not expect that this is an inquiry which is to run on for years.
    Mr. Silverman: Has the Committee been appointed?
    Mr. Ede: It has not yet been appointed. A Chairman has been secured, and certained other names are under consideration and will be announced in due course.
    Mr. Cove: You will not put me on.
    Mr. Ede: I am not putting anybody on, but I could think of better ways of employing my hon. Friend's time.
    Major Sir Edward Cadogan: Can the hon. Member say how many schools this inquiry will deal with?
    Mr. Ede: It will deal with all those schools which claim to be public schools. I understand there are about 183. They will be those schools whose headmasters are admitted to the Headmasters' Conference or whose governing bodies have joined the Governing Bodies' Association. After all, the term "public school" is one that is very loosely applied, but I think

    1479
    that schools affiliated to those bodies practically cover the range of schools we have in mind.
    Mr. Cove: The name is applied to most schools that are not public.
    Mr. Lindsay: Does my hon. Friend mean that the schools will not include independent schools which are not in the Headmasters' Conference and preparatory schools?
    Mr. Ede: No. Independent and preparatory schools are not generally included in the term "public school." This is an inquiry into public schools. I think that the definition that I have already given is the one generally accepted throughout the country as denning a public school. For instance, it includes Haverford West Grammar School, where the fees are six guineas a year, and also Eton, where the fees are, I understand, £290 a year.
    Sir George Schuster: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Ede: Through no fault of my own I have a very limited time at my disposal, and I have a very large subject to cover. I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on matters which I regard as unimportant. My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell alluded to one of the things that give us very great concern, which is that the educational opportunities of a child in this country at the moment depend too largely upon the accident of the geographical situation of his home. That matter is governed by circumstances other than those purely educational. It is largely a matter of local government areas and local government finance. On Saturday I had the privilege of being with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) in his own county. He pointed out that the county of the county council of which I am a member has a 1d. rate which produces more than the 1d. produces for the whole of the 13 counties and four county boroughs of Wales. In Surrey the 1d. rate produces 9s. 7d. per child in average attendance in the schools, while in Montgomeryshire it produces 2s. 4d. Such anomalies influence far too much the opportunities of the children and frequently prevent quite progressive local education authorities from doing what they would like to do. This is one of the
    1480
    matters which, when local government structure and finance are being reconsidered, must be reconsidered by the Government. This will do something towards redressing the grievances that parents and children undoubtedly have in many parts of the country at the moment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) alluded to the Committee appointed by the Minister of Health and announced on Thursday last. I would point out to her that the function of this Committee, according to the statement made by the Minister of Health, will be to advise him on any question affecting the welfare of expectant and nursing mothers and of children under five, which may be referred by him to the Committee. May I say quite clearly that we have no share in the first part of those terms of reference? With regard to the membership of the Committee, we were consulted, and we made recommendations with regard to certain people connected with the education service who have been placed on it. We shall hope to profit with the Ministry of Health from any report that is received from this Committee. The hon. Lady can rest assured that we shall take steps to keep ourselves informed of the progress of the work that the Committee are doing.
    Mrs. Tate: Do I understand that the Committee are instructed concerning the welfare of the children under five, to report and advise the Board of Education as well as the Ministry of Health?
    Mr. Ede: The Committee will report to the Minister of Health, but the report will be available for us, and we shall take steps to make ourselves acquainted with it and to act on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), after dealing with the problem of the inequalities of the financial strength of local education authorities, urged that we should pay more attention to the scientific training of our students. It was rather in conflict with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon when he said that we were doing as the hon. Member for Wrexham has asked us to do. As between the two, we try to keep an even balance and to do the best we can to develop the individual aptitudes of students who become available for training.. There are some people, obviously, for whom a

    1481
    scientific training is the most suitable. There are others to whom that training makes no appeal and who are quite rightly advised to take other courses, but we are anxious that every advanced student in the country should receive proper opportunities, whether in a university or through the tutorial classes or the Workers' Educational Association, to develop his own individual gifts to the full.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) gave us what he regarded as a short-term policy. It would, of course, be out of Order for me to follow him very far into that, because most of the things he wanted to do would involve legislation, but I see no ground myself for quarrelling with the suggestions that he made. On registration he pointed out the great difficulty that confronts us everywhere, the difficulty in this time of finding suitable leaders for the various youth units that have been formed in different parts of the country. We certainly hope that we shall obtain some of these leaders from men invalided out of the Services, and part of the duty of the Training of Teachers Committee which my right hon. Friend has appointed is also to consider the training of youth leaders and the sources from which they can be most appropriately recruited.
    He and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon both ventured on to the very dangerous ground of religious controversy. The position with regard to that is as follows: My right hon. Friend has invited the religious denominations to let him have their views with regard to what the appropriate solution of this difficulty is. We have to bear in mind that a new Archbishop has just been appointed. He has come in at a time when the whole problems of the Church must be very great indeed, but we have already had an opportunity of interviews with him, and I know that he is not unmindful of the important part that an appropriate solution of this difficulty would play in enabling us to make a real advance in education. The fact that he has been for 16 years the President of the Workers' Educational Association is some evidence that he has a genuine desire that there should be a sound and democratic system of education in this country. I hope, therefore, that these negotiations may be allowed to continue in the belief
    1482
    that we are all seeking a way through a difficulty that has frustrated too many well-intentioned efforts in the past. I am sure that we cannot be unmindful of the fact that the country would regard with very great disfavour any wrecking of real educational hopes for purely denominational or sectarian purposes.
    Mr. Logan: Does that mean that supposing there were any objections you would really go ahead, whether there were objections or not?
    Mr. Ede: I must not be asked to answer hypothetical questions. It would all depend upon the strength of the objection and its relationship to the problem as a whole.
    Mr. Logan: We can get to the point straight away. The objection would be if it were decided that a national system of education had to be brought in under which the dual system would have to go. Would you persist in that?
    Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend the other day said he believed in diversity. I have got into serious trouble for saying much the same thing in this House, and I hope that that is a sufficient answer to my hon. Friend. We do not imagine that in a country where tolerance is practised, where it has been practised now ever since the glorious revolution of 1688.
    Mr. James Griffiths: With intervals?
    Mr. Ede: No serious intervals since 1688—
    Dr. Haden Guest: Is this one of the intervals?
    Mr. Ede: Certainly not—you cannot expect that you are going to get every parent to agree that a State monopoly of education will meet his particular demand.
    Mr. Cove: I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury will respond to those sentiments.
    Mr. Ede. So do I. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) alluded to me as "an intellectual we have borrowed from the other side of the House." May I say that I do not claim to be an intellectual? No one else has ever accused me of being one, and I do not regard myself as having been borrowed.

    1483
    I do not know who the hon. Member thought had borrowed me. As I understand it, the Labour Party came into this Government on equal terms. So far as I am concerned, I hope to remain one equal weight in the balance. He asked me what we were hoping to do with regard to the men who would be coming out of the Forces. The problems of rehabilitation, and of continuing the education which those young men were receiving when they entered the Forces, or of giving them the education they ought to have had had they not joined the Forces, are under our most serious consideration, and we hope that well before demobilisation becomes a serious factor we shall be able to produce a scheme.
    The hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) made a speech which I am quite sure delighted us all. As usual, he had the very broadest possible conception of education, and I am especially grateful to him, because, as a University member, he stressed the educational value of the school meal. I hope that will be some consolation to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who has not been able to take part in the Debate, that one University Member at least has taken a thoroughly practical view of our educational problems to-day. We do regard it as satisfactory that the school meal and the school milk service has been extended, and we know that we are now in a period when that extension will continue for some months ahead, and will be very marked.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) devoted the greater part of his time to dealing with the boarding-school problem. I hope he will forgive me if I do not go further on that than I have already done. I found little in his speech with which I should disagree. I think it is unfortunate that in some recent controversies it has been suggested that this is a problem of intellect against character. Personally, I have never believed that a clever rogue is a better citizen than a dull saint, and to suggest that persons of good character must of necessity be of inferior intellect seems to me to do no very great justice to education, to morals or to any other human aspect of this particular problem.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Can a saint be dull?
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member certainly is never dull, but I have always classed him among the saints because of his work for the troops and diabetics on the provision of butter. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton said one thing with which I am inclined to express the strongest possible agreement. He said that we should take steps to train our youths in self-reliance and in willingness to accept responsibility. I believe that any education which fails to do that fails in some of its most essential aspects. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said that my right hon. Friend's speech was a masterpiece of under-statement. My hon. Friend himself indulged in one sentence which was a masterpiece of over-statement, when he said that in his time the Board was spending £2,000,000 a week in erecting senior schools. I am informed that about that time it was not £2,000,000 a week, but £1,000,000 a month.
    Mr. Lindsay: The figure was £2,000,000 capital expenditure.
    Mr. Ede: I am informed that it was £1,000,000 a month; but in these days the difference between £2,000,000 a week and £1,000,000 a month is not so very serious. He raised some questions with regard to camp schools, which were followed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon. I regard the camp schools as very valuable experiments. We have to recognise that they were never designed for occupation 12 months in the year: they were designed for occupation for parties for a few weeks at the most. Therefore, their recreation rooms and the quarters for staff are by no means ideal. There are grave shortcomings there. We shall have to take steps to improve them in that respect, and we are in constant touch with the National Camps Corporation about what my hon. Friend called the dual control.
    Mr. Cove: Is there any chance of getting single control?
    Mr. Ede: We are doing our very best to remove some of the difficulties which have existed. I replied in part to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green in his absence, earlier. We are trying to think out the strategy of education, with regard both to the present situation and to the immediate post-war situation. I believe that the steps we are taking under my right hon. Friend will be very helpful indeed in the post-war period

    1485
    in enabling us to get a system of education in which real equality of opportunity will exist—that is to say, a system in which a child shall have an equal chance with every other child possessing the same gifts to realise his own individuality. That will require legislation which I cannot discuss to-day. Also, it will mean that this House will have to give a good deal of time in the not distant future to the problems of education. But, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon found grounds for hope in the midst of great despondency in the large attendance of Members to-day, I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend and I regard this as a day on which the House has been thoroughly sympathetic to our Department, and from which we hope to get strength for carrying on in the future with the task which has been committed to us.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
  Mr. Lawson: Hon. Members will remember that last week I raised on a Question to the Minister of Pensions the case of parents who have been receiving allotments from their sons, and who, on their sons being killed in the service of their country, lose the allotment and receive no pension. I think that most hon. Members will agree from their own experience that there is growing up in this country among the parents of men who have been killed and who are not receiving any pension because of the needs test, with which I shall deal, a great sense of wrong and injustice, not only because of the wrong done to them, but because of what they think is the ingratitude of the State. I have received a whole bundle of letters which, in addition to my own experience, show the depth of this feeling and the point of view of the people who have suffered. It is well known that a young man will make an
  1486
  allotment—it has been done in a great mass of cases—of 7s. and in some cases twice as much owing to the status of the man, because they feel that their parents need that help in their home. The payment of the amount is continued until they lose their lives in the service of the State. I cannot do better than read a letter from the many striking and intelligent letters I have received from parents. This parent says:
  "The Minister of Pensions, Sir Walter Womersley, may be right so far as saying that 5s. would not compensate him for the loss of his son. It would not compensate me. It is a bitter enough pill to swallow for any mother to lose a son in such a manner after the years of care and attention she gives him. She watches him grow into young manhood and, as in my case and many others, sees him put into a training ship. We start them at 14 years of age with pocket money for the first year of their training as they receive no pay. Then, as the lad advances, after two or three years he proudly says, 'I can make you a voluntary allotment, Mum,' and you gladly accept it, with the feeling that the boy is standing on his own feet and is anxious to give you a little help that makes such a vast difference in the long continuous strain of living from hand to mouth. You feel a secret security in this weekly allotment. Then, again, as the lad advances he does not always raise his allotment. It is not always convenient for him, but now and again he sends a postal order, knowing how acceptable it will be. War not only robs us of our sons but also of that security which they have created. We do not wish to sell our sons; no amount of money can soften a mother's grief but as we have to stand the loss of our sons in a matter of fact way so should a pension be paid, to be accepted in the same manner. That is, surely, a small tribute to a son's memory from his own country."
  I am sure that Members in all parts of the House have been receiving similar letters. The Minister had said that the Select Committee of 1920 took the view that to justify the grant of a parent's pension a test of need, broadly interpreted, should be satisfied. Well, in spite of many things which have not happened, and which I want to see happen, the social outlook of this country has been revolutionised since 1920. What is the Minister's test of need? The lad who allots 7s. out of 14s. a week, leaving himself only a few shillings for his life in the Service, is a good lad. Is he not the test of the need of his own parents? The Minister talks about his statutory Advisory Committee. Will he tell us their

  1487
  view on this matter? Are they unanimous? I think we are entitled to say to the Government that in our experience a great wrong is being done to many parents in this country. A great sense of injustice is not only prevailing but is developing. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government think they will stand pat upon the answers given to Questions on this subject in the House, they are making a very great mistake. Not only will this House have something to say about it, but I am sure from the developments which are taking place outside, that the people of this country will have something to say about it as well.
  This being an Adjournment Motion, I must be careful that I do not go too far, but I should like to feel the sense of the House on this matter and give the Minister an opportunity of replying. Letters have rolled in from parents that reveal not only a sense of injustice but a great sense of loyalty to this country and to its cause. The letters of these humble people, some of whom write in a crude manner, reveal how deeply they are committed, not by words like statesmen, but in their hearts to the country's cause. It is a wrong and an injustice on the part of the Government to take advantage of that loyalty and the sense of justice which is deep in the hearts of our people in order to deny them some little payment for what they have lost. I say, and a good many say with me, that the least the Government can do is to give, at any rate, a minimum flat rate to these people, if only to make up in some measure for the money they have lost through the loss of their sons. Not only do people say that they have lost their sons and their allotments, but they feel that there is a sense of ingratitude on the part of the Government—"You have had our sons, you have had the best of them, you have treated us as hardly as any employer would treat us, but we are humble people from obscure places, nobody seems to know about our troubles, and the Government do not seem to care."
  The Government ought to pay these people some little amount. I have mentioned 5s. I dealt with this matter at the outbreak of war and said I thought the Government ought to pay a minimum allowance in all cases. The Government say, and the right hon. Gentleman will
  1488
  say, "We admit the claim for pensions, and in case of need you can apply to us." There are some people who have applied and have had pensions according to the standard of need set up by the Ministry, but immediately they have risen above the standard the pension has been taken away. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman about a case which was what mainly fired me to do something about this matter. It was a case of parents who lost a son who was torpedoed. He had hardly got to shore one day when he sailed again, and within 24 hours he lost his life. The Government refused any pension, saying that the incomings of the house were above the standard test of need. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman two or three times about it. As the result of a bombing incident recently two people in a house were made idle for a few weeks. Have they to make application for a pension on the basis of their loss and then have it taken away in a few weeks' time? What is the good of a system like that?
  The right hon. Gentleman ought to begin to take this matter more seriously. We have a good deal of respect for him, and I think it is the respect he has in the House which has enabled him to get away with a good deal more than would have been possible with other representatives. He may say that the Royal Warrant will have to be changed. I am quite prepared to have the Warrant altered, if that is necessary. One thing, however, is certain. This House will see to it that justice is done to these mothers and fathers, and will not consent to leaving large numbers of people under a sense of ingratitude, which undoubtedly prevails at the present time. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will have something more encouraging to say upon this matter than on the last and previous occasions.
  The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will agree that in giving answers to Questions and Supplementary Questions on this subject one cannot give the whole story to the House. I hope that he will not charge me with giving insufficient information last week. I tried to do my best in the short time available. I should like to assure him that I have given very serious consideration to this matter from the first day I took over my present position. The matter has been considered in all its aspects. It has been

  1489
  discussed, not only with my Advisory Committee, but in the Office, and I have gone very deeply into the subject. I am with the hon. Member up to the hilt when he says it is absolutely necessary that the Government should prove to the country that they are handing out justice to the parents of these boys who have lost their lives. It is because I honestly believe the system at present in operation is giving real justice to the people of this country that I am here at this Box to defend it. I think it is just as well that I should give the House the history of the whole question of parents' pensions.
  The Royal Warrant of 1919 was brought into operation after the last war and after the Ministry of Pensions and the Government had had an opportunity of studying closely this pension question. That Warrant was brought in with the object of remedying many anomalies and putting on one side many anxieties. It has been regarded and has been referred to on many occasions by representatives of ex-Servicemen as a model. In that Warrant parents' pensions could be awarded (a) if dependent on the soldier for a reasonable period prior to the war—I want the House to note the word "dependent"—or dependent prior to enlistment if later than the commencement of the war. That is, where enlistment was after the outbreak of war, any increase in dependence due to war circumstances was explicitly excluded from consideration; (b) if at any time either or both parents was or were wholly or partly incapable of self-support through age or infirmity and pecuniary need; (c) where the soldier was under the age of 26 at the outbreak of war or date of enlistment, if later and the soldier was unmarried and no pension or allowance was made in respect of a child or dependant, then a flat-rate pension of 5s. could be awarded irrespective of pre-war dependence, age, infirmity or pecuniary need. In 1920 a Select Committee of this House was set up to consider the whole of the pensions administration and Regulations. Although that is a long time ago, I am bound to say on my close study of the findings of that Committee that it did its work extremely well, and just at the right time.
  There is no question that the Committee did its work thoroughly well, and it is a good guide. I do not say that I should agree to stick to everything that it did.
  1490
  I must judge things in the light of my own experience in administering the Department, but this is what they said, that, as the result of the triple system of parents' pensions, there were inequalities as between one parent and another which caused irritation and hardship. They definitely recommended that the whole system should be reconsidered as early as possible with a view to revision and assimilation of all three classes of cases on the basis of need, broadly interpreted, that is, a reasonable expectation of what the son would have contributed had he lived, and they added:
  "We believe that it is only by some such plan that the present inequalities can be remedied."
  The recommendations of that Committee were adopted by the Government of the day, and after 1st April, 1922, all new awards of pensions to parents were conditional upon the claimant being able to show that he or she was wholly or partly incapable of self-support and in pecuniary need, and that is the system that has been operating since 1922.
  Mr. Lawson: In fact, the bulk of the pensions which were settled before that were decided upon the contribution the man made, which is a different thing.
  Sir W. Womersley: No. There were three classes of pensioners and three conditions that had to be fulfilled. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about the 5s. flat-rate pension. I have not heard any complaint about the way in which we award the other pensions.
  Mr. Lawson: The Select Committee altered the order.
  Sir W. Womersley: That may be. I am not responsible for that. In the 1939 Warrant the provision relating to parents' pensions was based entirely, and without qualification, on the two conditions of need and incapacity. In the light of experience, and after consultation with my statutory Advisory Committee and with representatives of ex-servicemen, I came to the conclusion that it was wise to make some alteration to that system, and I introduced in the 1940 Warrant material improvements. The condition of incapacity for self-support was removed, and full effect was given to the recommendations of the Select Committee of

  1491
  1920 that pensions to parents should be awarded on the basis of need, broadly interpreted, as a reasonable expectation of what the son would have contributed had he lived. Accordingly, recognition is given to all suitable cases to the pre-war and the prospective dependence of the parent or parents of the deceased son. Further, the minimum and maximum pensions were increased, because the fact that we have abolished this 5s. minimum standard pension, irrespective of whether the parent is earning £10,000 a year or £3 a week, has enabled me to give more generous pensions to those who are really in need of them, and I think that is the real test. Whatever money the House votes for this particular purpose, I maintain that it is better to spend it on those who are really in need of help rather than that it should be spread over quite a number of people who in many cases that I could quote—any number of cases—are above the Income Tax limit, have to include the 5s. pension in their Income Tax returns and with Income Tax at its present rate get really only 2s. 6d. a week out of it. I really cannot see that there is any injustice to a parent in that position.
  Mr. Lawson rose—
  Sir W. Womersley: Give me a chance.
  Mr. Lawson: But will the right hon. Gentleman explain how in these cases the sailor, soldier or airman decides in his own mind that his parents are in need of his help? What is his standard?
  Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member is an old gunner, like myself. He knows a good deal about the private soldier. He knows a good deal about the good lad who does think something of his parents. I agree that in the case that he mentioned, where the boy had been an apprentice and the parents had made great sacrifices for him, that boy felt it was his duty to repay them, and those parents will be repaid, but not in exactly the same way as the hon. Member suggests. They have this guarantee, that if and when they are in need—and it is not a needs test on the basis of some of those in the other social services—the pension is there for them. It is there, guaranteed for them, if in their later years they find themselves dependent. One would expect that when they
  1492
  were in that position even if the boy himself were then married, he would if he could afford it make some contribution to them.
  Mr. James Griffiths rose—
  Sir W. Womersley: Please give me a chance. I have an important thing to say.
  Mr. Griffiths: This is very important.
  Sir W. Womersley: And this is important, and I have only a few minutes left. The parents of a married soldier who are actually dependent upon him to a substantial extent for a reasonable period before his death are, under this scheme which I have adopted, eligible for consideration for pension, and I submit that that in itself is something worth while. Even if there is a pension being paid to that man's widow and his children we can pay a pension to his parents if it can be shown that there is need. As a result of the improvements made in the 1940 Warrant I am satisfied that the present principles on which parents' pensions are based are sound, and that there is no justification for the automatic award of a pension to a parent or parents solely because they have lost a son irrespective of their needs. Every parent whose claim to a pension has been established and in whose case pensions cannot be paid on the ground that need does not exist is informed that further application may be made. They have established their right to pension, and where adverse circumstances manifest themselves then the pension will be paid.
  I should like to say that hon. Members must bear in mind that quite definitely a pension awarded is really an annuity for life. When a son is making a contribution to his parents it is only a temporary contribution. He may get married and find he is not in a position to continue the payment, but if a pension is granted by the Government so long as these conditions are fulfilled the pension is an annuity for life, and is a far more valuable thing than an allowance for a short period. A parent, realising that if the need arises—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: All through the Minister has spoken of "need." We have all kinds of other needs tests and we know what they are. Will he tell the House what is the test by which he judges need?
  Sir W. Womersley: I judge it on this point. If a parent is working at his own trade and earning the standard rate of wages I should say that he has got a standard income coming into his house. That is a very simple way of dealing with it. If on the other hand he is sick and cannot follow his occupation and has to depend on his ordinary sick pay, or if he has had a long term of unemployment and has to depend merely on unemployment benefit, and that looks like being permanent, as in the case of a man who
  1494
  has got on in years, then we regard him at once as being in need. I think we have there a fair standard of measuring these things, and I ask hon. Members to give this matter far more consideration than they have. It is not such a simple thing as it sounds. It would be easy for me to say—
  It being the hour appointed for the adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PERSONNEL (SINGAPORE AND JAVA).
  PERSONNEL (SINGAPORE AND JAVA).
AGRICULTURE.
  JUVENILE WORKERS (WAGES).
  JUVENILE WORKERS (WAGES).
  DOMESTIC FOOD PRODUCTION (RURAL AREAS).
  DOMESTIC FOOD PRODUCTION (RURAL AREAS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  HOLIDAY WEEKS (CATERING ARRANGEMENTS).
  HOLIDAY WEEKS (CATERING ARRANGEMENTS).
  BREAD (CONSUMPTION).
  BREAD (CONSUMPTION).
  CONFECTIONERY.
  CONFECTIONERY.
  KENYA (LAND TENURE).
  KENYA (LAND TENURE).
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  DETAINEES.
  DETAINEES.
  FIRE-WATCHING (BUSINESS PREMISES ORDER).
  FIRE-WATCHING (BUSINESS PREMISES ORDER).
  SHELTERS, STROOD (BUNKS).
  SHELTERS, STROOD (BUNKS).
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  OFFENDERS (STATISTICS).
  OFFENDERS (STATISTICS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CIVIL SERVICE WAR BONUS.
  CIVIL SERVICE WAR BONUS.
  PUBLICITY OFFICERS.
  PUBLICITY OFFICERS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  WIRELESS VALVES.
  WIRELESS VALVES.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  GLASSVSTARE (PRICE).
  GLASSVSTARE (PRICE).
  WAR DAMAGE CLAIM (INQUIRY).
  WAR DAMAGE CLAIM (INQUIRY).
  DEFINITION OF "MONEY" (LEGAL DECISION).
  DEFINITION OF "MONEY" (LEGAL DECISION).
BRITISH ARMY.
  GENERAL OFFICERS' VISITS.
  GENERAL OFFICERS' VISITS.
  LEAVE (NORTHERN IRELAND).
  LEAVE (NORTHERN IRELAND).
  MISSING PERSONNEL.
  MISSING PERSONNEL.
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (UNIFORM).
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE (UNIFORM).
  BURMA FORCE (MAILS).
  BURMA FORCE (MAILS).
  LETTERS TO PRESS.
  LETTERS TO PRESS.
  BY-ELECTIONS.
  BY-ELECTIONS.
  BURMA (EVACUEES).
  BURMA (EVACUEES).
FUEL AND POWER.
  DOMESTIC CONSUMERS (SUPPLIERS).
  DOMESTIC CONSUMERS (SUPPLIERS).
  FACTORIES (ECONOMY).
  FACTORIES (ECONOMY).
  ROAD VEHICLES (ALTERNATIVE FUELS).
  ROAD VEHICLES (ALTERNATIVE FUELS).
  DOCTORS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  DOCTORS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  BILLETING (INSPECTION OF PREMISES).
  BILLETING (INSPECTION OF PREMISES).
  DIPHTHERIA STATISTICS, LAMBETH.
  DIPHTHERIA STATISTICS, LAMBETH.
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939, which was passed at the outset of the war, authorized the Minister of Pensions to make schemes applying the provisions of the Naval War Pensions Order—suitably modified where necessary—to officers and men of the Merchant Navy and fishing fleets and other seafaring persons associated with the Mercantile Marine, such as pilots and members of the light vessels services, whose death or disablement was directly attributable to war injuries-sustained or detention caused by reason of their service in British ships. These persons may be granted compensation at the rates applicable to the Royal Navy, with whom they are so closely associated. The Act also authorized the Board of Trade, whose duties in this respect now devolve upon the Minister of War Transport, to make a scheme for compensating mariners and other seafaring persons for the loss of or damage to their effects as the result of enemy action. That Act, however, limited the cases in which compensation is payable by the State to those where the death or disablement or the loss of effects arose directly from enemy attack on ships or resulted from injuries sustained in combating the enemy or repelling an imagined attack by the enemy. Injuries caused by normal risks continued to be dealt with through the same channels as in peacetime, such as the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
Although the provisions of the original Act covered most of the field and the Minister of Pensions has been able to grant compensation for the great majority of cases where mariners have been killed or injured from causes arising from the war, experience has shown that some of the special measures which have been taken to afford protection to our ships
366
from the enemy have increased the risk of accident arising from what would normally be regarded as marine perils. For example, the sailing of ships in convoy affords protection from submarine attacks by the enemy, but there is an increased risk of collision when a large number of ships sail close to one another and have occasionally to make a sudden change of course. The absence of the usual navigational lights and the absence of those warnings of navigational dangers which were issued in peace-time have also increased the risk of accidents. The stress of enemy attack on our sea-borne supplies is another factor that may lead to accidents at sea. The Government accordingly proposes that, where a mariner is injured through a normal risk of seafaring life being substantially increased by war measures, compensation should be paid by the State in the same way as if the injury had been caused by direct enemy action.
The main purpose of this Bill, therefore, is, as I have said, to extend on these lines the circumstances in which compensation may be paid by the Minister of Pensions under the Mercantile Marine Scheme or by the Minister of War Transport under the Compensation Scheme for War Damage to Effects; and Clause 1 of the Bill gives the necessary power to do this. The injuries, whether leading to disablement or death, which are now brought within the scope of the 1939 Act are set out in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill. They are, as your Lordships will see, injuries occurring at sea, or in harbours and tidal waters, which are attributable to the matters set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the subsection. For instance under paragraph (a) injuries resulting from the collision of ships in convoy are covered. Similarly, if one ship goes to the rescue of another ship which has been attacked by the enemy, an injury sustained in the course of rendering this help will be covered.
Paragraph (a) will also enable the State to provide compensation where a seaman is injured at sea as a result of a fall due to the absence of a light which a ship would have carried, but did not, owing to the necessity of concealment from the enemy. Under paragraph (b), compensation will be payable in cases where a ship is stranded, or runs ashore, owing to the discontinuance of buoys, or radio beacons, or the absence of the usual lights

367
from lighthouses, or where she runs into a wreck of which a warning would normally have been given by wireless or otherwise. Paragraph (c) covers cases where a ship is sent to sea with a cargo loaded in a manner which would be abnormal in time of peace and which involves possible danger to the ship or crew. This may occasionally happen owing to the extreme urgency of getting a particular cargo to its destination, and the seamen on board will then be covered in the event of their sustaining any injury as a result. Subsection (2) should, however, be read with subsection (3) which explains the circumstances in which an injury or loss or damage is to be regarded as "attributable" to the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2). Without some such definition as is given in subsection (3) it is doubtful what the meaning of "attributable" in subsection (2) would be.
The Court might very well interpret "attributable" as meaning "proximately caused by." This construction would be undesirably narrow; and would involve the Minister in the difficult question of determining whether a particular cause was, or was not, the "proximate" cause. Thus, if a ship were to go aground in a fog, at a place where there would normally be a light from a lighthouse, but where there was not a light on the particular occasion because of the war, it would be necessary to consider whether the proximate cause of the stranding of the ship was the absence of the light or the fog. Moreover, apart from such difficulties, there would be cases where it would be clear that the loss of a ship could not be regarded as proximately caused by one of the war measures mentioned in subsection (2). For example, a ship might be diverted from one route to another, and on that other route she might encounter a peril leading to her loss which she would not have encountered on the original route. In such a case, the diversion would probably not be regarded as the proximate cause of the loss of the ship.
It is to avoid these difficulties, and to make the test an appropriate one, that the Government propose that the question in all these cases should be whether one of the measures mentioned in subsection (2) has, or has not, substantially increased the risk of the peril which caused the
368
injury or loss or damage. If this risk has been substantially increased, then the injury will be regarded as attributable to that measure. Compared with the difficulty of deciding whether one event or another has caused a particular result, this test will be simple to apply. In the instance I have referred to of a ship stranding in a fog at a place where there is normally a light but that light is out because of the war, it will be comparatively easy to determine whether the risk of the stranding is, or is not, increased by the absence of the light. The question whether the risk has, or has not, been substantially increased will, so far as it arises in connexion with the payment of compensation under any scheme made under the Bill, fall to be determined by the Minister of Pensions or the Minister of War Transport, according to whether the claim is one for compensation for disablement or death or for loss of effects. I can assure your Lordships that both the Minister of Pensions and the Minister of War Transport will give all cases the most careful and sympathetic consideration.
In addition to defining the types of injury for which compensation could be paid by the State, the 1939 Act also defined the circumstances in which the mariner was to be engaged at the time of the injury in order to be eligible for its benefits. In short, he could not normally be covered unless he was engaged in seagoing service on a British ship at the time the injury was sustained. Since the date of the Act, however, various changes have occurred in the conditions of service in the Merchant Navy, one of which has been the establishment of the Merchant Navy Reserve Pool from which mariners are drafted to ships to form part of the crew or to relieve members of the regular crew while they are on leave. Under Clause 2 of the Bill men engaged in relief duty on a seagoing ship will be eligible for compensation under the Mercantile Marine Scheme, provided they are normally persons who go to sea as mariners. Secondly, in order to facilitate the manning of ships built in Canada and the United States of America for British account, and to secure that ships sailing from ports on the other side of the Atlantic are not delayed because they have not full crews, the Minister of War Transport has set up a Manning Pool there, so that seamen may be readily available to fill any vacancies which

369
occur. Clause 2 will secure that every seaman who sustains an injury for which compensation may be paid, while he is at the Manning Pool, or at any other place, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Minister of War Transport, or who is going to, or returning from, the Manning Pool or any such place, shall be eligible for compensation under the same conditions as if he had sustained the injury whilst on board a ship.
Now, it may happen that the seaman in the Reserve Pool or a Manning Pool is asked to serve on a foreign ship which has been employed in the transport of essential war materials. Under such circumstances compensation can only be awarded in such a case if the terms of the charter bring the ship within the definition of a British ship as laid down in the 1939 Act. This is not the case on many foreign ships now running on behalf of the Government, but it is only fair that a British seaman serving on one of these vessels should receive compensation on the same terms and conditions as his colleague on a British vessel. This Bill will enable the Minister of Pensions to include British seamen on such foreign ships in his scheme of compensation.
Clause 2 also authorizes the Minister of War Transport to provide compensation for loss of, or damage to, effects suffered by mariners in the cases in which the Minister of Pensions can provide compensation for death or disablement. I have previously mentioned that the 1939 Act enabled the provisions of the Naval War Pensions Order to be applied not only to mariners but also to pilots. It was, however, never the intention that pilots whose duty did not require them to go to sea. Should be eligible for the special rates of compensation for war injury laid down for the Royal Navy. For those whose duties are confined to canals or inland waterways, the normal civilian provisions remain appropriate. The opportunity has been taken to make this distinction clear in Clause 3, and the circumstances in which a seagoing pilot, or apprentice pilot, will qualify for compensation under the Act have also been set out more clearly in order to remove all doubt as to the power to pay compensation in certain cases which were perhaps not clearly covered by the 1939 Act. For example, a pilot who has to remain on board a vessel
370
after ceasing to pilot her will remain eligible for compensation as if he were still piloting her.
Clause 4 of the Bill relates to persons who are regularly employed in salvage operations in or from the British Islands. These are persons whose employment normally requires them to work afloat, and they are, when at sea, exposed to as great a danger of being bombed, or torpedoed, or mined, as any other seafaring person. In such circumstances, they are substantially in the same position as the crew of the ship which is taking them to sea. It is accordingly proposed to bring these salvage workers within the general scope of the compensation schemes authorized by the 1939 Act and by this Bill, in respect of injuries or loss of or damage to effects sustained at sea.
The Government decided that, when they had responsibility for providing compensation in respect of war injuries, relief should be given from liability to pay compensation under the Workman's Compensation Act for such injuries, and that there should also be relief from any legal liability to pay damages in respect of war injuries where the liability was based on negligence, nuisance or breach of duty. Section 3 of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, gives this relief to shipowners in common with other employers. As it is now proposed that the State shall accept liability for additional types of injuries, it is considered that a measure of relief from liability should also be conferred in respect of these other types. Clause 6 of the Bill accordingly provides for the application of Section 3 of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, to an injury which is covered by Clause 1 of the Bill, and is one which the Minister of Pensions certifies to have been sustained by such a person, say a mariner or a pilot, and in such a case—for example, while a mariner is in the service of his ship—that the Minister is authorized by the Bill to provide compensation in respect of it. It is felt that this will provide an appropriate measure of relief from liability in respect of the injuries which it is now proposed to bring within the sphere of State compensation.
The House will appreciate that the proposals now made are the result of the experience which we have gained since the commencement of the war, and that

371
owing to the provisions of the 1939 Act there have been cases of the type referred to under Clause I of the Bill in which it has not been possible to grant compensation. It is proposed by the Bill, however, not only to accept such cases as may occur in the future, but also to review any past cases as from the date when the Bill becomes law. In conclusion, I may say that the proposals in the Bill are welcomed by all the interested parties, officers, seamen and owners, and I am confident that they will commend themselves to your Lordships, who, I feel sure, regard with appreciation and admiration the gallant services which the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, on whom the very existence of this country depends, have rendered. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Clifden.)
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am sure there is no member of your Lordships' House who does not welcome this amending Bill, extending as it does benefits and rights of pension to officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, and having also the great merit of being retrospective. It remedies certain injustices under which these men have been suffering. That these gallant servants of the nation—for they are now servants of the State—should have any legitimate grounds of complaint as to their conditions of service, is, I am very sure, the last thing that your Lordships would desire. It is to remove a hardship suffered by a small and unhappy section of these men that I beg the Government to introduce an Amendment on the lines which I am about to mention, and I ask for it the support of your Lordships' House.
Before I proceed with my remarks, I should like to say I have no wish to make any attack on the Ministry of Pensions. I quite realize that they are carrying out the law and their duties, but very wide powers have been conferred upon the Minister under the scheme. If your Lordships will allow me I will begin by reading a letter dated June 3, a fortnight ago, in answer to a merchant seaman who applied for a pension on the ground that he was suffering under a disability which was attributable to war conditions, in that he had contracted tuberculosis. The letter reads as follows:
372
"Sir,—I am directed by the Minister of Pensions to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 28th May, and to state it is regretted to learn of your disability.
"From the details given in your letter it does not appear that the disability has been brought about by enemy action, but by war conditions only.
"I am to explain that the War Pensions and Detention Allowances (Mercantile Marine, &c.) Scheme, under Section 34 of the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, I939, provides for the granting of compensation in respect of war injuries as defined in Section 10 of that Act, war injuries being physical injuries caused by the enemy or in repelling an imagined attack by the enemy.
"It will be appreciated therefore that to be admissible under the above scheme, an injury must be directly connected with the circumstances already mentioned. In your statement as quoted above, you attribute the disability to war conditions only. It is regretted therefore that it is not possible to consider your claim under the scheme administered by this Department, but I am to advise you to appeal to the owners of the vessel for their sympathetic consideration."
Your Lordships will note that it was not even possible to consider the claim because in the words of the letter I have just read, "it does not appear that the disability has been brought about by enemy action, but by war conditions only."
The authority cited was Section 10 of the principal Act of 1939, which is the very Act which this Bill is designed to amend and extend, particularly as regard physical injuries. Much therefore depends on what is the definition of "physical injury." The letter I have just read was in answer to a claim by a man who had served fifteen years at sea and is now thirty-one years of age. According to his own statement he has never had a day's illness in his life before breaking down under tuberculosis under war conditions at sea. He is now an inmate of King George's Sanatorium for Sailors which is maintained by the Seamen's Hospital Society. In accordance with its charter, that society receives into its wards seamen of every race, colour and creed who are in need of medical attention. The patients are maintained there not only until they are cured of their illness, but through convalescence until they are fit to go back to their ships and once again face the rigours of sea life. The society is therefore very greatly interested in the question of seamen or seamen's injuries and disabilities.
The original Act of 1939 authorized application of any Naval War Pensions Order

373
"to manners in cases where their death or disablement is directly attributable to war injuries sustained by reason of their service in British ships."
Immediately on publication of the Act of 1939 the Seamen's Hospital Society asked the Ministry of Health to give a still clearer definition of physical injuries. The definition given by the Ministry of such an injury was
"anything which occurred at a definite point o£ time."
That practically, of course, rules out all medical cases, but certainly tuberculosis, and it is as regards the latter that I desire to speak. I am not trying to pose as an authority on this subject, and I should have much preferred that someone else should bring the matter before your Lordships. Therefore I must ask your Lordships to bear with me while I try to make my case. What I say is not of my own knowledge but is based on what has been imparted to me by my medical friends and colleagues who are on the staff of the Seamen's Hospital and are gentlemen of standing in their profession.
The principal fact in regard to the case I am trying to make is that it would be impossible with any certitude to say when tuberculosis does start. No definite point of time can possibly be given, for different individuals are differently affected. The disease may take weeks to declare itself or it may take months. A seaman sufferer might not realize for some time that he had contracted it and he would continue in employment until he either broke down completely or met some medical man who diagnosed what he was suffering from. In fact, the man would not be recognized as a tubercular patient until the disease was firmly established. It can be shown that the incidence of tuberculosis amongst seamen is greater than it is among the population as a whole. This applies both to the Royal Navy and to the Mercantile Marine. It is inherent in the conditions of modern life at sea. I will not weary your Lordships with statistics which go to prove the fact, but it is generally accepted by medical men who have to deal with, and are interested in, seamen.
As evidence I would quote to your Lordships an extract from a letter written in 1936 by the medical officer of health of that maritime and industrial port, Cardiff. Referring to the state of health
374
of the people in that City for which he is responsible, Dr. J. G. Wilson said:
"No industry in Cardiff, other than seafaring, specially predisposes to tuberculosis."
It has also been stated in an official report that of the deaths occurring among men within twelve months of leaving seagoing employment twenty per cent. are due to tuberculosis. What, then, are the causes that predispose seamen to this disease? Briefly the principal causes are the confined atmosphere in which they live, the restricted living space, the lack of amenities and opportunities for enjoyment and exercise as compared with the population who live on shore. That applies to conditions of rest. As regards their working conditions, there are many things that are conducive to lowering resistance to infection. In the report of the International Labour Office on Occupation and Disease, 1934, volume 2, there are given many reasons why men at sea are specially prone to tuberculosis. The cumulative effect of these conditions is very considerably to weaken the ordinary man's powers of resistance to infection, and men are exposed to great risks owing to the always present possibility of having among their number a shipmate already suffering from the disease.
Those of your Lordships who are not directly interested in this question may be surprised to hear that a sea life is not a healthy one, at least in regard to this particular complaint. Under modern conditions many men spend the whole of their working hours below and thus derive no benefit from the sea breezes which might otherwise counteract undesirable tendencies. The greater percentage of tubercular cases among seamen is composed of firemen and stewards. Even if a seaman suspects that he has got the disease he is reluctant to report sick for several reasons, the principal of which are that he does not wish to throw extra work on his shipmates—there are no spare hands in a merchant ship—and he does not want to risk being considered a shirker. Moreover, there is the ever-present dread of losing his employment, the possibility of being left behind in a foreign port, and, in any case, having no money at all to send to his dependants.
To prove that men are backward in coming forward to report sick of this disease I must inflict a few figures on your

375
Lordships. They are taken from a very interesting and important article which appears in the current number of the British Medical Journal and which is the subject of an article in The Times to-day. The article in the British Medical Journal was written by Dr. J. E. Wood, who for many years has been the medical superintendent of the King George Sanatorium to which I have already referred. Out of the last 300 British seamen admitted to that establishment who came almost directly from the sea 24 were in the earlier stages of the complaint and 275 were in the advanced stage. Of these last, 161 were in the very worst class, the B 3 class. That means that 54 per cent. of the total number admitted were in the very lowest class. Of these 161 in the lowest class, 51 died in the sanatorium and 69 made no improvement under treatment. These are terrible figures, and they go to show that there must be very many men serving afloat who are carriers of infection among their shipmates. So far I have only alluded to British seamen, but something like 20 per cent. of the men in British ships are Lascars who are particularly prone to this disease. There is no lack of T.B. carriers among sailors whether afloat or ashore. Under war conditions there are likely to be more rather than less, because more time is spent at sea and there are fewer opportunities of seeking medical advice or of weeding out potential carriers.
If your Lordships will accept these statements as indicating that men are exposed to a considerable risk of infection—and I can, in addition, show you that, under war conditions, men's powers of resistance to infection are still further weakened—then surely my case is made out for allowing tuberculosis to be considered as an "injury" directly attributable to potential enemy action, which thereby confers pensionable rights upon these afflicted sailors. And this is not very difficult to do. War conditions entail many passages being increased from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. in length of time owing to the indirect routes that have to be taken, in many cases at reduced speeds in order to conform to that of a convoy. At night ships are darkened; every aperture is closed to prevent light showing outboard. The circulation of air is further curtailed by every opening possible between decks being kept closed to make
376
the ship as watertight as possible. During a war almost anything which will make a ship more watertight has to be done. When taking the northern routes in winter—and this applies particularly since we have had to go to northern Russia—the hours of darkness may number nineteen to twenty out of the twenty-four. In these latitudes it is impossible for these men, when off duty, to rest on deck, for there are almost perpetual gales, and ventilation of the ship is out of the question. I believe that if the records of that northern passage were fully understood by the people of this country, they would see that these petty restrictions are set aside so that these men should be properly looked after and provided for by the country which employs them.
In the circumstances to which I have referred men have nowhere to go but to their mess places or bunks, which, in heavy weather, are almost as moist as the deck itself. This entails close companionship with all their shipmates in cramped quarters for many hours of the day, and in a very bad atmosphere where one tubercle carrier among them may affect many others. Turns of duty are far more exacting whether on deck or in the engine room, whether in convoy or proceeding alone, and above all there is the ever-present danger of enemy action to which there is no let-up. On or off duty men are equally exposed and under strain. All types of members of a ship's company, including engineers and stewards whose normal duties would not entail having to work on deck, may be called upon to act as guns' crews, and such people must necessarily be even more susceptible to exposure than the regular deck workers. The officers' responsibilities are tremendously increased. They have very heavy periods of duty and they are under this perpetual strain owing to this ever-present possibility of instant enemy action. Nobody can take it easily or turn in and sleep with a quiet mind. Everybody has got to be prepared for instant action, and consequently there is this constant feeling of strain with no let-up. This feeling may be subconscious but it is always there.
This continual strain, mental and physical, must reduce powers of resistance to infection. Is it not self-evident that every influence that tends to weaken resistance to infection in peace-time is magnified

377
many times under war conditions? Surely these conditions are brought about by
"the taking of measures with a view to avoiding, preventing or hindering enemy action against ships, or as a precaution in anticipation of enemy action against ships"—
words you will find in paragraph (a) of Clause 1 (2). The "measures" have no other object but to hinder enemy action and are directly responsible for the bad conditions which are created.
I am aware that already, in another place, the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Pensions have undertaken that "tuberculosis is to be considered as a physical injury for purposes of pension if it is due to war injury or anything of that kind." That brings us back to where we started, to the question, what is meant by "injury"? and we get no farther. There is no advance on the original Act. It is the question of whether there is physical injury that makes the whole of the difficulties. I do beg the Government to introduce some Amendment to this Bill which will allow of pensions being paid to these unfortunate men who are suffering from tuberculosis. I understand that proper safeguards against exploitation of such a concession will have to be created, but these should not be difficult to devise. What I am asking is that merchant seamen becoming afflicted with this terrible disease from causes that can fairly be attributed to war conditions, should be eligible for pension as a statutory right and should always receive the benefit of any doubt that there may be.
Men are breaking down with tuberculosis (mite apart from any physical injury. Mention was made of Part II of the War Pension (Mercantile Marine) Scheme, which is the authority under which the Minister exercises his rights. Under Part II, one of the objects of the scheme is given as being to see that there is certain equality of treatment between seamen of the Royal Navy and men of the Mercantile Marine who suffer from this disease. Let us see how this works out in practice. In the sanatorium which I have already mentioned men of both Services are received. The Admiralty send their patients there officially. Of twenty-six Merchant Navy officers and seamen now there, seven are of foreign nationality, leaving nineteen British, of whom five are pre-war cases, and not eligible. Fourteen are left who have contracted
378
this disease during the war. There are thirty-six ex-Royal Navy patients and of these thirty-one are in receipt of pensions; three have not yet applied and in two cases only has the application been refused owing to the short period served before breaking down. Of the fourteen merchant sailors who were eligible, ten have applied for pensions and have been refused on the ground of "no injury by enemy action." Three have not yet received any reply and one has not yet applied.
So, out of thirty-six naval claimants, thirty-one have pensions and out of the fourteen claimants from the Merchant Navy none have pensions. The doctor who supplied me with these figures has worked almost entirely with merchant seamen thoughout the three years of war, and he writes:
"I have not personally come across any merchant seaman who has obtained a pension for tuberculosis although no doubt there must be some."
I feel that the country as a whole, quite apart from any question of justice, would like to make a generous gesture of gratitude for their past services to these unhappy sailors, many of whom will never see the sea again. Their duty as merchant seamen was done behind the scenes—the achievements of merchant seamen do not get much of the limelight—but nevertheless it is upon their work and their duty that is founded the ability on the British Empire to carry on this war.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I think that we should all be grateful to the noble and gallant Earl for drawing our attention to a fly in the ointment in relation to the matter which we are considering to-day. The Bill certainly has a generous appearance, but it is necessarily legislation by reference, and by reference not only to other Acts but to an elaborate code of Regulations and Royal Warrants, and so forth with which most of us are not familiar. The noble and gallant Earl read a letter to a sufferer from tuberculosis in which it was suggested that he was ineligible for pension because his disability had been due not to enemy action but to war conditions. If the noble Earl had not been so definite about this case being ruled out, I should have thought that it was just the kind of case which would have been covered by the new provisions, because Clause 1 of this Bill,

379
which mentions that physical injuries are now to be compensated, gives a very wide definition of what I should have thought would be regarded as war conditions—namely:
"the taking of measures with a view to avoiding, preventing or hindering enemy action against ships, or as a precaution in anticipation of enemy action against ships"
and so on. That would seem to cover almost all the normal risks to health incurred on naval service, and it is really astonishing to learn from the noble Earl that sufferers from tuberculosis are to be ruled out. Surely tuberculosis is a physical injury, and it must often be quite easy to prove that it does develop from exposure, bringing on, perhaps, pneumonia, which turns to tuberculosis.
The noble Earl told us of another limitation, and I do not know whether this applies to the present Bill or to the conditions which this Bill is designed to improve. He said that a case had been ruled out because the injury, to rank for compensation, must have been incurred at a particular point of time. That is a very difficult definition. It puzzled me, and I referred with some confidence to my noble friend, the former President of the Board of Education, Lord De La Warr, to know what it meant. He was able to give me the definition of a point, as that which has position but no magnitude. Is it a point of time when men are exposed for weeks in an open boat, suffering from frostbite and incurring permanent physical disability? Will they be given compensation, or will they be excluded from the improvements which we understood were to be granted by this Bill? If there is such a distinction, it seems to me to be one which is in no way based on equity. In the last war, we all remember that those who suffered in health from serving in the Armed Forces received pensions, even if their health did not break down at the time. We know the difficulty of deciding afterwards how far physical disabilities are due to war conditions, but the Ministry of Pensions kept these cases alive for years by a machinery for rectifying errors. There is no such difficulty now, and it ought to be quite easy to determine in most cases whether a man who develops tuberculosis has developed it as a result of his months or years at sea under the exacting conditions of warfare.
380
The noble Viscount who introduced this Bill mentioned the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and I understand that some of these cases will be covered by them. Do the Government in these cases pay compensation, or is it left to the shipowners? If the men who contract tuberculosis come under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, is the compensation which they receive, by whomsoever it is paid, as generous as that which they would receive under the Royal Warrant, or under whatever machinery will disburse money under this Act? I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to tell us that the provision is equally generous. That would, of course, satisfy the claim; no one would ask that they should get both compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and also a Service pension; but the provision under the Workmen's Compensation Acts should be made as generous as the Service provision, if merchant seamen are to be thrown back upon that system. I hope that the noble Viscount will make representations to the Minister of Pensions that he should not stand on any arbitrary distinction of this kind, but that he should recognize that the men of the Merchant Navy are facing just the same perils as the men of the Armed Services of older standing, and have an equal claim on public generosity and an equal right to proper compensation.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like to support the plea of the noble Lord opposite, that the Government should give very sympathetic consideration to the case advanced by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. It cannot be open to question that war conditions must diminish the resistance of men to tubercle, and must also be likely to encourage its spread. The noble and gallant Earl has presented a very strong case. We recognize the difficulties with which the Ministry of Pensions may be confronted, but these difficulties can be overcome, as was done during the last war. In Clause 7 of this Bill, power is taken to make the compensation retrospective. It is clearly equitable that cases should be treated as if they had been open to compensation had this Bill been law in 1939, and should be entitled to benefit as if the Bill had applied to them, if they come within the classes of case referred to. The intention to make the Bill retrospective on any other basis

381
would not be just in its incidence; it ought to apply to all cases to which it would properly have been applied had these extended provisions been the law. I hope that the Government will consider very sympathetically the case put forward by the noble and gallant Earl.
LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, I shall not venture to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but the case made by the noble and gallant Earl appeals to me, as a former Minister of Pensions. He has drawn attention to what is an almost fantastic position; I cannot understand how it is that there should be any difference whatever between members of the Mercantile Marine and of the Royal Navy, based on the figures which he gave us. There is one point on which I should like to have an assurance from the noble Viscount who is to reply. It arises on Clause 1 (2). I should like to be sure that the words here cover all forms of sailing; in other words that there is no loophole, owing to the existence of which a man may sail the seas and incur the disability to which the noble and gallant Earl has referred, and then find that as a result of these words, he is not eligible for a pension. It seems to me just possible that the words as they stand at present might preclude a merchant seaman sailing in a convoy from being eligible for a pension if he incurred the disease, and I should like to be certain that these words are wide enough to cover every possible form of occupation in which a seaman may be engaged.
I am hoping also that in cases of this sort the utmost consideration will be given to the seaman, and if he incurs disease, even within a comparatively short time of his serving, he will get what has been referred to as the benefit of the doubt; because, as the noble and gallant Earl has pointed out, this disease can manifest itself in a very short time, and it is perfectly possible for a man, free of the disease before joining his ship, in certain circumstances to develop it a comparatively short time afterwards. I know that when I was Minister of Pensions we had in the public interest to be very careful indeed not to make eligible for pension a man who in all probability had incurred a pensionable disease before joining. The system then—and I have no doubt it would apply now—was that a man would be pensionable in a degree for an aggravation
382
of a disease. I presume that is covered by this Bill. But in the case of tuberculosis itself I entirely agree with the noble and gallant Earl that it can manifest itself very quickly indeed, de novo as it were from the time when the infection presented itself—in this case in the early stages of serving in a ship. I would like to be absolutely sure in my own mind that service in the Mercantile Marine will render the seaman eligible for a pension in all circumstances, and that this particular clause covers every conceivable service afloat in which he may engage.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I would like to congratulate the Government on this further effort to improve the position of the Mercantile Marine. Letters have reached me since the Bill was introduced showing great satisfaction on the part of seafarers and their relatives, and the amending legislation has given undoubted evidence that the whole definition of war injuries has been widened. But I would appeal to the Government to treat the matter with even more sympathetic consideration. The cost would not be great, and compared with what is being paid every day on war expenditure is infinitesimal. I ask the Minister if he can give us some idea of what the cost of this would be to the nation. The principle governing the award of pensions in my opinion should be that if a man has suffered any serious deterioration in health as a result of his service in the war he should be compensated. The distinction between injury to a leg and injury to a lung is an unwarrantable differentiation. Either consequence is serious to the individual and the disability will remain with him for the rest of his life. A man goes into the Merchant Service with two sound legs, and if he loses one of them he gets his pension; another man goes in with two sound lungs and if one is affected he may be told it is not a physical injury inflicted by the enemy and he finds his claim rejected. Such a position is absolutely untenable.
I cannot understand why a leg blown off by an enemy is more deserving of compensation than a lung ruined by exposure in the case of a man who possibly has been torpedoed, who is on a raft for many days and suffers great trials during that time and is permanently disabled. In my view, such injury is

383
equally the consequence of service on behalf on the country and I would appeal to the Government to take a more generous and humane view of such circumstances. The victim of tuberculosis is deserving of even more sympathy than the sufferer from physical injury. The loss of a leg or an arm does not necessarily involve incapacity for work, but a sufferer from tuberculosis has a much smaller chance of being able to continue in industry. Medical science has produced artificial limbs which are at least in part substitutes for the natural limbs, but medical science cannot fit a man with new lungs or an artificial lung. That being so, I cannot see why the Government should differentiate between the two cases in awarding pension.
It is well known that men on board ship are compelled to live in conditions which shore workers do not have to undergo. They are therefore more liable to these respiratory diseases. The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, has quoted a letter from the Minister of Pensions which defines war injuries as physical injuries caused by the enemy or in repelling an imagined attack by the enemy. The sailor who takes to an open boat in the rough sea after his ship has returned the fire of an enemy submarine and as a result of exposure contracts tuberculosis has surely done his part in repelling, not an imagined but an actual attack. It seems to me that the definitions are full of anomalies. If two sailors in the same boat get tuberculosis from exposure and one had a physical wound as well it would be a glaring injustice that one should be eligible for pension and the other ineligible. Yet that would appear to be the consequence of a strict interpretation of the definition. At the same time, reading the debates in another place, I see that the Government are exercising a certain amount of elasticity in interpreting these various injuries and it is for that reason that I welcome this Bill. But I do want the Government to go further.
I support whole-heartedly what the noble Viscount said when he moved, that some steps should be taken by the Government to support these poor fellows who contract tuberculosis. How is it possible for a man to decide or define when he contracted the disease? Sailors, do not like to give way to their feelings and sometimes
384
do not even know that they are ill until they are struck down by this foul disease and can continue their work no longer. I asked at the beginning of my speech if the Government would let us know what the cost of this could be. Is it a matter of a great amount, which we cannot afford when we are pouring out so much money in this devastating war? Let us remember that without the help of these men we could not live in this country. Let us be generous to them. If the Government approach the matter in that way, I feel sure they will do what is right, and the men and their dependants will be ever grateful.
THE MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, the Minister of Pensions and I regard this Bill as a very important one, and I would like to express my appreciation of the manner in which the House has received it. The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill has covered all the salient points in the clauses and has left very little for me to refer to; but I think I should emphasize that the proposals which we now have before us are the result of the experience we have gained since the war began. That experience has shown that the Act of 1939 does not go far enough. It shows quite clearly that we cannot decline to recognize compensation in cases which, while not being directly the result of enemy action, are related to it in various ways. We have to take a number of measures to reduce the dangers of the enemy attacks on our shipping and it is those very measures that bring about added marine perils. It is really to cover all that kind of accident and injury that this Bill has been introduced.
Ships are called upon to sail in convoy, lighthouses and other navigational lights are extinguished, and broadcasts which in normal times would warn ships of special dangers are not now made. These measures in themselves result in increased collisions, strandings, and other perils, and the main purpose of the Bill is to bring within the Government scheme cases where disablement or death results from these increased risks. The officers and men must be covered in the Government scheme, not only when they are attached to British ships, but also when they are standing by the Manning Pools. They must also be covered, as has already been said, when they are serving on Allied and

385
other foreign vessels, because in these cases we refer to ships carrying essential war materials. I should like, if I may, to refer to one point raised by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork. As I made a note here, he said that when seamen are left behind sick, they have nothing by way of funds to send to their families. That is not now the case.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I was referring to ordinary conditions of service. I said that what would prevent men coming forward would be the fear of being left behind in a foreign port unless it is under war conditions. I believe the shipowners are responsible for a man left behind in a foreign port.
LORD LEATHERS: They really are responsible for his treatment in other than war-time while he remains sick in hospital abroad, but that has been rectified during war-time. His pay now continues for twelve weeks, and the allotments are paid to his family at home during those twelve weeks. I thought it as well to make that quite clear. As your Lordships have been informed, the proposals contained in this Bill have been discussed with the representatives of the officers and men and with the shipowners, and these proposals are welcomed by all. They will secure better treatment for the men of the Merchant Navy to whom we owe such a tremendous debt for the gallant and faithful service they have rendered since the outbreak of war, and which they are performing still under the increasing risks involved—additional almost every month—and I am very grateful to the House for the sympathetic way in which the measure has been received.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, the letter which the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, read seems to be one written with regard to the 1939 definition of "war injuries." If tuberculosis is the result of the matters mentioned in Clause 1 of this Bill, it will be covered. If it is not, and it is only due to "war conditions" in the general sense of the tern, it is not covered; but neither is any other civilian workman covered for tuberculosis arising in this way. There is no requirement that the tuberculosis must start at a point of time. I would emphasize that tuberculosis and any other disease will be pensionable if it can be shown to be the result of the matters
386
mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Clause 1.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Will that be put clearly in the Bill?
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: It is already in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Is tuberculosis mentioned?
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: Not exactly; it is implied. To go further would mean it may be due to the general stress and strain of their life. That would be to do more for them than is done for other war workers. Many people are working under very hard conditions which may expose them to tuberculosis. The policy of the Government is to cover tuberculosis if it is due to the matters mentioned in Clause 1. A case arising from exposure on a raft, following an incident mentioned in Clause 1, would be covered. With regard to the question raised by Lord Moyne, the Government pay compensation where the injury is within Clause 1. It is within Clause 1 when it is the result of the matters there mentioned. When it is within Clause 1, workmen's compensation will not be paid. If it is not within Clause 1, then workmen's compensation will be paid if the case comes within that Act. The Government cannot cover a case because it is not covered by workmen's compensation. The latter is different both in kind and amount from Government compensation.
With regard to the point raised by Lord Addison, I would say that all injuries within Clause 1, whenever occurring after September 3, 1939, will be covered as from a current date. With regard to the point raised by Lord Soulbury, the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are the result of the most careful consideration, and represent all cases which are regarded by the Government as meriting compensation because of their connexion with the war. With regard to the point raised by Lord March-wood, there is no differentiation between legs and lungs. Both are covered, if they are damaged, by the matters mentioned in Clause 1.
LORD MARCHWOOD: I should like to know if they are covered in the same way.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: Yes, I understand that they are covered in the same way.
LORD TEVIOT: Having listened carefully to the debate, it does not seem to me that the point raised by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, has really been met. I am wondering whether the Government cannot accept the Amendment which I believe the noble and gallant Earl has prepared for the purpose. Really it boils down to this, that every ship that goes to sea to-day is a warship. They are all armed, and every man on these ships is really a sailor in the same way as are our sailors in the Royal Navy. The noble Lord shakes his head, but in effect, in my view, that is so. I hope the noble Viscount (Lord Clifden) will be able to meet the point raised by the noble and gallant Earl.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, are not these Committee points, and are we not getting away from the Second Reading?
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Our finance under conditions of war involves figures so gigantic as to be almost beyond human comprehension, but it may be useful briefly to observe the relation in which the main totals stand to one another. The outline of our national finance in the present year, as it seems to me, may be discerned by comparing the following figures. It is estimated that our total national expenditure this year will amount to £5,286,000,000, of which about £4,500,000,000 is war expenditure. This does not include the invaluable aid which we are receiving from the United States under the Lease-Lend arrangement which, as your Lordships know, is available to others of the United Nations also. The problem, therefore, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he seeks to solve in part by this Finance Bill, is how to provide in the present year for £5,286,000,000 of expenditure.
388
The Finance Bill, together with other tax enactments which do not require to be annually renewed, is expected to produce a total tax revenue of £2,361,000,000. It is the first time that our tax revenue in a single year has topped £2,000,000,000. Last year the tax revenue worked out at £1,962,000,000, I think. If we add to this proposed tax revenue certain non-tax revenue, including a very welcome contribution from the Canadian Government of £225,000,000, as to which I am sure that all your Lordships would wish our deep gratitude to be expressed, we reach a total revenue of £2,627,000,000, almost exactly 50 per cent. of the expenditure we have to face. Now that is a most remarkable achievement. It is an achievement which far exceeds the proportion raised from revenue in the last war, though the totals then were so much smaller. Perhaps—I do not know—these monstrous figures may become more easy to comprehend if the proportions are stated, not by reference to the whole year, but by reference to the average day, or, if you like, to the minute. So stated then, our total national expenditure is estimated at nearly £14,500,000 per day, of which tax revenue will produce over £6,000,000 a day, or, if we are to reckon by what Kipling calls each "unforgiving minute," then our national expenditure this year is at the rate of £10,000 a minute and more, of which the revenue provides nearly half.
So much for figures. The principles which govern our financial policy during the war were laid down at the beginning and they have been strictly applied ever since. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget this year is the fifth Budget since the war began, because there was an emergency Budget, also immediately followed by another Budget in the spring of the next year, and we are now in a position to judge whether the principles to which I referred were not well-founded and are not justifying themselves by experience. What are those principles? I would briefly state them under four heads. First, there is this principle. In view of the fearful expense of the war, and of the adjustment which war imperatively demands between public and private expenditure, it is essential to impose the heaviest possible taxation. It is only by that means that a sufficient proportion of our war expenditure can be met out of revenue. But the process

389
has a second and even more valuable result. This very heavy taxation is a method of severely restricting private spending and thereby of drastically curtailing and reducing the demand which private citizens might otherwise attempt to make on supplies which are necessarily restricted under war conditions and which are more than ever required by the Government for the purpose of carrying on the war.
High additional taxation, therefore, is the first line of defence which we have erected against the insidious assaults of inflation. When the tax gatherer has done his best, or his worst, amongst us all, we shall not have much left to spend on the things that we ought to do without. That is the first principle. The second, I think, is this. In spite of high taxation, even so, it is impossible that the whole expense of a war like this can be raised by taxation. Therefore it is essential to pursue a borrowing policy at a low rate of interest. I recall that when at the beginning of the war we aimed at a series of loans at a rate not exceeding 3 per cent., many people, remembering the very different experience of the last war, were somewhat incredulous. But it has been done. Up to the present, at any rate, the performance is better than the promise. Loans for a medium period raised by the Government are carrying interest at 2½ per cent., longer loans are being raised at 3 per cent., and thus, notwithstanding the enormous amounts that have to be raised, the annual charge is kept down to the great advantage of the country, not only during the war but in the years to come. And in further confirmation of the success of this policy, I would point to the comparatively small extent to which we have recourse to short-term borrowing from the market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government will persist in these endeavours, and the Treasury will do its utmost wherever possible even to improve our record in these respects. That then is the second principle.
And what is the third? The third is this. In order to make the fullest use of borrowing all that can be spared from the savings of citizens after they have paid their taxes, there was set on foot from the early days of the war the National Savings campaign, which has
390
continued to produce week by week great sums. Adequate national loans are not to be raised merely by applying to financial institutions with money to lend. There is a mass of money to be saved and lent in the cause of victory which comes in small amounts week by week into the countless hands of the mass of the people. The Government's loan policy in this respect has followed the advice of Tennyson's Northern Farmer who, you would remember, advised that you should not marry for money but you should go where money is. The country owes its warmest thanks to the Savings Movement over which my noble friends Lord Kindersley and Lord Mottistone preside. Besides mentioning the chiefs, I would in your Lordships' name express our thanks to all those who give their help, to those immense organizations all over the country, men and women, children too, who by their energy and devotion and ingenuity are constantly finding fresh means to present this appeal in every area of the country. I would only add that there must be no slackening in this effort or in the appeal of personal economy. Especially in the field of saving still greater efforts are needed if we are to maintain our sound finance.
Lastly, on these four principles I would make this point. It is not enough for financial policy in time of war to be limited to purely financial considerations in the narrow sense—in the estimating of expenditure, in exploiting resources of revenue and in producing the national balance sheet. Financial policy should at all times be the partner of wider economic policy, and most of all is this the case under war conditions. Let me give an example. Food supplies, as we know, are controlled and rationed in order to distribute fairly the limited quantities which can be made available in view of the other claims on our shipping resources and other modes of supply. But the Exchequer has provided ever since the early days of war a very large amount of money in order that the machinery of food control can at the same time be used to subsidize the prices of essential foodstuffs. Milk, meat, bacon and other supplies have been by this means kept down below their actual cost; Exchequer subsidies for this purpose now amount to something not far short of £150,000,000 a year. That is what I mean by combining with our strict financial policies broader economic consideration.

391
Who can doubt that such joint measures to avoid cause for anxiety on the part of wage-earners, either about their food supplies or about the level of the cost of living, are of inestimable value in preserving a healthy atmosphere for the great efforts which they are making in the great field of war production?
Such, my Lords, are some of the principles which underly our financial policy in this war and which help to explain the provisions of this Finance Bill. You will hardly wish me to expound the contents of the Bill, for it is so devised as to rouse and to stir the lively attention of everybody. You will remember perhaps the reply of the gallant rescuer of a Scotsman who fell into the water and was drowned. When he was asked by the Coroner—I think in Scotland they call him the Sheriff-Substitute—whether he did not do something to resuscitate the victim he replied with indignation, "Well, I searched his pockets." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has followed this wise principle. As your Lordships may have noted, my right honourable friend has decided to leave the Income Tax at the standard rate of 10s. in the pound. When Surtax is added the curve of effective charge mounts higher and higher until, when it reaches those rarified heights where the richer Surtax payers live and move and have their being, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes from the topmost slice 19s. 6d. out of every pound. But those provisions are due to earlier Budgets, and it is not surprising that on the present occasion my right honourable friend has concentrated on those indirect taxes which fall on goods and services which, although in common demand and widely enjoyed, ought not to be regarded as necessaries of life—on beer and spirits, wine and tobacco. There are also increased duties on entertainments and on a wide range of luxury goods. Your Lordships will note also in the Bill the adjustments that have been made in regard to the taxing of farm profits, and married women's earnings, and also changes in the taxation of weekly wage-earners which have been made the subject of a White Paper.
If on the subject matter of the Bill any of your Lordships desire further information I will do my best to supply it in any reply at the end of the debate, if reply is needed. In reviewing the stupendous efforts which the country had made in the
392
cause of liberty and victory, and in dedicating ourselves afresh to the greater efforts that still have to be made, we may, I think, fairly claim as a nation that whatever may be the burdens to be borne and the set-backs to be righted before the cause of the United Nations triumphs, the financial policy which we are following in this country is a potent contribution to ultimate success. That policy, so strenuously pursued by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is embodied in this bulky Bill which is now before your Lordships. It is no longer the fashion or the practice of Parliament for speeches to be embellished by classical quotations, but I would venture to say of this bulky Bill what Homer wrote of the bulky form of Achilles:
"There you lie, huge in your hugeness." With this measure before us, we can surely claim that our cause will not fail either from want of courage to impose taxation upon the people or from want of willingness on the part of the people stolidly, and even cheerfully, to bear the burdens put upon them. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes to-day. There are other speakers who wish to take part in the debate on the Finance Bill, and there is also other business upon the Paper. The Bill has been introduced by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack with one of those clear statements which we expect, and always receive, from him. As a matter of fact, so far as the Bill itself is concerned, I think he will agree that he has not had a very difficult task because its main features are so very simple. Indeed, so far as its main features are concerned, it is, I suppose, one of the simplest Budgets on record. A certain amount of additional revenue had to be got and it is practically to be got this time from indirect taxation—chiefly by means of an increase in the Beer Duty, an increase in the Spirits Duty, and an increase in the Tobacco Duty.
The Beer and Spirits Duties were increased by £63,000,000, bringing up the total in a full year from drink to

393
£271,000,000. The Tobacco Duty was increased by about £90,000,000, bringing up the total in a full year to, I think, £304,000,000. That is a total from drink and tobacco taxation in a full year of £575,000,000. I think that probably the total expenditure—not in taxation but on the commodities themselves—by the public in a full year on drink and tobacco will now be £1,000,000,000, which is somewhere about one-seventh of the total national income. It is impossible to say what the total national income is—the White Paper published with the Budget gave it for last year only—but it is probably not far short of (and indeed some authorities put it higher than) £7,000,000,000. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the tobacco duty alone of £304,000,000 in a full year is about three times as much as the whole national expenditure of the country some fifty years ago. That is a very remarkable result.
I am not going to discuss these taxes in detail. They have been accepted by the country and they conform to the sound principles of taxation. They are equitable and sound, and they are certainly productive. I propose to leave them there. But I do want to say that there appears to have been in some quarters an idea that, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer went almost entirely to indirect taxation this year, the resources of direct taxation are exhausted. That is not so. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack made passing reference to Income Tax and to the figure of Income Tax. Now it may be—we do not know—that Income Tax, at 10s. in the pound, has reached the limit so far as the standard rate is concerned. Time alone will show. But there is a big reserve in the allowances which are made to all taxpayers, and which could be, and, I expect, as time goes on, will be, tapped. For instance, last year the personal allowance was cut down from £100 a year to £80 a year and the exemption limit was reduced from £120 to £110 These two reductions together were responsible for bringing in a sum of about £75,000,000, and the change in the earned income allowance, taking a full year, brought in about £50,000,000. Paraphrasing what the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack said, and adapting what is, to use a very overworked word, a slogan: "If you want money you must go where money is." Most of the taxable
394
money now is in incomes below £500 a year. The total of those incomes is about £4,500,000,000. So that there is a lot of money there in possible reserve for further taxation by way, as I say, of allowances and so forth.
I do not hold any brief for the wealthy classes at all. So far as I am concerned, in my own small way, I wish to do all that I can for the small wage-earners. But it is only right to point out, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, that when you come to the wealthier classes, to the Surtax classes, after they have paid Income Tax and Surtax there remains to them a sum of only £213,000,000 against, as I say, about £4,500,000,000 representing incomes below £500 a year. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer went further and pointed out that if you allow what remains to them which is below £2,000 a year and take that which is over £2,000 a year less Income Tax and Surtax, there remains only a sum of about £30,000,000 a year. In present conditions you could not carry on the war for very long on that. The truth is that about 85 per cent. of all personal incomes now are below £500 a year, and that does reinforce what I have ventured to emphasize to your Lordships that there is a reservoir which by means of changed allowances can be, and no doubt, in due course, will be, tapped.
The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack also referred to the National Debt which has increased during the war by about £5,700,000,000 and now stands at approximately £13,000,000,000. But, as the noble and learned Viscount said, the rate of increase in the debt charge is less, considerably less, than might have been expected before the war began, more particularly—and this is a point which he did not mention—if you take into account the fact that very nearly all the interest on War Debt of whatever kind, Income Tax, and to a certain extent Surtax, has to be deducted and comes back to the Exchequer. Indeed, it has been calculated that the net charge, taking that into account, is about 1 per cent. If that is right, then the increased charge for this £5,700,000,000 is not more than £57,000,000 a year. Moreover, all the interest comes back in one form or another to the people of the country. It is not taken from them by taxation and thrown into the sea; it does

395
come back to the people of the country. The same thing applies almost entirely to our enormous national expenditure. Hence it is that some people are better off owing to the war, although some people are worse off. Those who arc better off are mainly the wage-earners.
That brings me to the question of wages, and to the question of possible inflation, on which the noble and learned Viscount touched. The continual rises in wages are a source of anxiety from the point of view of inflation. It has been claimed by the best authorities, including, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that there has been very little inflation so far, and I think that that is true. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has in various ways battled manfully to stop inflation; nevertheless, as he dramatically said in his speech, the enemy is still there. He has, as I say, done much, and the Government have done much, but there is one thing which they have not yet done: they have not yet evolved a real and effective wages policy. We have discussed this matter before, but this is a suitable opportunity for raising it again. I speak as one who wishes the wage-earners to have the highest wages possible, but the question is, what are the highest wages which are wisely possible? That is a point which has to be carefully borne in mind. We read in the Press of youths receiving £3 or £4 a week in munition works. That is often due, no doubt, to overtime, but soldiers do not get any extra pay for overtime, or for going abroad and facing incredible hardships and wounds and death. But, in view of the high wages which munition workers on the whole receive, it is not surprising that one industry after another should press for higher wages.
Last year the general over-all increase in wages rates was approximately 6 per cent., while the rise in the cost of living was 1 per cent. I am referring to the last financial year, from April to March. The cost of living, as we know, has been kept down in no small degree by the Government's policy of subsidies, subsidies which now amount to about £125,000,000 a year, and which have been very useful in keeping down the cost of living; but, with these demands from one industry after another for higher wages, we are
396
getting nearer and nearer to what is called the vicious spiral of inflation. So far as wages are concerned, however, the Government seem to stand by and do little or nothing. If I am wrong there, the noble and learned Viscount will correct me. I speak only as one who looks on from the outside. I do not think that that is a good attitude for the Government to take.
I have a great respect for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Ernest Bevin, but I question whether he is the right man to be Minister of Labour. He is first and foremost a trade unionist, and it does not appear likely, on the probabilities, that he can very strenuously resist demands for higher wages. I think that the whole matter needs more systematic attention from the Government than it has yet received. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite alive to the danger, because in his Budget speech last year he said:
"It is clear that the persistence of the tendency towards rising wage rates, which necessarily increases the cost of production at every stage of the productive process, would compel abandonment of the stabilization policy."
I think that that is very true, but is it equally true that the Government are doing all that is possible to secure stabilization? I cannot feel that in this matter of wages they are doing all that is possible.
In the last war, Mr. Lloyd George did a great deal in various ways by his wonderful power of appeal. He appealed to the workers not once but many times in regard to various matters, and he got them to agree to a great many things. Has our present Prime Minister made any such public appeal with regard to this matter, or with regard to the possible dangers of inflation? I suggest that he might point out that rising wages can be too dearly bought, and that, if inflation should come, it is the wage-earners, the old-age pensioners and the poor who will probably suffer most of all, although all will suffer. The munition workers themselves, those who are now getting the high wages, will suffer. They will feel then that their policy has not been a wise one, and that they have been at any rate one of the causes of bringing hardship upon themselves and upon others.
When the demand is made that all workers must be relatively as well off as before the war, the reply should be that

397
a not inconsiderable number of members of the community are not so well off as before the war—nothing like so well off—and that therefore it cannot be accepted as a principle that people must be as well off as before the war. That principle cannot be laid down. Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, I think, has stated that we are now spending, in one way and another, about 60 per cent. of the total national income on the war, and I think he said that we may regard 70 per cent. as probably the utmost limit which could possibly be reached. When we have that state of affairs, it is clearly impossible for everybody to live as they did before the war.
On this subject of inflation, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack spoke some time ago of the danger of the boat being over the weir almost before it was realized that that was the position, or words to that effect. Well, I do not say he was taking a gloomy view; he was pointing out the danger. As far as I am concerned, I am not taking a gloomy view, I am merely pointing out the danger. So far, as I have indicated, the position has been largely held. True, there is a scarcity in certain articles, but scarcity is not inflation, and inflation is not scarcity. The two things are different. I repeat, the position is being largely held. The Government and their advisers know a great deal more than was known in the last war about inflation and about how to avoid it, and if we could have a definite wages policy the position could be faced with, I think, small perturbation. After all, in Germany the disastrous inflation which came after the last war need not have come; it could have been prevented. It really was almost a deliberate policy, under the pressure of the big industrialists and of Reparations.
Just one word in conclusion, and it follows on something which the noble and learned Viscount has said. He referred to the National Savings Committee, and I think there is a special responsibility in this matter which rests upon the Government and upon the National Savings Committee. We see advertisements from time to time stating that the capital is quite safe. A lady spoke to me about an investment she had made in some War Bonds. "Of course," she said, "the return is not high, but at any rate I know it is perfectly safe." Yes, so far as the
398
pound is concerned, that is true. The question is, is it going to be absolutely safe so far as purchasing power is concerned? That is what matters. And that is the problem to which the Government ought to give their urgent and their constant attention.
LORD WARDINGTON: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to add a humble note of my own to the general chorus of congratulation which has greeted the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has had a tremendous task. He has budgeted for a tax-derived income of about £2,400,000,00—more than a third of oar total estimated annual income; and he has done so with the approval and consent of all, in disregard of the old fundamental rule that taxes should only be imposed for the purpose of obtaining revenue, and not for social, political or any other object. Steps have been taken to control the purchasing power of the people and also to keep down prices, not only by taxation but by the control of prices, by rationing, by subsidies and other methods, and he has been successful in checking inflation, the danger of which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, stressed with great logic. It is idle to suppose that that danger has disappeared. It still lies manifest and growling almost on the threshold, but we have the Chancellor's assurance that he is keeping his eye focused constantly upon it and he is prepared to take measures to check any menacing activities. That he has been largely successful in his efforts so far is shown by the figures which he himself has given. The cost-of-living index figure is only one per cent. more than it was the previous year: 29 per cent. over the pre-war level as against 28 per cent.
One of his chief difficulties, as far as I see it, is that 85 per cent. of the purchasing power of the people is in the hands of those, as Lord Arnold has already reminded your Lordships, with incomes of less than £500 a year—the very class you would like to spare if it were possible. The question is to what extent it can be possible in the future. Those in the higher category of Surtax-payers are still dealt with severely, not to say brutally, as many of your Lordships may be painfully aware. I doubt whether it is equally recognized by the public generally, but these so-called rich, after paying their rates and taxes and other inescapable commitments—now I am going

399
to say something which will be regarded perhaps as a fantastic exaggeration, but which I believe is literally true—these so-called rich, after paying these liabilities from which they cannot escape, will not have a penny of free income left with which to buy a crust of bread. I think that should be starkly stated and frankly recognized. In acquiescing without a murmur in legislation which has brought this about, your Lordships have committed voluntary financial suicide.
I do not suppose that you want me to utter any protest on your behalf, but it is a fact, and I believe it is without precedent in the history of this country or in the history of any country in the world. It has been brought about not only by the high level of taxation itself, but also by the fact that it frequently happens that the tax on a high income of one year has to be paid out of a much smaller income in the year following, and those who have given up large incomes derived from business in order to serve the country in various ways are deserving of the greatest gratitude for their patriotic action in so doing. It cannot be charged against any of these gentlemen that they ought to put on one side sufficient out of the good years to pay the appropriate tax when it became due, for this reason among others, that the imposition of increased taxation is not known in advance, and without any prophetic powers that makes the difficulty of forming a domestic budget all the greater.
This incidence of postponed liability of Income Tax weighs heavily also on the shoulders of those with humbler incomes, and I could have wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to see his way so to conduct matters that tax would have been deducted from wages at the time of receipt. We know he was sympathetic with that idea and looked into it carefully, but after due consideration he came to the conclusion that it was not practicable. It is sometimes argued that there is no need to waste sympathy on those with the highest gross incomes because they can still live on their capital. Those who have long advocated a capital tax now find their wishes to a large extent gratified, and one hears the comment, "I only wish I had half their complaint." But it is not always possible to live on capital. A man's capital may be in assets
400
which are not easily realizable, and he cannot pay his taxes in kind; or they may be tied up in trust, where they cannot be touched. And in any case the process cannot go on indefinitely. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor if he could give any figures showing the outstanding unpaid Surtax. My own guess would be that it would amount to a substantial figure. If that is so, I cannot help thinking there is something wrong with a tax which it is not always possible to pay, and which is incapable of complete collection.
In reading the Official Report of the debate on the Finance Bill in another place and statements which have been made in this House recently, also articles and letters in the Press, it would seem to be suggested in some quarters that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's great task was a matter of supererogation. I have been struck by the recrudescence of popular catchwords and phrases like "Money doesn't matter," "Cut out the financial foolery," "Costless creation of credit," and so on. People who believe in these facile cries fortify their belief by saying that banks can do all that is necessary, and create all that is required, merely by making entries in a book. It is true that they have had some confirmation for these statements from economists, even from the Reports of Committees, and one member quoted the Encyclopœdia Britannica—I have not verified the quotation—to this effect, that banks lend by creating credit, and create means of payment out of nothing. After making this quotation he went on to say that the money which a bank lends is not depositors' money, implying therefore it is money of the bank's own creation.
This idea arises from an exaggerated interpretation of the formula—at best only partly true—that every loan creates a deposit. It is only partly true because it is not true when the man who obtains the loan passes it on to someone who uses it to extinguish his own overdraft. It is not true when it is paid to a man who prefers—as many do prefer at the moment—to keep it in cash rather than entrust it to a bank. If banks did not enjoy the confidence of the public, no loan would ever create a deposit. A curious thing is that those people who are fondest of using this formula never miss any opportunity of trying to belittle the banks and to destroy public confidence in them.

401
It is a wonder to me to see the amount of mystery which can be woven round a perfectly simple business. When a bank makes a loan it goes though exactly the same process as any one of your Lordships would do if he were kind enough to lend an impecunious friend £5. Nothing new is created. There is merely a transfer of purchasing power in the form of cash or cheque from one individual to another. It is exactly the same with a bank. A bank lends what it has got to somebody who wants it, and if a bank has not got it it cannot lend it. There is no creation of money for the purpose.
The analogy between the private lender and the banker is still more complete if the private lender, in order to oblige his friend, borrows the £5 from somebody else first, just as a bank borrows from its depositors. As long as private individuals or the banks can continue to borrow, they can continue to lend. I really am ashamed to trouble your Lordships with what must appear elementary in the extreme, but there is so much misconception over a perfectly simple matter, and so many false deductions have been drawn from it, that it is desirable to say something on the point. I crave your Lordships' forgiveness if I appear to give a very primitive lecture on some banking aspects, but they have a real bearing on the whole of our national finance. If people get the idea that banks do, and can, create money out of nothing, it raises false hopes that there is an easy solution for all financial troubles, whereas the truth is, according to my belief, that the restoration and continuance of our prosperity do not depend on any effortless method of that kind or on any purely monetary juggling.
To make a simple matter still plainer, I would ask any one of your Lordships to imagine you are going to become one of those much maligned and mysterious animals—a banker—setting up in banking business. The first thing you have to do is to provide the necessary capital with which to start. Having, I hope, successfully overcome that initial difficulty, you will apportion it more or less as follows. You will use part of it to purchase premises in which to conduct your business. You will retain a certain amount in cash for your daily requirements and, for the sake of simplification, let us suppose you invest the remainder in first-class Government securities. You then open your doors, and sit down and wait for a customer.
402
Supposing the first customer wishes to open a current or deposit account with you, that is easy. You take his money, retain a certain proportion of it to meet all ordinary withdrawals, and invest or make loans with the remainder.
Here there is no difficulty; but supposing your first customer, instead of wishing to deposit money with you, wishes to borrow. What arc you to do? Remembering that all your resources are tied up in the way I have enumerated, it is no good offering him part of your premises; the cash you want for your own requirements; and he does not want your investments. What are you to do? "Nothing easier," says the theoretical amateur banker. "All you have to do is to create money out of nothing by the magical process of banking, and you can then lend to your heart's content and to the satisfaction of all your customers." What a delightful business! Why is not everybody in it? I am not a sufficiently competent authority on natural history to say which came first, the hen or the egg, but in banking matters I am quite certain that deposits must come before loans. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was abundantly right when he said, in answer to a question, that the money out of which banks lend is, broadly speaking, derived from the deposits of their customers, and there is no question of banks creating money for the purpose of lending to the Government. All I can say is if he was not right bankers have been wasting their time all these years, and no bank need ever have failed.
It has been truly said that an expert is one who succeeds in making the simple appear complicated. I would like to say just a further word on another cognate subject, which seems to worry a good many people, in connexion with the very large increase of deposits in the banks' hands on the one hand and the correspondingly swollen investments on the other. They seem to think there is something wrong and improper in the situation. It is quite true that deposits have increased very largely. In June, just before the war, they amounted to £2,218,000,000. At the end of last year, they had increased by £1,100,000,000, and stood at the figure of £3,329,000,000. That has all come about by the action of the Government in placing large contracts for the manufacture of war materials of all kinds. Money is paid

403
out in payment of those contracts, the contractors pay it out to the suppliers of raw materials and in wages to their workmen, and they in turn pay it out to the butcher and baker, and through hundreds of channels it comes back eventually again to the banks. The more the Government borrow from the public the more the process continues. Open operations on the market by the Bank of England when they buy investments have the same result.
While the deposits have increased, as they did in the last war, so also, it is true, investments have increased. In June, 1939, the investments of the clearing banks stood at something over £600,000,000, and at the end of last year they had increased by nearly 2400,000,000, making £1,000,000,000 altogether, and all but a small proportion of these investments are in Government securities. But what is wrong or improper with that position? It surely cannot be contended that banks ought to keep all their depositors' money in cash instead of lending it to the Government for war purposes. It is true that it would be much better if the depositors who have money available instead of keeping it with the banks were to invest it direct with the Government, for this reason, that as long as the depositors keep the money in the banks it remains potential purchasing power under their control, and can be drawn out and used with inflationary results; but if they take it out to invest it themselves, instead of leaving the banks to invest it for them, then it is put out of harm's way from that point of view.
There was another misconception in the debate in another place which has a bearing on banking matters, and, if I am not wearying your Lordships, I should like to mention it. The speaker was addressing the House on the subject of Excess Profits Tax and the possible effects of that tax on reserves of industry and commerce in the country, and he tried to estimate what the amount of industrial reserves was. He took the £2,000,000,000 deposits in the hands of the banks, and, on the assumption that private individuals are not in the habit of having large credit balances, he argued that practically the whole of that £2,000,000,000 belonged to industry and represented its reserves. But what arc the facts? Various bank Chairmen have at different times announced what
404
the average balance of their deposits was. They are very similar in the case of all banks. In the case of the bank with whose figures I am familiar, the average credit balance in 1939 was £220, the average deposit was £286. At the end of last year they had risen in both cases to £300. What does that mean? It means that instead of that huge sum of £2,000,000,000 belonging to industry, or to a comparatively few very rich concerns, it is divided up among so many millions of different individuals and companies that their average balance is only £300.
But he made another false deduction in his argument, because even if that £2,000,000,000 had belonged to industry, it would not necessarily have represented its reserves. A company may have a very large credit balance and yet be insolvent; and, equally a company may be very prosperous and entirely solvent and yet be overdrawn at its bank at any particular time. True reserves consist of course in the excess assets—the balance of assets over liabilities after allowing for capital—and they bear no relation at all to the state of a company's banking account. I would have liked to say a great deal more about the Excess Profits Tax, but I take it that is really a matter which, if it is raised, ought to be raised in Committee. I will conclude, therefore, as I began, by congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the skill with which he is extracting from the pockets of his more or less willing victim the immense sums which he has envisaged.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, after the very illuminating speeches to which we have listened regarding the financial structure of the kingdom, I am sure it is with great reluctance that you listen to one who is proposing to say a few words regarding a grievance, this being, I believe, the appointed time and, with certain limitations, the appointed place, in which you can make reference to grievances. The grievance to which I refer is that which taxes the royalties of inventors as income. My attention has been directed to it by friends of mine who have been interested in inventions for a very long period of time. When you find the whole of the resultant royalty from the use of the invention being treated as income, it seems to me that a very great hardship is being done to the inventor, and, inasmuch as we are tremendously interested

405
in encouraging inventions in every possible way, it would appear to me that this might be an appropriate time at which to direct attention to it.
In the ultimate analysis an invention is merely an idea in the mind of a man. Just what causes the idea or makes him think of creating something that has not been in existence before is another thing altogether. But he determines that he will make something in a concrete form that will give evidence of the idea that is in his mind. The idea is the creating of something to accomplish a given purpose. He therefore works at it, sometimes for years. He may be a man of very limited means. He may indeed work at it in his spare time, and usually he spends all the money that he has himself or that he can induce his friends to lend him. In the end he secures a patent for his invention. That is recognition by the State that he is entitled to a monopoly of the use of that invention for a period of years—I believe some sixteen years at present. In the first years he finds it difficult to interest the public and that involves the expenditure of money for advertising and other purposes. In the latter years his invention is steadily depreciating in value because it will become the property of the public at an early date. Therefore he has to secure by way of royalty a sum that will compensate him for all those years of effort and the capital he has put into the effort to secure the invention—the capital being the time and money expended. He may sell his patent, that is he may sell his property, because it has now become property. He may dispose of it for a good sum and invest that sum as he pleases. His capital has now become invested, say, in war bonds and he has to pay Income Tax on tire return he receives from his investment.
But it may be that he desires to retain the patent. He is always confronted with the likelihood of someone improving on the patent. It is a very strange circumstance of history that when a man has placed in concrete form an idea that was in his mind, then eight or ten other men will have the same idea about the same time. Some of the most important litigation in the Supreme Court of the United States has had to deal with that circumstance—notably the Bell telephone litigation. Suppose he does desire to retain his patent and to license those who desire to use it. He receives his rental, which is
406
spoken of as royalty, and that royalty, as I am informed at the present time, is taxed as income in its entirety. His property is being exhausted, for it is a wasting asset, and at the end of sixteen years it will cease to be property as far as he is concerned. I suggest that there should be a very important allowance made on the amount on which he pays tax.
For instance, assuming his income is £1,200 a year from his patent by way of royalties, that would represent a capitalized value of £12,000 at 10 per cent., and 10 per cent. would not be regarded as an unreasonable amount to receive per annum for the use of the patent. But he does not receive that in the early days, and he is always subject to the possibility of someone making a new invention that will destroy or depreciate the value of his own patent. In any case it is a wasting asset, for at the end of sixteen years the monopoly has gone. What would be a reasonable way to expect that property to be treated? Should not the Government, who are so anxious to encourage invention, say that of that £1,200, two-thirds should be attributed to capital and one-third charged as income? In the case of buildings and machinery you do allow for depreciation. I cannot look into the future without realizing the value that attaches to invention and the inventive mind in all communities, and I suggest that the taxing authority should not treat as income the return of capital on the part of those who have created property by their time and effort and ingenuity and expenditure of their resources.
For that reason, I suggest that the matter should be given attention at this time, even although it is quite apart from the important and illuminating speeches we have listened with respect to finance. These must fill with pride the mind of every citizen of this kingdom because, though the strain is so great and the demand so large as to be astronomical, this country not only has been able to retain its stability as a great financial centre but has afforded an example to all the world by showing how willingly the men of wealth in this country will, in the language of the noble Lord, Lord Wardington, commit suicide for the benefit of their fellow citizens and the State.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to make some reply to the observations made

407
in the course of this debate. It has been an interesting debate, as indeed has always been my experience here when I have had the fortune to move the Second Reading of a Finance Bill. Perhaps I may take some of the points in the reverse order of the speakers. The noble Viscount who has just spoken called attention to the undoubted fact that in our Income Tax law we do treat royalties on patents as income. What I think perhaps he may not have sufficiently observed is that that really is in accordance with the general scheme of our Income Tax law. The matter is by no means limited to the case of patents. If, for example, there is an annuity of a fixed amount which is going to be paid for a limited number of years, in each year that it is received it bears the full rate of tax, and when the years have passed during which the annuity is to be paid that asset disappears completely. We do not make any allowance because the annuity is of a sort which will only run for a limited number of years.
In the same way there are many kinds of wasting assets in this country, commercial assets which, as everybody knows, will be exhausted with time. Coalmining I think we may take as a very obvious example. Whether it is strictly justified in theory or not, the practice and not only the practice but the law of the land is and has been, certainly ever since the Income Tax Act of 1842 if not before, that we cannot examine income which reaches the hand of the recipient and is enjoyed by him in a given year by asking how long it will last. Mineral royalties, limited annuities, ground rents, things of that kind have a life which in the end will cease. It might be a logical and perhaps a more scientific method to make such adjustment, but we do not do so. I think the result is probably justified. After all, we must not treat Income Tax as though it was a constant figure. At present it is 10s. in the pound, though indeed the effective tax will vary, very much according to the total income of the individual. But it would appear to be an extremely difficult matter to make adjustments when the tax varies from year to year.
I suspect that there is a further reason which has actuated the Legislature—because, of course, this is a point very well known to the Legislature—and that is that upon the whole it is thought to be
408
better, having regard to the provision which has now got to be made for the year, to adopt as simple a formula as possible and to take as income all that the Income Tax calls income, which includes annuities of every sort and kind, rather than to endeavour to make these somewhat complicated adjustments, even though I quite appreciate that there may be a scientific argument in their favour. I remember that when I was a young man and first held an appointment as a Law Officer of the Crown in the House of Commons, one of the "hardy annuals" of every Finance Bill Committee was a Motion to provide specially for wasting assets, and I had the privilege, within the limits of my youthful ability, of dealing with this argument year after year from the Treasury Bench,
If I may, I will turn now to the speech of my noble friend Lord Wardington, who gave us so interesting and instructive a dissertation on the art and practice of banking. Indeed, I may say that I regard his speech as having almost revealed the arcana of that subject, and I should imagine that he must expect increased competition in the future. I will not enter into that now, but he did make an observation on another subject upon which I should like to add a word or two. He referred in terms of high approval to the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I certainly think that those efforts are deserving of the highest admiration. But the noble Lord expressed regret that in adjusting Income Tax to wage-earners the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not adopted some plan by which the Income Tax might be deducted weekly from the wages. That proposal, of course, has attracted many minds. I believe I am right when I say that the Treasury has had before it dozens of separate schemes suggested for this purpose—many of them by most accomplished people—and I know that the Treasury also examined the matter very closely for itself. But when these proposals are examined, it will be found that there are two or three very serious objections. In the first place Income Tax is not a flat percentage on receipts. You do not simply take a man's receipts for a week or for a year, whatever they may be, and then by way of Income Tax extract out of them a given fraction. Income Tax works on a curve and before

409
you can determine what is the right amount of Income Tax that is to be charged you have to know rather more about the individual's case than can be ascertained merely from knowledge of what he has received in a particular week.
In the second place, as was observed in another connexion by Lord Arnold, the allowances have to be worked out, and that again means that two persons who may appear to be in exactly the same position, and certainly in exactly the same position if you limit your observation to a given week, are in fact persons who will be required to pay quite different amounts of Income Tax, although their receipts for the week or even for a longer period may be the same. In another connexion I made some observations on this matter when we had our discussion the other day on family allowances. Perhaps a still more serious difficulty in the way of deducting the Income Tax from the wage packet every week is this. A wage-earner may charge his work during the year. He may move from one employer to another. He may be out of work for a time or may be not working by his own choice for a time. He may get married, he may have a child—every one of these things will affect the Income Tax which he has ultimately to pay.
Of course I know that it may be said that all these things can be adjusted afterwards, but the wage-earning classes are not the only people who feel objection to paying in gross on the understanding that they can apply afterwards to get something back. It has, therefore, been found a more practical plan to deal with the matter otherwise, though, as he has now announced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made some modifications. He has made the lag four months instead of three, and he has secured that, in no event, will there be taken from the wage-earner in any week so much as will leave him with less than a minimum which varies according to whether he is single, or married, or a married man with children. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also made adjustment as between winter work and summer work, because there are of course many occupations in which the rate of wage is different in the two seasons. It was for reasons of this sort, generally indicated, that I believe the decision was taken.
410
I may not have spoken with complete accuracy for I have not been present at the consultations about this matter. I may say, however, that I was attracted by this idea myself, and I canvassed it in such quarters as I could. But I found myself compelled to admit that these considerations put forward by the experts of the Inland Revenue—by which I do not, in Lord Wardington's phrase, mean people who try to make simple things difficult, but people who try to get the Income Tax to work—were probably justified. But the whole matter is still in its early stage. I think we may assume that the question which interests so many people in the country, which everyone wants to see dealt with wisely, will, in the end, reach its own solution.
The only other matter on which I would delay the House, on which I feel that I must say a few words, is one which was referred to in the very interesting speech which we had from my noble friend Lord Arnold. We have become accustomed, on these annual occasions of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, to have a speech from him, and I speak for myself, and perhaps for others also, when I say that one has always found what he has to say very well worthy of attention. I would make so bold as to meet him on a point which I would not wish to make a point of controversy, because the manners of your Lordships' House strongly discourage anything so improper. But I am not prepared to admit that the Government policy makes no contribution to what is called a wage policy. I have several times heard it said in this House that the Government have no wage policy. If that means that the Government should ask Parliament to fix everybody's wages for the period of the war, or something less drastic of that kind, then I think those who reproach the Government for having no wage policy would be of great assistance to us if they would say what their wage policy is. A proposal of that sort involves considerations far beyond the Finance Bill; as my noble friend indicated, it would be the direct concern of the Minister of Labour, and it seems to me would raise a host of social and economic questions. In any other sense, however, I entirely deny that the Government have no policy in relation to wages.
What is the main ground upon which claims for increased wages are validly and

411
pointedly put forward? It is on the ground of an increase in the cost of living. If Government policy was not directed to dealing most emphatically with that subject, the situation in regard to wages might be expected to be much more difficult than it is. Ever since the beginning of the war, as I ventured to point out in my opening remarks, the Treasury has been devoting enormous sums to checking or preventing a rise in the cost of living. In the case of food, the prices of essential foods have been kept below their actual cost by means of Exchequer subsidies. In the case of rent, rent has been fixed by the operation of an Act of Parliament. In the case of travelling, railway fares have been stabilized. In the case of clothes, the Government are taking direct control of prices under the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, and they are making a large contribution to the same end by plans for utility clothing.
All those things have a direct relation to the problem of wages in time of war. In very large areas of employment the rate of wages is in fact, by standing agreement, regulated by reference to the cost of living; and everybody knows how important a consideration cost of living is in many other connexions. Let us look at two or three figures which help to bear this out. The food index, which twelve months ago was 23 per cent. above the pre-war level, is now only 16 per cent. above that level. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Wardington, observed, the cost-of-living index has remained virtually stationary for twelve months, at 28 per cent. or 29 per cent. above the pre-war level. In considering, therefore, this most important subject, which my noble friend Lord Arnold has raised before, I think it is only right to remember that, so far as wages are concerned, wages which are fixed by running agreements having regard to the cost of living are being most effectively and directly held by these measures, and so far as the large range of wages is concerned where changes in the cost of living provide the principal factor in argument or negotiation, Government policy exercises a very definite, although no doubt an indirect, effect on wage-levels, because it is addressed specifically, and at great expense to the Exchequer, towards stabilizing the cost of living. I make these observations, not as a complete answer, and certainly not to carry on a controversy, but because I
412
venture to think, most respectfully, that the reproach that the Government are in different to the problem of wages is not altogether well-founded. All these measures which I have mentioned have been adopted, very largely, in order to remove what would otherwise be an ever-increasing grievance, which would be bound to be reflected in many cases by changing rates of wages.
I do not think that I need say more. Our functions in finance matters in this House are limited, but I claim that they are useful. We have here, like a Council of State, discussed some of the most important matters which can possibly affect the great mass of our fellow-countrymen, and which have a most material and direct bearing on the carrying on of the war and on the achievement of victory. I am glad to think and proud to remember, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, indicated just now, that my fellow-countrymen, whatever be their state and degree in life, whether they are struggling with a small income, or envied because it is supposed that they can enjoy great possessions, are all at one in being willing to welcome and to submit to the stiffest Finance Bill of all time.
On Question, Bill read 2ª; Committee negatived.

NURSES' SALARIES.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM had given Notice that he would call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the action of the Minister of Health in limiting the scope of the Nurses' Salaries Committee appointed by him; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour I propose, with the concurrence of your Lordships, to postpone my Motion until another day.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH ABYSSINIA.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what steps have been taken to give effect to Article I of the agreement with the Emperor of Ethiopia signed on 31st January providing for the exchange of diplomatic representatives between the

413
two Governments; and if they are in a position to state when it may be anticipated that the Ethiopian representative will take up his duties in London.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I have been asked to reply. In answer to the noble Lord, I would say that the Article to which he refers provides that a British Minister Plenipotentiary shall be accredited to His Majesty the Emperor, and an Ethiopian Minister Plenipotentiary accredited to His Majesty the King, as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Agreement between the United Kingdom and Ethiopia. His Majesty the King has appointed Mr. R. G. Howe to be his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to His Majesty the Emperor of Ethiopia, and Mr. Howe presented his credentials to the Emperor on February 19 last. His Majesty's Government have not yet learnt whom the Emperor proposes to accredit in a similar capacity to His Majesty, nor when he may be expected to arrive.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, arising out of that reply, can my noble friend say why Ethiopia was excluded by the Foreign Office from the official list of the United Nations in the celebration of United Nations' Day last Sunday?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, with all respect to my noble friend, I should hardly have thought that that arose out of his question and my answer, and I must ask him to put down another question on this subject, when I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will do his best to give him an answer.

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of
414
Devonshire, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Assam on December 25, 1941, a copy of which was presented to (his House on February 24, 1942.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BILSTON CORPORATION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bilston Corporation Bill have been complied with.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill, namely:

L. Ellenborough,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Holden,

L. Faringdon,

L. Kenilworth (Chairman).

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
House adjourned.